Quote :

"Wrap your head around this: driving drunk is always dangerous and wrong. Speeding is not always dangerous and wrong."

driving a peice of metal filled with a flamable liquid over 60 mph isnt dangerous?

im glad Mcdanger the master of moral authority has shown me the light

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 12:39 PM. Reason : quopte]

11/21/2006 12:39:17 PM

How much do these devices cost?

11/21/2006 12:48:26 PM

Quote :

"So should we enact a similar law towards people who drive while talking on their cd phones? Both serious affect a persons ability to drive. and I know people who just out right suck at driving. Maybe we should test them every 6 months and if they fail we take them to jail because they obviously are endangering the lives of those around them."

I wouldn't be opposed to laws banning cellphone use while driving. That shit is needlessly dangerous as well. However, it's still not a good comparison.

Quote :

"driving a peice of metal filled with a flamable liquid over 60 mph isnt dangerous? im glad Mcdanger the master of moral authority has shown me the light"

Of course it's dangerous you fucking idiot. Everything you do in a car is dangerous. Many highways have a speedlimit of 75. It's extremely dangerous. That's why you need the ability to go a little bit faster than that at times to maneuver yourself about the flow of traffic. This cannot be THAT FUCKING HARD TO GRASP.

11/21/2006 1:01:42 PM

but if everyone is giong below the speed limit than passing and moving throughout the cars would be the same as if everyone was going 80.

but honestly, drunk driving is bad. If you throw people away for a year when they blow above a 0.0 your jails are going to be packed and its going to cost the tax payers $$$$$$ and you might have some angry rednecks not voting for you.

i dont even understand what is being argued anymore.

11/21/2006 1:05:29 PM

Quote :

"but if everyone is giong below the speed limit than passing and moving throughout the cars would be the same as if everyone was going 80."

But they aren't. Plus you don't want to limit the speed of somebody's vehicle in the event of an emergency.

Quote :

"but honestly, drunk driving is bad. If you throw people away for a year when they blow above a 0.0 your jails are going to be packed and its going to cost the tax payers $$$$$$ and you might have some angry rednecks not voting for you."

They shouldn't lock away anybody that blows above a 0.0, that's pretty ridiculous. I didn't make that argument.

Quote :

"i dont even understand what is being argued anymore."

Patently obvious from your first post.

11/21/2006 1:07:13 PM

OH YEAH FUUUUUUCKKKK YOUUUUUUUUUUUu

gwhen if i need to drive my wife to the hospital and I blow into the think and it breaks and then my wife dies in my back seat.

your speeding analogy is filled with more holes than swiss cheeeeeeessssseeeeee

gg

11/21/2006 1:16:32 PM

Dude what are you talking about? Sometimes you need to gas it a bit over the speed limit. How the FUCK is preventing that comparable to preventing people from drunk driving?

You've got to be trolling. This level of Libertarian idiocy couldn't even be reached by EarthDogg.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 1:18:43 PM

people arent allowed to drive drunk, thats already a law. theres no need to argue the law because I agree with it.

What is completely retarded is installing "alcohol detection devices" in cars

11/21/2006 1:29:56 PM

Quote :

"people arent allowed to drive drunk, thats already a law."

So why not try to prevent the law from being broken? The problem with this is, once the law IS broken, usually somebody's fucked up or dead.

11/21/2006 1:37:29 PM

Quote :

"So why not try to prevent the law from being broken?"

gg with your police state.

i'll be moving if you get elected the high dragon.

11/21/2006 1:47:15 PM

OH MY GOD POLICE STATE

PEOPLE CAN'T DRUNK DRIVE

NEXT THING WE KNOW, WE'LL ALL BE WAVING OUR FISTS AT EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN

11/21/2006 1:48:59 PM

how am i on my way to a police state? draconian punishments for horrific crimes != police state

11/21/2006 1:49:27 PM

running your car into another while drunk does not equal driving drunk

just as

shooting a gun at another human being does not equal shooting a gun

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 1:52 PM. Reason : but of course messing with gunz is a no no]

11/21/2006 1:51:43 PM

Yeah because not all drunk drivers run into people, we should not prevent drunk driving in sensible ways.

11/21/2006 1:54:40 PM

Quote :

"So should we enact a similar law towards people who drive while talking on their cd phones?"

where do i get ones of these cd phones?!?!?!


i think the solution here is tougher penalties on people who drive drunk

11/21/2006 1:57:50 PM

Quote :

"i think the solution here is tougher penalties on people who drive drunk"

While this might be true, tougher penalties won't necessarily stop some people from doing it. I don't see the problem with simply preventing the drunk ass from driving.

11/21/2006 2:00:12 PM

Quote :

"So why not try to prevent the law from being broken? The problem with this is, once the law IS broken, usually somebody's fucked up or dead."

You are so wrong in this post man. First, its also a law not to speed, why can't we prevent speeding from happening? Second, your confusing the law being broken with an accident due to drunk driving. I assume the actual percentage of drunk drivers on the road in a given day that kill or maim someone else is pretty low.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the laws, but there's no reason to install government surveillance-type equipment in the car.

And still, speeding is responsible for far more deaths than alcohol, so why don't we limit people from being able to speed with an override button that alerts the police so they know it is in emergency and they are then allowed to speed.

Wouldn't that be sensible? Or are you still insisting that its no big deal to break the law to pass old people, because that's like saying "I can drive drunk here in this parking lot"

11/21/2006 2:00:25 PM

Quote :

"First, its also a law not to speed, why can't we prevent speeding from happening? "

can you think of practical way of donig this?

11/21/2006 2:02:07 PM

^putting a blow and go in every car manufactured isn't very practical either.

I wouldn't necessarily be against the idea if the gov will also pay the bill everytime something goes wrong with the damn thing and costs an arm and a leg to fix

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 2:03:40 PM

Yes, put devices in the car that sense the current speed limit and disallows the car to accelerate beyond that level.

They already have these in some places where the car reports back to the parents if the kids speed or take turns too fast. <~~Which I also think is as fucked as this kind of shit

11/21/2006 2:03:51 PM

Quote :

" First, its also a law not to speed, why can't we prevent speeding from happening?"

Once again, I already addressed this.

Quote :

"Second, your confusing the law being broken with an accident due to drunk driving."

We should not try to prevent drunk driving because only a small percentage of drunk drivers permanently ruin families!

Quote :

"Doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the laws, but there's no reason to install government surveillance-type equipment in the car."

Stop installing government surveillance equipment on our roads! (cop cars) It's a complete police state when cops can simply spy on you in public! It's already illegal to crash your car into somebody while speeding or drunk! Let's just send them out as a clean up crew. We can just enforce it after the fact!

Quote :

"And still, speeding is responsible for far more deaths than alcohol, so why don't we limit people from being able to speed with an override button that alerts the police so they know it is in emergency and they are then allowed to speed."

Because sometimes you have to suddenly accelerate to get out of the way of things, or to prevent unsafe configurations of car positions on the highway. Seriously, have you ever been on a highway?

Quote :

"Wouldn't that be sensible? Or are you still insisting that its no big deal to break the law to pass old people, because that's like saying "I can drive drunk here in this parking lot""

All laws are morally equivalent -- a view only a Judeo-Christian bungler could take.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 2:06:12 PM

Quote :

"putting a blow and go in every car manufactured isn't very practical either."

i dont think it would be any more impractical then when seatbelts or airbags were introduced and eventually included in laws.

Quote :

"Yes, put devices in the car that sense the current speed limit and disallows the car to accelerate beyond that level."

thats not very practical when compared to introducing a breath device in a car. you would have to manipulate too many things other then just cars. for example, devices that emitted the set speed limit for the area would have to be powered somehow. not all roads have power along them, and using batteries or sun power won't work in all areas either. im not saying it can't be done, but its far less practical then a breathalyzer, therefore I don't think its a valid comparison.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:10 PM. Reason : d]

11/21/2006 2:09:38 PM

Or they use a stoplight type camera to get you when you are speeding, like they do in Germany.

11/21/2006 2:15:24 PM

thats doesnt prevent speeding from happening in the first place...which is what my specific comment was about.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : d]

11/21/2006 2:16:25 PM

No, the discussion is about libertarian alarmism.

11/21/2006 2:16:57 PM

Quote :

"Stop installing government surveillance equipment on our roads! (cop cars) It's a complete police state when cops can simply spy on you in public! It's already illegal to crash your car into somebody while speeding or drunk! Let's just send them out as a clean up crew. We can just enforce it after the fact! "

there is a reasonable expectation that when you're on the roads, cops can and will be there too. it's not reasonable, however, to punish the masses for the faults of the few.

your second argument is asinine. the law, as it should, treats driving while impaired as any other driver hazard....you can only be punished for something when there is reasonable suspicion that you broke a particular law.

11/21/2006 2:19:27 PM

Quote :

"there is a reasonable expectation that when you're on the roads, cops can and will be there too. it's not reasonable, however, to punish the masses for the faults of the few."

What sort of punishment are you talking about? Having to fucking blow in a box before you start your car?

Quote :

"your second argument is asinine. the law, as it should, treats driving while impaired as any other driver hazard....you can only be punished for something when there is reasonable suspicion that you broke a particular law."

Punishment... what punishment are you talking about? Blowing in a box? BOO. FUCKING. HOO.

11/21/2006 2:21:42 PM

Quote :

"What sort of punishment are you talking about? Having to fucking blow in a box before you start your car? "

and having to pay a car repair bill when the device craps out (i know a girl who had one and it was around a total of $1000 to have it fixed the 3 times it broke in 1.5 years.).

As I said earlier, its not a terrible idea if the gov will pay for both the initial cost of purchasing with the added equipment, and the repair bills when they break, and won't allow you to use your vehicle.

11/21/2006 2:25:05 PM

This is stupid, why not just do mandatory jail time and revoked license for 1 year afterwards? (INCLUDING FUCKING CELEBRITIES).

11/21/2006 2:25:07 PM

Quote :

"and having to pay a car repair bill when the device craps out (i know a girl who had one and it was around a total of $1000 to have it fixed the 3 times it broke in 1.5 years.). As I said earlier, its not a terrible idea if the gov will pay for both the initial cost of purchasing with the added equipment, and the repair bills when they break, and won't allow you to use your vehicle."

Problems concerning the current implementations should not be used to reject the idea. More reliable devices are feasible to create. Again this is like the airbag/seatbelt deal. It's gonna drive up the price a little bit. OH. NOES.

11/21/2006 2:26:30 PM

^^i think that is much more practical.

^I think the vast majority of americans would agree with me. Which is why this will never happen.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 2:27:10 PM

Quote :

"Once again, I already addressed this."

No, you just claimed "Its ok to speed" when clearly it is against the law regardless of your circumstance. And when have you ever HAD to speed up to get out of the way of something. More likely is that it is convenient to break that law so you do it.

11/21/2006 2:27:20 PM

^not to meniton, if you're already going 65 MPH, unless you have a pretty bad ass car, you're not going to accelerate fast enough to effectively avoid anything.

11/21/2006 2:29:32 PM

Quote :

"and having to pay a car repair bill when the device craps out (i know a girl who had one and it was around a total of $1000 to have it fixed the 3 times it broke in 1.5 years.). As I said earlier, its not a terrible idea if the gov will pay for both the initial cost of purchasing with the added equipment, and the repair bills when they break, and won't allow you to use your vehicle. "

if the idea was rolled in on new cars (just like any other madatory car regulation) then there will be no initial purchasing cost (other then a new car). when your seatbelt breaks, you still have to pay to get it fixed....you arent excused from wearing your seatbelt anymore, so this is no different then that. if its a mandatory part of the car, then competition amongst car manufactorers will insure that the device works well or people won't want to buy their cars....just like any other piece of equipment on a car.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:31 PM. Reason : i see during my slow typing, most of these points have already been addressed.]

Quote :

"I think the vast majority of americans would agree with me. Which is why this will never happen."

that's a cop out answer. you don't know that for sure. debate the points, not some fictional outcome.



[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : df]

11/21/2006 2:30:07 PM

if something like this is added to a vehicle, the initial purchase price will certainly go up....there is no way around it.

11/21/2006 2:33:47 PM

i agree...but as its already been pointed out, similar instances of new safety devices have been implemented and have not had a profound negative impact on the industry or the consumer.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : d]

11/21/2006 2:34:46 PM

how many people refuse to wear their seatbelt? Maybe we should make it clamps down on you when you get in your car.

but I guess this is why we live in a free country. I can leave when the idiots start enacting retarded laws.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:35 PM. Reason : a]

11/21/2006 2:34:46 PM

Quote :

"how many people refuse to wear their seatbelt? Maybe we should make it clamps down on you when you get in your car. "

i see your point, but i think the main difference is that you arent potentially killing someone else if you don't have your seatbelt on.

if you want to kill yourself, go ahead, but don't kill me.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:37 PM. Reason : df]

11/21/2006 2:36:45 PM

someone could potentially die every time someone gets behind the wheel. Alcohol along with a wide number of other things causes this risk to raise. I dont see the point in removing a persons right to drive after a few beers just as I dont see the point in removing a persons right to drive if they are super sleepy.

11/21/2006 2:41:45 PM

we should also hook up a reaction time test for seniors so they will be disallowed operation of their car incase they "lose a step" between liscense renewals.

to be honest, I am almost as afraid of senile elderly drivers as I am drunk ones.

11/21/2006 2:42:07 PM

^^agreed, but you can't necessarily control the other aspects. you could potentially control this one....and this one has been a proven problem for a long time. i would gladly give up driving after having a beer or two if it meant that lives would be saved.

in 50 years no one would know the difference anyway. you can't miss something that you never had.

^im all for more restrictions on elderly drivers.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:47 PM. Reason : d]

11/21/2006 2:46:56 PM

^ I agree, thats why we should impose a 100% imcome tax law because in 50 years people wont remember what money is and just love life.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : !!!!]

11/21/2006 2:47:15 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how being drunk should make it any less of an emergency."

are you fucking joking?

there is no reason to ever drive drunk.

'speeding' is more relative, as 'speeding' 1-5 mph over the speed limit is still very much inside the tolerances of both your car and the road in nearly every instance.


it's called a fucking DD, you fucking wait till you are sober, or you exercise some FUCKING SELF CONTROL and don't drink so much.

11/21/2006 2:47:31 PM

Quote :

"I agree, thats why we should impose a 100% imcome tax law because in 50 years people wont remember what money is and just love life."

haha...touche.

11/21/2006 2:49:06 PM

^^ i dont think you understand

people what to impose a zero tolerance which would not let you drive with a .01 blow.

and then install a thing in your car to enforce it

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:50 PM. Reason : ^^]

11/21/2006 2:49:54 PM

Quote :

"im all for more restrictions on elderly drivers. "

Restrictions, yes....across the board sanctions, no.

There should be different rules for the elderly, just as there should be lifetime rule changes for convicted drunk drivers, not everyone.

11/21/2006 2:50:48 PM

Quote :

"There should be different rules for the elderly, just as there should be lifetime rule changes for convicted drunk drivers, not everyone."

i disagree about that. once you are a convicted drunk driver, you have already put people at risk. this idea would prevent convictions in the first place.

i agree that elderly driving is a problem as well, i just dont know an easy and practical way to prevent it. i do, however, know an easy and practical way to prevent drunk driving.

we shouldnt let the issue of elderly driving prevent us from correcting the issue with drunk driving.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : df]

11/21/2006 2:56:49 PM

A more efficient way would be to outlaw alcohol.........

11/21/2006 2:57:50 PM

^hey, we could atleast try it and see how it works.

11/21/2006 2:59:23 PM

I think we gave it a go a few years back.....

11/21/2006 3:03:22 PM