NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

BlueInGreen - Jon said:

frenchyd said:

...I mean when is the last time an air bag went off in your face without the required accident...

Umm...

Thanks to Takata, airbags are probably a poor choice as an example in your argument.

I'll play that game. It was 2-3 years ago on one of my work trucks. Smacked one of my employees in the face and arms. All it took to set it off was shifting the truck into park. 

Any other useless points you want to make? 

In reply to Toyman! :

There will be plenty. You know this. 

Steve_Jones said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

BlueInGreen - Jon said:

Pls don't build cars that I couldn't pull into my garage from my driveway if there's a hailstorm or something just because I've had some beers. Thx.

GPS tie-in fixes that.  The law says you can't drive on a public roadway while drunk.  It doesn't say anything about driveways or garages.

I mean, seriously... if we have technology that uses infrared sensors in a steering wheel to determine BAC, surely it could tie in with GPS technology which has been around since the 1960s.

Not trying to change your mind or make any waves as I totally respect your opinion, just saying that some of the arguments here (on both sides) can be a little obtuse and attempt to attribute a complexity to it that doesn't need to exist.

GPS only works as well as what's programmed. David's house isn't on the GPS maps, what then? He suffers because someone else can't take responsibility?

You're missing my point.  If David's house isn't on the map, it doesn't have to be programmed to immobilize his car while he's there.  Assuming the lawmakers have an IQ of above 50 (which many probably don't) they can tailor the law to eliminate those discrepancies.  You're viewpoint flatly assumes they won't and everyone will get screwed.  My viewpoint assumes they could.  I'm simply saying that there are kinks to work out, but I'm avoiding the trap of making blanket statements.

An example:  I used to have one of those "safe driver" things in my old truck and it used google to know the speed limit and my driving speed.  There are many rural roads that google doesn't know the speed limit.  If I drove 80 on a 65 highway, it would slap my fingers.  If I drove on a rural road where it didn't know the speed limit, I could drive 120 mph and it wouldn't ding me.  Actually, by law it couldn't ding me.  The laws surrounding auto insurance were written so that they couldn't base my rates on unfounded information.  Basically, 80 could be speeding, and 120 might not be speeding - depending on the GPS information it has.

Again, I'm not saying legislators will think of everything with the first draft of the law, but there are already legislative measures that the law must conform to, otherwise it will be struck down as an illegal law.

ProDarwin said:

Many drunk drivers take responsibility, but doing so after causing a fatal crash doesn't really help much.  Many drunks are at a point where its not something they can comprehend anyway.  Its kind of like discussing gun control with mass shooters.  Personal responsibility isn't even on the table at that point because those people are prepared to die.

I also don't see this as "guilty until proven innocent".  Its a prevention system, it locks you car/slows it down/whatever (undefined at this point), it isn't arresting you, reporting you to police, etc.  

Similarly, I don't see anyone "suffering" as a result of this.  Yes, there are issues that would need to be accounted for (as Jon brought up above), and it needs to be reliable.  If I have it in a car and it prevents me from driving because I have had to much to drink, its a win.  If I have it in a car and it doesn't do anything because I haven't had anything to drink... it has zero impact on me.

 

 

 

So, you don't think having to pay extra to prove your innocence is a problem?  What about paying to fix it after the warranty has expired?

In reply to racerfink :

I already pay for airbags, ABS, seat belts, lane shift detection, neutral safety switches, and dual-circuit master cylinders even though I didn't legislate any of it.  All of those things are laws that NTSB made that we have to pay for and I don't see anyone complaining.  They assumed we would hit something so they put nannies in it for my safety.  I'm not complaining.  I'm not saying "don't force me to have an airbag because you're telling me you expect me to hit something."  I would sound kind of foolish if I said "just because someone else ran into a wall doesn't mean I need an airbag."

It's also not proving innocence or guilt.  It's preventing an intoxicated person from driving.

Not even close to the same thing.

Folks, look. There are those that believe the gov't should be in charge of most aspects of our lives. There are those that want to be left alone and the gov't should be very limited. That's what this argument is. Not a single person in here is going to change their minds. In fact some will continue to make things up to ignore the conversation.

Let this die. We know where everyone stands. No one is even willing to listen to the "other side" because both feel like they've "been ignored". It it what it is. Can we stop the divisive topics of politics and go back to arguing why Hyundai is more awesome than Honda?

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm not asking you to recite years of study, I'm asking for one or better a couple examples.

I agree they thought things would have to change and talked about it. That's different than saying they wanted limits on things like freedom of speech and travel. 

They started a revolution and went to war over a small tea tax, I think the founding fathers were much more libertarian than anything we can think of today. I seriously doubt if they were around today they would approve of most of the limitations we've put on the amendments or agree with all of the surveillance the American people have normalized.

Here is a quote to support my position

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

frenchyd said:

In reply to Opti :

Do you really think that a 21st century Ben Franklin  would think the right to drive drunk is an essential liberty?  
  I know Ben Liked to drink but I would assume he's a little more responsible than that. 
 He was known for his common sense. 

For berkeleys sake man.... stop. Not a single person in here has been "pro drunk driving". Stop with this idiotic strawman argument for berkeleys sake. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Opti :

Do you really think that a 21st century Ben Franklin  would think the right to drive drunk is an essential liberty? 

This is right up there with "your car keys restrict your liberty" as the most spectacularly (and purposefully...?) stupid arguments yet exhibited in this thread.

Both by the same user.  Incapable of rational discussion or just troll?

You decide.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Opti :

Do you really think that a 21st century Ben Franklin  would think the right to drive drunk is an essential liberty?  
  I know Ben Liked to drink but I would assume he's a little more responsible than that. 
 He was known for his common sense. 

I don't think he'd pro drunk driving, but I think he'd be anti surveillance and anti passive bac tester.

I am still waiting for some examples of limitations on early amendments from the founding fathers. If you have years of iligent study it should be easy to provide a couple examples. I'd like to understand your position better

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to racerfink :

I already pay for airbags, ABS, seat belts, lane shift detection, neutral safety switches, and dual-circuit master cylinders even though I didn't legislate any of it.  All of those things are laws that NTSB made that we have to pay for and I don't see anyone complaining.  They assumed we would hit something so they put nannies in it for my safety.  I'm not complaining.  I'm not saying "don't force me to have an airbag because you're telling me you expect me to hit something."  I would sound kind of foolish if I said "just because someone else ran into a wall doesn't mean I need an airbag."

And what about those of us who actively believe all those safety elements should be AVAILABLE, but not MANDATED?

bobzilla said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Opti :

Do you really think that a 21st century Ben Franklin  would think the right to drive drunk is an essential liberty?  
  I know Ben Liked to drink but I would assume he's a little more responsible than that. 
 He was known for his common sense. 

For berkeleys sake man.... stop. Not a single person in here has been "pro drunk driving". Stop with this idiotic strawman argument for berkeleys sake. 

 The government saved over 30,000 Lives a year with airbags, seatbelts and safer cars. 
      If people object to a simple way to save 10,000 lives a year because of a straw man argument  about liberties, Liberties they have given up already. What else am I to assume?   
     I try very hard to see both sides of an issue.    I'm not a fan of guns ( though I've owned them, qualified on them and used them).  
  I treat them like cars.   I'd need a darn good reason to give up cars.   So why shouldn't decent responsible people have guns?   Aren't we talking about pursuit  of Happiness?   
    However your right to own a gun stops when it interferes with my rights.  

Driving on the public highway I'm entitled to believe that reasonable steps have been taken to make it safe. 
So are the hundreds of motorists