It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Cars Have Built-In Breathalyzers?

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Should Cars Have Built-In Breathalyzers?


autos.aol.com

"Interlock Devices" Could Be Coming To A Car Near You
by Craig Howie | AOL Autos
Posted: Aug, 26 2009

Each year, 13,000 people are killed by drunk drivers with a blood alcohol level above .08. Advocates of a new standard for in-car breathalyzers say that most, if not all, of those accidents could have been avoided if the drunk driver hadn't been able to turn his or her car on. If Congress and Mothers Against Drunk Driving get their way, could your next new car could come with a breathalyzer pre-installed?

Much confusion surrounds in-car breathalyzer devices for those convicted of a
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Well this sure gives a new meaning to Government Motors!

Breath analyses locks on car ignitions? How intrusive can the government become as it buys and muscles its way into more and more private enterprise and private areas of our lives.

Of course there are those that are going to scream the common good. That’s exactly what happened when the teetotalers ushered in the era of Prohibition making the sale and consumption of alcohol illegal and subsequently propelling the rise of a powerful and deadly criminal underclass to fill the void left by the over whelming majority of the publics unquenchable thirst for liquor.

The nation as it most always does suffers for the attempt at social engineering as more and more all citizens are treated as recreant denizens of a police state where the only perceived protection the average brainwashed member of the populace has is that we must all conform to the same set of identical standards in consumption, perspective, taste and decorum.

I don’t drink and I don’t drive as in I never touch a drop of liquor and I never drive motor vehicles either. In part I stopped driving and started bicycling to avoid the constant scrutiny of the long arm of the law looking to help the state profit financially off of any lapse or infraction.

Once again a powerful special interest lobby with money to pass around and votes to award gains critical access and a critical ear in Washington to help further facilitate the nanny state where rather than you prove as an individual you can’t be responsible, every facet of your life is legislated for you to relieve you of your liberties and freedoms along with that aforementioned burden.

Our government is out of control and so is the liberal minded social engineering class that has gotten far too liberal in the scope and breadth and depth of what they would like to social engineer!


autos.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I usually agree that the government takes things too far. However this seems like a good idea. Could prevent a lot of accident. It doesnt have to be intrusive. All it could be is a breathalyzer. Can't pass the test? Can't turn on the car.
They can either sleep in the back or get a cab.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Sure MADD is for it, but what about DAMM (Drunks Against Mad Mothers)?


Government already mandates that we register our vehicles, can't get more intrusive than that. We have been on a downward slope since.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I don't know about everywhere else, but here if you get caught driving drunk too many times they put one of these on your car. It's a good idea in that situation, but making them mandatory (on every vehicle, whether you've had a DUI or not) is patently absurd. That's presumption of guilt.


TA

Edit to clarify my position.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by TheAssociate]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Controversy, and some confusion, has emerged recently over the proposed reauthorization of the Highway Bill -- yet to reach the House floor -- which contains a measure that stipulates that states will be denied federal highway funding if a mandatory interlock punishment is not imposed on first-time DUI offenders. A second measure also before Congress includes raising funding for research of non-invasive in-car breathalyzers. The two measures are quite separate, although both are backed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.


Very quietly and seemingly very innocently the Constitutional protections against Double Jeopardy are beginning to not just come under attack but to fall by the wayside as we begin to approach a Police State Society where once labeled as any type of criminal you become branded for life and suffer various forms of punishment for life.

Gone will be the days of a person having done their time and once having completed it being given a chance to start a new life with lessons learned.

It has already started in the new Sex Offender Laws. Now the next step appears to be Drunk Drivers. Of course who isn’t outraged by someone who commits an act of rape or pedophilia, bestiality or incest? It is after all for the common good that our knees jerk as we rush to an emotional condemnation for life and of the life of someone who has been convicted of such an act and seeming predisposition.

Here in Miami a small colony of ex-sex offenders live under a causeway in a tent city on a small island in the inter-coastal waterway because it’s the only address in the entire city that does not sit within the prohibited prescribed distance from a school or playground. A hundred men and women live out their daily lives without electricity, plumbing, or sanitation services and monitored constantly by the state even though they have served their sentences and time behind bars. Until some legal remedy is made available to them they are consigned there for life because of their Sex Offender status.

Now at the very least convicted Drunk Drivers can soon look forward to having to blow into a sensor every time they want to start a car and once again many if not all will say they deserve such.

What ever happened to deserving a second chance? What ever happened about the prohibition against Double Jeopardy and being punished more than once for the same crime?

But most importantly what happens when a Judge is wrong? When a Jury is wrong? When Law Enforcement and the Media are wrong? What happens when a person is actually innocent? Innocence they can’t prove for some reason perhaps through no fault of their own? Innocence that they can’t prove and ever get a reprieve from not being able to even once after they have served their time, and herein lies the great danger of the nanny state.

There is no reprieve. This is how it starts. Getting people to support the things we all become outraged about, sexual predators and drunk drivers but as the proposed addition of drunk drivers demonstrates where will it in fact end?

At what point does death or life incarceration become the New World Order punishment for any crime from an intolerant and unforgiving highly conditioned and social engineered society of conformists and brainwashed citizens? Citizens who live in constant fear of falling afoul of the Nanny and Police State as there never is a reprieve!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This is taking the concept of a breathalyzer test waaay too far. I think sadly enough that people would be far too willing to just give up their privacy to prevent accidents though.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I'm gonna have to go with Miraj on this. I don't see it as sticking their nose into my life but as prevention. There is really no reason to scream about the greater good when there is no evil intended. I can see if the car sent data off to some government department or something like that how it would be sticking their noses in it.

Lives could be saved, we could save money on police road blocks, court costs, and such.

Driving drunk is a choice, yes, but so is not buckling your seatbelt, which I think you should be able to decide on. The only difference between the two is one only gets YOU hurt, but the other hurts many people should you mess up and wreck.

The aren't starting prohibition. They aren't telling you "you aren't allowed to drink anymore." They are saying "if you wanna get plastered, that's fine, but we don't want you out there on the road." What's the difference between your car not letting you drive drunk and a cop pulling you over for driving drunk? Should officers not stop drunk drivers because that would be sticking their nose in the drivers' lives?

I think it would be better to have our policemen out there catching the criminally dangerous men than a man (or woman to be fair
) that had one too many drinks.

But that's just my opinion and everyone is entitled to have their own
.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Just a point from history -

In the UK, during the earlier times (17th century on) it used to be law that you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.
Sounds like those times are making a comeback, in my opinion!

Although there is an element of sense in the drunk driver proposition, as drunk drivers are very likely to reoffend, a line has to be drawn somewhere before this creeping authoritarianism infects every facet of our daily lives.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
I don't know about everywhere else, but here if you get caught driving drunk too many times they put one of these on your car. It's a good idea in that situation, but making them mandatory is patently absurd. That's presumption of guilt.


TA


Ooooh, I can see that! That is a better idea. I didn't think of that when I originally posted. Innocent until proven guilty. Where was my brain. That's a good idea , Associate.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Eh...I don't know about this.

It sounds good, but with most things the government does - it just sucks.

I really don't feel like blowing into my car EVERY TIME I drive. I don't drink and drive, yet will have to pass this test anyways.

Like another poster said, presumption of guilt.

Don't like the idea.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Hmmm...Seems if/after this law is passed a whole new "slew" of other laws and technologies will be needed to verify the verifications...

What's to stop someone from having their Grand Mother blow into the device???

Great...now we need Finger Print Readers, DNA Analyzers, and "Black Boxes" with Cameras that broadcast into Government controlled Wi-Fi servers with trained/manned "Observation Centers"...

Maybe they could embed a TASER into the Drivers seat if deception or failure occurs... :shk:

Laws like this could just pull us out of the Depression!!!


[edit on 8/30/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
This is taking the concept of a breathalyzer test waaay too far. I think sadly enough that people would be far too willing to just give up their privacy to prevent accidents though.


There in lies the danger my friend. People start down this path with small seemingly sensible, yet unconstitutional steps that seem to be rooted in common sense, yet one step always leads to another.

Sex Offenders, then Drunk Drivers, what will be next Tax Cheats and Scofflaws, those deemed to not be pulling their own weight and then who next has the sights set on them as posing a universal danger to the common good?

Where does it end? That's why it should never begin.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 





Great...now we need Finger Print Readers, DNA Analyzers, and "Black Boxes" with Cameras that broadcast into Government controlled Wi-Fi servers with trained/manned "Observation Centers"...


It’s a slippery slope indeed my Borgian friend when we start using intrusive technology to monitor and prohibit everyday aspects of one’s private life. The machines truly do seek to assimilate us?

Who is to say Johnny Fever doesn’t drive better and have faster reflexes drunk than Venus Fly Trap as so adroitly proved on WKRP in Cincinnati?

Who is to say it was strictly for medicinal purposes? What happens when that Hurricane Party turns a little too deadly at 4:30 AM and you decide to make a mad last minute dash over the causeway for the safety of the mainland but can no longer start your car because you had one too many Hurricane punches?

We already know ONSTAR uses GPS Sattelites to track vehicles and monitor their functions as a 'helpful' service, when does technology start becoming too helpful and we are all assimilated?

You all will be assimilated!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Ketoacidosis is a type of metabolic acidosis which is caused by high concentrations of ketone bodies, formed by the breakdown of fatty acids and the deamination of amino acids. The two common ketones produced in humans are acetoacetic acid and β-hydroxybutyrate.

Ketoacidosis is an extreme and uncontrolled form of ketosis, which is a normal response to prolonged fasting. In ketoacidosis, the body fails to adequately regulate ketone production causing such a severe accumulation of keto acids that the pH of the blood is substantially decreased. In extreme cases ketoacidosis can be fatal.[1]

Ketoacidosis is most common in untreated type 1 diabetes mellitus, when the liver breaks down fat and proteins in response to a perceived need for respiratory substrate. Prolonged alcoholism may lead to alcoholic ketoacidosis. Fasting leads to ketosis but not ketoacidosis.

Ketoacidosis can be smelled on a person's breath. This is due to acetone, a direct byproduct of the spontaneous decomposition of acetoacetic acid. It is often described as smelling like fruit or nail polish remover.[2] Ketosis may also smell, but the odor is usually more subtle due to lower concentrations of acetone.


Thanks Wiki. . .

Ketoacidosis will also cause a breathalyzer to register.

Not for that reason alone but what if I'm driving my drunk boss home (again) and the car won't start because he is stinking so much?

Nice post. . .



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 
Hopefully Humanity will find a little "Picard" in themselves and cast-off the "Voices of the Borg Collective"... (I know...strange coming from one that engages in Assimilation!
)

I constantly question the "Wisdom" of our "Great and Powerful" "Leaders" in this regard...

In their "Mad Dash" to "Protect and Pacify" the Masses, they constantly fail to see whats at the "Finish Line"...or...that's what they'd like us to believe???

I'll go with the second...plead ignorance when the masses actually "see" what they've been subjected to for the past 5+ millennium...

What Law of Man can be above that of GOD???



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Great post MikeRussellUS of course it will just be moments until the first chorus of…but if someone has diabetes they will be able to get an exemption!

Let’s not pay attention to the fact that any clever drunk with access to a larcenous Doctor will be able to get an exception to. Let’s concentrate on why you have to take a day off from your job at McObama’s to pull out your Obama-Care Card to get your RFID Chip updated so you can start your Liberty Car from Government Motors!

Is it just me that sees such a bleak future here? Am I just paranoid? Me thinks not!

There has to be limitations and boundaries set on government for people to enjoy any personal liberty and freedom and independent quality of life evidenced through self determination. Laws that take the self determination away no matter how much it appears to be for the common good are in my humble opinion uncommonly bad, as they lead to the crossing of boundaries and the elimination of limits on government intrusion in a world where it isn’t just a bureaucrat mad and drunk with power and self entitlement but machines who monitor and decide with out the human differential ever entering into the equation.

I would rather live on a deserted island picking coconuts off the trees than live in such a mechanized and automated society!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   



I would rather live on a deserted island picking coconuts off the trees than live in such a mechanized and automated society!


Amen! Although they would find a coconut tax to get ya!



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 





What Law of Man can be above that of GOD???


And there in lays the danger my Borgian friend. When the arrogance of man in it’s all too flawed and fallible presumptiveness seeks to impose itself on its fellow man with the notion of G-d like infallibility as they justification for tyranny.

How funny that people who don’t even know how to build a car or repair a car should decide what number and manner of steps must first be undertaken to start and then drive the car!

Tis a scary world our social engineering class seeks to create.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I'll take this a couple steps back, to the side and then take it forward... but I'll try do it quickly:

How about this: a surcharge on alcohol purchases at bars... or maybe even a mandatory cover charge? In order to eliminate 'bar-hopping', all bars do the same thing and tie in to a database of sorts, using state ID as a means to connect the activities of one person to many bars. A 'cover charge' at one bar does not mean a 'cover charge' at another bar cannot be incurred and likewise does not affect drink surcharges either. However, it's not a tax, per-se (more later). The amount charged would be a combination of a predetermined and negotiated cost to transport via taxi an individual to any location with a 10 mile radius and the cost to transport and store a vehicle to a location similarly located, or should the establishment have sufficient room to store vehicles on premise, the average daily cost of 2 armed guards to patrol and protect vehicles stored on premise based on attendance at the establishment for the period extending 3 months previous the current month.

So what happens is just before you walk out the door of the bar you blow a breathalizer-
... if you blow clean, 3/4 of the charge is refunded when you exit the premises.
... if you fail the local legal limit the surcharge is used to pay for the taxi and storage fees for the vehicle you drove in with.
... having a designated driver with you who blows at less than 1/4 of the legal limit results in 3/4 of the groups' charge to be refunded, blowing 1/2 results in 1/2 the charge to the DD and 3/4 the charge to the remainder of the group to be refunded and if the DD blows 3/4 of the legal limit results in 100% charge for the designated driver being forfeited and 1/2 the charge for the group being refunded- drinkers should make sure their DD is not drinking so they have to pay the cost as well.

Surcharges / cover charges are kept in (an) interest bearing account(s), untouchable for any reason other than taxis and storage for drunk drivers and their vehicles, or the occasional pay-out to cover accident damages and return charges to patrons. Interest earned on the account is donated to anti-drunk-driving advertisements and such. People who frequent establishments and do not blow over 3/4 of the legal limit more than 8 times in a row are not charged the surcharge / cover charge at any establishment until such time occurs that they do blow over the legal limit and require the taxi and/or storage fee. Since all bars participate in the program, all bars utilize the same account for the charges. Therefore, if one bar is obligated to repay a patron their surcharge, even if it covers many different establishments, the bar will receive reimbursement for their expense in repaying the charge to the patron from this account, not their own account.

What do you think?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join