Tuesday, June 13, 2006

A Dolf Hypothetical...

A Dolf Hypothetical…

If car makers came up with an extremely low cost and transparent device that would not allow a drunk driver to operate an automobile, should it be installed in every vehicle sold?

-

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a REALLY dumb question. Of course not! What is "drunk" anyway? Every state has its own standard. Should we create a whole government department to police the settings in the cars? What about when they go into a different state or jurisdiction? Are you a communist????

Dolf said...

It's not a dumb question at all.

The government steps in all of the time in the name of our personal safety. Drug laws, Seat belt laws, speed limits, helmet laws... Do I need to go on?

Slowly but surely, people are losing the right to smoke in public. Why? Because studies say second hand smoke is dangerous. I think it's a safe prediction to say within five years all public smoking will be banned.

Just like second hand smoke, drunk driving is dangerous and a health hazard. So I wouldn't be surprised when a technological "cure" for the problem is invented and then legislated!

Every state does have its own standard and with current GPS technology the device would be smart enough to automatically change from state to state. You don't need a state agency for that. C'mon, use your head! How hard can it be to change the alcohol detection level from .08 to .10 and back again?

If you don't think this kind of stuff is a reality in the near future, then you are REALLY dumb. The technology to accomplish it is already here. It just needs to be made cheaper and smaller. And that's what technology constantly does!

Dolf said...

Simple stuff!

It's either .10 or .08 across the entire United States.

A high school programmer could write the program to handle that logic...

fxrsjoe said...

While the government legislates our personal safety and should, your drunk driving device poses certain problems. The seat belt, speed limit,helmet, etc. laws do not actually exclude the use of the vehicle - you can drive over the speed limit or without a seatbelt, you just risk fines. Who would be liable if lifesaving help was prevented because of the device? If some one has 2-3 beers do we really want to prevent them from bringing person to the hospital?

Wrecking Machine said...

Simple answer: no.

Long answer:

I was going to mention all the regulations that are for the 'good of the people' but you did in a comment. I, for one, think these laws are stupid (to a certain point.)

Do we need a law saying you have to wear a seatbelt? Do we need a law saying you have to wear a helmet? No. By now, anyone who doesn't do these things while in a vehicle is a retard, and if they die in a crash, so be it. I like to call it 'Thinning the Herd'.

The only difference with the drunk driver device is that drunk drivers are definitely menaces to other people. However, I for one think we should be upholding the laws we have now instead of creating new ones to patch them up, and making the penalties for such laws more of an impact. For instance, a drunk driver wrecks and kills someone? Murder. DUI? Not this 6 DUIs before anything happens to you shit we see now; hit them hard from the beginning. Sex offender? Castration; I can almost guarantee the numbers will drop if that is instituted. It is the same for the 'illegal immigrant problem'; the only problem we have is that we have been lax on the laws that are currently in place. If you are here illegally, you won't be for long (because we're sending your ass home.)

Quite frankly, the government needs to stop jumping in and trying to protect us. Our society has gotten to the point where we have turned over so much control to the government that we barely blink an eye when it fucks us over. Eminent domain for non-public use? Having your phones screened with no court order? General invasion of privacy throughout?

People need to start policing themselves. Then, when they fuck up and commit a crime, law enforcement (for laws that are already in place, not a shitload of new ones) needs to beat their ass so they'll never do it again.

Wrecking Machine said...

Along the same lines as my last comment, I just heard that the stupid broad who was drunk off her ass, brought her baby into bed with her as she passed out, and killed the baby by rolling onto it and smothering it got 5 years OF PROBATION! FOR KILLING SOMEONE! WTF?

Anonymous said...

I would buy one if it were available to keep me from making the mistake of drinking and driving. Many times I wake in the morning thinking "what was I thinking?" We all think that we can drive after a few beers when in reality we shouldnt. It would really put a damper on happy hour but it may keep you from making a HUGE mistake.

fxrsjoe said...

Wrecking Machine, while I don't disagree with your "thinning the herd" attitude I don't particular want to pay extra for other people's stupidity. People that don't wear seatbelts drive medical costs up, for that matter so do people that smoke - why should I pay for that?

Wrecking Machine said...

Joe,

The simple solution for the rising medical/insurance costs is to have people that partake in risky behaviors (smokers, DUIs, non-seat belt wearers, etc) will have higher rates. It seems to get the auto insurance industry by pretty well.

As for "how will they know who is risky?", just about every health insurance company's forms ask about smoking, and some I've seen ask about criminal history. Plus, all criminal records are public record, so looking that stuff is pretty simply.

fxrsjoe said...

wrecking machine,

Again I agree with you in theory, the problem is that our society has no stomach for tough solutions. If you charge health, auto, etc insurance based on risky behavior people will lie. Auto insurance overcomes this by using past behavior: speeding, accidents, etc. What is health insurance to do? Charge people more for smoking? then they will lie - then what? refuse to treat them because they lied? that will never fly, one reason health cost is high is because hospitals can not refuse anyone.

MattyP said...

http://www.wkrc.com/bengalsnation/story.aspx?content_id=1E04711F-D8DB-4838-9507-7BBDDB7C1EBE