DUmmies: guns should be outlawed. Breathalyzers, too.

[BannedFromDU]

Star Member dixiegrrrrl (42,624 posts)

Mandatory Breathalyzers Could Soon Be In Every Car If Feds Have Their Way

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is currently working on a plan to put alcohol detection systems in every vehicle. The plan, called Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS), is still in its early stages, and they have not yet decided exactly how it will be implemented.

Some have suggested a system similar to Interlock, the breath system that people are required to install in their cars after they get a DUI. The device prevents the vehicle from starting unless the driver is able to breathe into the device to prove they are not under the influence of alcohol. However, less complicated equipment is being devised, like sensors that test the alcohol level in the breath of the driver as they sit in the driver’s seat or a touch system that would detect alcohol levels through the skin.

This technology will not just be used for DUI cases, though. The NHTSA is actually hoping to implement this in every vehicle on the road.
an effort is underway to develop advanced invehicle technologies that could be fitted in vehicles of all drivers to measure driver blood alcohol concentration non-invasively.

They are calling this technology “non-invasive” but it tests the content of your blood every time you get into your vehicle, which by its very nature is extremely invasive.

You might have guessed this. Under the guise of "totalitarianism," DUmmies claim their right to be drunk and then to kill you with their cars. It isn't enough to Kopechne someone: they want a fighting chance at killing people NOT in their cars.

They see no feasibility issues with outlawing and confiscating all guns, but golly, what if a breathalyzer gave even ONE false positive?

They'd rather a hundred children die at the hands of a drunk Randys1 than one nearly-drunk DUmmy be inconvenienced.

enlightenment (8,554 posts)
8. Too many ways for a false positive -

this is another Nanny State bad idea.

Diabetes, low-carb diets, asthma, even reflux can lead to false positives.

Shandris (2,158 posts)
11. False positives, additional repair and calibration costs...

...yearly testing no doubt. Oh good, more money to keep you enslaved and working.

And everyone's tripping over themselves to line up for it. LOL.

hifiguy (27,257 posts)
13. A terrible and thoroughly totalitarian idea.

I am shocked to see people actually support this here.

Star Member X_Digger (16,471 posts)
34. **** off. I don't drink, but I'll never support this.

And it's funny how the same stripe of 'control everything' crowd is for it.

Not enough to exterminate babies...now they want YOU.

[98ZJUSMC]

enlightenment (8,554 posts)
this is another Nanny State bad idea.

Whaaaa?   No likey Nanny State no more?

Careful of those slippery slopes in the future, retard.

Star Member X_Digger (16,471 posts)
34. **** off. I don't drink, but I'll never support this.

And it's funny how the same stripe of 'control everything' crowd is for it.

The mirror shows only your reflection, skidmark.  Welcome to the inevitable consequence of your eternal quest for fReEsHiT!!!11111!! 

[txradioguy]

Welcome to the world you wished and begged for DUmmies.

[Big Dog]

The DUmmies will change their tune when they find out the "breathalyzer" uses an anal probe.

[diesel driver]

The DUmmies will change their tune when they find out the "breathalyzer" uses an anal probe.

Give it a vibrator option and they'll actually pay for it.

Typical of the DUmmies, they would sponsor an idea that would add thousands of dollars to each and every new car, just to save 15 lives a year, but insist on a woman's "right to choose".   

Ever notice everything DUmmies want costs ME a buttload of money.   

[Ralph Wiggum]

Lord forbid anyone take away their  "right" to abuse drugs & alcohol.  Part of the DUmp & liberal holy grail.

[Carl]

I am going to take a contrary position and obviously no one can justify or excuse drunk driving but the ability for such a device to be abused is great.
Had a beer after the game or at a BBQ?
Not drunk or illegal but the device registers an alcohol reading,who is to say this info isn`t fed directly to the insurance industry that has a whole rates you as a "risk" with rates corresponding?

I don`t like the idea of a government compelling or allowing me to provide evidence against myself in the search for a crime that has not been committed.

[SVPete]

They are calling this technology “non-invasive” but it tests the content of your blood every time you get into your vehicle, which by its very nature is extremely invasive.



You might have guessed this. Under the guise of "totalitarianism," DUmmies claim their right to be drunk and then to kill you with their cars. It isn't enough to Kopechne someone: they want a fighting chance at killing people NOT in their cars.

They see no feasibility issues with outlawing and confiscating all guns, but golly, what if a breathalyzer gave even ONE false positive?

They'd rather a hundred children die at the hands of a drunk Randys1 than one nearly-drunk DUmmy be inconvenienced.


Not enough to exterminate babies...now they want YOU.

So, DU-folk are POed at the thought of unreliable results and system failures, but not the reliability and system failures of "smart guns"?

I guess the DU-folk don't care about the reliability of things they won't use. But in the case of their cars, they may also be POed at the thought of the breathalyzer-interlock operating properly.

[Ralph Wiggum]

I am going to take a contrary position and obviously no one can justify or excuse drunk driving but the ability for such a device to be abused is great.
Had a beer after the game or at a BBQ?
Not drunk or illegal but the device registers an alcohol reading,who is to say this info isn`t fed directly to the insurance industry that has a whole rates you as a "risk" with rates corresponding?

I don`t like the idea of a government compelling or allowing me to provide evidence against myself in the search for a crime that has not been committed.

I actually agree completely.

[USA4ME]

I'll join the others here. You can't desire things like Universal Single Payer Healthcare and wanting the gov't to provide a bunch of social programs by taxing the rich and then turn around and say that mandating one takes a breathalyzer test before being able to drive is Nanny State. You either want the gov't to have the type of massive control it has to have in order to have universal healthcare and breathalyzer testing, or you don't.

You have to be a complete fool to think you can draw a line and tell a big gov't "Here, and no further," which is why liberals/progressives exists, because they're stupid enough to believe it can work like that. But someone has to be the useful idiots, and modern-day liberals/progressives fit that description nicely.

.

[Carl]

I'll join the others here. You can't desire things like Universal Single Payer Healthcare and wanting the gov't to provide a bunch of social programs by taxing the rich and then turn around and say that mandating one takes a breathalyzer test before being able to drive is Nanny State. You either want the gov't to have the type of massive control it has to have in order to have universal healthcare and breathalyzer testing, or you don't.

You have to be a complete fool to think you can draw a line and tell a big gov't "Here, and no further," which is why liberals/progressives exists, because they're stupid enough to believe it can work like that. But someone has to be the useful idiots, and modern-day liberals/progressives fit that description nicely.

.

 

[DumbAss Tanker]

You have to be a complete fool to think you can draw a line and tell a big gov't "Here, and no further," which is why liberals/progressives exists, because they're stupid enough to believe it can work like that.

Bingo.  On a related not, point number one on why I have zero interest in a 'Smart car.'  Piss off the government, or just get put on the wrong list by clerical error, and the ****ers could turn it off and lock it down on you.

[SVPete]

I am going to take a contrary position and obviously no one can justify or excuse drunk driving but the ability for such a device to be abused is great.
Had a beer after the game or at a BBQ?
Not drunk or illegal but the device registers an alcohol reading,who is to say this info isn`t fed directly to the insurance industry that has a whole rates you as a "risk" with rates corresponding?

I don`t like the idea of a government compelling or allowing me to provide evidence against myself in the search for a crime that has not been committed.

Concur as well. Breathalyzer interlocks, where/when they are required, are part of the punishment for known (usually chronic) drunk drivers. I have no problem with that, do the crime & do the "time". But I oppose mandating breathalyzer interlocks - which have potential issues of false positives, with reliability, and abuse of information - on people who not been convicted of, let alone been charged with, a crime. If consumers want to spend the extra $$ and assume the risks, fine. But government should not mandate it.

[thundley4]

Concur as well. Breathalyzer interlocks, where/when they are required, are part of the punishment for known (usually chronic) drunk drivers. I have no problem with that, do the crime & do the "time". But I oppose mandating breathalyzer interlocks - which have potential issues of false positives, with reliability, and abuse of information - on people who not been convicted of, let alone been charged with, a crime. If consumers want to spend the extra $$ and assume the risks, fine. But government should not mandate it.

Illinois mandates an Interlock after the first DUI now.

[Ptarmigan]

I am going to take a contrary position and obviously no one can justify or excuse drunk driving but the ability for such a device to be abused is great.
Had a beer after the game or at a BBQ?
Not drunk or illegal but the device registers an alcohol reading,who is to say this info isn`t fed directly to the insurance industry that has a whole rates you as a "risk" with rates corresponding?

I don`t like the idea of a government compelling or allowing me to provide evidence against myself in the search for a crime that has not been committed.

I agree with you.

[obumazombie]

One step closer to "Minority Report".

[Airwolf]

They don't like this idea but yet the Government can with a warrant already have OnStar  shut off your vehicle or track it's movements without you knowing it till it's done and over with. They are such idiots they have no idea of the unintended results of their progressive plans.

[Carl]

I'll join the others here. You can't desire things like Universal Single Payer Healthcare and wanting the gov't to provide a bunch of social programs by taxing the rich and then turn around and say that mandating one takes a breathalyzer test before being able to drive is Nanny State. You either want the gov't to have the type of massive control it has to have in order to have universal healthcare and breathalyzer testing, or you don't.

You have to be a complete fool to think you can draw a line and tell a big gov't "Here, and no further," which is why liberals/progressives exists, because they're stupid enough to believe it can work like that. But someone has to be the useful idiots, and modern-day liberals/progressives fit that description nicely.

.

Which the Founders understood so they wanted a small government and they did issue that statement via the Constitution and liberals hate it.

[Patriot Guard Rider]

The DUmmies will change their tune when they find out the "breathalyzer" uses an anal probe.

Or, they may look forward to it?

[Ralph Wiggum]

Or, they may look forward to it?

Excellent point!

No pun intended...or was there?

[Karin]

I agree with Carl as well.  I have no problem with requiring repeat offenders to be outfitted like this, but for responsible, law-abiding citizens to be saddled with this cost and invasion is outrageous. 

[I_B_Perky]

I agree with Carl as well.  I have no problem with requiring repeat offenders to be outfitted like this, but for responsible, law-abiding citizens to be saddled with this cost and invasion is outrageous.

You can pretty much blame MADD for this nonsense. They are very active and go after the lawmakers to implement their agenda. And what politician is going to turn down MADD? The headlines alone would kill their chances of getting reelected.

Now I am death on drunk driving. I believe the serial repeat offenders should go to prison. The fine line is when it comes to your average ordinary guy/gal at the bar watching a sports event on the big screen and has one or two over the limit.

No I don't have any answers but this bullshit should be tossed out with the trash.  Not to mention, what happens when you have a designated driver and a vehicle full of drunks and the car sniffs booze? False positive. What happens if the driver has to blow every so often and takes his eye of the road?  Wreck.  Touch ignition? Easily defeated by someone sober starting the car and then the drunk gets in and drives.  Some gal half drunk and trying to get away from a rapist and the car won't start? Lawsuit.  Malfunction and the car quits on some lonely road in the middle of a cold snap and someone freezes to death? Lawsuit.

I'm not sure this will go anywhere unless the fed government steps in with immunity for the car companies.