It's called "The Roads Safe Act"

I'm defending a method of enforcement that I disagree is any type of privacy breach or "accusation of guilt." It's a puff of fucking air.

No, that is not law enforcement. Show me the law that says I must prove my mental competency everytime before I start my car.

The new law is in fact designed to further enforce an existing law.

I don't know about the law where you live, but where I live a cop has to have reasonable suspicion in order to require you to submit to testing. Does getting in your car and trying to turn the key provide reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated? I don't think so, and I don't think any reasonable person would either. Therefore this is not just enforcement of existing law. This is above and beyond existing law.
 
You guys are like, well, retarded. My blue tooth device doesn't find my cell phone if it is right outside my car...and my remote key doesn't work if it isn't right in front of the sensor.

Ya'll live is some past world of non-remote controlled televisions and transister radios.

And you just proved how little you know about electronics.

Your Bluetooth device does not find you cell phone outside your car because if has a limited transmission range. In order to disable cell phones inside the care you would need a signal powerful enough to override the cell phone itself, which can has a range a bit further than your Bluetooth. There is no way to make that work only inside the car. In fact, the least powerful cell phone device available blocks phones for about a block. I was deliberately low balling my estimate.

As for your key, I suggest you change the battery. That should be able to work from at least 25 feet.
No, you don't seem to know much about technology. According to this article:

The actual range of the jammer depends on its power and the local environment, which may include hills or walls of a building that block the jamming signal. Low-powered jammers block calls in a range of about 30 feet (9 m). Higher-powered units create a cell-free zone as large as a football field. Units used by law enforcement can shut down service up to 1 mile (1.6 km) from the device.
And there is no reason you cannot fool with the power to make it work only within the confines of the car.

Answers.com - How do cell phone jammers work

Answers.com proves you right, except it doesn't. They still do not work only inside a car.
 
No, that is not law enforcement. Show me the law that says I must prove my mental competency everytime before I start my car.

The new law is in fact designed to further enforce an existing law.

I don't know about the law where you live, but where I live a cop has to have reasonable suspicion in order to require you to submit to testing. Does getting in your car and trying to turn the key provide reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated? I don't think so, and I don't think any reasonable person would either. Therefore this is not just enforcement of existing law. This is above and beyond existing law.

I don't really equivocate the scenario with the cop testing you. The cops tests you, you go to jail. The machine tests you (and you fail), you car doesn't start. bfd.
 
I don't have a problem with this. Drunks do not have a right to endanger others.

I'd also like to see a cell phone jamming device in cars that would make cell phones inoperable when the engine is running.

The placing of these devices in cars is not the issue. The issue is state madated use of such devices.

This is a huge leap in terms of government interference in how people live thier daily lives. What you are basically creating is a situation where you have to prove your innocence each time you start your car. Basically you have made your automobile presume you are guilty until proven innocent, without a court determining your guilt.

In the case of a drunk driver getting one of these installed, a court mandated this as a punishment. In the case of blanket use of these, you are basically adding an interlock on the suspicion that someone MIGHT try to drive with alcohol in thier systems.

This all before you have to worry about the system working 100% of the time. If the sensor bugs out, it can prevent the car from working, stranding a perfectly innocent person for no reason. Also comes the issue of calibration, which will need to be maintained. Bad calibration, again person stuck somewhere for no good reason.

your last idea is just as bad. for it to work the car would have to generate a jam signal. So either you would have to key your phone to your car, or the car would jam ALL signals, also jamming the person you are driving by who is, say, walking thier dog, or trying to call 911 from the house you just drove by.

Can you imagine what it will cost the owner of the vehicle when (and you know it will) the equipment malfunctions? I'm certain that will be a major expense... couple grand here, couple grand there. /shrug, big deal! Or maybe those who are for this law think the government should spring for repairs when this does happen?

Immie
 
The new law is in fact designed to further enforce an existing law.

I don't know about the law where you live, but where I live a cop has to have reasonable suspicion in order to require you to submit to testing. Does getting in your car and trying to turn the key provide reasonable suspicion that you are intoxicated? I don't think so, and I don't think any reasonable person would either. Therefore this is not just enforcement of existing law. This is above and beyond existing law.

I don't really equivocate the scenario with the cop testing you. The cops tests you, you go to jail. The machine tests you (and you fail), you car doesn't start. bfd.

Except, you say this is existing law, and I'm arguing the point it is not. What you said does nothing to refute what I just said. Existing law requires a reasonable suspicion. Thanks for obfuscating and admitting by omission this is something entirely different.

Also, I like how you automatically assume if a cop tests you, you go to jail because you MUST be guilty. The thought never crosses your mind you could PASS the test. :cuckoo:
 
My safety is more important that a drunk's right to drive a car. Oh, wait...drunks don't have a right to drive a car.

The less fortunate class that you always defend will be tickled to death to have to pay more for all the gadgetry on the next vehicle they purchase.

I bet the cost will be negligible relative to the overall cost of a vehicle.

What about the cost to repair the system when it malfunctions.

For example the cost to replace an air bag is not cheap and only adds to the cost of the repairs. It is not cheap. The fact is that air bags save lives and are worth the expense, but a person who does not drink and drive would be required to pay the costs of repairs whenever these devices failed. Here's data on the replacement of air bags.

Airbag Replacement Cost

How much does Airbag Replacement Cost?

The airbag replacement cost depends upon a few main determinants such as the location of airbags and the type of the car. Since there can be many different kinds of airbags installed in the car, each may have its own costs for replacement. And if you want to get all these airbags replaced, you will have to bear the collective costs. Typically, the cost to get one airbag replaced ranges from approximately $300 to $500.

But this range again depends on the model and brand of your car. So it is apparent that replacing airbags on a Ferrari would be more expensive than doing the same job on an inexpensive car. The airbag replacement cost does not involve changing only the airbag. You may have to get other components of the setup replaced such as the springs and sensors. Taking such additional costs in mind, the aggregate expenses for the job can even reach more than a $1000. For sports cars and luxury cars, the overall expenses can go up to $3000 to $4000.

Suppose the device in question malfunctions. How much are you willing to pay to have it repaired and how often?

Immie
 
(You do realize that a lot of towns do not have cab companies to call don't you? And don't forget you have to get a ride back to your car the next day so really paying a sober kid to blow for you would be the easier solution.)

Two things, small town people are poorer and can't afford to drink at a bar so they should just buy it and stay home, and if they do drink outside the home, then walk home if its a small town.
 
Suppose the device in question malfunctions. How much are you willing to pay to have it repaired and how often?

Immie

There's a lot to be said for this.

Safety standards are assumed by all Citizens when they make this sort of a purchase. Driving a motor vehicle is engaging yourself with the public, voluntarily, and that always comes with safety standards (like food that can't be served spoiled.......should that law go away because a Restaurant owner cant pay for a broken fridge?). If you buy a car and you don't budget for repair, then you were irresponsible for your purchase.

But that being said, if they're breaking willy nilly, that goes against a dealer's reputation. Also, as with most all products I'll bet they'd come with a standard warranty as well.
 
No there are too many ways to fool the machine. Compressed air, a sober person blowing in the tube for you.

Wait! I see a business opportunity. Sober breath for $20. I'll stand outside a bar and have people pay me to blow into their machines. Easy street here I come.

So you see the only solution is to hire millions of government employees as chauffeurs.

How important will we make everyone feel if they all have their own driver? Ahhhh Utopia!

Great idea. I'd do it as well. However, according to the article, it says that you must blow into the device every so many miles. That would minimize the usefulness of that idea.

Immie

Sober ride alongs for drunk drivers. We can make even more money.

Oh hell no, I am not riding along with the drunk. Screw that.

However, I might consider driving them home and having a spotter car pick me up so the drunk doesn't have to get a ride back to get his car in the morning.

Immie
 
Great idea. I'd do it as well. However, according to the article, it says that you must blow into the device every so many miles. That would minimize the usefulness of that idea.

Immie

Sober ride alongs for drunk drivers. We can make even more money.

Oh hell no, I am not riding along with the drunk. Screw that.

However, I might consider driving them home and having a spotter car pick me up so the drunk doesn't have to get a ride back to get his car in the morning.

Immie

That's a great business idea.
 
While we're at implementing more government control let's install GPS and speed monitors in cars as well that way the government will know every time you go 1 mph over the speed limit and they can automatically debit your checking account for each infraction.

Just imagine how safe we'll all be then.

Did you really need to give them the idea?

Actually, I think they are already working on the mechanics of that. Don't be surprised if in the near future, this too is a topic of discussion.

Immie
 
Suppose the device in question malfunctions. How much are you willing to pay to have it repaired and how often?

Immie

There's a lot to be said for this.

Safety standards are assumed by all Citizens when they make this sort of a purchase. Driving a motor vehicle is engaging yourself with the public, voluntarily, and that always comes with safety standards (like food that can't be served spoiled.......should that law go away because a Restaurant owner cant pay for a broken fridge?). If you buy a car and you don't budget for repair, then you were irresponsible for your purchase.

But that being said, if they're breaking willy nilly, that goes against a dealer's reputation. Also, as with most all products I'll bet they'd come with a standard warranty as well.

I think it will add a huge cost to the original purchase and then with normal wear and tear additional costs which may become major in the long run in the future. This also punishes the innocent for the infractions of a few.

Immie
 
Sober ride alongs for drunk drivers. We can make even more money.

Oh hell no, I am not riding along with the drunk. Screw that.

However, I might consider driving them home and having a spotter car pick me up so the drunk doesn't have to get a ride back to get his car in the morning.

Immie

That's a great business idea.

Yeah, but unfortunately, around here, I think the taxi companies do it as a service for the bars especially the bars that send business their way regularly. So, in effect, you would have to become a cab company with all the expenses associated with that as well as have a chauffeur's license.

Immie
 
The roads are made and maintained by the government (we the people). As such, the government gets to make up the rules and keep innocent people safe on them.

You are free to buy a beater, get drunk out of your mind and ram it into anything you wish (except a human) on your own property.
 
Can it detect weed or cocaine? Decriminalization is only a few years away. Instead of alcohol, people will switch to pot.
Unintended consequences. Or perhaps intended?

Its not a bad idea for those who have already been convicted of DUI. Its bullshit for the average Joe.
 
While we're at implementing more government control let's install GPS and speed monitors in cars as well that way the government will know every time you go 1 mph over the speed limit and they can automatically debit your checking account for each infraction.

Just imagine how safe we'll all be then.

Did you really need to give them the idea?

Actually, I think they are already working on the mechanics of that. Don't be surprised if in the near future, this too is a topic of discussion.

Immie
Demolition Man
 
Sorry but the government will NOT put any monitoring devices of any kind in my car.

:clap2: Nor mine. Just one more way to altruistically "benefit" humankind by sucking away more and more liberties until soon we have to ask permission to live. STOP!!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top