[gangstalking]

I'm not sure if this is the right sections, but here are my thoughts. If they can put a GPS tracking system into each car on the road, newer models. Why don't they put a breathaliser in each car?

I mean this way we could cut down on drunk driving. It would not stop it fully, there are always ways to cheat the system, but it would cut down on it a great deal.

If drinking and driving is such a big deal, and I have been told that it is, then why not put a breathaliser in each car? It would be just like when seatbelts had to be added to the passerger sides and used.

It would take some getting use to, but it could be done, and this way it takes 2 seconds to do a breath test, which could save lifes.

So if this is that important an issue, why is this not being done? I am sure some company could find a way to make money off of this idea.

So I am throwing it out to all drivers, passengers and people who hate accidents cause by drunk drivers. Why don't cars have breathalisers?

Just like seatbelts people would get use to it. You would blow into the little breathaliser thing, then once clear, you strap on your seatbelt and away you go.

I think the issue is important and relavent and I don't see why it was not done a long time ago.

[grainfedprairieboy]

They already can and do put them in cars. But they put them in the cars of people who have prior convictions as a condition of license renewal. The guilty until proven innocent in your world seems fair I mean, who could possibly be in favour of drunk driving right? But in my world the ignition of motor vehicles are probably turned 50 million times a day and a fraction of a fraction of those are impaired by alcohol.

Instead of trying to punish the majority for the actions of a few why not consider ad then call for tougher sentencing? How about first offence 10 years in prison and a lifetime driving ban? If the crime is serious the punishment should fit it.

[gangstalking]

HI grainfedprairieboy.

See you are viewing it as punishment for the good. I see it as corporation from everyone in society to help make the roads and streets safer.

Would you honestly feel punished any more by blowing into a breathalizer than you would by putting on a seatbelt?

You put on a seatbelt, so how much more difficult would it be to blow into a little machine inside your car for 30 seconds or less. I am sure the seatbelt takes longer to strap on.

I really don't see it as punishment for the good drivers. If anything, just like seatbelts are protection to help save your life when you get into accidents from bad drivers, this would also be there right along side of this.

Punishments for bad drivers I leave to another thread. I could give someone 10 years in jail for driving drunk, but if that person is 16, they had no accident and killed no one, I don't see how it would help society to take 10 years of their young lives.

Where if I can ask that 16 year old to blow into a little instrument for 20-30 seconds and it go greenlight ok, then all this wasted court time is avoided, the people on the street are safe, and so is the 16 year old.

It just seems like a simple solution, and the care manufacturers could do it quite eaily. They could even have cute breathaliser models for the really rich or treandy people in society.

[grainfedprairieboy]

First off, I don't wear a seatbelt so giving up just one more little liberty is not really in the cards for me.

Secondly, I don't drink. This may come as a surprise to some but I have actually never consumed a drop of alcohol in my life and have no intention of doing so.

Thirdly, driving drunk, stoned, under certain medication or tired are all classified as impaired and will fetch you the same punishment but you propose to target only one infraction.

But ultimately I don't oppose your idea on those grounds, I oppose it simply because it presumes my guilt every time I get behind the wheel whether I earn my living that way or I am going to the store for a pack of smokes. You have no right to intrude on my personal freedoms regardless of how just you think you are.

Perhaps next you will propose a car be rendered inoperable unless the driver is wearing his belt and inserts a valid drivers license into the dash and can also provide proof of valid insurance and registration. Following that you will advocate that all cars are able to electronically read the posted speed limit and are governed to be unable to exceed it.

Then of course you'll move to ration my consumption of "junk" food, force me to wear a bike helmet, and make tobacco consumption illegal ostensibly to save me from myself and a few bucks too for the rest of society.

Before you know it I will have to be subjected to security checks and produce internal passports to travel in Canada...oh wait, you already got that one.

You can keep your nanny state. If anything I think we should be increasing liberties not limiting them.

[gangstalking]

Hi grainfedprairieboy.

I think you have to wear a seat belt. Iam pretty sure it's the law.


I don't drink either, so it would be no big deal to blow into a breathaliser.

I am offering an easy and ready solution to a problem that society currently has. Sleeping at the wheel is also a problem. Once I find a solution for that, I will also post here. I hopever think the breathaliser in every car on the road, would significantly cut down on drunk driving, court case, and it would save society money and lives.

Quote:

You have no right to intrude on my personal freedoms regardless of how just you think you are

See I remember the same resistance for seatbelts and child safety seats, but people adapted quite easily and now no one even thinks about it much, and this would agian be a lot less intrusive than seatbelts, or child safety seats.

Also I don't think this would presume your guilt or innocence by blowing into the breathaliser, it's just like you rev up your care, you check the mirrors, lights, do up your seat belt, and then if that's all good, you make sure that you are all good to go, by blowing in a little instrument for 10-20 seconds.

Quote:

Perhaps next you will propose a car be rendered inoperable unless the driver is wearing his belt and inserts a valid drivers license into the dash and can also provide proof of valid insurance and registration. Following that you will advocate that all cars are able to electronically read the posted speed limit and are governed to be unable to exceed it.

Hey one thing at a time. I just want to stop some dying on the road and this is an easy way to do it. For people who don't drink and are not drunk this will not be a problem, and these are the people we want on the road.

Quote:

Then of course you'll move to ration my consumption of "junk" food, force me to wear a bike helmet, and make tobacco consumption illegal ostensibly to save me from myself and a few bucks too for the rest of society.

Cute but I think you are going off topic.

Quote:

Before you know it I will have to be subjected to security checks and produce internal passports to travel in Canada...oh wait, you already got that one.

I think again, when it was time for seatbelt wearing, most people had similar reactions, but most adjusted, clearly not you however.

Quote:

You can keep your nanny state. If anything I think we should be increasing liberties not limiting them.

I don't really want a nanny state. I just want that 9 year old riding a bike to have a better chance of not getting killed by a drunk driver.

This is something that responsible people can do to help society out, and it's very little change for everyone involved. Unless you have a medical condition that does not allow you to blow air into a breathaliser, and then ofcourse that's different.

I think if I can market this idea to the right people it could save lives.

[Banff]

The whole Nanny state thing has cost Canadians billions of wasted dollars and continues to grow . It's getting horrible to live here and for some a nightmare to survive .

Those who use the breathalizers in vehicles have them installed by the law and pay for them in full or they do not drive at all and it is very expensive . Those who have them and still like to entertain driving while drinking can have someone else blow into the breathalizer to start the vehicle and then chew lotsa mints and breath out the open window to prevent it from stalling . Boyfriends , Girlfiends , husbands , wives , or just plain old friends can provide that favor . I've seen it done before . I don't drink at all so why should that affect my cost to getting around .

Speaking of GPS and all the other pathologically pathetic gadgets which define how much of a privelege it is to use tax payer roads and highways .(environmenal concerns included ) How are we all enjoying the beaurocracys implimented on our wallets thus far ? ...

I should also mention that these breathalizers used by the law for convicted drunk drivers have timers which will stall the vehicle in as little as every 15 minutes to force the driver to give his/her vehicle alot of blow jobs . Anyone else out there think it sounds convenient or fun to give your hard earned 20 k to 50k vehicle blow jobs ?
Sorry , I just don't like the idea for many different reasons .

[gangstalking]

Hi Banff.

However car manufactorers would be the ones suppling these for the cars, just like seat belts. The cost to society in lives and legal fees would be reduced. Compared to other garbage that they load cars up with, where consumers do not have a say, this would be worthwhile and it's pretty cheap to get these into cars.

Cheaper than DVD and GPS and yet many cars come with this weather you want it or not. Those don't save lives and people don't go, why do I need a GPS it assumes my car is going to get stolen.

Also if someone does blow into someones car to get it started and they are drunk and it can be proven then ofcourse we should procecute the person who does this, but most times the stubling drunk is not going to be able to find someone to do this for them.

I don't know how well these things work, cause then people could just chew mints, and breath out the window when cops use these things. I just know the idea has the potential to save ives, it would be cheap to get into cars, and even if it saves a thousand lives a year, that's a thousand more people alive.

Heck even if the idea saves one person, I think it's something responsible drivers should have no objections against. We are talking lives here. I have heard no good arguments to say why someone can not breath for 10 seconds into a machine when starting up a car to help save lives.

Heck the really talented people could probably find a way to do this and get the seat belts on. It's quick, easy and has the potential to do a lot of good.

[Banff]

gangstalking wrote:

Hi Banff.

However car manufactorers would be the ones suppling these for the cars, just like seat belts. The cost to society in lives and legal fees would be reduced. Compared to other garbage that they load cars up with, where consumers do not have a say, this would be worthwhile and it's pretty cheap to get these into cars.

Cheaper than DVD and GPS and yet many cars come with this weather you want it or not. Those don't save lives and people don't go, why do I need a GPS it assumes my car is going to get stolen.

Also if someone does blow into someones car to get it started and they are drunk and it can be proven then ofcourse we should procecute the person who does this, but most times the stubling drunk is not going to be able to find someone to do this for them.

I don't know how well these things work, cause then people could just chew mints, and breath out the window when cops use these things. I just know the idea has the potential to save ives, it would be cheap to get into cars, and even if it saves a thousand lives a year, that's a thousand more people alive.

Heck even if the idea saves one person, I think it's something responsible drivers should have no objections against. We are talking lives here. I have heard no good arguments to say why someone can not breath for 10 seconds into a machine when starting up a car to help save lives.

Heck the really talented people could probably find a way to do this and get the seat belts on. It's quick, easy and has the potential to do a lot of good.

I guess I edited before I had a chance to read this post . You can go back and read the add on if you like . I strongly disagree with the idea not because it is a bad idea but because it is not , cost to life saving ratio sensible .

There is every type of gadget one can imagine out there which is marketable for those who find it a good idea or, would like them for themselves including distance/impact warning bells, forinstance if you are traveling too close to a vehicle infront of you these devices can brake the vehicle before you can react to a collision. . If we refuse to trust our own driving abilities and impose legislations upon each other we may as well not drive or tear up the roads and replace them with conveyor belts for roads with our vehicles bolted stationary to these conveyor belts which control everything from our speed to steering . Sorry I took the issue overboard but I am strongly opposed.

[gangstalking]

Remember the other things that you suggested take away control from the actual driver. Someone in front of me breaking my car would take away control, that's a different ball game. That's not the ball game being suggested here.

Since all the people in this thread are not going to be breaking the law what does it matter? It's a quick breathlizer it says you are good to go, and if not then you wait 20-30 minutes till you are, the life you save may be your own or someone elses.

If people can use seatbelts I don't see why they can't use this, unless they are drunk, then it's another story, and in that case should they be out on the roads.

[Banff]

gangstalking wrote:

Remember the other things that you suggested take away control from the actual driver. Someone in front of me breaking my car would take away control, that's a different ball game. That's not the ball game being suggested here.

Since all the people in this thread are not going to be breaking the law what does it matter? It's a quick breathlizer it says you are good to go, and if not then you wait 20-30 minutes till you are, the life you save may be your own or someone elses.

If people can use seatbelts I don't see why they can't use this, unless they are drunk, then it's another story, and in that case should they be out on the roads.

No I don't think they should be out on the roads but I will make one comment to support your challenge to market your own breathilizer . If I were to have posted my responses/ comments 50 years fom now or perhaps only 20 I would be considered hopelessly old fashioned and senselessly out of date and maybe even out of touch with reality . (as technologies and acceptances of them advance with the future)

[bootlegga]

lily wrote:

Banff - your scenario of having someone else blow into the disabler strikes me funny. The lengths some people go to get around some things astound me. If there's a sober passenger - why aren't they driving?

You obviously haven't seen the 40 Year Old Virgin!

[Blue_Nose]

Taking away responsibility only makes people less responsible.

[-Mario-]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Taking away responsibility only makes people less responsible.

look at todays kids.... they are used to be padded by their parents, look at them when they hit their teens.

[Blue_Nose]

Are you kidding? Yesterday they were running around, playing outdoors in the leaves....

Today they're cooped up inside all day

[Blue_Nose]

I was assuming you were taking "today" and "yesterday" literally.

The joke doesn't really work otherwise