Author Topic: MADD: Breathalyzers For Everyone (Read 1888 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #45 on:** November 22, 2006, 05:44:48 PM »

But what about the children? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!

sluggish · « **Reply #46 on:** November 22, 2006, 06:36:10 PM »

I'll go for it. As long as it NEVER fails, NEVER gives a false reading, and doesn't add ONE PENNY to the price a new car.

Chairboy · « **Reply #47 on:** November 22, 2006, 06:50:13 PM »

I wouldn't take free drug tests every day if they were offered, why would I have to prove my sobriety every day?

lukster · « **Reply #48 on:** November 22, 2006, 06:56:34 PM »

It'll take at least a generation or two of brainwashing in the public schools before people are ready to accept daily sobriety/drug testing.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 22, 2006, 08:37:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
MADD is the government?

You said this:

Quote

What they ought to do is make the breathalyzer optional equipment and get the insurance companies to offer incentives for using one.

The only "They" that you refer to that has enough power is the government. I can tell that you didn't mean insurance companies because you mention them later.

Ghosth · « **Reply #50 on:** November 23, 2006, 07:00:29 AM »

I think the thing that most people are missing is that this equipment would go into cars of people already convicted of drunk driving at least once.

Not necessarily all the cars in America. Just all the ones who have driven drunk before, and been caught. As such, yes, its a good thing. Let em call a taxi and pickup the car the next day. And anyone found getting around it just so they can drive drunk should have their hands cut off.

Should every car in the USA have a breathalyser in it, of course not.
But repeat offenders, Ubetcha!

Its simple, either don't drink, or don't drive.

sluggish · « **Reply #51 on:** November 23, 2006, 08:13:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
I think the thing that most people are missing is that this equipment would go into cars of people already convicted of drunk driving at least once.

Not necessarily all the cars in America. Just all the ones who have driven drunk before, and been caught. As such, yes, its a good thing. Let em call a taxi and pickup the car the next day. And anyone found getting around it just so they can drive drunk should have their hands cut off.

Should every car in the USA have a breathalyser in it, of course not.
But repeat offenders, Ubetcha!

Its simple, either don't drink, or don't drive.

You obviosly didn't read the article.

Quote

Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference yesterday from Washington, D.C.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #52 on:** November 23, 2006, 08:35:49 AM »

The only thing more absurd than the idea is the fact that people here are not only willing to see it happen, but DESIRE it. And call themselves conservatives or libertarians.

I think if you support this idea your entire life should be child proofed.

The solution for repeat DUI offenders is manditory 5 year no parole or probation sentences for the second offense, and double it for the third offense. After the third, you do life. No parole.

Punish the offender, swiftly and severely. Do not punish society itself.

sluggish · « **Reply #53 on:** November 23, 2006, 08:52:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The only thing more absurd than the idea is the fact that people here are not only willing to see it happen, but DESIRE it. And call themselves conservatives or libertarians.

I think if you support this idea your entire life should be child proofed.

The solution for repeat DUI offenders is manditory 5 year no parole or probation sentences for the second offense, and double it for the third offense. After the third, you do life. No parole.

Punish the offender, swiftly and severely. Do not punish society itself.

I agree with you. My post was more sarcasm than anything. Recently two local boys were run over and killed by a drunk driver who had had his third offense within the last year. Taking away their license doesn't work. Making them blow to start their car wouldn't work either. A judicial system that plays buddy sports doesn't work.

Then again, harshly punishing someone for what might happen is wrong too. There should be harsh punishment for those who are involved in alcohol related accidents, not for someone who has three drinks at the office Christmas party and is just trying to go home. Continually lowering the limit at which someone can legally drive a car is just a game designed to generate revenue.

I think that tired drivers should be handled the same way. After all, you knew you just got off a 12 hour shift. You knew you were exhausted. You CHOSE to get behind the wheel anyways. You should have arranged for a ride or called a taxi. Why should one form of impaired driving be OK and another not? This little piece of hypocrisy in itself shows that the laws, as they stand today, are not designed to save lives but to generate revenue for the judicial industry (both prosecution and defense).

Oh, and be careful out there today; the man is looking for you and he would like nothing more than to ruin your holiday.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #54 on:** November 23, 2006, 09:26:27 AM »

You know, the police aren't looking to ruin your holiday. About 99% of all officers, whether they're deputies, troopers, detectives, or regular patrolmen, will do nearly ANYTHING to keep from writing you a citation on a holiday. I've been clocked at over 100MPH in a 70 zone, and not gotten a ticket.

In the short time I was on the job, I don't think I wrote but a couple of tickets on a holiday, other than DUI busts, and those tickets were written because the driver just plain wouldn't have it any other way. Most often, they'll just flash their "blues" at you and blip the siren, and get you to behave.

It's wrong to say the law enforcement people are out to ruin your holiday, it just ain't so. In most cases, they're giving up the holiday with their family to help keep you safe. Instead of assuming they're out to get you,:noid , just act like you've got some sense, and treat them decent if they do pull you over or you get stopped at a roadblock. if oyu're not drunk or a total ass, chances are a little respect will get you off with a warning, and a wish for a safe and happy holiday.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #55 on:** November 23, 2006, 09:31:43 AM »

Driving drunk is driving drunk. There are two kinds of drivers who keep driving drunk. The kind that have caused a wreck and the kind that will.

I've been guilty of it myself. I got caught once too, before the law changed.
I did my time in jail, I paid my fine, and paid for the assigned risk insurance too.

So I'm all for hitting a drunk driver with a harsh sentence of the first offense, and increasing the punishment exponentially with repeat offenses. You don't wait until they kill someone, they're already breaking the law.

But treating everyone like a repeat offender BEFORE they've ever been pulled over on suspicion is BULL.

WilldCrd · « **Reply #56 on:** November 23, 2006, 09:41:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
WilldCrd: RPM says that it's just a piece of safety equipment, and I think the implication is that if you don't want it in your car, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!

Hide? me? nothing!! I swear!!
I didnt do it, nobody saw me do it, ya cant prove i did IT!!!
Im innocent i tell ya!!

x0847Marine · « **Reply #57 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:53:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ghosth
I think the thing that most people are missing is that this equipment would go into cars of people already convicted of drunk driving at least once.

Not necessarily all the cars in America. Just all the ones who have driven drunk before, and been caught. As such, yes, its a good thing. Let em call a taxi and pickup the car the next day. And anyone found getting around it just so they can drive drunk should have their hands cut off.

Should every car in the USA have a breathalyser in it, of course not.
But repeat offenders, Ubetcha!

Its simple, either don't drink, or don't drive.

Well that simple message has fallen on deaf ears since Henry Ford drove a Model-T.

The punishment & fines are already very harsh, but only for those who actually care.. the habitual cases don't care, will drink & drive regardless of suspensions / fines, why?.. most of them are so far from ever getting a license again on top of paying fines until death... they have no motivation to care. A breath gadget is just 1 more order from the court to ignore.

The only punishment they get is the time spent locked up, 30-90 days maybe, and the loss of another car, otherwise getting arrested, again, is just piling on more administrative BS they already don't pay attention to, "Oh I lost my license for another 3 years?, whoop-de do"

Go ahead, install these things.. 2 weeks later every bar & liquor store will sell $4 cans of compressed air that will undoubtedly fit perfectly on the blow tube and offer x number of clean blows.

A week after that some nerd will have a hack to fool the machine. And I can already see the 1st lawsuit, someone will claim their car was disabled by a malfunction and they were mugged, or whatever..

What do you do with someone driving a fecal box too old for any techno gadget?

Its a bad idea, there is already a proven effective method to cracking down on the worst offenders; pro-active enforcement. But there's no $$ in it, arresting them is only piling on more fines they're already too poor, or haven't even considered paying. There's no debtors jail either.

But a DUI lane, where the man stops cars at random snooping for DUI hooks... these make a small fortune; most are 1st time offenders who will pay the $2-3000K in fines, $60 vehicle release, $2-300 towing / storage fee in order to get / keep their license.

rpm · « **Reply #58 on:** November 23, 2006, 05:54:41 PM »

Crackdown hard on people who disable their system. Make it required safety equiptment just like seatbelts. It will save lives, bottom line.

Maverick · « **Reply #59 on:** November 23, 2006, 06:35:41 PM »

You first have to detect the disabling of a system. It's far easier and safer simply to spoof it. A small 12 volt air compressor with the air hose modified to "blow into" the breathalyzer will by pass it and be totally undetectable.

As long as there is a significant ability to plea bargain first offenders will likely have a reckless charge in place of a DUI. There is a large interest both politically and through the legal "profession" to maintain the status quo. There is simply too much money at stake in defending those offenders.

Another issue is the opinion of the average person that this is another "victimless crime". This is also a part of the standard defense to make the jury feel that there but for the grace of god go I in that the poor persecuted defendant was not drunk but only picked out for legal harrassment.