Conundrum 1 #1 May 16, 2005 This device is a hand-held breath testing device that is connected to the vehicle. Every time before the vehicle is started, the driver must successfully complete and pass this breathalyzer-type test. What do you think about this idea? Every car having a test like this before you can start your vehical and drive it..... Would it prevent more DUI's and drunk driver deaths? Would people think it was an invasion of privacy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sheenster303 0 #2 May 16, 2005 You can find plenty of ways around it. There could be sober people riding with the drunk person and they could easily blow into themselves. I think it's a good idea, but I don't see it working very well.I'm so funny I crack my head open! P.M.S. #102 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 May 16, 2005 I think something like this is appropriate if it is ordered as a condition of probation for a DUI convict. Other than that, I find it to be pretty invasive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #4 May 16, 2005 Are they already trying to put one on your bike.... Peace~ linz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #5 May 16, 2005 QuoteThis device is a hand-held breath testing device that is connected to the vehicle. Every time before the vehicle is started, the driver must successfully complete and pass this breathalyzer-type test. What do you think about this idea? Every car having a test like this before you can start your vehical and drive it..... Would it prevent more DUI's and drunk driver deaths? Would people think it was an invasion of privacy? If you have never been charged with a DUI then it is an invasion of privacy. If you have had a DUI...I have no problem with it if it was court ordered...And in fact I think some states already require it for repeat DUI's."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #6 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteThis device is a hand-held breath testing device that is connected to the vehicle. Every time before the vehicle is started, the driver must successfully complete and pass this breathalyzer-type test. What do you think about this idea? Every car having a test like this before you can start your vehical and drive it..... Would it prevent more DUI's and drunk driver deaths? Would people think it was an invasion of privacy? If you have never been charged with a DUI then it is an invasion of privacy. If you have had a DUI...I have no problem with it if it was court ordered...And in fact I think some states already require it for repeat DUI's. But see, how is it an invasion of privacy? It's not like the thing reports it to somewhere, you just can't start your vehical. What would be the big deal about it if you weren't drinking and driving? The people I can see getting mad about this are the people who regularly drink then drive and would be mad they wouldn't be able to anymore, regardless if they have a previous conviction of DUI. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 May 16, 2005 QuoteWhat would be the big deal about it if you weren't drinking and driving? Because it presumes us all to be guilty, and requires us to prove our innocence before being permitted to drive. That philosophy is contrary to the foundations of our justice system. Responsible people should not be treated as if they are irresponsible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #8 May 16, 2005 Well so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #9 May 16, 2005 QuoteBut see, how is it an invasion of privacy? It's not like the thing reports it to somewhere, you just can't start your vehical. Would you be OK if the police could just walk into your home to look around? The only people that should mind are the ones that are hidding something. QuoteWhat would be the big deal about it if you weren't drinking and driving? Not saying it would be a big deal. Just said it was an invasion of privacy. Why make people have a drivers license? Why make people register to vote? Quote"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nathaniel 0 #10 May 16, 2005 I'm unfamiliar with this kind of device. What's to stop a bellows or an oversized turkey baster from defeating it? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Conundrum 1 #11 May 16, 2005 Nothing I guess, lol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #12 May 16, 2005 I believe they also sense warmth and humidity. I'm certain they're defeatable, but I doubt it's as easy as using a bellows. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #13 May 16, 2005 QuoteWell so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? But unlike the airport security, this one requires every single person to buy a detector. Hardly cost effective for a low or no maintence device. The air bag is already a pretty poor return on investment that everyone has to pay for. This would be so much worse. As others suggested, maybe it's fair to make that a condition of probation for DUI offenders, but it's still not going to be that successful at preventing drunk driving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Alias 0 #14 May 16, 2005 QuoteI believe they also sense warmth and humidity. I'm certain they're defeatable, but I doubt it's as easy as using a bellows. _Am Then it could be as easy as consuming taco's and beans, wait - then fire...it up Easily defeated Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #15 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteBecause it presumes us all to be guilty, and requires us to prove our innocence before being permitted to drive. That philosophy is contrary to the foundations of our justice system. Responsible people should not be treated as if they are irresponsible. Well so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? Just because we have allowed some of these kinds of intrusions into our lives, is no reason to open the floodgates and allow them to be propogated everywhere. Are you in favor of random road stops to test people for sobriety? As it stands now, the police must have probable cause for such an intrusion - they have to see you weaving or something. What you seem to be supporting is to allow anyone to be stopped at any time, for no reason at all. That is contrary to the 4th Amendment, and the principle of freedom - "to be let alone". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #16 May 16, 2005 QuoteAre you in favor of random road stops to test people for sobriety? Road stops are common in Canada for sobriety tests. They're only "random" in terms of where they setup, they'll choose a different spot each time. They stop everyone, give a basic interview and on that basis will send select people to a breathalyzer. Commonly they'll setup at the end of a long off-ramp, so that people have no escape. It is very effective. Canada's drunk driving rate fell dramatically after its introduction. And for that reason, It's also very popular. Privacy nuts don't even complain about it, for the most part. Citizens groups regularly ask for it to get increased funding. Since I moved to the states, I've been constantly amazed at how many people drive while intoxicated regularly. As long as the cops aren't discriminating when they stop people (ie, driving while black) I entirely support spot-checks for DUI. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #17 May 16, 2005 QuoteRoad stops are common in Canada for sobriety tests. They're only "random" in terms of where they setup, they'll choose a different spot each time. They stop everyone, give a basic interview and on that basis will send select people to a breathalyzer. Commonly they'll setup at the end of a long off-ramp, so that people have no escape. I have seen them in the US and have no problem with them. QuoteAs long as the cops aren't discriminating when they stop people (ie, driving while black) I entirely support spot-checks for DUI. The problem is you will never be able to prove that you are not discriminating...And the minority will claim you are anyway. Which is why I like the road block idea. Of course some will claim that you set it up so that only a certain part of town and target group was hit. I don't like the Ignition Interlock since it assumes everyone drives drunk. It is stepping on personal liberty. I have no problem catching people who are breaking the law, but to assume anyone that drives is breaking the law is wrong."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,125 #18 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause it presumes us all to be guilty, and requires us to prove our innocence before being permitted to drive. That philosophy is contrary to the foundations of our justice system. Responsible people should not be treated as if they are irresponsible. Well so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? Just because we have allowed some of these kinds of intrusions into our lives, is no reason to open the floodgates and allow them to be propogated everywhere. Are you in favor of random road stops to test people for sobriety? As it stands now, the police must have probable cause for such an intrusion - they have to see you weaving or something. What you seem to be supporting is to allow anyone to be stopped at any time, for no reason at all. That is contrary to the 4th Amendment, and the principle of freedom - "to be let alone". As some people keep reminding us, driving is not a right. We implicitly accept any and all conditions imposed on us by Big Brother the Government when we apply for a license to drive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #19 May 16, 2005 It would be too easily defeated by having another person take the test. Sort of a good idea though.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #20 May 16, 2005 QuoteI have seen them in the US and have no problem with them. (road stops for drunk driver testing) I don't like the Ignition Interlock since it assumes everyone drives drunk. It is stepping on personal liberty. I have no problem catching people who are breaking the law, but to assume anyone that drives is breaking the law is wrong. Your position on these two issues, road stops and ignition interlocks, seems contradictory to me. They both inconvenience everyone under the presumption that everyone must be tested in order to catch a few guilty. I see no difference, and I'm against both methods. If the cops are going to pull someone over, they should have probable cause to believe that something is amiss. They should not be bothering citizens who exhibit no evidence of any violations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #21 May 16, 2005 Quotedriving is not a right. We implicitly accept any and all conditions imposed on us by Big Brother the Government when we apply for a license to drive. Negative. We do not accept "any and all" conditions. Just because driving is not a "right", does not mean that the government can do anything they want. The Constitution still applies, along with numerous other laws, designed to protect our liberties. For just one example, that's why they can't search your vehicle any old time they feel like it, unless they have probable cause. And if they can't support a search with that, any evidence seized becomes inadmissable in court. There are certainly some who would go all the way in eliminating our liberties. It's up to us to tell our government where the limits are, and hold them accountable for not crossing those lines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites genoyamamoto 0 #22 May 16, 2005 I think it's unsanitary. Imagine renting a car with one of those!!! Sure they can replace the mouthpiece but there's still gonna be other people's spooge gunked up in the thing. Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me Feel the hate... Photos here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kinaa 0 #23 May 16, 2005 Quote This device is a hand-held breath testing device that is connected to the vehicle. Every time before the vehicle is started, the driver must successfully complete and pass this breathalyzer-type test. Some european cars have similar device instaled long time ago. You can't start the engine if you have alcohol in your breath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #24 May 16, 2005 QuoteYour position on these two issues, road stops and ignition interlocks, seems contradictory to me. One is a minor inconvience once in a while...I have never been stopped, but they do them here. The other is a several times a day procedure that can be fooled pretty easily for no reason what so ever. Unlike you, I see the need for a police force that has some power to do the job we ask of them. QuoteThey both inconvenience everyone under the presumption that everyone must be tested in order to catch a few guilty. No, one is looking for guilty people, the other assumes everyone is guilty."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #25 May 16, 2005 QuoteIt would be too easily defeated by having another person take the test. Sort of a good idea though. I know two people who got DUI's a couple years ago, both got interlocks installed as part of their "punishment". The one guy got a normal one and would go out, get hammered, and then start calling around to find someone sober who would drive to wherever he was and start his truck for him. The other got a much cooler one...it had some sort of voice recognition software built into the computer, and rather than blowing into the tube, you had to talk into it, thus verifying that it was *your* breath being analyzed. Plus, you had to blow into it at least every half hour or so while driving, so you couldn't just leave your car running while you're in a bar, or get drunk while road-tripping. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
nathaniel 0 #10 May 16, 2005 I'm unfamiliar with this kind of device. What's to stop a bellows or an oversized turkey baster from defeating it? nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #11 May 16, 2005 Nothing I guess, lol. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #12 May 16, 2005 I believe they also sense warmth and humidity. I'm certain they're defeatable, but I doubt it's as easy as using a bellows. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 May 16, 2005 QuoteWell so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? But unlike the airport security, this one requires every single person to buy a detector. Hardly cost effective for a low or no maintence device. The air bag is already a pretty poor return on investment that everyone has to pay for. This would be so much worse. As others suggested, maybe it's fair to make that a condition of probation for DUI offenders, but it's still not going to be that successful at preventing drunk driving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #14 May 16, 2005 QuoteI believe they also sense warmth and humidity. I'm certain they're defeatable, but I doubt it's as easy as using a bellows. _Am Then it could be as easy as consuming taco's and beans, wait - then fire...it up Easily defeated Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteBecause it presumes us all to be guilty, and requires us to prove our innocence before being permitted to drive. That philosophy is contrary to the foundations of our justice system. Responsible people should not be treated as if they are irresponsible. Well so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? Just because we have allowed some of these kinds of intrusions into our lives, is no reason to open the floodgates and allow them to be propogated everywhere. Are you in favor of random road stops to test people for sobriety? As it stands now, the police must have probable cause for such an intrusion - they have to see you weaving or something. What you seem to be supporting is to allow anyone to be stopped at any time, for no reason at all. That is contrary to the 4th Amendment, and the principle of freedom - "to be let alone". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #16 May 16, 2005 QuoteAre you in favor of random road stops to test people for sobriety? Road stops are common in Canada for sobriety tests. They're only "random" in terms of where they setup, they'll choose a different spot each time. They stop everyone, give a basic interview and on that basis will send select people to a breathalyzer. Commonly they'll setup at the end of a long off-ramp, so that people have no escape. It is very effective. Canada's drunk driving rate fell dramatically after its introduction. And for that reason, It's also very popular. Privacy nuts don't even complain about it, for the most part. Citizens groups regularly ask for it to get increased funding. Since I moved to the states, I've been constantly amazed at how many people drive while intoxicated regularly. As long as the cops aren't discriminating when they stop people (ie, driving while black) I entirely support spot-checks for DUI. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #17 May 16, 2005 QuoteRoad stops are common in Canada for sobriety tests. They're only "random" in terms of where they setup, they'll choose a different spot each time. They stop everyone, give a basic interview and on that basis will send select people to a breathalyzer. Commonly they'll setup at the end of a long off-ramp, so that people have no escape. I have seen them in the US and have no problem with them. QuoteAs long as the cops aren't discriminating when they stop people (ie, driving while black) I entirely support spot-checks for DUI. The problem is you will never be able to prove that you are not discriminating...And the minority will claim you are anyway. Which is why I like the road block idea. Of course some will claim that you set it up so that only a certain part of town and target group was hit. I don't like the Ignition Interlock since it assumes everyone drives drunk. It is stepping on personal liberty. I have no problem catching people who are breaking the law, but to assume anyone that drives is breaking the law is wrong."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,125 #18 May 16, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause it presumes us all to be guilty, and requires us to prove our innocence before being permitted to drive. That philosophy is contrary to the foundations of our justice system. Responsible people should not be treated as if they are irresponsible. Well so does going through a metal detector to get on an airplane. It's assumed that people could be carrying a weapon so it's checked before you can board the plane. Would that not be the case with stopping a drunk driver from driving? Just because we have allowed some of these kinds of intrusions into our lives, is no reason to open the floodgates and allow them to be propogated everywhere. Are you in favor of random road stops to test people for sobriety? As it stands now, the police must have probable cause for such an intrusion - they have to see you weaving or something. What you seem to be supporting is to allow anyone to be stopped at any time, for no reason at all. That is contrary to the 4th Amendment, and the principle of freedom - "to be let alone". As some people keep reminding us, driving is not a right. We implicitly accept any and all conditions imposed on us by Big Brother the Government when we apply for a license to drive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #19 May 16, 2005 It would be too easily defeated by having another person take the test. Sort of a good idea though.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 May 16, 2005 QuoteI have seen them in the US and have no problem with them. (road stops for drunk driver testing) I don't like the Ignition Interlock since it assumes everyone drives drunk. It is stepping on personal liberty. I have no problem catching people who are breaking the law, but to assume anyone that drives is breaking the law is wrong. Your position on these two issues, road stops and ignition interlocks, seems contradictory to me. They both inconvenience everyone under the presumption that everyone must be tested in order to catch a few guilty. I see no difference, and I'm against both methods. If the cops are going to pull someone over, they should have probable cause to believe that something is amiss. They should not be bothering citizens who exhibit no evidence of any violations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #21 May 16, 2005 Quotedriving is not a right. We implicitly accept any and all conditions imposed on us by Big Brother the Government when we apply for a license to drive. Negative. We do not accept "any and all" conditions. Just because driving is not a "right", does not mean that the government can do anything they want. The Constitution still applies, along with numerous other laws, designed to protect our liberties. For just one example, that's why they can't search your vehicle any old time they feel like it, unless they have probable cause. And if they can't support a search with that, any evidence seized becomes inadmissable in court. There are certainly some who would go all the way in eliminating our liberties. It's up to us to tell our government where the limits are, and hold them accountable for not crossing those lines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
genoyamamoto 0 #22 May 16, 2005 I think it's unsanitary. Imagine renting a car with one of those!!! Sure they can replace the mouthpiece but there's still gonna be other people's spooge gunked up in the thing. Gotta go... plaything needs to spank me Feel the hate... Photos here Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #23 May 16, 2005 Quote This device is a hand-held breath testing device that is connected to the vehicle. Every time before the vehicle is started, the driver must successfully complete and pass this breathalyzer-type test. Some european cars have similar device instaled long time ago. You can't start the engine if you have alcohol in your breath. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #24 May 16, 2005 QuoteYour position on these two issues, road stops and ignition interlocks, seems contradictory to me. One is a minor inconvience once in a while...I have never been stopped, but they do them here. The other is a several times a day procedure that can be fooled pretty easily for no reason what so ever. Unlike you, I see the need for a police force that has some power to do the job we ask of them. QuoteThey both inconvenience everyone under the presumption that everyone must be tested in order to catch a few guilty. No, one is looking for guilty people, the other assumes everyone is guilty."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #25 May 16, 2005 QuoteIt would be too easily defeated by having another person take the test. Sort of a good idea though. I know two people who got DUI's a couple years ago, both got interlocks installed as part of their "punishment". The one guy got a normal one and would go out, get hammered, and then start calling around to find someone sober who would drive to wherever he was and start his truck for him. The other got a much cooler one...it had some sort of voice recognition software built into the computer, and rather than blowing into the tube, you had to talk into it, thus verifying that it was *your* breath being analyzed. Plus, you had to blow into it at least every half hour or so while driving, so you couldn't just leave your car running while you're in a bar, or get drunk while road-tripping. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
