View Poll Results: Would you buy a car that could lock its ignition when it detected alcohol?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    17 50.00%
  • no

    17 50.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Would you buy this car?

  1. #1

    Would you buy this car?

    Would you buy this type of car that could lock its ignition if it detected alcohol in the driver?

    I don't want to state the obvious about having a few beers but not being 'drunk'...but what about a situation where a guys buddy throws beer on the car seat so his car won't start. Or someone else throwing beer in a car to keep it from starting...

  2. #2
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417

    Yeah right.

    Quote Originally Posted by breadman
    Would you buy this type of car that could lock its ignition if it detected alcohol in the driver?

    I don't want to state the obvious about having a few beers but not being 'drunk'...but what about a situation where a guys buddy throws beer on the car seat so his car won't start. Or someone else throwing beer in a car to keep it from starting...
    Hello Breadman,

    I saw reports of this device on CNN not too long ago. I think it should be mandatory on every car on the road. Plus, a hefty fine and long term license loss should be imposed if the device is discovered disabled or removed while driving drunk. As for what someones stupid friends may do, get new friends. Better pranks than killing somebody. That's a no brainer.

    Use sense,

    Korbel
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  3. #3
    I would never purchase anything, whether a car or any other kind of product, that had some kind of 'Big Brother' monitor controlling what I could or could not do with it. No thanks.

    When it comes to drunk driving, it's a stupid and irresponsible thing to do. But I see many drivers who are just as dangerous as drunk drivers, if not more so, on the road every day just due to the fact that they are lousy drivers. Maybe we should have a device that keeps them off of our roads also. Or maybe we should just have real world testing procedures for drivers that keeps these people from being behind the wheel in the first place and realistic punishments for those who drive drunk. Maybe something like 6 months house arrest for a first offense above a certain level of intoxication. People might just think twice if they knew that getting caught would cost them their job and their freedom of movement for 6 months.

    Techman
    And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    Last year I did a documentary type film on homelessness in youth (well 18 to 28: too complicated to include the under 18 crowd), drugs and the link with AIDS. Several of the people I met supported themselves by begging car to car or by cleaning car windows.

    The number of drivers they approach with alcool on their breath is VERY high. Obviously this is anectodotal evidence but, I am willing to bet a lot of those lousy drivers you are talking about are in fact drinking and driving.

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  5. #5
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417

    Not Big Brother.

    Hello Techman,

    I don't know the exact stats, but I am sure most motorists are not driving drunk at any one time even at night. Yet there seems to be a hgihly disproportionate number of drunks involved in accidents of all sorts. The problem with heavier penalties is the fact that most people figure they won't get caught. That is a fact of any age. With the alcohol detection device the average person would KNOW they would get caught (by the car) and think wiser. For the determined habituals who care little about law, risks, or lives, they would have no chance to risk themselves as well as others. If the device is effective, why put the solution into punishing or trying to deter offenders who may kill someone when you can stop them cold from the start. Remember, it could be someone you know. For me, a terrific guy would be alive if not for two highly drunk teenage girls who ran him down, dragged his body 700 feet, and never knew they killed anyone until the cuffs were on. When it comes to drinking too many people use thier freedom of choice to choose badly and indulge themselves thinking...IT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME!!!

    No brainer,

    Korbel
    Last edited by korbel; 08-06-2007 at 06:09 PM.
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  6. #6
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Korbel
    I saw reports of this device on CNN not too long ago. I think it should be mandatory on every car on the road. Plus, a hefty fine and long term license loss should be imposed if the device is discovered disabled or removed while driving drunk. As for what someones stupid friends may do, get new friends. Better pranks than killing somebody. That's a no brainer.
    I agree with Korbel. I work in the legal system and the problem we have in the USA with DWI or DUI is epidemic. As I mentioned elsewhere, I recently sat in a Courtroom with a rather crowded criminal court docket and I was shocked at the number of DWI cases that were called before my case got called. Even more shocking was the cross section of humanity I observed pathetically grovelling through their attorneys for admission into the alcohol education program - old, young, white, black, all ages and races. It appeared to me totally out of control. The only factor seemingly considered in denying or granting AEP to first time offenders was the % alcohol content in the system and whether there was a claim of personal injury or property damage.

    I come from a family of alcoholics, but somehow the gene seems to have missed me. Nevertheless, I had 2 close relatives die of cirhossis of the liver and another one drowned in an alcohol related incident. I personally drink very occasionally and never when I drive. Somehow people are not getting the memo on the dangers of drinking and driving and while I can understand Techman's "big brother" objection as applied to many new things that have been borne of modern technology, this concept vehicle is not one of them. Indeed, I believe at a minimum that a 2 time DUI offender should be required to drive one of these vehicles for the protection of the public.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 08-06-2007 at 06:35 PM.

  7. #7
    How many times do you hear of a serious accident or hit and run situation where the person was at .08 or .10? These people are usually found to be at .20 or higher, many times much higher. There is nothing that would stop these people from driving drunk. Most of them are repeat offenders and have already had their licenses suspended or revoked. These people will not put any kind of anti-drunk driving system in their car. They will drive an old clunker if they have to. Those who are involved in a death usually get a soft sentence. Hit them where it hurts...in the wallet, cost them their job and means to make a living or throw them in jail for a long time. But our justice system just seriously sucks sewer water. Put serious penalties in place, with a sliding system based on level of intoxication and number of times caught and you might just see a change in habits. Having the same penalty for someone who has one beer or glass of wine too many that puts him barely over the limit as for someone who is falling down drunk is just stupid.

    You want to help prevent drunk driving? How about a having a metro system that runs 24 hours a day from thursday night to sunday morning? Or maybe allowing stores to sell beer and wine until 3 am so that those people who are partying at home and run out of beer don't end up driving downtown to continue their party when they run out?

    Ronnie, the type of lousy driver I'm talking about are those who sit with the steering wheel in their face and never look in their mirrors before changing lanes. Those who drive in the fast lane of the highway at 60kmh, and kids who drive hopped up, beat up civics who think they are F1 drivers. Others who are so nervous driving that they stare straight ahead and hold the wheel in a death grip. I drive about 30 to 50,000 km a year and I see 'em all. I figure about 10-15% of people with a driver's licence, maybe more, shouldn't be on the road.

    Techman
    And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

  8. #8
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by breadman
    Would you buy this type of car that could lock its ignition if it detected alcohol in the driver?

    I don't want to state the obvious about having a few beers but not being 'drunk'...but what about a situation where a guys buddy throws beer on the car seat so his car won't start. Or someone else throwing beer in a car to keep it from starting...
    I wouldn't want my life to be dictated by a mere computer!
    fml

  9. #9
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417

    Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by femaleluver2
    I wouldn't want my life to be dictated by a mere computer!
    Hello Femaleluver2,

    I don't want anyone or anything prying into my personal life either. There are many things I worry about when it comes to "Big Brother". This isn't one of them. Are you telling me and the board that if you get into a car drunk and decide to drive, you don't want that decision interfered with by a computer that can only detect whether you are drunk or not??? Are you saying you have the right to choose to drive drunk if you want, put your life at risk, put my life at risk, put the lives of everyone on the road with you at risk and possibly destroy people's lives??? This is not about controlling your political, religious, or social views. This is not about prying into your private life, your interests, or stopping you from going wherever you want. It is about whether or not we should use a device that can stop anyone from committing the crime of drunk driving and endangering lives including that of the driver. And don't tell me I am putting words in anyone's mouth. The subject is clear here, and when one says "I wouldn't want my life to be dictated by a mere computer" one is saying he/she should not be stopped by a computer from driving drunk. That is a dangerous crime. This device is not spying on anyone. It is detecting the presence of alcohol on the driver's breath. If it does that then someone is drunk in a car and he/she is committing a criminal act. Where in the entire conception of human rights anywhere does it say anyone has the right to endanger innocent lives?

    There is nothing this device does to interfere with driving, make the car less efficient, or in any way interfere with the rightful choice of anyone. It has one purpose and that is to detect a crime in progress. So, to say in regard to this matter of whether the device should be used or not, that you don't want it dictating to you, is to say you don't want it to stop you from choosing to commit a crime and possibly destroy lives, yours or that of others. Big Brother is a concept that refers to underhanded or direct attempts to control people living out their lives freely under lawful conditions and within their natural rights as human beings. This device stops a criminal act that has no relation to any human rights whatsoever to any degree anywhere, so it cannot be "Big Brother". If it is Big Brother then disband all the police, unlicense all the prosecutors, abandon the courts, turn off all security cameras, take away every gun for self-defense, bulldoze the jails and prisons, and erase all restrictive laws and safety regulations because all of these are trying to prevent crimes or give you the chance to live freely and safely too. Big Brother is when your rights or choices are prescribed by others. But, again, drunk driving is a crime. Prevention of a crime is not Big Brother. DAMN! Human rights and free choice were never meant to empower anyone to endanger others. The device is not dictating to anyone, it is giving us freedom to drive with fewer threats to everyone and less tragedy.

    Think about it,

    Korbel
    Last edited by korbel; 08-06-2007 at 11:29 PM.
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  10. #10
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    maybe you're right Korbel, I haven't really thought it completely through yet, but my first reaction was that I felt my privacy was gonna be intruded upon... maybe had I lost a loved one at the hands of a drunk driver I'd be totally outraged.
    fml

  11. #11
    Name Retired.
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Her Hot Dreams
    Posts
    2,417

    Not really personal

    Quote Originally Posted by femaleluver2
    maybe you're right Korbel, I haven't really thought it completely through yet, but my first reaction was that I felt my privacy was gonna be intruded upon... maybe had I lost a loved one at the hands of a drunk driver I'd be totally outraged.
    Hello femaleluver2,

    The post is not meant to be personal to anyone. But the concept you generally alluded to got my emotions going. I have lost a few "loved ones due to drunk driving and homicide, but that is not why I feel this way, though it surely has some effect on my position. My position comes out of the fact, as I understand it, that the device simply detects a crime that has maimed or killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed the lives of many more. How can something that works so specifically and could spare us so much of these tragedies due to criminal behavior be some tool of "Big Brother"???

    Sorry for the emotionalism,

    Korbel
    Last edited by korbel; 08-06-2007 at 11:13 PM.
    Korbie: of the Boston Red Sox Nation...the NBA Champion Boston Celtics Pride...and...the New England Patriots Dynasty!

  12. #12
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    No Problem bro
    fml

  13. #13
    Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.
    guess who doesnt need driver side air bag?

  14. #14

    smart cars...

    i have issues with dui laws. perhaps advancements in technology will improve our exsistance with drink and drive?

    if there were cars that read alchohol levels instantly,then there is no reason to think the levels should not change according to the situation.

    i feel that drinking durring happy hour and driving is worse than driving drunk at 3am. the laws should reflect this.

    drunk
    driving by a school as school is letting out is worse than driving drunk when there is no one else on the roads but other drinkers.

    hopefully the laws can be changed so that these cars can keep changing the legal limits allowed.
    guess who doesnt need driver side air bag?

  15. #15
    What if they had these cars in New Orleans, and the driver went through a drive through daquri stand? Would the car sniff it and stop? Man would that cause a traffic jam on a Friday after work. You wouldn't believe how many people stop for a road cup driving around town.

    It's a good politically correct thing for a manufacturer to put alcohol detectors on their cars, but it won't be a big seller. Beav, as for requiring one on a guy with more than two DUI... I say just take his license and make him ride the bus. You can't monitor those guys anyway, until they get into another wreck or get pulled over for a 3d time. Too many of them and not enough cops.
    If it flies, floats or fucks... It's cheaper to lease!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •