DescentBB

Should all vehicles be equipped with standardize testing system to see if you have been drinking?

I haven't drank in over 20 years so it want effect me. It could also save lives. I really think this is reaching further in to the lives of the public just to get the bad apples than need be.

The catalyst is a push by New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer to provide $60 million over five years to develop in-vehicle technology that would recognize a driver's blood alcohol concentration.

The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety is being develop which will sample you skin and possibly other ways such as air sampling to determine if you have been drinking and over the limit.

\"You're talking about putting a piece of technology in every single car in America to go after a very small population of offenders,\" she says. \"And so what we would advocate is let's find the best ways to get those drunk drivers off the road without coming up with an approach that targets all Americans whether or not they drink, or drink responsibility.\"

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

NO NO NO - Unless there is justification, like the person is a proven drunk. The Government has NO BUSINESS in our lives. Not at the state level or the federal level. We are innocent until proven guilty. We are not sheep to be herded.

Government spending…
Increased cost to build a car…
Increased cost to buy a car…
And won’t work anyway…

Typical liberal thinking.

absolutely unnecessary expenditure of government funds. we have way more important things to legislate about.

Spidey wrote:Government spending…
Increased cost to build a car…
Increased cost to buy a car…
And won’t work anyway…

Typical liberal thinking.

Even this idea is too liberal for me. However, you are already being monitored!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/busin ... oyota.html

And now it's required:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05217.html

.

tunnelcat wrote:And now it's required:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05217.html

Not yet. It just passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee. From your link.

The measure passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee despite complaints from Republicans that the black boxes, or crash recorders, could violate drivers' privacy and that some of the requirements would cost taxpayers and consumers too much.

The bill, however, leaves the black box technical requirements -- and thus the cost -- up to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Lawmakers hope to bring the measure to a House vote later this year.

Yes Bee, I know I'm not a real fan of the idea, even though it would probably save more lives. You have to weigh just how much intrusion into our lives you want to give Big Brother, both government and corporate, in order to protect the safety of society. Not only do you potentially have the government monitoring what you do when you drive, but corporations as well, and they're already cozy enough right now and we don't need more watchful eyes upon us. At what point do we draw the line? It's just getting into the creep-out zone for me here with some of the computer monitoring that can be done from within a car's systems now. When will cameras start being installed or required for safety or crime prevention? Besides, like all new technology, it'll be buggy and expensive for quite a while. If it could be worked out so that the system was a passive ignition key that just kept the car from being started, fine. But with computers, all bets are off with what the system is doing or sending to someone, like the authorities. We don't need a car tattletale.

What might be a far better deterrent is to hike up the fines/jail time for drunk drivers who hurt or kill others. Sweden has some of the toughest driving laws around and their BAC limit is 0.02, while ours is 0.08.

http://awcstockholm.org/sweden6.htm

Someone can be pretty impaired even at 0.08. Punishment and fines in the states is fairly lenient compared to Sweden too. But, on the good side, it appears that drunk driving fatalities have dropped since 1987 in the U.S., although I bet most of that statistic change is due to better safety equipment in cars, something I very much approve of the government mandating. Cars used to be death traps. However, it looks like you especially don't want to drive in California or Texas.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-drivi ... stics.html

Heretic, you can bet the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will probably go for it. Those black boxes are already in a lot of new cars now as part of the airbag crash detection system.

It's already illegal to drink and drive, it doesn't need to be more illegal.

Yes I know and they only record a few seconds of data. If you want more time buy one of These and install it. Now with all this other stuff they put in these cars they can track you and most of the gps gizmo log your location and hold it up to 24 hours or longer depending on the model plus keep track of your speed. On star has the ability to brake you car and turn off your engine.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-F ... wsNum=1238

Of course before to long cars will be driving themselves without human interaction.

This is why I only buy old cars.

well since more people are killed by Cell phone use than by drunk drivers, I wonder why they arent making a device to render cell phone inoperative.

I was driving down the Freeway Friday and the traffic was really bumper to bumper. and I see an unmarked Police car pass me in the middle lane. and what is the officer doing??? he has his cell phone on the steering wheel and is texting. WTF????
2 weeks ago I'm on the freeway On ramp working my way towards the light when I pull up next to this young woman in her car. I'm in my van so I'm higher up than her and could see into her car. this girl has a cell phone in each hand and is texting away

this would be just another intrusion of government into our lives.

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

Here's an interesting situation. What is someone is high as a kite and drives?

Here's a true life story. My mother in law was sitting in her back yard having a smoke and a car came off the road, hit her well, flew up and landing on her. The backyard is about 50 feet from the road. This woman went thru the parking lot of a restuarant next to the house, over a small ravine and thru trees before hitting the well. No skid marks etc.

This woman failed a drug test at the scene, was found to have drugs in her trunk, was her 2nd offense driving like this. Was well known to the police.

Now, my mother in law has a broken pelvis, ribs, arm, foot, dislocated shoulder, fractured face and burns to her face from the liquids of the car pouring on her when she was pinned under it.

The other sad part of this story is my step daughter was in the house when this happened and came out to find her nana pinned under a car. She is 10 yrs old. She called 911 and was very brave but was hysterical. My g/f and I are seeing her today for the first time since this happened on Thursday. it's also her 11th Bday. They were getting ready to go out for supper for her bday when this happened.

Had there been some time of device in her car, she may not of been able to drive.

My mom in law is now forced to retire, it will take years for her to recover. This happened in a small town and the people have been awesome getting us support and doing fund raisers to help with the cost.

We had just left my inlaws place the week before from being on vacation and was barely unpacked when we got the phone call. We immediatly drove back (14 hours).

Life can sometimes suck. The woman who was driving shouold pray she never sees my brother in law.

null0010 wrote:It's already illegal to drink and drive, it doesn't need to be more illegal.

I should be a hate crime if you drink and drive and kill a black person.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:It's already illegal to drink and drive, it doesn't need to be more illegal.

I should be a hate crime if you drink and drive and kill a black person.

Only if you're white.

BEE

You are one frightening person who should move to Venezuela. You would do well there.

Bet51987 wrote: So, if you ask me if I think it makes sense for the car's computer to also record the level of alcohol and prevent the car from starting then I say absolutely yes. In 2008 there were 10,000 DUI deaths in the U.S. alone.

Again, YES.

Bee

Sounds like you think it would be great if everyone was monitored 24/7 and the moment anyone approached doing something "not approved" they would be stopped and punished. You may want to live like that but I don't.

Xamindar wrote:Sounds like you think it would be great if everyone was monitored 24/7 and the moment anyone approached doing something "not approved" they would be stopped and punished. You may want to live like that but I don't.

Guess you haven't looked around after you leave out of your house and seen all the cameras everywhere.

Also kinda reminds me of this. Imagine living in a world where you fear that happening to you every second of your life because there are so many laws written that everyone is breaking some law. It is actually getting that way.

.

Bet51987 wrote:10,000 people killed by drunk drivers and you call me frightening? You need to read a little more and be less of a republican.

Ignoring the immature reference to Republicans (I'm sure you are insanely excited about the great job your Obama is doing), what is scary is that you would prefer removing freedoms from EVERYONE just because a small percentage of the population makes bad mistakes. Keep this up and there will eventually be a law requiring cameras in your home to prevent domestic abuse.

.

Bet51987 wrote: In the context of what I wrote, how are your freedoms being removed? Name some.

Bee

Privacy and Innocent until proven guilty.

Bet51987 wrote:...
Yep. And those cameras that are on buildings, malls, banks, and other places, have not only lowered crime, but have been a valuable tool to identify persons or vehicles used in child abductions and home invasions. I have them on my home as part of the security system and if I had my way they would be on every street corner. ...

Bee

Those cameras are owned by you and the bank and the whoever....So they don't bother me. If a cop asks you to see your security tape because they had a crime in the vicinity and you decide to give them the tape then that is all good.

A device mandated by government to be installed in every vehicle that can monitor your behavior is a deeper encroachment by far into your privacy. Losing the right to refuse self incrimination comes to mind for one thing.

some really smart guy wrote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

As for a device that simply disables the starter if your skin is oozing to much alcohol but can't communicate your condition to anyone isn't so bad but the minute it fails because my deodorant was too strong or something and my car is disabled leaving me on the side of the road looking like a drunk I'll be pissed off!

Is this where we point out the Dems and liberals don't want the police asking for paperwork showing immigration status because its goes against there civil liberties.

Cuda68 wrote:Is this where we point out the Dems and liberals don't want the police asking for paperwork showing immigration status because its goes against there civil liberties.

so what you are saying is if drunk drivers start voting en bloc for the democrat party this device will never make into car one...
sad but true

.

Bet51987 wrote:...
That's good. Now, would not have a problem with security cameras being installed at intersections?

I don't approve of municipalities using speed cameras or red light cameras to issue tickets. that is what the municipalities want to do with the cameras.
As far as a recorded record of what happens in public so you can identify who kidnapped a baby or get a face shot of a bank robber...that is tempting but it will be abused so I'd have to think about as many scenarios as I can before I'd vote on that one.

Bet51987 wrote:..

Will Robinson wrote: A device mandated by government to be installed in every vehicle that can monitor your behavior is a deeper encroachment by far into your privacy. Losing the right to refuse self incrimination comes to mind for one thing.

Ok, let me ask this. If, instead of the alcohol monitoring device, a "black box" was installed that monitored the date, time, speed, braking, steering, etc of the automobile no matter who was driving so the data could be extracted during an accident, would you be ok with that?

Bee

A box that is a part of the car I buy is my box so any data it can provide law enforcement results in self incrimination if I'm involved in an accident. I don't want to give up my fifth amendment rights.
and again, it will be abused. If you let the government mandate the box in every vehicle they will use that data not just to solve accident fault issues, they will sell the data to insurance companies, they will start to legislate all sorts of short sighted remedies to all sorts of non-problems.

A politician with the authority to legislate is like a 5 year old with a pistol...he's going to pull the trigger until someone is hurt. It's best to keep their weapons to a minimum and under close observation at all times and never let them forget who is in charge!

Bet51987 wrote:Privacy and Innocent until proven guilty.

Is that the best you have?[/quote]

Are "privacy" and "innocent until proven guilty" so unimportant that you'd brush them aside just like that?

Bet51987 wrote: Is that the best you have?

Yup! and apparently you can't think of a good reason to take those away judging by that response.
Because someone MIGHT do it is not a valid reason. Someone MIGHT overdose on salt and die, is that a good enough reason to outlaw salt?

Cuda68 wrote:NO NO NO - Unless there is justification, like the person is a proven drunk. The Government has NO BUSINESS in our lives. Not at the state level or the federal level. We are innocent until proven guilty. We are not sheep to be herded.

sounds like a good idea. while we're at it, let's get rid of seat belts, airbags, crumple zones and just about every other safety feature that resulted from government meddling.

Ferno wrote:

Cuda68 wrote:NO NO NO - Unless there is justification, like the person is a proven drunk. The Government has NO BUSINESS in our lives. Not at the state level or the federal level. We are innocent until proven guilty. We are not sheep to be herded.

sounds like a good idea. while we're at it, let's get rid of seat belts, airbags, crumple zones and just about every other safety feature that resulted from government meddling.

Point.

Ferno wrote:

Cuda68 wrote:NO NO NO - Unless there is justification, like the person is a proven drunk. The Government has NO BUSINESS in our lives. Not at the state level or the federal level. We are innocent until proven guilty. We are not sheep to be herded.

sounds like a good idea. while we're at it, let's get rid of seat belts, airbags, crumple zones and just about every other safety feature that resulted from government meddling.

While they are very good, they should also be options, not law. Seat belt's where originally options by the way. They became law in NY state in the early 80's to generate money like most ticket's. The rest of the country slowly followed suit once the politicians realized that ticket's where another money stream.

.

Bet51987 wrote:
They need to be a law because there are too many stupid people. How about child restraints, child seats, and child bycycle helmets. Should those be options too?

Bee

For children it should be mandatory, however, for free thinking adult human beings, it should be an option.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will wrote:As far as a recorded record of what happens in public so you can identify who kidnapped a baby or get a face shot of a bank robber...that is tempting but it will be abused so I'd have to think about as many scenarios as I can before I'd vote on that one.

I rather have the camera operating while you're waiting to decide if the baby is worth your privacy.

Oh the irony, privacy..babies...!
You do realize that "privacy" is the foundation that legalized abortion is precariously built upon....

If you create a precedent where the government can take away our privacy for what it decides is the "good of people" when an uber conservative administration gets to power (a result likely in the wake of Obama's reign) will you still be so cavalier to dismiss privacy as a concern?

.

Predicted response: stupid people deserve to die.

null0010 wrote:Predicted response: stupid people deserve to die.

How else are we going to thin the herd? If a person doesn't want to wear a seat belt fine let's thin the herd. There will be less of the strain on the environment and sociality. The government should never protect the stupid to take freedoms away from the people let the stupid die. Protecting the stupid has increased the population to where the planet is on the verge of not being able to support them. Before you people attack this statement remember some of you comments on the health bill. Where should we as a sociality or collective decide how much we should spend to keep a person alive?

I don't drink so I shouldn't have to be tested by my car to see if I have been. So how about the people who use hand sanitizers. Should their car not be able not to let them drive because it detects alcohol? I see people always using that never washing their hands.

Bet51987 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

Will wrote:As far as a recorded record of what happens in public so you can identify who kidnapped a baby or get a face shot of a bank robber...that is tempting but it will be abused so I'd have to think about as many scenarios as I can before I'd vote on that one.

I rather have the camera operating while you're waiting to decide if the baby is worth your privacy.

Oh the irony, privacy..babies...!
You do realize that "privacy" is the foundation that legalized abortion is precariously built upon....

If you create a precedent where the government can take away our privacy for what it decides is the "good of people" when an uber conservative administration gets to power (a result likely in the wake of Obama's reign) will you still be so cavalier to dismiss privacy as a concern?

This has nothing to do with abortion and you're drifting off topic now. ...

Bettina

That is one hell of a lame attempt on your part to dodge the point!