It's called "The Roads Safe Act"

[G.T.]

A small can of compressed air costs nothing and is not hard to get. I have a little car jumper device that has an air compressor built in so I can inflate a tire anywhere. It would be nothing to adapt a fitting to the hose so as to fool the oh so smart government machine in a car. Paying a sober person 20 bucks is just as easy.

Government intrusion and control does not make you safe. You and only you can do that so buck up and take care of yourself.

I take plenty care of myself. This has nothing to do with how I take care of myself.

Also, you're either dense, or you know that paying someone $20 won't work. Doesn't it say it monitors you while you're driving? Who the fuck drives (as a sober person) in a car with a drunk? That's ridiculous.

Exactly, this is about you being a dick and "taking care" of everyone else.

Well that's just not dick in my opinion.

 

[mnbasketball]

why not a something that causes a light to go on on top of your car if your over the limit and the cops would see it and stop you for a check.
another good job making idea for someone!

 

[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.

What a wonderful idea.

First you want to put devices in cars that often produce erroneous results, and require that people driving cars use them continuously in order to drive. (I wonder how distracting it will be to respond to the warning that you have to blow now before the car stops while driving down a crowded freeway.) Then you want to make it impossible for people who are within 100 feet of a car with the engine running to be able to use their cell phone, even if they want to report a drunken driver. Keep making me safe like this and and you will kill off everyone in the country.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yea, it's not a breach of anyone's privacy to not be allowed to drive fucking drunk. It's already the damn law, this just ensures you follow it. At stake: lives.

Good shit.

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.

 

[G.T.]

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.

People in those towns would be going out drinking and driving, then, why?

Are you really asking that stupid of a question?

A guy having 2 beers and a burger after work would be considered drunk even though he is not impaired at all.

That's an argument to raise the legal limit. I'd agree with that argument.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Yeah, right...so many people would knowingly ride with a drunk.

 

[G.T.]

why not a something that causes a light to go on on top of your car if your over the limit and the cops would see it and stop you for a check.
another good job making idea for someone!

That's a good idea, same way weed smoke clouding out of a car signals them.

 

[McDowell's]

I take plenty care of myself. This has nothing to do with how I take care of myself.

Also, you're either dense, or you know that paying someone $20 won't work. Doesn't it say it monitors you while you're driving? Who the fuck drives (as a sober person) in a car with a drunk? That's ridiculous.

Exactly, this is about you being a dick and "taking care" of everyone else.

Well that's just not dick in my opinion.

Of course not. In your opinion, you know what's best for everyone else.

 

[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!

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.

You'd have to have a pretty low i.q.

 

[G.T.]

Exactly, this is about you being a dick and "taking care" of everyone else.

Well that's just not dick in my opinion.

Of course not. In your opinion, you know what's best for everyone else.

No. I'm not saying "I know what's best for everyone," I'm saying my opinion of drunk driving. That's all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They said the same thing about safety bumpers, air bags, etc., etc., etc. Pretty soon all those costs add up to a whole new car that you could buy without them.

 

[McDowell's]

Well that's just not dick in my opinion.

Of course not. In your opinion, you know what's best for everyone else.

No. I'm not saying "I know what's best for everyone," I'm saying my opinion of drunk driving. That's all.

And your opinion involves forcing everyone to adapt to your preference. So, yes, you are saying you know what's best for everyone.

 

[G.T.]

Of course not. In your opinion, you know what's best for everyone else.

No. I'm not saying "I know what's best for everyone," I'm saying my opinion of drunk driving. That's all.

And your opinion involves forcing everyone to adapt to your preference. So, yes, you are saying you know what's best for everyone.

My preference? No, the LAW.

 

[Ravi]

Exactly, this is about you being a dick and "taking care" of everyone else.

Well that's just not dick in my opinion.

Of course not. In your opinion, you know what's best for everyone else.

You're a little mixed up. This isn't about protecting the drunk driver, it is about protecting innocent people that also happen to be out and about.

You could make the argument that seat belts are nanny state since they don't protect anyone but the person being forced to wear them. But this is entirely different.

 

[martybegan]

I have no problem with existing laws being enforced. Mechanical breakdowns are mechanical breakdowns, those will happen regardless if said faulty machinery was voluntary or involuntary.

Who is talking about existing law? The point of this thread was a law being proposed to have EVERY car installed with a device that would test you for BAC (or a derivative) and either send a signal to the cops, or stop the car from working.

Which is an enforcement of the law. It's no worse than a Cop watching a damn stop light.

I you cant tell the difference between having a cop watching a stop light, and having to breath into a tube or remember to touch a certain sensor every X mintues while driving, even if stone cold sober, then, I'm sad to say, I have doubts of your connections with reality.

 

[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.

They said the same thing about safety bumpers, air bags, etc., etc., etc. Pretty soon all those costs add up to a whole new car that you could buy without them.

I have no issue with it. If you do, don't buy. If you didn't like the idea/cost of air bags, don't buy. Let a market boycott happen through all of those with your opinion, the way it should be, and then it's no longer a choice to enforce the law. We'd have no more car manufacturers in business, or the Government cedes.

 

[G.T.]

Who is talking about existing law? The point of this thread was a law being proposed to have EVERY car installed with a device that would test you for BAC (or a derivative) and either send a signal to the cops, or stop the car from working.

Which is an enforcement of the law. It's no worse than a Cop watching a damn stop light.

I you cant tell the difference between having a cop watching a stop light, and having to breath into a tube or remember to touch a certain sensor every X mintues while driving, even if stone cold sober, then, I'm sad to say, I have doubts of your connections with reality.

I didn't say it's no different, but way to babble. I said it's no worse.

 

[McDowell's]

Well that's just not dick in my opinion.

Of course not. In your opinion, you know what's best for everyone else.

You're a little mixed up. This isn't about protecting the drunk driver, it is about protecting innocent people that also happen to be out and about.

You could make the argument that seat belts are nanny state since they don't protect anyone but the person being forced to wear them. But this is entirely different.

No, you are mixed up. This is about punishing me and every other law abiding citizen because you and yours are too stupid to abide by the law independently.

Does your car not start if your seat belt isn't engaged? The difference is stark.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's called "The Roads Safe Act" and opponents claim it's designed to put an alcohol detector in every car, just like an airbag or stereo.
Currently ignition interlock systems are only installed by court order.
Mechanics who work with the Smart Start System say you don't have to be over the legal limit to stall out.
"Normally what they should calibrate it at .03. I believe for most people that's the warning level," said Garrett Benedict, a mechanic.

The device allows six violations, then the car won't start at all.
Experts say it is also set up to make sure drivers don't try to cheat.
"They make you blow into it while you're driving, therefore somebody doesn't blow into it at the bar for you, and then you leave," said Benedict.
The American Beverage Institute has gone on record saying alcohol detectors should only be used for drunk drivers, not everyone.

"This is going to eliminate peoples ability to have a glass of wine at dinner, have a beer at a ball game and then drive home. That's our concern, because that' something we think people should be able to do," states Sarah Longwell of the American Beverage Institute.

The proposed bill would make $60 million available over the next five years to develop new devices, such as technology which would measure blood alcohol content by touching the steering wheel, or even an ignition button.

Alcohol Detectors Could Come Standard | NBC Los Angeles

The Police state or Bust!

Dear GAWD!!

Big Brother in my car. How the hell are you supposed to breath into the damn thing and drive?

pfft stoopid idea, b/c I know how to beat it already.

Balloons with clips on them.

a $60 million dollar waste of our money beaten by a trip to the dollar store far a bag of ballown and some paper clips.

 

[mnbasketball]

I'm sorry but I drive many drunks around in a sober buss. people shouldn't drive when drinking and I shouldn't have to worry about you being out there drunk, so yes it is the govt's duty to protect people who are obeying the laws.

I do believe that 1.0 is good enough, because there are many drivers out there that can't drive sober as well as people who are 1.0.

What someone should do is develop a pill that breaks down alcohol that can be taken say 30 minutes prior to driving.

wow another private industry job market for someone to go after.