It's called "The Roads Safe Act"

[G.T.]

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!

There's ways around every law, so what? This makes it harder. Good.

What's wrong with you people?

If you're so afraid of everything that you want the fucking government holding your hand how do you all even get out of bed in the morning?

Last time i checked about 25000 people a year were killed by drunk drivers so you have a .0083% chance of being killed by a drunk driver.

I don't think that warrants more government intrusion in our lives.

What's wrong with YOU?

You're projecting, that's what.

First off, being Safe isn't akin to being afraid, it's called being smart.

Second, I don't count this as "intrusion," in any way. What the fuck? Are you literally pissed off that they'll KNOW if you're BREAKING A LAW. That's "intrusion?"

Get off your high horse. Being smart isn't being afraid. Bringing society forward in the face of YOU being afraid of "INTRUSION" is being STRONG in the face of whining. HANDS OFF MY DRUNK DRIVING GUBBAMINT!!!

retard.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[G.T.]

Got it---as long as Ravi is safe and the methods do not inconvenience her she's OK with it.

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.

 

[Mr Natural]

When are you people going to learn that the fucking government cannot keep you safe?

Then explain the Iraq fiasco.

 

[martybegan]

There's ways around every law, so what? This makes it harder. Good.

What's wrong with you people?

If you're so afraid of everything that you want the fucking government holding your hand how do you all even get out of bed in the morning?

Last time i checked about 25000 people a year were killed by drunk drivers so you have a .0083% chance of being killed by a drunk driver.

I don't think that warrants more government intrusion in our lives.

What's wrong with YOU?

You're projecting, that's what.

First off, being Safe isn't akin to being afraid, it's called being smart.

Second, I don't count this as "intrusion," in any way. What the fuck? Are you literally pissed off that they'll KNOW if you're BREAKING A LAW. That's "intrusion?"

Get off your high horse. Being smart isn't being afraid. Bringing society forward in the face of YOU being afraid of "INTRUSION" is being STRONG in the face of whining. HANDS OFF MY DRUNK DRIVING GUBBAMINT!!!

retard.

It is a huge intrusion, along with the presumtion of guilt with no cause.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There's ways around every law, so what? This makes it harder. Good.

What's wrong with you people?

If you're so afraid of everything that you want the fucking government holding your hand how do you all even get out of bed in the morning?

Last time i checked about 25000 people a year were killed by drunk drivers so you have a .0083% chance of being killed by a drunk driver.

I don't think that warrants more government intrusion in our lives.

What's wrong with YOU?

You're projecting, that's what.

First off, being Safe isn't akin to being afraid, it's called being smart.

Second, I don't count this as "intrusion," in any way. What the fuck? Are you literally pissed off that they'll KNOW if you're BREAKING A LAW. That's "intrusion?"

Get off your high horse. Being smart isn't being afraid. Bringing society forward in the face of YOU being afraid of "INTRUSION" is being STRONG in the face of whining. HANDS OFF MY DRUNK DRIVING GUBBAMINT!!!

retard.

It's not going to stop anyone from driving drunk you fucking moron. It's too fucking easy to fool. All this fantasy of making you safe will do is cost us all more money for nothing but a false sense of security.

Grow up and step into reality.

 

[G.T.]

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.

The court analogy is a bad one. You're not in court. You're starting a machine. A potentially deadly machine. If you can't start it safely, you shouldn't be starting it.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Who will that "negligible" amount hurt more ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

When are you people going to learn that the fucking government cannot keep you safe?

Then explain the Iraq fiasco.

You think the war in Iraq is keeping you safe from terrorists?

I know of some people who used to be alive who would tell you different if they could.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Got it---as long as Ravi is safe and the methods do not inconvenience her she's OK with it.

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.

The exemptions and exceptions will fill a book an inch thick, this is a 60 million $ slush fund for consultants and political friends nothing will get done its another gouge the tax payers head game.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Apparently you have no faith in either technology or the free market.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Who will that "negligible" amount hurt more ?

They'll just pass a law that "rich" people will have to pay for those who can't afford it.

 

[beowolfe]

Seems like they should have called it 'The Safe Roads Act' or 'The Road Safety Act'. The Roads Safe Act just seems gramatically incorrect.

 

[G.T.]

What's wrong with you people?

If you're so afraid of everything that you want the fucking government holding your hand how do you all even get out of bed in the morning?

Last time i checked about 25000 people a year were killed by drunk drivers so you have a .0083% chance of being killed by a drunk driver.

I don't think that warrants more government intrusion in our lives.

What's wrong with YOU?

You're projecting, that's what.

First off, being Safe isn't akin to being afraid, it's called being smart.

Second, I don't count this as "intrusion," in any way. What the fuck? Are you literally pissed off that they'll KNOW if you're BREAKING A LAW. That's "intrusion?"

Get off your high horse. Being smart isn't being afraid. Bringing society forward in the face of YOU being afraid of "INTRUSION" is being STRONG in the face of whining. HANDS OFF MY DRUNK DRIVING GUBBAMINT!!!

retard.

It's not going to stop anyone from driving drunk you fucking moron. It's too fucking easy to fool. All this fantasy of making you safe will do is cost us all more money for nothing but a false sense of security.

Grow up and step into reality.

I doubt you're correct that it won't stop anyone.

I mean, the law in place itself has stopped me. I've considered, while buzzy, the convenience of just hopping in and heading home.....but the consequences deterred me.

Fuck, if there was a breathalizer, I wouldn't have considered it to begin with.

You think people drive drunk so regularly that they're going to all go and buy air machines? That's absurd.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Apparently you have no faith in either technology or the free market.

I'm an engineer, and I know things break. What happens the first time someone gets mugged because thier interlock wouldnt let them start thier car?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Who will that "negligible" amount hurt more ?

Nobody. As always, if you can't afford a Product, don't buy one. Conservative says: driving is a privelege, not a right.

 

[Samson]

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.

Why don't we just hire a government worker to drive for everyone? Just think of it complete government control over drivers AND the end to unemployment. Utopia!

I'd go along with this, but for the fact that the best looking Government Workers look like:

 

[Skull Pilot]

What's wrong with YOU?

You're projecting, that's what.

First off, being Safe isn't akin to being afraid, it's called being smart.

Second, I don't count this as "intrusion," in any way. What the fuck? Are you literally pissed off that they'll KNOW if you're BREAKING A LAW. That's "intrusion?"

Get off your high horse. Being smart isn't being afraid. Bringing society forward in the face of YOU being afraid of "INTRUSION" is being STRONG in the face of whining. HANDS OFF MY DRUNK DRIVING GUBBAMINT!!!

retard.

It's not going to stop anyone from driving drunk you fucking moron. It's too fucking easy to fool. All this fantasy of making you safe will do is cost us all more money for nothing but a false sense of security.

Grow up and step into reality.

I doubt you're correct that it won't stop anyone.

I mean, the law in place itself has stopped me. I've considered, while buzzy, the convenience of just hopping in and heading home.....but the consequences deterred me.

Fuck, if there was a breathalizer, I wouldn't have considered it to begin with.

You think people drive drunk so regularly that they're going to all go and buy air machines? That's absurd.

from the link in the OP

A new law under consideration would call for installation of a device that would allow six violations before stalling the car

If the law passes, it's not going to be optional, moron.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Apparently you have no faith in either technology or the free market.

I'm an engineer, and I know things break. What happens the first time someone gets mugged because thier interlock wouldnt let them start thier car?

Same thing that happens if their starter is busted, or their clutch is burnt out.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

What A tard.