Would you buy this car?
- Thread starter breadman
- Start date
Korbel, actually the stats state that 62% of total fatalities were not wearing seatbelts...not 62% of alcohol related fatalities. I did not see any stats on the number of drunk drivers not wearing seatbelts. Or numbers of drivers over the legal limit for that matter.
The fact is that unless there is zero tolerance for alcohol while driving, no preventive measure such as the one posted will ever make any real reduction in the problem of drinking and driving in North America. It's all a smoke screen. The same way that non-smoking laws are. If the government were truly serious in reducing tobacco related deaths, they would make tobacco products illegal. If they were really serious in eliminating drunk driving, they would increase the penalties and have a 0.00 alcohol limit for drivers. All the gun laws in the world will not take guns out of the hands of criminals and all the safety devices that will come on the market, unless they are mandated in ALL vehicles on the road at NO COST to the owner of the vehicle, will ever have any appreciable effect on drunk driving. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. If they are not willing to do so, then they must accept the consequences. The problem is that the consequences are not high enough. Except for the victims. For them the consequences are too high indeed.
In the meantime, as I said earlier, public transit should be available 24 hrs a day, on weekends at the very least, to reduce the number of drunks on the road after the clubs close. This will have a larger effect in reduction, in my opinion, than any expensive device that will only be available to those who can afford it. And those will probably be the least likely to drive at a level of dangerous intoxication in the first place.
Techman.
The fact is that unless there is zero tolerance for alcohol while driving, no preventive measure such as the one posted will ever make any real reduction in the problem of drinking and driving in North America. It's all a smoke screen. The same way that non-smoking laws are. If the government were truly serious in reducing tobacco related deaths, they would make tobacco products illegal. If they were really serious in eliminating drunk driving, they would increase the penalties and have a 0.00 alcohol limit for drivers. All the gun laws in the world will not take guns out of the hands of criminals and all the safety devices that will come on the market, unless they are mandated in ALL vehicles on the road at NO COST to the owner of the vehicle, will ever have any appreciable effect on drunk driving. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. If they are not willing to do so, then they must accept the consequences. The problem is that the consequences are not high enough. Except for the victims. For them the consequences are too high indeed.
In the meantime, as I said earlier, public transit should be available 24 hrs a day, on weekends at the very least, to reduce the number of drunks on the road after the clubs close. This will have a larger effect in reduction, in my opinion, than any expensive device that will only be available to those who can afford it. And those will probably be the least likely to drive at a level of dangerous intoxication in the first place.
Techman.
disagree.
Use it,
Korbel
I agree that non-smoking laws do nothing to stop people from smoking, but they were not meant to do that. They were meant to spare non-smokers from absorbing the so much of the poison smokers chose to indulge in. I disagree that that the alcohol detecting device will have no real impact on drunk driving deaths. Whatever the numbers are where drunk drivers were directly responsible for the deaths of others, it is this statistic alone that I contend will be greatly reduced. I don't know the effectiveness of this device as it currently is, but if it can be perfected to do as intended it can't help but have a great impact on reducing deaths from drunks drivers. No one is touting it as a cure for all road deaths. Of course we should take all the other measures you suggest to further insure our safety. But something that can cut off drunks from driving at the start is a Godsend in my view.Techman said:
Use it,
Korbel
Last edited:
Korbel, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Whenever I hear on the news or read in the paper about a drunk driver in a serious accident, they aren't at .08 or .10 or even .12. They always seem to be at .20, .24, or even higher. Most of them are repeat offenders and most do not even have a valid licence. These people will not put one of these devices in their vehicle willingly and there is no chance in hell that the government will ever be able to require by law that every driver spend the money to install one, or force auto manufacturers to install them. They would have as much chance doing that as they would have forcing speed limiters to be installed. It will never happen. And I do not believe that it ever should.
Techman
Techman
Willingly
I never envisioned any drunk putting this device in their car willingly. How can anyone conceive of the totally irresponsible be willing to do that. I do think that if the device can be proven highly effective it WILL eventually become a mandatory safety device in every car like headlights or brakes. As for the auto manufactures, if they can do everything possible to put things in cars like cup holders, GPS and televisions, then they can add something that saves lives too. I simply don't understand why people fight against such things. It seems to be the sad state of the human genome that it takes a personal tragedy to start playing safe instead of foreseeing how to prevent that tragedy. Maybe that's why so many organizations formed to fight fatal diseases or other sorts of victimization and tragedy are formed by victims or their loved ones.
Someone once said to me: why shouldn't people be allowed to smoke pot and drive, they drink and drive don't they. I said: you are choosing to justify one act of stupidity with another, why should they be allowed to do either? Why multiply stupidity???
Bewildering,
Korbel
Hello Techman,Techman said:
I never envisioned any drunk putting this device in their car willingly. How can anyone conceive of the totally irresponsible be willing to do that. I do think that if the device can be proven highly effective it WILL eventually become a mandatory safety device in every car like headlights or brakes. As for the auto manufactures, if they can do everything possible to put things in cars like cup holders, GPS and televisions, then they can add something that saves lives too. I simply don't understand why people fight against such things. It seems to be the sad state of the human genome that it takes a personal tragedy to start playing safe instead of foreseeing how to prevent that tragedy. Maybe that's why so many organizations formed to fight fatal diseases or other sorts of victimization and tragedy are formed by victims or their loved ones.
Someone once said to me: why shouldn't people be allowed to smoke pot and drive, they drink and drive don't they. I said: you are choosing to justify one act of stupidity with another, why should they be allowed to do either? Why multiply stupidity???
Bewildering,
Korbel
Last edited:
Korbel, at one time seatbelt interlocks were installed in every car. The engine could not be started without the seatbelt being buckled. Of course, people found ways around this...buckling the seatbelt and then sitting on it, deactivating the sensor, etc... And of course there were the usual problems with the device failing and cars unable to start. Eventually these interlocks were no longer installed as laws were put in place with sufficient penalties to make people buckle up. Now most people do so or face stiff fines. Not everyone mind you, but most.
This device or any like it would have the same problems. It would also be a much more complex system than a simple interlock. It would require periodic calibration and as it is a more sophisticated device it would be more prone to failure. There would most likely also be blackmarket methods to 'chip' it so that it became worthless, as well as mechanics who would be willing to disable it for a price. Yes in a perfect world it would be a perfect device that would never fail, it would be free and everyone would have one. But it isn't a perfect world, the device would be expensive, it would fail and it would never stop those who truly don't give a damn about driving under the influence.
GPS units and televisions in cars are not exactly commonplace or installed in every car. They are for those who can afford them. Adding a couple of thousand dollars to the price of a car would prevent many people from owning one. Forcing people to add one to an existing vehicle would force many to sell their cars. This is an idea that will never come to pass. The only way to fight drunk driving is education and laws that will truly drive the point home. Not a device that does the thinking for us.
Techman.
This device or any like it would have the same problems. It would also be a much more complex system than a simple interlock. It would require periodic calibration and as it is a more sophisticated device it would be more prone to failure. There would most likely also be blackmarket methods to 'chip' it so that it became worthless, as well as mechanics who would be willing to disable it for a price. Yes in a perfect world it would be a perfect device that would never fail, it would be free and everyone would have one. But it isn't a perfect world, the device would be expensive, it would fail and it would never stop those who truly don't give a damn about driving under the influence.
GPS units and televisions in cars are not exactly commonplace or installed in every car. They are for those who can afford them. Adding a couple of thousand dollars to the price of a car would prevent many people from owning one. Forcing people to add one to an existing vehicle would force many to sell their cars. This is an idea that will never come to pass. The only way to fight drunk driving is education and laws that will truly drive the point home. Not a device that does the thinking for us.
Techman.
The IMPORTANT Difference.
You keep refering to this alcohol detecting device as something that people will be "forced" to add to their car and imply that it will be a significant or extreme expense. I cannot precisely predict the conditions under which the device might be added to a car or exactly how it will work. But I consider the prospect of being forced to be a misdirection. You are again making insinuations that this is punishment. This is a pure safety device and I envision it as a natural evolution in safety like anti-lock brakes. As for the complexity of the technology, there are similarly functioning safety devices in cars. You cannot start an automatic transmission without having it in the Park position. There are also fuel line cut offs to prevent misuse of a car. A new device like the alcohol detector is going to need a lot of refinement like any new safety concept. With refinement will come much lower cost and the elimination of possible flaws. You can count on the highly profit conscious automotive industry to avoid integrating the device if it isn't cost effective and effectively functioning. So any fears about this device interfering with smooth and proper driving are little more than..."fear itself"...if I may borrow that famous phrase. The automobile lobby and it's influence on legislation isn't going to let it in at all unless it is cost and safety effective.
The difference between drivers attempting to defeat seat belts and an alcohol detector is critical. A driver who doesn't use a seat belt does not impair his/her ability to drive well. A driver without a seat belt on makes a choice about risk to their own chance to survive an accident, but there is no effect on their ability to control the car and no increase in the hazard the driver poses to others. This comparison is like the difference between smokers and drinkers. Those who choose to smoke and those who might seek to defeat seat belt mechanisms are not impaired and only risk themselves. Those who drink and drive or seek to defeat an alcohol detector pose an immediate and dangerous threat to all others. So the comparison is not valid.
All of these scenarios some of you dream up in this thread are nothing more than manifestations of irrational resistance in my view: in some cases a misplaced knee-jerk reaction to an imagined loss of freedom, an implied freedom to drive drunk which makes absolutely no sense. Then there are the ridiculous scenarios of rapists with beer as a weapon to trap their victimes...OH BROTHER!!! While I do appreciate your much more rational points Techman, I wonder what percentage of drivers would actually try to defeat a device even if they could. Do you really think many people want to put themselves at risk by defeating this device when the are more rational and realize the danger. Because they won't likely be able to do it when they are drunk. No responsible sober person will do this. It would be like purposely defeating the safety switch on a gun. Why would you. Does this safety feature on a gun really threaten the user. GEEEEEZ, if so it's impossible to see why the manically defensive gun lobby could have allowed it to be added. It simply makes no sense to defeat a device that protects you. You may as well defeat the car's brakes too so they won't slow you down....senseless! But, if human beings are really so determined to defeat great potential progress when they can understand the potential danger then the human genome has serious fatal defects in the first place.
As for education and laws, your own insinuations about the determination of people to defeat or get around these processes seems to contradict your assertion on their potential effectiveness. Education and laws have shown an affect in slowing things down, sometimes markedly. But the beat goes on and some years even show a rise in offences. I agree with you that education and laws can work and should be more firmly applied. But if there is something that can add greatly to solving the problem, and even stop the commission of dangerously irresponsible behavior from the start, then why rely on fewer deterants rather than more and more effective ones if they are available. I don't see the sense in bypassing another very useful option. Tell me...are you completely comfortable with your family members or friends being on the road with drunks who are inherently irrational and most probably not thinking of their "education" or the laws when they have to decide whether to drive or not? Wouldn't you feel better knowing the drunk driver's car simply won't start rather than relying on their decision making when the issue is most critical??? Better to have possible issues with the device than to lose those you care about...hmmmm.
Think about this: if you live to be 70 the number of those who will die due to alcohol related driving deaths based on the average number of 16,000 who died in 1997 and 1998 will total 1,120,000 deaths during your lifetime. What are the chances one of those will be someone close to you...and what would you have liked to have had to prevent that death??? Was your fear of losing convenience worth it??????????
Choose carefully,
Korbel
Hello Techman,Techman said:
You keep refering to this alcohol detecting device as something that people will be "forced" to add to their car and imply that it will be a significant or extreme expense. I cannot precisely predict the conditions under which the device might be added to a car or exactly how it will work. But I consider the prospect of being forced to be a misdirection. You are again making insinuations that this is punishment. This is a pure safety device and I envision it as a natural evolution in safety like anti-lock brakes. As for the complexity of the technology, there are similarly functioning safety devices in cars. You cannot start an automatic transmission without having it in the Park position. There are also fuel line cut offs to prevent misuse of a car. A new device like the alcohol detector is going to need a lot of refinement like any new safety concept. With refinement will come much lower cost and the elimination of possible flaws. You can count on the highly profit conscious automotive industry to avoid integrating the device if it isn't cost effective and effectively functioning. So any fears about this device interfering with smooth and proper driving are little more than..."fear itself"...if I may borrow that famous phrase. The automobile lobby and it's influence on legislation isn't going to let it in at all unless it is cost and safety effective.
The difference between drivers attempting to defeat seat belts and an alcohol detector is critical. A driver who doesn't use a seat belt does not impair his/her ability to drive well. A driver without a seat belt on makes a choice about risk to their own chance to survive an accident, but there is no effect on their ability to control the car and no increase in the hazard the driver poses to others. This comparison is like the difference between smokers and drinkers. Those who choose to smoke and those who might seek to defeat seat belt mechanisms are not impaired and only risk themselves. Those who drink and drive or seek to defeat an alcohol detector pose an immediate and dangerous threat to all others. So the comparison is not valid.
All of these scenarios some of you dream up in this thread are nothing more than manifestations of irrational resistance in my view: in some cases a misplaced knee-jerk reaction to an imagined loss of freedom, an implied freedom to drive drunk which makes absolutely no sense. Then there are the ridiculous scenarios of rapists with beer as a weapon to trap their victimes...OH BROTHER!!! While I do appreciate your much more rational points Techman, I wonder what percentage of drivers would actually try to defeat a device even if they could. Do you really think many people want to put themselves at risk by defeating this device when the are more rational and realize the danger. Because they won't likely be able to do it when they are drunk. No responsible sober person will do this. It would be like purposely defeating the safety switch on a gun. Why would you. Does this safety feature on a gun really threaten the user. GEEEEEZ, if so it's impossible to see why the manically defensive gun lobby could have allowed it to be added. It simply makes no sense to defeat a device that protects you. You may as well defeat the car's brakes too so they won't slow you down....senseless! But, if human beings are really so determined to defeat great potential progress when they can understand the potential danger then the human genome has serious fatal defects in the first place.
As for education and laws, your own insinuations about the determination of people to defeat or get around these processes seems to contradict your assertion on their potential effectiveness. Education and laws have shown an affect in slowing things down, sometimes markedly. But the beat goes on and some years even show a rise in offences. I agree with you that education and laws can work and should be more firmly applied. But if there is something that can add greatly to solving the problem, and even stop the commission of dangerously irresponsible behavior from the start, then why rely on fewer deterants rather than more and more effective ones if they are available. I don't see the sense in bypassing another very useful option. Tell me...are you completely comfortable with your family members or friends being on the road with drunks who are inherently irrational and most probably not thinking of their "education" or the laws when they have to decide whether to drive or not? Wouldn't you feel better knowing the drunk driver's car simply won't start rather than relying on their decision making when the issue is most critical??? Better to have possible issues with the device than to lose those you care about...hmmmm.
Think about this: if you live to be 70 the number of those who will die due to alcohol related driving deaths based on the average number of 16,000 who died in 1997 and 1998 will total 1,120,000 deaths during your lifetime. What are the chances one of those will be someone close to you...and what would you have liked to have had to prevent that death??? Was your fear of losing convenience worth it??????????
Choose carefully,
Korbel
Last edited:
Yes...we all know how conscientious the auto industry is. Anyone want to by a used Pinto? The only profits they are concerned about are their own. If it's mandated by the government you can be sure they will be making their share as the consumer, as usual, will have no say in the matter.
You are right...no responsible person would do this. What about a teenager? When I was a kid I was de-activating all my friends seatbelt interlocks for them. We still used our seatbelts. But occasionally we didn't, on short hops to the local store for instance. Do you think that young people who install Nitrous systems in their rice rockets qualify as rational? And habitual drunk drivers hardly qualify as 'responsible' people do they? How many cases do we hear about where it's a driver's 4th, 5th or 10th drunk driving offense when he finally kills someone? That he's still driving when his license has been revoked for the past 10 years? We hear about these cases all the time. Do you think these people will be stopped by this device? I don't.
As far as education and laws, yes I believe they would work in time. Forget about my generation or even yours. Some in my generation grew up drinking and driving at the same time and nothing will change them. But if we start now, with new drivers who already have a zero tolerance rule for, I believe, the first year of their license, and gradually change the laws to zero tolerance for everyone, we will train the next generations to not drink and drive. Put heavy laws in place and enforce them. Fine people heavily depending on the level of intoxication and the number of times caught. Confiscate their vehicle and sell it. Put the money from these sales and fines into a fund to compensate those who suffer damages at the hands of drunk drivers. How about house arrest with ankle monitors for drunk drivers who are not involved in an accident causing injury or death and serious jail time for those who are? No more suspended sentences. No more slaps on the wrist.
And this is a surprise? Just look at the number of nuts in the world...from religious radicals to simple thieves and killers. Yes, I believe there are serious flaws in human beings. We are imperfect creatures.
There will always be those who will drive drunk, no matter what measures are put in place. The thing is to do our best to make certain that when they are caught once, they don't do it again.
These are exactly the kind of people who will never install such a device in their cars because they are, as you put it...inherently irrational. I think of them as 'broken' or 'defective'. These people exist in the world and all the preventive measures, whether laws or devices, will not make any difference. These type of people have always existed and they always will. One of these people almost killed a lady I cared a great deal for. She was driving home to the south shore on Jacques Cartier bridge after finishing work early and a drunk coming into town went straight at 'Craig curve' on the bridge and t-boned her car. She was lucky to survive and took months to recuperate. The drunk, who had trouble standing, didn't have a scratch on him. So yes, I do know the consequences of drunk driving. And no, I still do not believe in this kind of device being mandated as I do not believe it would work in the majority of habitual offenders as they will always find a way around it. If people choose to have it, I have no problem with that. But as a mandated solution... no thank you. I just do not believe it will make any real diference.
People have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Techman
1% of ALL deaths (not car accident deaths -- ALL deaths) in the US (2002) resulted from car accidents where no alcohol was involved.
That's over 24,000 people give or take.... To put it in perspective, in 2002 (same year) in the US, less people died from gun-related injuries -->just over 19,000.
So you are more likely to be killed by a sober (but bad) driver than you are to be shot.
That's over 24,000 people give or take.... To put it in perspective, in 2002 (same year) in the US, less people died from gun-related injuries -->just over 19,000.
So you are more likely to be killed by a sober (but bad) driver than you are to be shot.
Hello Techman,Techman said:
You mischaracterized my statement. I never said or indicated the auto industry was "conscientious". I said: "You can count on the highly profit conscious automotive industry"...that means they care most about profits not the consumer, so the alcohol detector probably has little chance of being in cars in the first place until it is cost effective for the industry.
I see you are projecting your own youthful escapades into this discussion. Yes, I agree that there are those who will do anything to drink and drive. But how many like that do you think there are in the hundreds of millions of drivers or millions of drunk drivers. What percentage of those who cause automobile deaths are so criminally neglectful and purposely deviant. I am sure most car accidents leading to death are by those using temporary bad judgment due to intoxication, not sociopaths who have determinedly discarded all social responsibility. So the effectiveness of the device would only be impaired by a very small percentage of drunk drivers who would be in essence...determined criminals. Certainly out of the 16,000 deaths the device could save at least 95%.
When it comes to the law and education you are making my point. By citing how often there are repeat offenders you are arguing that education and the law doesn't work for the worst offenders. So you are saying your own solution is useless in these cases. Wouldn't an anti-alcohol device that can stop these sorts in their tracks be more effective. You also seem to presume they can defeat the device when they wish. What if the device was configured so that if it was removed the car could not work at all. If the removal of the device works as an igniton cut off then tampering with it would have the same effect as a working device.
Frankly, for a guy who was worried about "Big Brother" I am a bit surprised you favor such highly punitive penalties. I do favor very strong penalites, maybe as harsh as you describe. But your position on this detail seems to contradict your concerns about Big Brother. But considering the determination you so fervently describe for these worst offenders I am also surprised you do not seem too concerned they could defeat "ankle monitors" which lesser capable people seem to have been successful at.
Your policy of severe punishment to make sure that those who drive drunk and possibly kill "don't do it again" has an air of human sacrifice in it. By proposing that we should not use a device that can prevent a drunk driving death and instead use the most severe penalites to stop offenders from doing it again you are saying we should focus on punishing a tragedy instead of trying to prvent it. Someone would have to be injured, maimed or killed before we can implement the severe penalites in the process you propose. It's reactionary and leaves those concerned only the option to grieve and for society to absorb all the inherent costs. How does one justify a policy of reaction, the de facto sacrifice of life in view of the existance of a device that would have spared the victim. Really, if the device is only 50% effective that would be 550,000 lives spared in your lifetime. Does punishing instead of preventing really make better sense? Do the aggrieved feel any better because someone is in prison after the offense. Believe me, it was very very poor consolation if any at all for me and especially my relatives, and the loss and anguish are obviously forever. The offender who killed my relative is out, my relative is still gone and his famliy still suffers. To quote the famlilies of many victims: "we have a life sentence".
You also keep characterizing the implementation of this device as something costly that the unwilling will have to install. Obviously, if that was the case the device would be perfctly pointless...wouldn't it. I foresee that device as something that is a fully integrated critical component that comes with the car at negligible costs when it has been perfected enough to make even the stinking profit devoted automobile industry ready to adopt it. If there are those skilled enough to defeat the device no matter how it is integrated it will still serve the great vast majority of us who might make simple bad choices at times. Even if it is only 95% effective why lose 15,500 lives a year (roughly 95% of the current 16,000 deaths per year) 1,000,000 lives in your lifetime simply because a tiny minority of malicious filthy animals might defeat a life saving device. I my view, you save all you can and don't forfeit all because the solution isn't perfect. It will make a greater difference than waiting to arrest the offender after the victim is dead.
Save the most now...worry about making it perfect later,
Korbel
Last edited:
Korbel, as I said before, in a perfect world, this device or something like it, would be perfectly reliable, the cost would be totally transparent to the consumer and I would still totally oppose it if it was forced on people. If people choose to install it, that is their right. Just as it is my right not to install it.
Here are some other stats: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5/
Should we put speed limiters on motor vehicles as well? Maybe combine both devices?
Note: I find it interesting that in the combined stats they use .08 as the definition of drunk driving whereas in the Drunk Driving stats themselves, they use 'traceable amount'. Manipulation? Are there any actual stats on drunk driving using the legal limit as a starting point? I have not been able to find any.
http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/archives/weight_archive.htm
Perhaps we should make it illegal to serve portions over a certain calorie content? Ban junk food altogether maybe?
The world is a dangerous place. People do stupid things. Get used to it. It isn't going to change. We can't control everything people do before they do it. But we can punish those who break the law. That's all we have the right to do. Or do you want to live in the same kind of world as in the movie 'Demolition Man'? http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/
Give up...you will never convince me.
Techman
More drunk driving info here: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/drunk/
I just had to add this little quote from the above link:
The BAC under the ZERO TOLERANCE LAWS is at 0.02 but in alcohol related accidents it's at 0.01??? 0.02 is considered ok under zero tolerance but still added in the stats for alcohol related accidents? Something is wrong here.
Here are some other stats: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test5/
Should we put speed limiters on motor vehicles as well? Maybe combine both devices?
Note: I find it interesting that in the combined stats they use .08 as the definition of drunk driving whereas in the Drunk Driving stats themselves, they use 'traceable amount'. Manipulation? Are there any actual stats on drunk driving using the legal limit as a starting point? I have not been able to find any.
http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/archives/weight_archive.htm
Perhaps we should make it illegal to serve portions over a certain calorie content? Ban junk food altogether maybe?
The world is a dangerous place. People do stupid things. Get used to it. It isn't going to change. We can't control everything people do before they do it. But we can punish those who break the law. That's all we have the right to do. Or do you want to live in the same kind of world as in the movie 'Demolition Man'?
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/Give up...you will never convince me.
Techman
More drunk driving info here: http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/drunk/
I just had to add this little quote from the above link:
The BAC under the ZERO TOLERANCE LAWS is at 0.02 but in alcohol related accidents it's at 0.01??? 0.02 is considered ok under zero tolerance but still added in the stats for alcohol related accidents? Something is wrong here.
Last edited:
It's Clear
Techman said:Korbel, as I said before, in a perfect world, this device or something like it, would be perfectly reliable, the cost would be totally transparent to the consumer and I would still totally oppose it if it was forced on people. If people choose to install it, that is their right. Just as it is my right not to install it.
Hello Techman,
I am not saying I am "right", but the purpose of the device seems so clearly 100% beneficial that I just can't understand how anyone would reject it unless there was some underlying issue at work. My impression from what you have said makes it seem obvious there is some innate suspicion or fear inside you that prevents you from accepting it's benefits as a lifesaver. It is strange that one who works so closely with technology would be so resistant to this device. Your use of catch phrases in relating to the device such as "Big Brother...punishment...forced", all extreme characterizations of the device, shows there must be some predisposed point of view that allows you only one possible assessment of the device. The fact that you say "I would still totally opposed it if it was forced on people", whatever the benefits, shows you choose to see it's application as something threatening only. No one ever said it would be forced on anyone. How it would be used is completely undetermined as far as I know, and I only said I would like to see it as standard equipment. So it is strange you have always insisted on using the characterization that it is something to be "forced" on people. Well...so be it. Good luck with the anti-lock brakes, head lights, signal lights, brake lights, car mirrors, seat belts, mandatory inspections, lined highways, speed limits, traffic lights, one-way signs, stopping for school bus laws, drunk driving laws, valid license requirements, yield signs, pedestrian crosswalks, no parking signs, and all the other safety devices and regulations that have been "FORCED" on you.
Oh well,
Korbel
Last edited:
The fact that I work in the technology sector is one of the reasons I have so many doubts about the reliability and accuracy of such a device. The thing has a camera for one thing...it would be out of alignment after 1 day of driving on Quebec roads! Probably after hitting one good pot hole. Imagine putting on after shave and having the unit detect the alcohol residue on your hand when you grip the shifter? Try explaining that to your boss when you're late for work or to the hot date you stand up.
As far as the things you listed...few if any of them are there to enforce decisions on us. I do not have anti-lock brakes on my car for example and would never have them given a choice and they are not required by law. Many of your listed items are rules, regulations or laws. I have no problem with them either. None of them affect my ability to operate a vehicle that I own by preventing it from starting. Mandatory vehicle inspections? Here? In Quebec? I would be 100% in favor of that if they in fact existed. There are far too many unsafe vehicles on the road. I am also in favor of mandatory snow tires in the winter, which you did not list. And pedestrian crosswalks in Quebec are a very good way for a pedestrian to get himself killed if he expects most cars to stop.
The device, or any other similar device, would have little effect if it was not standard equipement on all vehicles and retrofitted to all existing vehicles also. To my way of thinking this means it is forced on people if they have no option to refuse it. How can it be described otherwise if it was standard equipement as you put it? Unless it could be turned off the same way you could turn off the radio but that would defeat the purpose. How would an equivalent device be installed on motorcycles or would they be exempt the way cigar lounges are exempt from smoking regulations?
Anyways, this is all theoretical as it's not very likely that anything of the sort will be put into service anytime soon. By the time they get the bugs worked out and all the special interest groups get done with their court challenges, we'll all be driving electric cars with a top speed of 60kph and surround airbags because no one will be able to afford to buy gas.
Techman.
PS: By the way, i do remember a time, when I was a kid in the '60's, when there actually were mandatory vehicle inspections and you had to have a sticker on your car showing that it had been inspected. The then provincial police, now the SQ, used to put up road blocks and verify these stickers. Strange how that seems to have vanished into the past. I actually even remember when you used to get a new license plate every year when you renewed your car registration. I wonder how many cars on the road today have expired registrations that are never noticed by LE?
As far as the things you listed...few if any of them are there to enforce decisions on us. I do not have anti-lock brakes on my car for example and would never have them given a choice and they are not required by law. Many of your listed items are rules, regulations or laws. I have no problem with them either. None of them affect my ability to operate a vehicle that I own by preventing it from starting. Mandatory vehicle inspections? Here? In Quebec? I would be 100% in favor of that if they in fact existed. There are far too many unsafe vehicles on the road. I am also in favor of mandatory snow tires in the winter, which you did not list. And pedestrian crosswalks in Quebec are a very good way for a pedestrian to get himself killed if he expects most cars to stop.
The device, or any other similar device, would have little effect if it was not standard equipement on all vehicles and retrofitted to all existing vehicles also. To my way of thinking this means it is forced on people if they have no option to refuse it. How can it be described otherwise if it was standard equipement as you put it? Unless it could be turned off the same way you could turn off the radio but that would defeat the purpose. How would an equivalent device be installed on motorcycles or would they be exempt the way cigar lounges are exempt from smoking regulations?
Anyways, this is all theoretical as it's not very likely that anything of the sort will be put into service anytime soon. By the time they get the bugs worked out and all the special interest groups get done with their court challenges, we'll all be driving electric cars with a top speed of 60kph and surround airbags because no one will be able to afford to buy gas.
Techman.
PS: By the way, i do remember a time, when I was a kid in the '60's, when there actually were mandatory vehicle inspections and you had to have a sticker on your car showing that it had been inspected. The then provincial police, now the SQ, used to put up road blocks and verify these stickers. Strange how that seems to have vanished into the past. I actually even remember when you used to get a new license plate every year when you renewed your car registration. I wonder how many cars on the road today have expired registrations that are never noticed by LE?
Last edited:
Techman said:
Those are great ideas Tech! I also have seen more than my share of people who should have never been given a drivers liscence in the first place: I sold new cars for 10 years and a test drive can be a very scary place to be!
Ronnie,
Naughtylady
Hello Techman,Techman said:The device, or any other similar device, would have little effect if it was not standard equipement on all vehicles and retrofitted to all existing vehicles also. To my way of thinking this means it is forced on people if they have no option to refuse it. How can it be described otherwise if it was standard equipement as you put it? Unless it could be turned off the same way you could turn off the radio but that would defeat the purpose. How would an equivalent device be installed on motorcycles or would they be exempt the way cigar lounges are exempt from smoking regulations?
Anyways, this is all theoretical as it's not very likely that anything of the sort will be put into service anytime soon. By the time they get the bugs worked out and all the special interest groups get done with their court challenges, we'll all be driving electric cars with a top speed of 60kph and surround airbags because no one will be able to afford to buy gas.
Techman.
We here in Massachusetts have to undergo strict computerized safety inspections, licensing, and the drunk driving laws are brutal with extreme fines, huge hits on your mandatory insurance rates, and even having to pay for what is basically driver reeducation, plus court costsand long term loss of your license. It's all highly punitive much the way as you suggest in your solution. And still there are repeat offenders. You are right. Nothing will stop the worst kind including your best suggestions. The only thing will stop them is disabling them completely. The way to do that effectively may not be perfected, but the alcohol detector along with other motion sensors disabling the car itself is the correct path in my view.
The thing I really can't understand about your view is the basic resistance to the true choice I see here. You obviously view the device as an intrusion on your freedom of choice. To me there is only one basic issue here...many lives versus individual interest. Am I willing to support the installation of a device that if perfected would spare from injury and save nearly every life now at risk in a drunk driving accident situation even if there is could be any limit on my driving choices? When it comes to saving 16,000 lives a year or 1,100,000 in my lifetime I am willing. Whether you see this choice as forced or not, how can anyone be so self-driven as to choose to reject the life-saving path? I'm sorry but there are many things we are "forced" to do in life just to get buy which we accept and these things rarely have anything to do with saving lives. So in this very unique instance with such monumental benefit at least it has the merit of being for the general benefit instead of profit or political gain or whatever stinking damn superficial crap for which we so often are made to sacrifice our choice or freedom.
By the way, I saw a new very small Mercedez on CNN that gets over 100 MPG and accelerates from 0-90 MPH very fast. So the future isn't all about weak little toy cars.
Choose life,
Korbel
Last edited:
Korbel, at the moment in Trois-Rivières, Que., there is a search going on for a missing little girl. The chances are that she will not be found alive. The technology currently exists to implant a small chip in a human body which would permit anyone to be traced at any time. If this child had such an implant, she might be home safe and sound tonight. If this chip was implanted in everyone, it could possibly save hundreds if not thousands of lives every year. Would you be in favor of implanting such a device in every man, woman and child? I wouldn't be. No matter how many lives it could save or crimes it could prevent. It's a matter of personal freedom.
You may say that they are two totally different subjects, but in fact they are not. We have freedom of choice. Freedom to make good decisions and bad ones. But they are our decisions to make. I do not want anything taking that freedom away. Whether it's a device to prevent me from doing something as foolish as driving drunk or something that can track my every move. Because once it starts...where does it end? Does it end up where we have to wear monitors to limit our intake of unhealthy foods or total calories per day to prevent deaths from obesity or heart disease? Does society have to be protected from every possible mistake it can make because people cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves?
Where does it end once it has begun?
Techman
You may say that they are two totally different subjects, but in fact they are not. We have freedom of choice. Freedom to make good decisions and bad ones. But they are our decisions to make. I do not want anything taking that freedom away. Whether it's a device to prevent me from doing something as foolish as driving drunk or something that can track my every move. Because once it starts...where does it end? Does it end up where we have to wear monitors to limit our intake of unhealthy foods or total calories per day to prevent deaths from obesity or heart disease? Does society have to be protected from every possible mistake it can make because people cannot be trusted to make these decisions for themselves?
Where does it end once it has begun?
Techman
Hello Techman,Techman said:
Well, there is a very basic and definite difference that is critical. The simple act of drinking, smoking, eating poorly, doing drugs and other personal excesses are choices that do not necessarily harm others. They only directly harm the individual who makes the choice. However, when someone gets into a car drunk they are not only make a choice that risks themselves, they are choosing to put you, me, and everyone else out on the road at risk...possbily a deadly risk. What I find most tragic about the human species is that people never seem to worry about imposing their foolishness, excesses, their so-called freedom to behave in a deadly on manner on others. You talk so often about being "FORCED". You totally reject anything that would seem to put you in a position of having no choice about the issue or situation. When a drunk gets on the road he/she is forcing you to live with that deadly choice. Yet you wouldallow the drunk to "FORCE you into a dangerous and maybe deadly without your choice. This is not eating, drinking at a party, failing to excercise, or indulging in drugs. This is some damn fool creating a deadly situation where you have no choice, and are FORCED to risk your life because of someone else's criminal irresponsibility. If the worse happens, where was your choice in the episode? Don't you have the right to choose to risk your life or not. How does that other person justify putting your life at risk vuersu his alleged right to be just plain stupid. Does his right to choose to be deadly supercede your right to choose not to face the situation he/she put you in without considering YOU! Why do you seem to insist on choosing to let those who would give you no choice and choose to endanger you the right to risk your life and everyone else's. I find that indefensible. Everyone may have the right to make "bad choices", but no one has the right to make those bad choices the problems or tragedies of others.
If you choose to endanger your health in various ways that affects only you directly, then that is your right in choosing how you want to live. But since the rest of us are your equals with equal rights, please don't get on the road drunk and impose the deadly danger you pose on others. That is not your right. Don't rob me of my choice to live freely, safely, and keep my right to choose at all times. That's everyone's RIGHT! Your attempted connection above is not valid. Individuals have the right to choose for themselves not for others. There may be an irreconcilable clash of rights in this case in simplistic principles. But, while "forcing a drunk drive to use an alcohol detector may be an inconvenient imposition, a transgression of his/her choices as you seem to see it, the drunks choice to drive can easily be a deadly one for others. Better we all live to have more choices than for one or more to die. Then the culprit will lose all choices in prison and the dead...of course...have none. Your solution can have everyone losing...permanently, in my solution the culprit is only inconvenienced....temporarily. That's the difference.
Choose life,
Korbel
Last edited:
Korbel, you just don't get it do you? I have no problem in enforcing the installation of an alcohol detector in the vehicle of anyone who has ever had a DUI infraction. No problem at all. I do have a problem installing them in everyone's cars. Why should a Muslim have an alcohol detector in his car? Or a Mormon? Why should they be obligated to pay for one? Why should anyone who has never driven drunk be obligated to have such a device installed in their car at their cost? I do not drive drunk. Why should I have to pay for one? Anyone who does drive drunk deserves to pay the price specified under law. Why do you insist to convict everyone before they even get in their car for something they might do one day? The overwhelming majority of drivers DO NOT DRIVE DRUNK!!!
I suggest that all forms of distraction be removed from automobiles...no radios, no GPS devices, no vanity mirrors, no cup holders, no cell phones, no ashtrays and no lighters. Let's install speed limiters in all vehicles. Lets all move back to driving Model T Fords with a top end of 20 MPH. Would you be happy then?
If penalties were severe enough we wouldn't require any anti alcohol devices in any cars. None. Put a couple of people in jail for 10 years for drunk driving causing injury, seize the cars of drunk drivers on the second offense and see how many people continue to drive drunk. Give people 25 years to life for drunk driving causing death and see how the much the drunk driving rate drops. But what the hell do you expect in a society where child molesters get 3 years in jail and drunk driving killers get off with a couple of years and a slap on the wrist? I'm sorry that we live in such a society so full of bleeding hearts that we cannot give out the punishments that people deserve because it is considered inhumane, where the criminals have more rights than the victims.
Some people drive drunk. Some people speed. Some go through red lights. Some fall asleep at the wheel. Some people die in accidents. Shit happens. The world is a dangerous place. Get used to it because it isn't going to change anytime soon. Use public transit. It's safer and I've never heard of a drunk driver killing someone in the metro.
Techman
I suggest that all forms of distraction be removed from automobiles...no radios, no GPS devices, no vanity mirrors, no cup holders, no cell phones, no ashtrays and no lighters. Let's install speed limiters in all vehicles. Lets all move back to driving Model T Fords with a top end of 20 MPH. Would you be happy then?
If penalties were severe enough we wouldn't require any anti alcohol devices in any cars. None. Put a couple of people in jail for 10 years for drunk driving causing injury, seize the cars of drunk drivers on the second offense and see how many people continue to drive drunk. Give people 25 years to life for drunk driving causing death and see how the much the drunk driving rate drops. But what the hell do you expect in a society where child molesters get 3 years in jail and drunk driving killers get off with a couple of years and a slap on the wrist? I'm sorry that we live in such a society so full of bleeding hearts that we cannot give out the punishments that people deserve because it is considered inhumane, where the criminals have more rights than the victims.
Some people drive drunk. Some people speed. Some go through red lights. Some fall asleep at the wheel. Some people die in accidents. Shit happens. The world is a dangerous place. Get used to it because it isn't going to change anytime soon. Use public transit. It's safer and I've never heard of a drunk driver killing someone in the metro.
Techman
Hello Techman,Techman said:
Muslims and Mormons. Yeah they don't drink, but they have probably died because of drinkers, so they have a huge stake in this too.
Your position has been perfectly clear. You want to punish after the tragedy instead of preventing it; sacrifice health or a life instead of sparing the victim the danger in the first place. The kind of penalties that you would apply, "25 years to life" would create a drivers police state for everyone. So instead of preventing the problem we wait for the dead to pile up first so we can punish the guilty. So there will be another 16,000 dead next year too. Hey that's just GREAT!. We can add to each obituary that the driver was stiffly penalized. Ahhhhh that should make the families feel just great...lol.
So now we finally come to the real problem certain political orientations love to blame..."bleeding hearts"..OH BOY! The trouble is that I believe in very firm penalties too. But if we can save the life through prevention I give that priority over waiting for a an irreversible tragedy or death. If the best you can say to the families of the victims and the dead is..."shit happens", we'll punish the culprit...WOW...how wonderful is that...GEEEEEEZ!
Well, it looks like all the ground has been covered. When we start distinguishing by religion, we must have covered all valid ground already. We obviously share common points about severely punishing the guilty, but we diverge on our view of prevention and what it means to freedom of choice. That seems to be it.
Thanks for the exchanges. It's been very interesting and firmly discussed...and we didn't even call each other assholes or anything. DAMN...GG and Elf must be bitterly disappointed...LOL!
Peace and good luck,
Korbel
Last edited:
Hey...finally something we both agree on 100%
I agree that it has been a very interesting discussion and I do totally understand your reasons and they come from a person with a good heart who cares greatly about others. Thanks for the great discussion, Korbel!
Techman.
Similar threads
