ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th October 2019, 12:37 PM   #81
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Okay, what about this? The interlock would be advisory. It would keep you from starting the car if your alcohol level is too high. But you could override it by entering a code. That would take care of an emergency, a defective unit etc. But getting caught driving drunk after disabling the gadget would carry much stiffer penalties.
I somehow doubt an "In emergency situations it's ok to drive drunk" button would be included by default on any new cars.

A farm would almost always have an older vehicle around .. but a small family in a remote area might not.
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:38 PM   #82
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
3 is a good point, but a handheld BAC reader would do the same.
Except for the part where it doesn't prevent a drunk person from driving.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:39 PM   #83
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
I know a number of people have have "gotten caught" drunk driving .. they ALL knew they were over the limit .. thy just figured "I'm ok to drive though"
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:39 PM   #84
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,366
I don't want such device in my car. Because I never drink. Nor does my wife. For me it would be just nuisance.
Dr.Sid is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:40 PM   #85
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
I somehow doubt an "In emergency situations it's ok to drive drunk" button would be included by default on any new cars.

A farm would almost always have an older vehicle around .. but a small family in a remote area might not.
Here's an unfortunate fact of life: If a child is left in the care of a drunk person, bad stuff might happen.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:42 PM   #86
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I don't want such device in my car. Because I never drink. Nor does my wife. For me it would be just nuisance.
I remember thinking something similar when the seatbelt law was enacted.

Now the act of buckling my seatbelt is merely muscle memory that doesn't even register as a conscious thought.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:43 PM   #87
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Okay all you “constitutional rights” merchants. How do you feel about your taxes paying for the destruction and death wrought by drunk drivers?

I once drove drunk nearly 40 years ago after the birth of my first child. I could easily have killed someone. I welcome devices that would prevent this happening.
Don't leave us hanging. Were you racing to the hospital, or were you celebrating too much, or were you trying to numb the pain of the college costs you were now on the hook for, or what?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:45 PM   #88
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
As i mentioned I'm against the device, ..

But I just thought of something ... this device would stop ANYONE who was drunk from driving your car (of course)

Like car thieves a couple points over limit
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:46 PM   #89
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Not bad. We have hand held brethalyzers now though. And if the selectively drunk driver kills someone, kind of pointless to the deceased.

Tough to litigate good judgement and common sense.
The handheld breathalyzers require affirmative decisions to go out and buy one and to use it every time, and you could easily be too drunk to know you need to use it. Having one in every car that you have to use goes a long way to eliminating driver misjudgment.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:53 PM   #90
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,237
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
As an American I have a constitutional (in every sense) objection to a system that requires the entire public to be subjected to unwarranted search in order to prove their innocence of a crime for which there has been no reason to suspect them. It's one of the things that prompted the Revolution in the first place. People died for that principle. They killed for it. And some of you are bleating sheepily about the social good it would be to undo it? I think some of you need alcohol-detecting lockouts on your keyboards!
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And I repeat, there very much is a constitutional right to prevent unreasonable search. It isn't predicated on the activity interrupted by the search having to itself be constitutionally enumerated.

And if prevention of crime is the civilized thing that trumps individual liberty then it would be even more effective and therefore more civilized to attach ankle monitors with video and audio recording to everyone. It could even detect alcohol level too.

While I drink a lot I never (and will never) go anywhere near the steering wheel of my car when I do so. Yes, that means if I'm the one driving to dinner I'll limit myself to a single glass of wine, and only if I know it'll be an hour before getting on the road again. Despite that, proposals for mandatory sobriety locks on cars have always bothered me, but for reasons I could never really articulate, even to myself. The above actually lays out in words I could never really put together why I have an issue with it. Thanks.
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:54 PM   #91
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,857
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
A police officer can pull you over at any time and require you to take a sobriety test.
Not without probable cause.



Quote:
If you refuse, you could lose your license.



As Bob001 correctly pointed out, these is no constitutional protections related to the right to operate a motor vehicle. It is a privilege granted by the government that can be revoked at any time.
I don’t think this is a correct read of the situation. The constitution specifically says, in the Ninth Amemdment:

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is how the SC has found a Constitutional right to abortion among other things. The people retain the right to just about anything UNLESS government restrictions pass strict scrutiny.

So yeah We the People do have a right to drive and the government can restrict that right if it meets a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that purpose and the law uses the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose (taken from here).
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 12:56 PM   #92
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I remember thinking something similar when the seatbelt law was enacted.

Now the act of buckling my seatbelt is merely muscle memory that doesn't even register as a conscious thought.
I remember vehicles in Canada in the early 80's having an interlock so that car would not start unless all occupied seats had their belts buckled.


I remember because people always kept the back seat belts, bucked al the time, other wise if you put cargo on the seat the car would not start.

I used to get pulled over in my old chevy van at least couple times a year, for no seatbelt ...

I had to explain every time that belts were not "original provided' in trucks and vans, the year mine was manufactured
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:00 PM   #93
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,366
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I remember thinking something similar when the seatbelt law was enacted.

Now the act of buckling my seatbelt is merely muscle memory that doesn't even register as a conscious thought.
That's totally different. I can't rule out traffic accident. Seatbelt will help in such case. I can rule out me driving under influence.
Dr.Sid is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:04 PM   #94
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not without probable cause ...
Depends where you are

In Canada of Dec 18 2018, no probably cause, or suspicion, is required to stop a driver for a sobriety check.

I thought I read the same law in the US in some states .. but can;t verify it .. at least quickly ... i could be wrong of course
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:07 PM   #95
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Don't leave us hanging. Were you racing to the hospital, or were you celebrating too much, or were you trying to numb the pain of the college costs you were now on the hook for, or what?
Celebrating too much. Costs didn’t come into it - we ended up with seven kids.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:07 PM   #96
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
As to the effectiveness of these units ... it's not as good as it seems .. in fact it sucks BIG TIME

Statistics from California have only a “74 percent lower hazards of a subsequent DUI incident over the first 182 days"

“During days 183 to 365, getting another DUI drops to 45%

However, the report suggests after 12 months and there was “an INCREASE in subsequent crashes” among drivers who installed the IID.

The report did not explain why the number of crashes increased and instead recommended further investigation and research.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-ca...r_2745855.html
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:10 PM   #97
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The handheld breathalyzers require affirmative decisions to go out and buy one and to use it every time, and you could easily be too drunk to know you need to use it. Having one in every car that you have to use goes a long way to eliminating driver misjudgment.
I get that it could be good, for the driver and the public. But I am with the Monkey on this. Nanny State monitoring is no bueno, in principle and practicality. Giving up liberty for security and all that. If you care, the mitigation is available now, and cheap. If you don't, there is always, but always a workaround. A new market for little 'clean breath' canisters to shoot in the device, $20 to a junkie or kid. Yes, it would certainly stop the occasional nice guy or gal who had one too many. But the majority would be unaffected.

I have been known to imbibe on occasion. To excess, I hear. So I have a simple workaround: no drinky if drivey. Not one. It doesn't require the State to monitor me, even. Really not sure why the whole drinking and driving thing is such a conundrum. Just don't, if you give a flying ****.

But I'd prefer not to discuss public intoxication.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:19 PM   #98
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It doesn't require the State to monitor me
... Drinking and Driving ... Just don't, if you give a flying ****.
Agree!
I only started drinking to any extent 9 years ago maybe, and I've been known to have few too many .. but same -- I HAVE not been known to drive after even one drink ...

It's not that hard to do, I live walking distance from 8 bars ... for a town under 40,000 population??

I see I'm not the only one havin' a drink
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:24 PM   #99
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
....
So yeah We the People do have a right to drive and the government can restrict that right if it meets a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that purpose and the law uses the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose (taken from here).
No, there is a right to travel. Rights belong to everybody at all times. Driving is a licensed activity. You don't need a license to travel or vote or change jobs or move across the country. But to obtain and maintain a driver's license, you must fulfill specified legal requirements. You can't get a license otherwise, and your license can be taken away from you if you violate the terms on which it was issued. Courts have determined over and over that driving is a privilege, not a right, which is one reason you can go to jail for driving without a license.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rap...ving_is_a.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:26 PM   #100
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
That's totally different. I can't rule out traffic accident. Seatbelt will help in such case. I can rule out me driving under influence.
What about others driving under the influence? Are you okay with them being on the roads next to you and your family?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:28 PM   #101
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
....
I have been known to imbibe on occasion. To excess, I hear. So I have a simple workaround: no drinky if drivey. Not one. It doesn't require the State to monitor me, even. Really not sure why the whole drinking and driving thing is such a conundrum. Just don't, if you give a flying ****.
....
But you're a responsible citizen. What about people who aren't? What about keeping drunks off the roads they share with you?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:33 PM   #102
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No, there is a right to travel. Rights belong to everybody at all times. Driving is a licensed activity. You don't need a license to travel or vote or change jobs or move across the country. But to obtain and maintain a driver's license, you must fulfill specified legal requirements. You can't get a license otherwise, and your license can be taken away from you if you violate the terms on which it was issued. Courts have determined over and over that driving is a privilege, not a right, which is one reason you can go to jail for driving without a license.

https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rap...ving_is_a.html
Like the sovereign citizen guys ... their right to travel is by foot or by horse
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:34 PM   #103
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
That's totally different. I can't rule out traffic accident. Seatbelt will help in such case. I can rule out me driving under influence.
I'm specifically addressing the nuisance issue.

My point being, what might initially seem like a nuisance eventually isn't.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:35 PM   #104
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
This is how the SC has found a Constitutional right to abortion among other things. The people retain the right to just about anything UNLESS government restrictions pass strict scrutiny.
.....

And the affirmation of the right to obtain a legal abortion was largely based on an implied right to privacy, not on the notion that you can do anything unless we say you can't.
Quote:
In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:37 PM   #105
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,479
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not without probable cause.
There are DUI Checkpoints in Arizona where every driver is required to stop.

Quote:
I don’t think this is a correct read of the situation. The constitution specifically says, in the Ninth Amemdment:

This is how the SC has found a Constitutional right to abortion among other things. The people retain the right to just about anything UNLESS government restrictions pass strict scrutiny.

So yeah We the People do have a right to drive and the government can restrict that right if it meets a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that purpose and the law uses the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose (taken from here).
This is incorrect. Courts have consistently held that driving is a privilege, not a right.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:38 PM   #106
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not without probable cause.
You should tell that to the police officer at the next sobriety checkpoint you see.

Quote:
I don’t think this is a correct read of the situation. The constitution specifically says, in the Ninth Amemdment:


This is how the SC has found a Constitutional right to abortion among other things. The people retain the right to just about anything UNLESS government restrictions pass strict scrutiny.

So yeah We the People do have a right to drive and the government can restrict that right if it meets a compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that purpose and the law uses the least restrictive means to achieve the purpose (taken from here).
You're confusing the right to travel with the right to operate a motor vehicle.

As a U.S. citizen, you have the former but not the latter.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:42 PM   #107
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I get that it could be good, for the driver and the public. But I am with the Monkey on this. Nanny State monitoring is no bueno, in principle and practicality. Giving up liberty for security and all that. If you care, the mitigation is available now, and cheap. If you don't, there is always, but always a workaround. A new market for little 'clean breath' canisters to shoot in the device, $20 to a junkie or kid. Yes, it would certainly stop the occasional nice guy or gal who had one too many. But the majority would be unaffected.

I have been known to imbibe on occasion. To excess, I hear. So I have a simple workaround: no drinky if drivey. Not one. It doesn't require the State to monitor me, even. Really not sure why the whole drinking and driving thing is such a conundrum. Just don't, if you give a flying ****.

But I'd prefer not to discuss public intoxication.
"The State" - nor anyone else - would be monitoring you.

You keep making this assertion despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you numerous times that you are incorrect.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:43 PM   #108
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But you're a responsible citizen.
Bite your tongue. I seek to:
A) not kill anyone
B) not get killed, and
C) not lose wheels, license, and money

Quote:
What about people who aren't? What about keeping drunks off the roads they share with you?
I'm sharing the road with them anyway, and I doubt the breathy key things would slow them down by more than a few minutes or dollars

I mean, color me cynical, but the drunks I know would not be deterred by this. Not that they could afford new cars anyway. This whole gig smells more like a feel-good measure the more I think about it
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:44 PM   #109
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,729
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
There are DUI Checkpoints in Arizona where every driver is required to stop.
....

And they're legal.
Quote:
The Supreme Court weighed in on the question in a 1990 decision and determined that DUI checkpoints are in fact a legal and valid law enforcement method.
https://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-...ts-legal-.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:49 PM   #110
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
"The State" - nor anyone else - would be monitoring you.

You keep making this assertion despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you numerous times that you are incorrect.
It is being pointed out short-sightedly, hence uselessly.

Btw, what is with this dumb-ass fashion here of saying 'it has been explained to you', or variants of the same sentiment? Does it feel to you like saying that gives you credibility? Cuz it sounds like you are not understanding what is being said and are dropping a school marm pose to cover it.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi

Last edited by Thermal; 18th October 2019 at 01:57 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:50 PM   #111
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But you're a responsible citizen. What about people who aren't? What about keeping drunks off the roads they share with you?
Not only that, but being a "responsible citizen" doesn't grant you immunity to effects of alcohol.

The words "I'm fine to drive" aren't just used by the raging drunk who doesn't care about anyone.

They're also used by the responsible and conscientious person not aware of just how much those two drinks with dinner might have impaired them.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:55 PM   #112
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Yup. Whittle away at freedoms little by little, till you are completely safe. Accept proving your innocence over and over till it becomes second nature to defer to Nanny's judgement.

Lots of internet crime going on, so you surely want to stop it by letting us having a look at your hard drive, right comrade?
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:55 PM   #113
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It is being pointed out short-sightedly, hence uselessly.

Btw, what is with this dumb-ass fashion here of saying 'it has been explained to you', or variants of the same sentiment? Does it feel to you like saying that gives you credibility? Cuz it sounds like you are not understanding what is being said and are dropping a school marm lose to cover it.
Yeah, that's super.

The use of an alcohol-detecting device in your car does not result in someone monitoring you.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:57 PM   #114
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yup. Whittle away at freedoms little by little, till you are completely safe. Accept proving your innocence over and over till it becomes second nature to defer to Nanny's judgement.

Lots of internet crime going on, so you surely want to stop it by letting us having a look at your hard drive, right comrade?
The use of an alcohol-detecting device in your car does not result in someone monitoring you, and is therefore not evenly remotely comparable to having someone search your hard drive.
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 01:59 PM   #115
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,463
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Anyone decrying these devices as the end of freedom as we know it care to weigh in on this?
johnny karate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 02:01 PM   #116
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yeah, that's super.

The use of an alcohol-detecting device in your car does not result in someone monitoring you.
It has been explained to you that it does between little and nothing at significant expense. Well, it sets more precedent for intrusion and encourages docility.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 02:01 PM   #117
Ranb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,034
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
….AND I refuse to by a new vehicle, I am currently without a car (first time since i was probably 12 years old) and I plan to purchase a very OLD car when I am rich enough to afford one again.
That's only an option if the detectors are not required to be back fitted to all cars driven on public roads.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 02:03 PM   #118
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,708
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
The use of an alcohol-detecting device in your car does not result in someone monitoring you, and is therefore not evenly remotely comparable to having someone search your hard drive.
Operates on the same principle. And it should be resisted
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 02:05 PM   #119
Ranb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,034
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
So how reliable are the detectors? If they work, and they are already routinely used as part of drunk driving sentences, what's the problem? …. Or how 'bout allowing people to drive, but the gadget would send a gps message to law enforcement inviting them to stop the drunk driver?
Not a problem with me, but it is better to prevent a drunk from driving than to merely react to one that is already on the road.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2019, 02:07 PM   #120
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How about considering some unintended consequences? Presumably, future vehicles will have better gas mileage, there will be more EVs, etc. Do we want to slow down the conversion to these new vehicles? Pre-installed ignition interlocks will do that quite effectively, as drinkers hold on to their older cars.

Plus there is the cost to consider. After doing a little web-browsing, I discovered that the cost of an ignition interlock is about $100 for the installation and about $1,000 a year in lease payments. Presumable then the device itself sells for somewhere north of $1,000. Let's say that factory installation saves some money and use $1000 as the cost of the device installed new on your car.

There are about 17 million new cars and small trucks sold every year. Thus we can estimate the cost to consumers of the ignition interlock at $17 billion dollars. How many lives will be saved? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 10,000 lives are lost annually due to drunk driving. So that's a cost of about $1.7 million per life saved.
The manufacture 's cost for standard factory installed items are a usually a small fraction of that charged to the consumer for add on items for many obvious reasons.

That said I do feel the devices probably will attain a useful cost/benefit ratio only if installed/activated for people previously found to be DUI for alcohol. Especially given the many other drugs that can impair driving.

But a question: are these to be breath-analyzers only? There are probably means of a computer analyzing driving behavior live signs of impairment and unsteadiness that apply to multiple drugs and alcohol.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.