Error404 said:
Nathan JansenvanDoorn said:
So, how do you guys feel about speed limiters on cars controlled by geofences? Say, set a limited for 35mph in the city, 65mph on the freeway?
The same rationale applies.
What about remote kill switches that only the police can access on all cars to save lives that could otherwise be lost in high speed car chases?
Log into the car like people log into their phones or laptops, facial rec. No insurance? No start. Registration lapsed yesterday and your forgot? Better remember how to hoof it. Roll that stop sign outside the city limits at 3am? Accelerate too quickly from a light? Break a little late for a corner? You're confirmed in the car so your ticket is on your account. Cars are tech, the surveillance is only going to increase. I'm not going to argue for or against this next level of overwatch, after all if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't mind being watched.
You absolutely should mind being watched. The 4th ammendment hasn't been repealed.
wae
PowerDork
9/22/22 2:02 p.m.
Re: punished - I would define punishment as being required to perform an action without renumeration that I find acceptable. Having to pay the extra cost and deal with an alcohol detection system that I do not want qualifies.
Re: federalizing DUI laws - absolutely we shouldn't be doing that. But we have, in effect, already done so. In order to get highway funds, states must enact seatbelt laws and set the BAC limit to .08. There's nuance there, but roughly speaking that's what we're doing. I find that abhorrent and wouldn't recommend it.
frenchyd said:
Minnesota is even tougher than that. Yes if the officer makes a mistake and the drunk hires a good attorney they might get away. The average guy? No tolerance. They lose the car on the third arrest.
Lately they even gone after public figures. Athletes, law Enforcement, TV persons, politicians, etc. then they announce publicly on the radio and TV.
The third arrest? If you want to deter people, make it the first. Before you come up with new regulations, why not make the existing regulation stronger, and enforce it? If you make the decision to drive after consuming alcohol, that is 100% on you. The excuses of why you made that choice, do not matter.
If I actually thought this would work I would be on board...................but it won't because addicts are clever when it comes to feeding their addiction.
My father started attending AA when he was 65. He pulled no punches about his drinking and said it's nothing short of a miracle that he didn't kill someone. My brother, two uncles and three cousins, were addicts; they went to great lengths to get around the system.
At one point Nevada had no open container laws; if my dad got pulled over he'd hand my mother the beer. If his car had a breathalyzer he would have simply had my mother blow into it or left the car running while he went into the bar. I know people who have had the devices installed on their cars (because they had two DUIs already) and they got around the devices.
Make no mistake I'm completely hostile toward drinking and driving; I've been hit by drunks twice. This is not going to magically fix it...........it's a band-aid because no one wants to have to do the hard work............or be the bad guy.
Many other countries do not have the issues with drunk driving we do.......................none of them have devices on the cars as standard equipment. The solution is already mapped out; it just takes people with the will to follow the models that work.
RevRico said:
frenchyd said:
Toyman! said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
I would say the cost in dollars spent and more importantly the cost in freedom from government intrusion is not worth the lives saved. We have reached the point of diminishing returns.
The fact of the matter is that while life has value, it does not have infinite value. Throughout history, we have traded lives for freedom. We have fought wars for our freedom and the freedom of others.
Somehow we have gotten to the point that society has decided that we should now trade freedom for life. That no price is too much to save even one life. I, for one, disagree. I'm willing to roll those dice and take that chance because to odds are overwhelmingly in my favor to the point of ridiculousness.
Please reference the picture posted at the top of page 2.
I believe you forget that we are the government. At least we elect representatives to be the government for us.
Flawed though the process may be it's better than anything else. Plus we are free to change it if more than 50% of those who bother to vote decide that's what we should do.
Yes, nothing is perfect. Not even our government. But without laws we are left in anarchy.
I hear a lot of complaints about government taking our freedoms. Realize that more than 90% of laws that daily affect you are enacted at the local level.
So spend $2 or whatever it costs and run for city council. Local Mayor. School board, whatever. Spend a few weekends convincing others to vote for you and then I'll listen to your complaints about loss of freedom.
First of all Frenchy, I'd like you to read This Harvard professors take on the legal system and what he has found. Yes, this is the "3 felonies a day" argument. If you're familiar with it already, awesome. If not, read it.
Then I would like you to take a step back, and follow your own suggestion. Without big 2 party money or corporate money, please, try to run for any local office. Try to fight the party or corporate chosen candidates. IF your state/locality will even allow you on the ballot in the first place without party or corporate sponsorship. Then try to get your message and platform through to a polarized set of idiots, known as the general voting public, who only know what their TV or social media tell them, regardless of inaccuracies, dishonesty, or basis in reality.
I did run for mayor of the richest city in Minnesota. I spent my $2. Yes that's all it costs. A neighbor bought a couple of adds in the local paper. A friend bought 40 yard signs.
That's it.
No party affiliation, or endorsement. I was on the ballet.
The league of women voters held a debate/Meet the candidates. The general consensus was I aced it. In fact both other candidates never went any further. No door knocking, no signs, no advertising or even statements for the media.
However The last week of registration a former Mayor put her name forward.
Out Door knocking I met her and we talked. Turns out we had identical views on what should be done. At that point I stopped campaigning and came in 2nd to her. She did the things I would have. So I got what I wanted.*
My point is, I've walked the walk. Even state elections. It is really a few people who volunteer to run, win the primaries and then get support from their party.
Only National elections are the big money deals. Oh, and 3 major cities in Minnesota.
The lake Where I live is home to 2 US senators ( one former), a couple of US congress people, a former Governor and the widow of a former Vice President ( now diseased ).
We meet occasionally. Social events, diner, etc. decent people. Very personable. While some are very rich they inherited the money. 2 of them ran on their own money. No party money involved. It's also the Lake that led to Nixon's downfall. And every election the leading candidate for the Republican Party comes to collect a really big check. If he's a President secret service closes off his bay.
* what I really wanted was to build my house. ( very long boring story but ask I'll explain)
In reply to frenchyd :
Sorry, unless you have been elected and served, you have not walked the walk.
In reply to bobzilla :
There was a wee bit o' snark on that but I didn't want to be all shiny and happy about it.
I think that we as a people have some demons left to exorcise and if we keep kicking the can waiting for someone else to do it, the government will do its job and swing the big stick. As has been said, we have mechanisms to put a stop to this, we have the ability to strengthen them locally, to provide outlets and alternatives on the micro level where people agree they belong.
Look at school zones, you don't speed through a school zone because they are watching and they will bend you over a barrel for it. Same with passing a school bus that is loading/unloading. At least in theory. Are we treating DUIs the same we (as a nation) treat domestic violence or mental illness? If so, we can send all the thoughts and prayers we want but if we don't want to get our hands dirty it will keep happening. Or government will swing the big stick.
I'm going to spectate for a couple pages, I'm starting to repeat myself and that's generally a good time to step back.
Tom1200 said:
If I actually thought this would work I would be on board...................but it won't because addicts are clever when it comes to feeding their addiction.
My father started attending AA when he was 65. He pulled no punches about his drinking and said it's nothing short of a miracle that he didn't kill someone. My brother, two uncles and three cousins, were addicts; they went to great lengths to get around the system.
At one point Nevada had no open container laws; if my dad got pulled over he'd hand my mother the beer. If his car had a breathalyzer he would have simply had my mother blow into it or left the car running while he went into the bar. I know people who have had the devices installed on their cars (because they had two DUIs already) and they got around the devices.
Make no mistake I'm completely hostile toward drinking and driving; I've been hit by drunks twice. This is not going to magically fix it...........it's a band-aid because no one wants to have to do the hard work............or be the bad guy.
Many other countries do not have the issues with drunk driving we do.......................none of them have devices on the cars as standard equipment. The solution is already mapped out; it just takes people with the will to follow the models that work.
Minnesota has those already and it's required for your 2nd DUI. Yes they work. Yes you can circumvent them if you are clever enough and use some forethought.
But really, going out when you know you're going to be drunk coming home!?!?! Every parent and family member who's lost someone to a drunk should be able to punch, kick, and scratch you.
True nothing is perfect and maybe they can include something like an automatic DNA tester to provide increased anti theft protection in leu of a key? Plus eliminate some of the more common ways around the device.
Isn't that a fair trade off for any trivial inconvenience of blowing instead of inserting a key?
In reply to frenchyd :
how about people take some personal responsibility and we leave this stupid E36 M3 alone? Once again we are blaming the thing and not the person causing the problem. Once again we're doing it "for the children" and ignoring facts. Enough. This stupidity has gone on long enough. No more overreach. No more 1984. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and free from illegal search and seizures. But we just keep willingly giving away those rights. No. Just stop.
Steve_Jones said:
frenchyd said:
Minnesota is even tougher than that. Yes if the officer makes a mistake and the drunk hires a good attorney they might get away. The average guy? No tolerance. They lose the car on the third arrest.
Lately they even gone after public figures. Athletes, law Enforcement, TV persons, politicians, etc. then they announce publicly on the radio and TV.
The third arrest? If you want to deter people, make it the first. Before you come up with new regulations, why not make the existing regulation stronger, and enforce it? If you make the decision to drive after consuming alcohol, that is 100% on you. The excuses of why you made that choice, do not matter.
I'm all in favor of that. Places in the world where heavy drinking is the norm, still don't have. The problems we do in America.
That's because the first one can cost you your license for 5 years. And the second forever. ( in some places).
We are soft here in America.
"oh, through your poor judgements you lost your license? You can have it back if you attend •••••• and only drive to and from work. Here in Minnesota pay the fines etc and then you get a plain white plate that starts with a W ( for Whiskey)
WW for 2 WWW for 3 etc I think the record is 7
you also lose your right of presumed innocent so a cop can pull you over whenever he feels like it. Then you are required to submit to testing.
frenchyd said:
Toyman! said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Sorry, unless you have been elected and served, you have not walked the walk.
;-) but I spent my $2.
And just like your $.02 it looks like nobody wanted it.
frenchyd said:
Steve_Jones said:
frenchyd said:
Minnesota is even tougher than that. Yes if the officer makes a mistake and the drunk hires a good attorney they might get away. The average guy? No tolerance. They lose the car on the third arrest.
Lately they even gone after public figures. Athletes, law Enforcement, TV persons, politicians, etc. then they announce publicly on the radio and TV.
The third arrest? If you want to deter people, make it the first. Before you come up with new regulations, why not make the existing regulation stronger, and enforce it? If you make the decision to drive after consuming alcohol, that is 100% on you. The excuses of why you made that choice, do not matter.
I'm all in favor of that. Places in the world where heavy drinking is the norm, still don't have. The problems we do in America.
That's because the first one can cost you your license for 5 years. And the second forever. ( in some places).
We are soft here in America.
"oh, through your poor judgements you lost your license? You can have it back if you attend •••••• and only drive to and from work. Here in Minnesota pay the fines etc and then you get a plain white plate that starts with a W ( for Whiskey)
WW for 2 WWW for 3 etc I think the record is 7
you also lose your right of presumed innocent so a cop can pull you over whenever he feels like it. Then you are required to submit to testing.
This bit of discussion reinforces the point that the topic is about the government implementing a control measure on all people rather than having individuals face the consequences of their bad actions.
sergio
HalfDork
9/22/22 5:39 p.m.
I think the countries that don't have a drunk driving problem are the ones that have zero tolerance BAC.
AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:
This bit of discussion reinforces the point that the topic is about the government implementing a control measure on all people rather than having individuals face the consequences of their bad actions.
All people pay for the consequences of individuals bad actions (DUIs) in the form of: Law enforcement, emergency responders, hospital costs not covered by insurance, court costs, and incarceration costs.
Duke said:
frenchyd said:
Places in the world where heavy drinking is the norm, still don't have. The problems we do in America.
Sure about that?
Yeh, I'll stand by that statement. Germany, UK, China, are where we should be. Get down to those numbers and we'd lose 2/3 of the DUI deaths.
Don't forget, sometimes innocent people have the accident for the drunk.
How? Drunk weaving down a road causes a sober family man to swerve to avoid the drunk and loses control.
Aren't we supposed to be the worlds leader?
AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:
frenchyd said:
Steve_Jones said:
frenchyd said:
Minnesota is even tougher than that. Yes if the officer makes a mistake and the drunk hires a good attorney they might get away. The average guy? No tolerance. They lose the car on the third arrest.
Lately they even gone after public figures. Athletes, law Enforcement, TV persons, politicians, etc. then they announce publicly on the radio and TV.
The third arrest? If you want to deter people, make it the first. Before you come up with new regulations, why not make the existing regulation stronger, and enforce it? If you make the decision to drive after consuming alcohol, that is 100% on you. The excuses of why you made that choice, do not matter.
I'm all in favor of that. Places in the world where heavy drinking is the norm, still don't have. The problems we do in America.
That's because the first one can cost you your license for 5 years. And the second forever. ( in some places).
We are soft here in America.
"oh, through your poor judgements you lost your license? You can have it back if you attend •••••• and only drive to and from work. Here in Minnesota pay the fines etc and then you get a plain white plate that starts with a W ( for Whiskey)
WW for 2 WWW for 3 etc I think the record is 7
you also lose your right of presumed innocent so a cop can pull you over whenever he feels like it. Then you are required to submit to testing.
This bit of discussion reinforces the point that the topic is about the government implementing a control measure on all people rather than having individuals face the consequences of their bad actions.
How many drunk drivers are on the road in 24 hours? And don't get stopped?
Is that a big enough cross section for you?
The cop can stop one car driving drunk and a lot may go by free while the officer is following procedures.
It hasn't worked so far with just enforcement. People are still dying.
What do you suggest? Hanging? Horsewhipping? Life in jail without parol ?
Give me a solution not just a complaint.
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
how about people take some personal responsibility and we leave this stupid E36 M3 alone? Once again we are blaming the thing and not the person causing the problem. Once again we're doing it "for the children" and ignoring facts. Enough. This stupidity has gone on long enough. No more overreach. No more 1984. We are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and free from illegal search and seizures. But we just keep willingly giving away those rights. No. Just stop.
Fine!! That would be wonderful. Please tell me how you intend to get everyone to do that.
Just remember with the freedom we have ( and I fought for) come responsibilities. It's apparent a portion of society is ignoring their responsibility So please tell me how you think you can get them to act responsible?
I'll listen respectfully.
sergio said:
I think the countries that don't have a drunk driving problem are the ones that have zero tolerance BAC.
And more public transit in place and much smaller of a country physically. Apples to watermelons
Racebrick said:
frenchyd said:
Toyman! said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Sorry, unless you have been elected and served, you have not walked the walk.
;-) but I spent my $2.
And just like your $.02 it looks like nobody wanted it.
Not quite. I came in a very solid 2nd but I doubt I could have gotten what I really wanted if I had won. ( Watch Ford Versus Ferrari if you don't understand)
In reply to frenchyd :
No. You won't. You will do what you always do. Shift goalposts, change the story and ramble in about god knows what again. The answers have already been given pages ago. Enforce the laws we have. 2 or 3 and you don't get out of jail period. Let the rest of the population live their lives. Inviting more government overreach is NEVER the answer. You would think for someone who"fought for your freedoms" you'd be a bit more hesitant to just give them up. Apparently they didn't teach common sense in the navy.
bobzilla said:
sergio said:
I think the countries that don't have a drunk driving problem are the ones that have zero tolerance BAC.
And more public transit in place and much smaller of a country physically. Apples to watermelons
I'm not sure that really applies. Most DUI's are local, not cross country. As for public transportation, you may have a point there. But maybe not ( not that I don't think great public transportation would help).
Maybe more bars in walking distance? ( not sure of the economics though)
frenchyd said:
But really, going out when you know you're going to be drunk coming home!?!?!
Given your military experience I know you've seen guys flush there careers over a drink; addicts don't think logically........it's all about feeding the addiction.
The movie "Days of Wine And Roses" is the best summation of alcoholism I've ever seen.
Most people who get popped for DUI have driven drunk numerous times and a large percentage are indeed alcoholics.
I have enough issues diagnosing the BMW immobilizer that just has to detect a fukin key. Can't wait to be in my hot arse garage diagnosing issues with my skin cell centrifuge that makes sure I'm not drunk.
This 12% inflation thing has been a blast. Let's throw some fed mandated Chinese high high tech in these cars and see what the new Camry costs.
I think it would be safest to just force everyone to live in that new Saudi building that's 700 miles long through the desert and has a central train system everyone has to ride.
