It's called "The Roads Safe Act"

[McDowell's]

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.

It is the law that people who are not drunk prove they are not drunk before driving their car? Didn't think so.

 

[G.T.]

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.

It remains to be seen if it's a "punishment." Breathing air isn't really a punishment, to me. I mean...........I will agree to disagree there though.

 

[Ravi]

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.

There are cars that don't start if the seat belt isn't engaged.

If you are being punished then stop driving drunk.

 

[G.T.]

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.

It is the law that people who are not drunk prove they are not drunk before driving their car? Didn't think so.

No, it's the Law not to drive drunk. Whoa is you that you have to breath air.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[McDowell's]

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.

There are cars that don't start if the seat belt isn't engaged.

If you are being punished then stop driving drunk.

Well, now I have to stop responding to you because you're being purposefully obtuse. At least I hope that's the case.

 

[G.T.]

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.

That's a good ******* idea.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Having no speed limit seems safer, so...no

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Having no speed limit seems safer, so...no

But how can you be for that as it involves less government safety guarantees?

 

[McDowell's]

My preference? No, the LAW.

It is the law that people who are not drunk prove they are not drunk before driving their car? Didn't think so.

No, it's the Law not to drive drunk. Whoa is you that you have to breath air.

This proposal is not about outlawing drunk driving. Maybe you want to debate the proposed law instead of established law? That's what the thread is about. You're defending a proposal which mandates proving you're not drunk in order to drive. That is above and beyond the established law. You're not defending the established law. Woe that is you without discernment.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Having no speed limit seems safer, so...no

But how can you be for that as it involves less government safety guarantees?

I just said, it's the opposite of a safety "guarantee" ....the Countries with NO speed limit seem safer to drive in.

Also, I reject your projection that anyone's "guaranteeing" safety. Nobody can guarantee safety, they can only work to reasonably reduce risk.

 

[G.T.]

It is the law that people who are not drunk prove they are not drunk before driving their car? Didn't think so.

No, it's the Law not to drive drunk. Whoa is you that you have to breath air.

This proposal is not about outlawing drunk driving. Maybe you want to debate the proposed law instead of established law? That's what the thread is about. You're defending a proposal which mandates proving you're not drunk in order to drive. That is above and beyond the established law. You're not defending the established law. Woe that is you without discernment.

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 ******* air.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

 

[McDowell's]

No, it's the Law not to drive drunk. Whoa is you that you have to breath air.

This proposal is not about outlawing drunk driving. Maybe you want to debate the proposed law instead of established law? That's what the thread is about. You're defending a proposal which mandates proving you're not drunk in order to drive. That is above and beyond the established law. You're not defending the established law. Woe that is you without discernment.

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 ******* 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.

 

[G.T.]

This proposal is not about outlawing drunk driving. Maybe you want to debate the proposed law instead of established law? That's what the thread is about. You're defending a proposal which mandates proving you're not drunk in order to drive. That is above and beyond the established law. You're not defending the established law. Woe that is you without discernment.

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 ******* 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.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Once again it the usual suspects for more government.

 

[Ravi]

There is a lot of misinformation in the article Fitnah posted.

Here is something a little less hysterical. It did seem stupid to think you'd have to blow into a tube while you were driving.

Udall, Corker Introduce ROADS SAFE Act | Tom Udall | Senator for New Mexico

Basically the bill is to fund technology to find out what is feasible, what would work, and what wouldn't.

 

[G.T.]

Once again it the usual suspects for more government.

Nobosy gives a **** what user-handle "MR FITNAH" thinks of user-handle "G.T." on the silly internet. Save your finger-tips, G.

 

[Ravi]

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.

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

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There is a lot of misinformation in the article Fitnah posted.

Here is something a little less hysterical. It did seem stupid to think you'd have to blow into a tube while you were driving.

Udall, Corker Introduce ROADS SAFE Act | Tom Udall | Senator for New Mexico

Basically the bill is to fund technology to find out what is feasible, what would work, and what wouldn't.

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.