Big Brother wants Alcohol Detection System in every car

[Immanuel]

I think it would be easy to prove it would be considered constitutional. Next time you get in your car what is the first thing most of you do? That is right, buckle up because Uncle Sam says you have to and so far it seems to be constitutional.

I would prefer that auto manufacturers did this automatically rather that big brother forcing it upon us, but, I must say if it keeps me from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel and killing myself or someone else or keeps someone else from getting drunk and getting behind a wheel and killing me or my family, I can handle it.

I don't drink and drive. When we go out we decide which one of us is drinking and the other one is driving... which is pretty easy for me because if I want my wife to get drunk, I practically have to pour it down her throat, so I drink, she drives.

Like I said, I don't really like the idea of big brother forcing it upon us, but, if it keeps someone from killing themselves or others, I can live with it.

Immie

Uncle Sam doesn't require me to buckle up, there are no seat belt laws in New Hampshire. Only half of the states allow an officer to pull you over solely because you are not wearing a seat belt. I use a seat belt because I think it makes me safer, not because the law says to, but nice try.

Really? I'll take your word for it. I thought seat belt laws were pretty much nation wide and I thought it was more or less of a funding requirement mandated by the federal government. I'll look that up later if we continue this conversation and no one has a quick source to prove me right or wrong.

Regardless, I am not opposed to having auto manufacturers willingly put the function in and even making it standard equipment. I have to think that the only people who would oppose it in that case are the people that drink and drive regularly and don't give a shit about human life.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here you go Immie.

State Seat Belt Laws

 

[Immanuel]

Here you go Immie.

State Seat Belt Laws

Correct me if I am wrong, I've been in a terribly long discussion with TDM, and forgot what this thread was about, but doesn't that say that all 50 states have seat belt laws? Isn't at least part of that because the Federal Government insists upon it, for funding like they did with the 55 mph laws in the 70's?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here you go Immie.

State Seat Belt Laws

Correct me if I am wrong, I've been in a terribly long discussion with TDM, and forgot what this thread was about, but doesn't that say that all 50 states have seat belt laws? Isn't at least part of that because the Federal Government insists upon it, for funding like they did with the 55 mph laws in the 70's?

Immie

Even if there is no overlap between the states with primary and secondary seat belt laws it only adds up to 49 states with seat belt laws. I honestly don't know if the feds tack a rider onto highway funds that talks about seat belts, but if they do it would only cut off a portion of the funds, not all of them. The states the ignore the federal speed limit thing loose up to 10% of the funds they would get otherwise. regardless, there are always earmarks.

 

[Immanuel]

Here you go Immie.

State Seat Belt Laws

Correct me if I am wrong, I've been in a terribly long discussion with TDM, and forgot what this thread was about, but doesn't that say that all 50 states have seat belt laws? Isn't at least part of that because the Federal Government insists upon it, for funding like they did with the 55 mph laws in the 70's?

Immie

Even if there is no overlap between the states with primary and secondary seat belt laws it only adds up to 49 states with seat belt laws. I honestly don't know if the feds tack a rider onto highway funds that talks about seat belts, but if they do it would only cut off a portion of the funds, not all of them. The states the ignore the federal speed limit thing loose up to 10% of the funds they would get otherwise. regardless, there are always earmarks.

Actually, if you look closely at your link it said something about Delaware having it set up as a civil penalty. Ooops, went back and looked, I had thought Delaware was the 50th state, but it is included above so there does in fact appear to be one state missing.

Duh, looking back at the link, it says NH has enacted neither type of law.

I believe, but am not certain, that the federal government, has tied some funding into a state requirement for use of seat belts.

Here are a couple of articles in this regard:

Did State Legislators Sacrifice Federal Funding to Kill a Seat Belt Law? | 5280 Magazine

The Legislature has sidestepped a bill that would have allowed police officers to pull over drivers who are not wearing seat belts and has likely lost $12 million in federal grant money for safety projects in the process.

Cash-strapped states mull seat belt laws - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Drivers better buckle up or pay the price: More cash-strapped states want to give law enforcement officers the authority to pull over motorists just for not wearing their seat belts.

More than a dozen states that are considering making the switch to primary seat-belt enforcement laws need to do so before July to be eligible for millions in federal money.

One of those states is Ohio, which would get $26.8 million if it changes its law. Currently, officers in the state must first have some other reason to stop drivers over before issuing seat-belt citations.

Senate Backs Linking Federal Safety Funds to States' Seat Belt Laws

The U.S. Senate this week backed a provision promising federal aid for safety programs to states that enact laws allowing police to stop motorists for seat belt violations.

On a 86-14 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a $295 billion highway bill that would have stripped from the bill a provision giving federal incentives to states with primary seat belt laws.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit police to pull over drivers not using their seat belts. Another 28 states have secondary laws under which police can ticket drivers for seat belt violations only after they stop them for a different violation. New Hampshire has neither primary nor secondary enforcement laws.

Under the Senate bill, states that adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary laws would get one-time grants of 250 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, said the enactment of primary seat belt laws by all states would result in 1,200 fewer deaths and 17,000 fewer injuries annually.

Now, I have not read all of those, so they may contradict my understand. And I do not know if the Senate passed the bill in the third article.

This was simply what I understood when I mentioned that I thought the Federal Government required seat belts. In other words, they couldn't pass a law forcing us to wear seat belts, but by God, they were going to do so one way or another.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct me if I am wrong, I've been in a terribly long discussion with TDM, and forgot what this thread was about, but doesn't that say that all 50 states have seat belt laws? Isn't at least part of that because the Federal Government insists upon it, for funding like they did with the 55 mph laws in the 70's?

Immie

Even if there is no overlap between the states with primary and secondary seat belt laws it only adds up to 49 states with seat belt laws. I honestly don't know if the feds tack a rider onto highway funds that talks about seat belts, but if they do it would only cut off a portion of the funds, not all of them. The states the ignore the federal speed limit thing loose up to 10% of the funds they would get otherwise. regardless, there are always earmarks.

Actually, if you look closely at your link it said something about Delaware having it set up as a civil penalty. Ooops, went back and looked, I had thought Delaware was the 50th state, but it is included above so there does in fact appear to be one state missing.

Duh, looking back at the link, it says NH has enacted neither type of law.

I believe, but am not certain, that the federal government, has tied some funding into a state requirement for use of seat belts.

Here are a couple of articles in this regard:

Did State Legislators Sacrifice Federal Funding to Kill a Seat Belt Law? | 5280 Magazine



Cash-strapped states mull seat belt laws - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Drivers better buckle up or pay the price: More cash-strapped states want to give law enforcement officers the authority to pull over motorists just for not wearing their seat belts.

More than a dozen states that are considering making the switch to primary seat-belt enforcement laws need to do so before July to be eligible for millions in federal money.

One of those states is Ohio, which would get $26.8 million if it changes its law. Currently, officers in the state must first have some other reason to stop drivers over before issuing seat-belt citations.

Senate Backs Linking Federal Safety Funds to States' Seat Belt Laws

The U.S. Senate this week backed a provision promising federal aid for safety programs to states that enact laws allowing police to stop motorists for seat belt violations.

On a 86-14 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a $295 billion highway bill that would have stripped from the bill a provision giving federal incentives to states with primary seat belt laws.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit police to pull over drivers not using their seat belts. Another 28 states have secondary laws under which police can ticket drivers for seat belt violations only after they stop them for a different violation. New Hampshire has neither primary nor secondary enforcement laws.

Under the Senate bill, states that adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary laws would get one-time grants of 250 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, said the enactment of primary seat belt laws by all states would result in 1,200 fewer deaths and 17,000 fewer injuries annually.

Now, I have not read all of those, so they may contradict my understand. And I do not know if the Senate passed the bill in the third article.

This was simply what I understood when I mentioned that I thought the Federal Government required seat belts. In other words, they couldn't pass a law forcing us to wear seat belts, but by God, they were going to do so one way or another.

Immie

Which is exactly what they did with the national speed limit. I believe that was struck down because some court ruled that the federal government could not deny states all funding from tax revenues from within their state. That is a vague memory from a long time ago, so I could easily be wrong. What they have done instead is add incentive funds that are available to the states if they pass laws that agree with the agenda they want to pass. These extra funds serve to defray the cost of implementing and enforcing the laws that comply with the intent of Congress, but some states prefer to go their own way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even if there is no overlap between the states with primary and secondary seat belt laws it only adds up to 49 states with seat belt laws. I honestly don't know if the feds tack a rider onto highway funds that talks about seat belts, but if they do it would only cut off a portion of the funds, not all of them. The states the ignore the federal speed limit thing loose up to 10% of the funds they would get otherwise. regardless, there are always earmarks.

Actually, if you look closely at your link it said something about Delaware having it set up as a civil penalty. Ooops, went back and looked, I had thought Delaware was the 50th state, but it is included above so there does in fact appear to be one state missing.

Duh, looking back at the link, it says NH has enacted neither type of law.

I believe, but am not certain, that the federal government, has tied some funding into a state requirement for use of seat belts.

Here are a couple of articles in this regard:

Did State Legislators Sacrifice Federal Funding to Kill a Seat Belt Law? | 5280 Magazine



Cash-strapped states mull seat belt laws - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

Senate Backs Linking Federal Safety Funds to States' Seat Belt Laws

The U.S. Senate this week backed a provision promising federal aid for safety programs to states that enact laws allowing police to stop motorists for seat belt violations.

On a 86-14 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment to a $295 billion highway bill that would have stripped from the bill a provision giving federal incentives to states with primary seat belt laws.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit police to pull over drivers not using their seat belts. Another 28 states have secondary laws under which police can ticket drivers for seat belt violations only after they stop them for a different violation. New Hampshire has neither primary nor secondary enforcement laws.

Under the Senate bill, states that adopt primary safety belt laws would receive a one-time grant equal to 500 percent of the highway safety money they received in 2003. States that already have primary laws would get one-time grants of 250 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., citing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, said the enactment of primary seat belt laws by all states would result in 1,200 fewer deaths and 17,000 fewer injuries annually.

Now, I have not read all of those, so they may contradict my understand. And I do not know if the Senate passed the bill in the third article.

This was simply what I understood when I mentioned that I thought the Federal Government required seat belts. In other words, they couldn't pass a law forcing us to wear seat belts, but by God, they were going to do so one way or another.

Immie

Which is exactly what they did with the national speed limit. I believe that was struck down because some court ruled that the federal government could not deny states all funding from tax revenues from within their state. That is a vague memory from a long time ago, so I could easily be wrong. What they have done instead is add incentive funds that are available to the states if they pass laws that agree with the agenda they want to pass. These extra funds serve to defray the cost of implementing and enforcing the laws that comply with the intent of Congress, but some states prefer to go their own way.

The Federal Government has no dog in this fight, they do not license people to drive. Each individual State establishes the criteria under which you the citizen may EARN the privilege ( notice it is not a RIGHT) to drive a motor vehicle. There is no US Constitutional issue in States determining that in order to EARN the right to drive one must pass a breathalyzer every time they attempt to start their engine.

NO RIGHT is involved in the privilege of earning the ability to drive. Thus none is violated if a State required a breathalyzer on every ignition henceforth. Privacy has NOTHING to do with the privilege to drive. None what so ever.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Elizabeth Dole is a filthy traitor who should be executed in the street like the whore she is.