Don't kill yourself, kill others...

[Randwolf]

From "Radar Invisible Car?" thread...

...

We could reduce drunk driving to near zero by installing a breathalyzer ignition interlock in every car at the factory, which wouldn't even be very expensive.

...

In any case, the motivation behind speed limits and draconian enforcement has almost nothing to do with Big Nanny's concern for our safety. It's an easy way to rake in revenue.

...

It's all about the money, boys. Nothing at all to do with safety.

Governmental policy in this area certainly appears to be motivated by money, almost like an alternative or enhancement to taxation.


On the other hand, if we are going to accept that legislation on safety is motivated by a concern for public welfare, then why the inconsistency regarding "breathalyzer ignition interlock"?

Installation of these devices would certainly seem to be in line with laws requiring seat belts and air-bags. After all, not wearing a seatbelt is only going to result in my death, not others. Since these "features" are mandated, why not ignition interlock devices? This would not only protect the potential driver but others on the road as well.

The only counterarguments I can think of are false positive readings and some sort of privacy rights concern.

Personally, I strongly resist invasion of privacy and governmental intrusion. However, if I have no choice in using a seatbelt (it's illegal not to use one in many areas of the US), it would seem more sensible to stop drunk drivers from killing others than to stop me from killing myself, right?

There must be some other force at work here. Has this policy been considered in other countries? Anyone care to speculate on the real reasons it hasn't been enacted in the US?

 

[Oli]

After all, not wearing a seatbelt is only going to result in my death, not others.

Rear passenger seat belts prevent the death of others.

 

[Baron Max]

Oh, don't worry ....soon there'll be federal laws that tell us when and where to shit and piss, how and when to breathe, we'll all have digital implants with GPS signals so the gov will always know where we are, we'll all be required to.... Well, the list goes on and on.

It's simple ......too many people aren't willing to mind their own fuckin' business.

Baron Max

 

[Randwolf]

Rear passenger seat belts prevent the death of others.

Good point. Revision: ... is only going to result in the death of the individual choosing not to wear the seatbelt ...

My point was, the devices in question could protect those who had no choice in being involved in an accident with a drunk driver.

 

[Oli]

Good point. Revision: ... is only going to result in the death of the individual choosing not to wear the seatbelt ...

Rear passenger seat belts can prevent the death of the person in a front seat...
Someone in the rear choosing NOT to wear a belt can be catapulted into the front.

 

[Randwolf]

It's simple ......too many people aren't willing to mind their own fuckin' business.

I fully agree. However, I have to live with it, but I question inconsistencies.

Why is recreational drug use illegal, but sky diving isn't?
Why is it mandatory that seatbelts be installed in my car but not drunk driving prevention devices?

Who decides these things? Personally, I agree with you Baron, the government needs to stay out of many areas, but if they are going to intrude, FFS at least show some consistency...

 

[Randwolf]

Rear passenger seat belts can prevent the death of the person in a front seat...
Someone in the rear choosing NOT to wear a belt can be catapulted into the front.

Ok, already...

 

[Oli]

Geez, what government ever showed consistency?

 

[Randwolf]

Geez, what government ever showed consistency?

Erm... The US government? It is consistently encroaching on individual liberty whilst continuing to expand at an ever increasing rate...

Back on topic... Anyone know "why" these interlock devices are not required?

 

[Oli]

How would they be used?
From an engineering point of view?
If you specifically have to blow into it then there's ways round it.
If it samples the general atmosphere in the vehicle then how do you start a car when the designated driver's sober and all the passengers smell like a brewery?

 

[Randwolf]

How would they be used?
From an engineering point of view?
If you specifically have to blow into it then there's ways round it.
If it samples the general atmosphere in the vehicle then how do you start a car when the designated driver's sober and all the passengers smell like a brewery?

Presumably, however they currently work from an engineering perspective. A drunk driving conviction commonly includes a requirement to install one of these devices in your car as part of the penalty.

 

[Meursalt]

Laws promoted as being in the interest of public safety/health have more to do with finances than morality.

Anti-smoking campaigns reduce the strain on the public health system. That is why (for example) African nations rarely put much effort into them - they don't have a public health system to pay for. Same goes for safe driving. Accidents cause strain on the costs for emergency services, hospitalisation, even the investigation of said accidents by the law during and afterward.
Everything comes down to $.

Nobody gives a flying fuck if you get cancer. They only care when it costs them in an attempt to cure you of it.

You can, if you wish, pay attention to the advertising campaigns as an alternative.

 

[Challenger78]

Oh, don't worry ....soon there'll be federal laws that tell us when and where to shit and piss, how and when to breathe, we'll all have digital implants with GPS signals so the gov will always know where we are, we'll all be required to.... Well, the list goes on and on.

It's simple ......too many people aren't willing to mind their own fuckin' business.

Baron Max

Of course. Thats why we find reality shows so fucking interesting.

 

[Meursalt]

All you have to do is find the strength to not watch them... even if you're alone and can get away with it.

Can you do that?

 

[Challenger78]

All you have to do is find the strength to not watch them... even if you're alone and can get away with it.

Can you do that?

I can.

But what about those millions that are sucked into the time consuming waste that is TV?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Rear passenger seat belts can prevent the death of the person in a front seat... Someone in the rear choosing NOT to wear a belt can be catapulted into the front.

Oh come dude. Let's not sidetrack this discussion with trifles. Drivers who are conscientious about seat belts nag their passengers. I certainly don't want to live with the memory of someone dying in my car because I didn't nag them enough. The shotgun seat was known as the "death seat" in the era before seat belts.

I think you'll probably have trouble even finding the statistics on people who were killed by flying passengers.

Oh, don't worry ....soon there'll be federal laws that tell us when and where to shit and piss, how and when to breathe, we'll all have digital implants with GPS signals so the gov will always know where we are, we'll all be required to.... Well, the list goes on and on. It's simple ......too many people aren't willing to mind their own fuckin' business.

Max, you are so damn disingenuous. A few weeks ago you were lobbying for even lower speed limits. You wanted each one of us to waste an extra hour or three of his time on the road every week, so that the drunks, incompetents, and people with bald tires and bad brakes could be allowed to drive safely.

That's the Nanny State you now turn around and decry.

Go take a vacation somewhere. You are rapidly becoming a complete, shameless troll.

Geez, what government ever showed consistency?

The Third Reich? If you count consistent corruption; seems like every Nazi official had his favorite Jewish merchant or artist that he protected.

How would they be used?
From an engineering point of view? If you specifically have to blow into it then there's ways round it.

Obviously it won't be 100% effective but I think we'd all be happy to reduce the drunk driving death toll by 90%. That would be about 13,000 people in the U.S. alone.

I have a friend whose brother had an interlock and he never tried to cheat it. There are two forces at work. The people who are really dead drunk aren't coordinated enough to do it right. And there are plenty of people who, through experience and perhaps talent, manage to drive drunk as well or better than the average sober person, so if they figure out a way around it it's not going to be much of a problem.

If it samples the general atmosphere in the vehicle then how do you start a car when the designated driver's sober and all the passengers smell like a brewery?

The concentration in the entire cabin airspace is much too low to trigger the interlock. That's why you have to blow into it.

But what about those millions that are sucked into the time consuming waste that is TV?

TV isn't compulsory and in fact these days there are quite a few attractive alternatives. Besides, with 400 channels there are plenty of well-crafted programs out there. If you don't happen to like popular culture, well then say so, and I guess you'll never come to hear my band play hit songs either. The reason it's called "popular culture" is that everyone has enough leisure time to take in some culture, but not everyone has the aptitude or interest to read Gabriel García Márquez, understand a Shakespeare play, or endure a performance of 18th-century harpsichord music.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Laws promoted as being in the interest of public safety/health have more to do with finances than morality.

Anti-smoking campaigns reduce the strain on the public health system. That is why (for example) African nations rarely put much effort into them - they don't have a public health system to pay for. Same goes for safe driving. Accidents cause strain on the costs for emergency services, hospitalisation, even the investigation of said accidents by the law during and afterward.
Everything comes down to $.

Nobody gives a flying fuck if you get cancer. They only care when it costs them in an attempt to cure you of it.

You can, if you wish, pay attention to the advertising campaigns as an alternative.

Anti-smoking campaigns do not reduce the strain on the public health system.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Fraggle: but not everyone has the aptitude or interest to read Gabriel García Márquez, understand a Shakespeare play, or endure a performance of 18th-century harpsichord music.

What about gardening? Forget-me-nots, veggies and the like? One doesn't need a brain to do that. They can learn how to seed-save and destroy Monsanto for the good of future generations.

Lazy layabouts.

 

[Meursalt]

Anti-smoking campaigns do not reduce the strain on the public health system.

You're going to have to justify that statement, laddie. There have been several articles on the subject, and the cost to the public health services derived directly or indirectly from illnesses caused by smoking are reasonably well documented.

I'm speaking from an Australian point of view - if things are different wherever you're from, then by all means elaborate.

 

[swarm]

Anti-smoking campaigns do not reduce the strain on the public health system.

You mean like:

Anti-smoking campaign saves California $86b

California's large-scale tobacco control campaign has saved $86 billion in healthcare costs in its first 15 years, US researchers said on Monday.

The $86 billion reduction in health costs, based on 2004 dollars, represents about a 50-fold return on the $1.8 billion California spent on the program, they said.

"The benefits of the program accrued very quickly and are very large," said Stanton Glantz, director of the University of California San Francisco Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

Unlike many programs which center on teens, the California program focuses its tobacco-control efforts on adults through an aggressive media campaign and changes in public policy, such as promoting smoke-free environments.

"When adults stop smoking, you see immediate benefits in heart disease, with impacts on cancer and lung diseases starting to appear a year or two later," said Glantz, whose findings appear in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine.

According to the study, the program prevented the sale of 3.6 billion packs of cigarettes, which worth $9.2 billion between 1989 and 2004.

more at: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2008-08/27/content_6973251.htm

So $86 billion not wasted on terminal care and an estimate 40,000 people who didn't die each year in California eating up terminal care beds in the hospitals.

(California is approx 1/10 the US population and approximately 400,000 people die per year from smoking relate causes in the US.)