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 22nd October 2019, 10:25 AM   #321
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thank you for making an effort to understand my terminology. It's much appreciated. Also, successful. Good job!
I'm being needlessly pedantic for humorous purposes. It certainly wasn't meant to annoy you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 22nd October 2019, 10:52 AM   #322
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,656
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
When you think about it, that's what crumple zones and airbags are. And leathers and helmets, for motorcyclists. With exactly the results you've predicted: More accidents, less fatalities.
Actually I was predicting that human butts will get bulkier over time. Evidence so far indicates I'm absolutely correct, both for individuals and the species as a whole.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 22nd October 2019, 11:33 AM   #323
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,471
No half measures anymore. Full face mask that continuously monitors BAC, with a camera that makes sure you keep your eyes on the damn roads and not your smart phone. Grip sensors to make sure you keep both hands on the wheel and at 9 and 3. Perhaps a system of sensors to make sure you aren't fatigued too?
Leftus 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 22nd October 2019, 12:05 PM   #324
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,980
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem (did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?) opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.

Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.
__________________
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 22nd October 2019, 12:08 PM   #325
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,833
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem (did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?) opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.

Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.


You can’t completely prevent unnecessary deaths and I’m not sure if the cost/benefit ratio is there. We can take any number of measures to prevent unnecessary deaths and by your logic, they’d all be worth it even at the cost of personal freedom.
__________________
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 22nd October 2019, 12:09 PM   #326
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,393
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem (did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?) opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.

Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.
Everybody addressed the problem. It's just that they disagree with the proposed solution.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 22nd October 2019, 12:26 PM   #327
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,644
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem (did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?) opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.

Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.
Then you simply forgot to read the responses.
__________________

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 22nd October 2019, 12:37 PM   #328
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,933
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem
The topic of this thread is one proposed solution to the problem. Discussing the proposal is literally addressing the problem. You're trying to set the discussion back to square one: "But we all agree this is a serious problem, right?" But we're already past that point. Why do you want to drag us back to the beginning? Do you think that if we start over, support for this solution will change?

Quote:
(did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?)
(nobody disputes your data, nor denies that it's a problem)

Quote:
opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.
All of which are valid objections which need to be addressed, if you're going to get more support for this proposal. And the human rights infringement will absolutely have to be addressed as a legal and constitutional issue, if you're going to get this solution approved by the courts.

Quote:
Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.
And because you can't address the valid concerns about this solution, you're trying to reset the entire debate back to "but people are dying!" as if that's an argument. It's not.

Stop trying to make "people are dying" an argument. It's not going to happen.
theprestige 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 22nd October 2019, 12:55 PM   #329
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Joe Random View Post
How many accidents would be avoided if all cars came equipped with some sort of cell signal nullification field to where you couldn't use your phone while the car was in motion? And yet we don't push for that, we instead have laws about 'hands free only' (which I'm lead to understand doesn't really improve attention to the road much, but that's a separate issue).

Brought that up earlier, thanks. I'd say that this is mere plagiarism, but it's quite clear that no one else happened to notice. (Not, not a jab against you, they know who they are.)

In my state there are laws against people chatting on cell phones while driving, because multiple studies have shown "distracted driving" to be just as dangerous as drunk driving. Even "hands free" is right up there. Doesn't seem to have done bugger-all to stop it, though. Guess it's not as sexy a cause as drunk driving. Makes me wonder how many of those crusading for these interlocks themselves indulge in the occasional phone call or text while behind the wheel (to use their favorite rhetorical device).
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 22nd October 2019, 12:57 PM   #330
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,754
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem (did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?) opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.

Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.
I am all about saving lives and I'm absolutely against drunk driving (despite having two DUI's myself). That being said, if I'm dead ass sober, trying to get to work, and my car won't start because the tube is cracked, or the sensor is out of it, or it thinks my mouthwash is booze, etc. then that doesn't help me. In fact, it would probably cost me my job if it happened multiple times.

As an IT guy I try to limit failure points in my networks and computers. Adding this system that my entire car is dependent on in order to work is adding a massive failure point.

At this point the issue has been addressed from every angle. As theprestige said there's a rights aspect. As I've said, there's a technology aspect. As some others have point out, there's a privacy aspect. If there's a plausible way to reduce drunk driving then I'm all for it. Requiring to breath into a tube every single ******* time I want to get in my car and take off isn't rational. It's the opposite.

How about pizza delivery drivers? How about UPS drivers? How about police officers? They get in and out of their cars dozens of times a day. You want them to do that every single time? No way.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 22nd October 2019 at 12:58 PM.
plague311 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 22nd October 2019, 01:13 PM   #331
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
For the passive breath technology I can think of one work-around -a small handheld fan that blows a little more fresh air into the system diluting the breath with clean ambient air.

But there's that whole humming thing, which the fan wouldn't be good at. That would make it harder for a cheat like that to work.

So, you'll need a vibration motor from an old, broken Playstation Dual Shock or similar game controller (a working one will cost you a buck at any local thrift store), a 9v battery, a resistor which you can also scavenge from the controller (might have to experiment with the value a bit), a few short lengths of wire, and a soldering iron. Pack it all into a container about the size of an old film canister, and the good old balloon trick is suddenly viable again.

Really, this stuff is trivially easy to think up for anyone who is even slightly creative.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
No half measures anymore. Full face mask that continuously monitors BAC, with a camera that makes sure you keep your eyes on the damn roads and not your smart phone. Grip sensors to make sure you keep both hands on the wheel and at 9 and 3. Perhaps a system of sensors to make sure you aren't fatigued too?

10 and 2 are the approved positions.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 22nd October 2019 at 01:15 PM.
luchog 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 22nd October 2019, 01:18 PM   #332
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Just as I expected. Rather than address the problem (did nobody notice my link confirming that drunk driving is the largest cause of road deaths in the US?) opponents of the device merely deflect with comments about speed limiters, mobile phones, ways to cheat the device and detaining and searching drivers.

Meanwhile unnecessary deaths continue to occur.

So I can expect that you'll be fully behind my "35 Saves Lives" campaign? Speed limiters make every bit as much sense as breathalyzer interlocks, and the reduced speed has the added benefit of also reducing the potential damage caused by drunk drivers who manage to (quite easily) foil the interlocks. And of course mobile phone detectors that prevent the car from starting if they detect an active phone inside. Those are every bit as dangerous as alcohol, after all (go look it up).

It's easy to crusade for easy quick fix pseudo-solutions based on pure emotionalism, without taking into account the extremely high long term potential for abuses, workarounds, and catastrophic failures.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 22nd October 2019, 01:22 PM   #333
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,933
I'm still waiting to hear back about carrying a breathalyzer with you, and making your Uber driver blow into the tube, "just in case".
theprestige 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 22nd October 2019, 01:24 PM   #334
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,980
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
So I can expect that you'll be fully behind my "35 Saves Lives" campaign? Speed limiters make every bit as much sense as breathalyzer interlocks, and the reduced speed has the added benefit of also reducing the potential damage caused by drunk drivers who manage to (quite easily) foil the interlocks. And of course mobile phone detectors that prevent the car from starting if they detect an active phone inside. Those are every bit as dangerous as alcohol, after all (go look it up).
Start a new thread and I will respond. Not in this one about alcohol though.
__________________
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 22nd October 2019, 01:36 PM   #335
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It is not a question of taking away rights; it is a question of unnecessary invasiveness. As abbadon said, there is a creepy element of telling people to do what they are told, and to docilly accept orders.

You think "Don't drive while you're drunk" is 'creepy'? And not driving drunk is 'docilly accepting orders'?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 22nd October 2019, 02:50 PM   #336
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,833
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
But there's that whole humming thing, which the fan wouldn't be good at. That would make it harder for a cheat like that to work.

So, you'll need a vibration motor from an old, broken Playstation Dual Shock or similar game controller (a working one will cost you a buck at any local thrift store), a 9v battery, a resistor which you can also scavenge from the controller (might have to experiment with the value a bit), a few short lengths of wire, and a soldering iron. Pack it all into a container about the size of an old film canister, and the good old balloon trick is suddenly viable again.

Really, this stuff is trivially easy to think up for anyone who is even slightly creative.




10 and 2 are the approved positions.


The tech (one of them) being proposed is actually a passive breath analyzer; no tube blowing. It simply draws in some air and lasers it up or something. The goal is for it to be instantaneous and accurate. So, the way I understand it all you have to do is ensure not that much breath gets in to the ambient air sensor.
__________________
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 22nd October 2019, 03:02 PM   #337
Max_mang
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 373
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The tech (one of them) being proposed is actually a passive breath analyzer; no tube blowing. It simply draws in some air and lasers it up or something. The goal is for it to be instantaneous and accurate. So, the way I understand it all you have to do is ensure not that much breath gets in to the ambient air sensor.
Got a link for that info? The articles I found were super-vague about the methods being tested.
Max_mang 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 22nd October 2019, 03:13 PM   #338
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,644
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You think "Don't drive while you're drunk" is 'creepy'? And not driving drunk is 'docilly accepting orders'?
Not at all. But also not what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is being made to prove sobriety multiple times a day, even though you are nowhere near alcohol.
__________________

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 22nd October 2019, 03:30 PM   #339
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,933
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
You think "Don't drive while you're drunk" is 'creepy'? And not driving drunk is 'docilly accepting orders'?
"We don't have probable cause, but submit to this inspection anyway" is creepy. Complying with such a request without demur is docilly [sic] accepting orders.

"Don't drive drunk" is not creepy, and I think you'll find widespread acceptance of that sentiment here and elsewhere. I hope this clears up any confusion you may have about what we're actually discussing.
theprestige 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 22nd October 2019, 03:53 PM   #340
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The tech (one of them) being proposed is actually a passive breath analyzer; no tube blowing. It simply draws in some air and lasers it up or something. The goal is for it to be instantaneous and accurate. So, the way I understand it all you have to do is ensure not that much breath gets in to the ambient air sensor.

That sounds even worse, both easier to circumvent and highly prone to false positives.

So if I scrub down the windows and seats with spray cleaner, how long do I need to wait before the car airs out enough to drive?

Hold your breath for a half minute while you fire up the vehicle and pull away, making sure either the window is open or the fan is on high. If your local petrol pump is enriched with ethanol, as ours are much of the year, make sure you don't leave the car window open and G-D help you if you happen to accidentally spill some on your shoes (having to deal with the smell should be penance enough).
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 22nd October 2019, 03:55 PM   #341
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Start a new thread and I will respond. Not in this one about alcohol though.

Not one of the more creative evasions, I'm afraid; but it is certainly noted.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 22nd October 2019, 04:41 PM   #342
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
That sounds even worse, both easier to circumvent and highly prone to false positives.
I think I have a snorkel somewhere.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 22nd October 2019, 05:38 PM   #343
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
But there's that whole humming thing, which the fan wouldn't be good at. That would make it harder for a cheat like that to work.

So, you'll need a vibration motor from an old, broken Playstation Dual Shock or similar game controller (a working one will cost you a buck at any local thrift store), a 9v battery, a resistor which you can also scavenge from the controller (might have to experiment with the value a bit), a few short lengths of wire, and a soldering iron. Pack it all into a container about the size of an old film canister, and the good old balloon trick is suddenly viable again.

Really, this stuff is trivially easy to think up for anyone who is even slightly creative.




10 and 2 are the approved positions.
10 and 2 is bad advice in the age of airbags.
Leftus 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 22nd October 2019, 06:45 PM   #344
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,933
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Start a new thread and I will respond. Not in this one about alcohol though.
This one is not about alchohol. It's about a proposal to reduce drunk driving by requiring everyone to submit to a search of their person before operating a motor vehicle. This is an interesting proposal, with a number of obvious drawbacks that will need to be overcome.

In order to evaluate this proposal, we must first agree that there is a problem to be solved. I think it's fair to say we agree to that. So there's no need to start over at that point. We can move forward.

Moving forward means actually examining the proposal. Importantly, it means examining the challenges to the proposal. If you're serious about solving this problem, and you're serious that you think this is a good way to do it, then the next step you need to take in the forward direction is to try to address and overcome at least some of the objections to the proposal.

But instead of moving forward in the discussion, you're moving backwards. We're looking at challenges, and you've reverted back to merely agreeing there's a problem. We're grappling with the complexities of the proposal, and you're retreating back to inane simplicities like "this is about alcohol".

Get on our level, lionking.

Or if you can't get on our level, stop lecturing us for daring to fly while you plod on the ground.
theprestige 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 22nd October 2019, 09:59 PM   #345
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44,980
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This one is not about alchohol. It's about a proposal to reduce drunk driving by requiring everyone to submit to a search of their person before operating a motor vehicle. This is an interesting proposal, with a number of obvious drawbacks that will need to be overcome.

In order to evaluate this proposal, we must first agree that there is a problem to be solved. I think it's fair to say we agree to that. So there's no need to start over at that point. We can move forward.

Moving forward means actually examining the proposal. Importantly, it means examining the challenges to the proposal. If you're serious about solving this problem, and you're serious that you think this is a good way to do it, then the next step you need to take in the forward direction is to try to address and overcome at least some of the objections to the proposal.

But instead of moving forward in the discussion, you're moving backwards. We're looking at challenges, and you've reverted back to merely agreeing there's a problem. We're grappling with the complexities of the proposal, and you're retreating back to inane simplicities like "this is about alcohol".

Get on our level, lionking.

Or if you can't get on our level, stop lecturing us for daring to fly while you plod on the ground.
Have you never been pinged for posting off topic? Talking about speed limiting devices in this thread is absolutely off topic. Posting off topic is flying?

Give me a break.
__________________
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 23rd October 2019, 02:41 AM   #346
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
There's no analysis in this thread. We need numbers.

How many deaths a year will this prevent? If it's in the millions or even in the hundreds of thousands then I think the idea may be worth discussing further.

If it's fewer than that, then probably not. Probably. I am undecided.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 23rd October 2019, 07:59 AM   #347
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Have you never been pinged for posting off topic? Talking about speed limiting devices in this thread is absolutely off topic. Posting off topic is flying?

Give me a break.
How are other measures to save lives off topic in a thread about saving lives? It's still about car, driver and technological solutions to a problem. If we are going to trample over rights, let's put on some good boots and get to it. Why limit it to just one solution to make zero deaths on the highway and byways of the USA? Or are the deaths caused by excessive speed, distracted driving and other preventable incidents just not sexy enough for you?
Leftus 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 23rd October 2019, 08:04 AM   #348
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,656
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
There's no analysis in this thread. We need numbers.

How many deaths a year will this prevent? If it's in the millions or even in the hundreds of thousands then I think the idea may be worth discussing further.

If it's fewer than that, then probably not. Probably. I am undecided.
If total lives saved is the metric for policy then we should certainly outlaw smoking, and return to prohibition for alcohol. And judging by the obesity epidemic a whole range of food and drink should be prohibited, and compulsory exercise made law.

Yet we don't do those things, no matter how many millions of lives they'd save. Why not?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2019, 08:07 AM   #349
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,471
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
There's no analysis in this thread. We need numbers.

How many deaths a year will this prevent? If it's in the millions or even in the hundreds of thousands then I think the idea may be worth discussing further.

If it's fewer than that, then probably not. Probably. I am undecided.
Well, the good news is that traffic fatalities, on the whole, are going down. 2018 has it at 36,500 for all causes. and early 2019 numbers were lower than 2018. But we still have time to catch up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...dbb_story.html

But we are running over more pedestrians.
Leftus 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 23rd October 2019, 08:12 AM   #350
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If total lives saved is the metric for policy then we should certainly outlaw smoking, and return to prohibition for alcohol And judging by the obesity epidemic a whole range of food and drink should be prohibited, and compulsory exercise made law.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

How many lives that weren't the perpetrators. i.e. how many people killed by drunk drivers, not how many drunk drivers killed themselves.




Quote:
Yet we don't do those things, no matter how many millions of lives they'd save. Why not?
I hope the above clears that up.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 23rd October 2019, 08:14 AM   #351
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,754
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The tech (one of them) being proposed is actually a passive breath analyzer; no tube blowing. It simply draws in some air and lasers it up or something. The goal is for it to be instantaneous and accurate. So, the way I understand it all you have to do is ensure not that much breath gets in to the ambient air sensor.
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
That sounds even worse, both easier to circumvent and highly prone to false positives.

So if I scrub down the windows and seats with spray cleaner, how long do I need to wait before the car airs out enough to drive?

Hold your breath for a half minute while you fire up the vehicle and pull away, making sure either the window is open or the fan is on high. If your local petrol pump is enriched with ethanol, as ours are much of the year, make sure you don't leave the car window open and G-D help you if you happen to accidentally spill some on your shoes (having to deal with the smell should be penance enough).
Awesome, so with that passive breathalyzer I now can't even give a drunk friend a ride home? Wouldn't that kind of kill an industry designed to minimize drunk driving (Uber\Lyft\Cabs)? That would actually seem like the absolute worst way to do it. Terrible technology.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 23rd October 2019, 08:32 AM   #352
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,656
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

How many lives that weren't the perpetrators. i.e. how many people killed by drunk drivers, not how many drunk drivers killed themselves.






I hope the above clears that up.
I don't see the relevance. If prohibition of alcohol would save 200,000 lives a year what does it matter how many of those were themselves drinking versus the nondrinking victims of drinkers? Wasn't the goal to save the lives? If you insist on distinguishing which lives to save it seems less like the goal is saving lives and more like a moral crusade where some people are judged worth saving and others judged to get what they deserve.

If you want to crusade on morals feel free, but don't dress it up as a broad concern for human life.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2019, 08:43 AM   #353
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't see the relevance. If prohibition of alcohol would save 200,000 lives a year what does it matter how many of those were themselves drinking versus the nondrinking victims of drinkers?

Because I'm willing to accept that people are perfectly entitled to endanger themselves with all the things you describe.

I'm not so content that they endanger others.

For me the difference is stark and obvious.



Quote:
Wasn't the goal to save the lives? If you insist on distinguishing which lives to save it seems less like the goal is saving lives and more like a moral crusade where some people are judged worth saving and others judged to get what they deserve.
There's no judgement here, just permission. There's no assessment beyond:

If you want to do this thing that might harm you, go ahead.

as differs from:

If you want to do this think that might harm someone else we'd like you not to.

Can you really not see the difference? Nobody but the person endangering themselves is making that decision - we allow people to put themselves in danger. This is starkly different from putting others in danger. I'm amazed you can't see the difference


Quote:
If you want to crusade on morals feel free, but don't dress it up as a broad concern for human life.
No, it's not a moral thing, it's allowing others to make their own choices thing. Which is something I figured you'd be bang alongside.

Surely you support anybody's right to endanger themselves far more than you'd support somebody's right to endanger others?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 23rd October 2019, 09:11 AM   #354
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,656
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Because I'm willing to accept that people are perfectly entitled to endanger themselves with all the things you describe.

I'm not so content that they endanger others.

For me the difference is stark and obvious.





There's no judgement here, just permission. There's no assessment beyond:

If you want to do this thing that might harm you, go ahead.

as differs from:

If you want to do this think that might harm someone else we'd like you not to.

Can you really not see the difference? Nobody but the person endangering themselves is making that decision - we allow people to put themselves in danger. This is starkly different from putting others in danger. I'm amazed you can't see the difference




No, it's not a moral thing, it's allowing others to make their own choices thing. Which is something I figured you'd be bang alongside.

Surely you support anybody's right to endanger themselves far more than you'd support somebody's right to endanger others?
But the suggestion was that it's worth treading on personal freedoms if it will save lives to do so. Now you're drawing a distinction between those potential lives saved. You're willing to let some die but not others. Which you could only accomplish by treading on some people's freedoms but not other people's freedoms. In this case that would mean..what? Installing the alcohol detectors only on the cars of those who will drive drunk? But apart from the problem of knowing who those would be in advance, it wouldn't permit those drunk drivers to injure themselves drink driving. Which is apparently something you want them to be free to do. So you couldn't install the ignition interlock devices on the drunk drivers' cars. How then can you arrange matters so the nondrinkers are safe from the drunk drivers while still letting the drunk drivers endanger themselves?

I appreciate that you don't want to save drink drivers from killing themselves but I fear you're not going to be able to save the nondrinkers without inadvertently saving the drunk drivers also. Perhaps an addition could be made to the proposal: install the device on all vehicles, and instead of merely preventing drunk driving the device will injure or kill anyone who registers above the legal limit for alcohol. This would let the nondrunk drive while also fulfilling your goal of allowing the drunk drivers to be injured or killed.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2019, 09:20 AM   #355
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
But the suggestion was that it's worth treading on personal freedoms if it will save lives to do so. Now you're drawing a distinction between those potential lives saved. You're willing to let some die but not others. Which you could only accomplish by treading on some people's freedoms but not other people's freedoms. In this case that would mean..what? Installing the alcohol detectors only on the cars of those who will drive drunk? But apart from the problem of knowing who those would be in advance, it wouldn't permit those drunk drivers to injure themselves drink driving. Which is apparently something you want them to be free to do. So you couldn't install the ignition interlock devices on the drunk drivers' cars. How then can you arrange matters so the nondrinkers are safe from the drunk drivers while still letting the drunk drivers endanger themselves?

I appreciate that you don't want to save drink drivers from killing themselves but I fear you're not going to be able to save the nondrinkers without inadvertently saving the drunk drivers also. Perhaps an addition could be made to the proposal: install the device on all vehicles, and instead of merely preventing drunk driving the device will injure or kill anyone who registers above the legal limit for alcohol. This would let the nondrunk drive while also fulfilling your goal of allowing the drunk drivers to be injured or killed.

I really don't see that this is that complicated.

If someone wants to introduce a measure to save lives one of the metrics I would immediately look at is how many lives (ad to what confidence level, etc.) and then compare that to the costs (financial and otherwise).

I find it odd that you and others think that looking at the potential number of lives saved should not be part of the discussion. It's one of the first things I'd want to know.


Edit: How do you feel about speed limits? It's a similar sort of thing. You're not allowed to drive as fast as you want. In order to save lives you are limited in the speed you are allowed to do. There's pretty much a direct calculation you can do between allowed speed limit and fatalities on the road. Do you object to speed limits as an infringement on your driving "rights"?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 23rd October 2019 at 09:23 AM.
3point14 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 23rd October 2019, 09:42 AM   #356
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,656
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I really don't see that this is that complicated.

If someone wants to introduce a measure to save lives one of the metrics I would immediately look at is how many lives (ad to what confidence level, etc.) and then compare that to the costs (financial and otherwise).

I find it odd that you and others think that looking at the potential number of lives saved should not be part of the discussion. It's one of the first things I'd want to know.


Edit: How do you feel about speed limits? It's a similar sort of thing. You're not allowed to drive as fast as you want. In order to save lives you are limited in the speed you are allowed to do. There's pretty much a direct calculation you can do between allowed speed limit and fatalities on the road. Do you object to speed limits as an infringement on your driving "rights"?
I didn't say looking at number of lives saved shouldn't be done. My position is that lives saved is not the only consideration, and possibly not even the most important consideration.

As for speed limits I regard them exactly as I do proposals to solve drunk driving like this one: it's necessary to compromise between total freedom and complete control. I think speed limits are a good idea. We aren't physically compelled to obey them, there is room for exceeding them at will, and there is wiggle room if the circumstances justify it. They are not perfect solutions to traffic accidents, but I don't expect perfect solutions. Good enough is fine by me.

I regard alcohol detectors in cars to be the equivalent of physically restricting cars from going above the speed limit: an unnecessary over-reach. The problem is not so widespread to justify the excessive control.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 23rd October 2019, 09:55 AM   #357
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
If someone wants to introduce a measure to save lives one of the metrics I would immediately look at is how many lives (ad to what confidence level, etc.) and then compare that to the costs (financial and otherwise).

I find it odd that you and others think that looking at the potential number of lives saved should not be part of the discussion. It's one of the first things I'd want to know.

The problem is that you are making a judgement about the sort of lives you claim to want to save, while not caring about saving other lives using the same exact principles of lives saved being more important than rights restricted.

Second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard to non-smokers. That's why it's restricted in most public places. But it still forms a significant hazard for children in homes where parents smoke. Do you want to ban it entirely, being that it's not a necessity, but a luxury, and affects developing children (it's been demonstrated to cause long-term lung and other health issues)? If not, why not?

Quote:
Edit: How do you feel about speed limits? It's a similar sort of thing. You're not allowed to drive as fast as you want. In order to save lives you are limited in the speed you are allowed to do. There's pretty much a direct calculation you can do between allowed speed limit and fatalities on the road. Do you object to speed limits as an infringement on your driving "rights"?

Speed limits are a necessary part of using public roads, in order to maximize public safety while providing a minimal disruption to the exercise of public's right to use those roads. Everyone with any reason and sense accepts that there are limits to the exercise of rights, but those limits must be balanced, they must be as minimal as possible to achieve a reasonable reduction in risk, while not unduly impacting the exercise of a right.

That is true for all rights, regardless of what they are. We all accept limitations on free speech, freedom of the press, free association, bearing arms, freedom from search and seizure, the right to life and the necessities of life, and so on, so long as they contribute to the public good without unnecessarily preventing the exercise of those rights. We also accept that the exercise of some rights may conflict with the exercise of other rights, and that there needs to be a balance in how rights are exercised.

It has yet to be shown that alcohol-detecting interlocks would provide a net public good that outweighs the infringement of individual rights that mandating them would result in. Particularly as there are any number of other programs which would have a similar or much greater impact on the public good, if one ignores or fails to balance it against the infringement of individual rights which would result.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 23rd October 2019, 09:55 AM   #358
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Dupe
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

Last edited by 3point14; 23rd October 2019 at 09:57 AM.
3point14 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 23rd October 2019, 09:56 AM   #359
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,231
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I didn't say looking at number of lives saved shouldn't be done. My position is that lives saved is not the only consideration, and possibly not even the most important consideration.
I agree. I wasn't aware that I said otherwise with any great certainty.

Quote:
As for speed limits I regard them exactly as I do proposals to solve drunk driving like this one: it's necessary to compromise between total freedom and complete control. I think speed limits are a good idea. We aren't physically compelled to obey them, there is room for exceeding them at will, and there is wiggle room if the circumstances justify it. They are not perfect solutions to traffic accidents, but I don't expect perfect solutions. Good enough is fine by me.

I regard alcohol detectors in cars to be the equivalent of physically restricting cars from going above the speed limit: an unnecessary over-reach. The problem is not so widespread to justify the excessive control.

Japanese motoring restrictions would blow your mind.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 23rd October 2019, 09:57 AM   #360
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I regard alcohol detectors in cars to be the equivalent of physically restricting cars from going above the speed limit: an unnecessary over-reach. The problem is not so widespread to justify the excessive control.

But think of how many lives would be saved by setting a universal speed limit of 35mph with accompanying speed governors in all non-emergency/non-LE vehicles.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 11:15 PM.
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.