Good Ol' Big Government...
04-25-2006, 01:15 PM
#2
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
great, so when you're being chased by a crazed killer and you get into your car and oops, you had a few drinks you'll be stuck there. Makes alot of sense.
there are any number of situations where this can be sentencing people to their own death. Too many reasons not to do this IMO.
there are any number of situations where this can be sentencing people to their own death. Too many reasons not to do this IMO.
04-25-2006, 01:24 PM
#4
Oderint dum metuant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
Instead of the government telling us what we can and can't do, we should be able to do whatever, but have SEVERE consequences when you don't use common sense (ie. are stupid). You know at what point you can no longer safely operate a vehicle, regardless of BAC; if you don't, then you shouldn't consider driving at all after drinking...if you're stupid and drive when you shouldn't and you cause an accident, then severe penalties should follow. This is merely another attempt to absolve people of personal responsibility.
04-25-2006, 01:26 PM
#5
Oderint dum metuant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
I had problems at first, too...you have to click the link, then click into the address window and hit Enter...don't know why (PITA)...here's the article...
Will all autos some day have breathalyzers?
By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY
Could the day be coming when every driver is checked for drinking before starting a car?
Widespread use of ignition interlock devices that won't allow a car to be started if a driver has had too much alcohol, once considered radical, no longer seems out of the question. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gives a qualified endorsement to the idea. New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here.
Manufacturers are perfecting technology that could detect alcohol on the skin surface, eliminating the need for the current, cumbersome, blow-into-a-tube breath-analyzing systems. Current breathalyzers cost about $1,000. The newer systems are expected to cost about the same.
The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts.
But Ortiz's bill faces a tough fight. The idea of forcing every driver to pass a blood alcohol test to start a car raises privacy concerns, irritates non-drinkers and has some restaurant industry officials worrying about a march back to Prohibition, or at least the demonizing of social drinking.
MADD and others trying to reduce the 17,000 alcohol-related fatalities a year say ignition interlocks are the only sure way to separate potential drunken drivers from their "weapons."
"If the public wants it and the data support it, it is literally possible that the epidemic of drunk driving could be solved where cars simply could not be operated by drunk drivers," says Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD, which is hosting its first conference on drunken-driving technology in June.
"What a great day that would be."
MADD doesn't currently support requiring the devices on all cars because it doesn't think the technology is ready. For now, the organization prefers requiring the devices, called ignition interlocks, for anyone convicted of a first drunken-driving offense.
About 70,000 ignition interlocks are on vehicles — most of them ordered by courts for repeat drunken-driving offenders.
Even without universal use, there's a huge potential market in the 1.4 million people who are arrested for drunken driving each year. Legislation is pending in at least 12 states that would require interlocks for some or all first-time offenders.
Driver sees it as 'a life preserver'
Steven Carter, a Colorado Springs-based photographer, voluntarily put one on his Honda Prelude last year after his third drunken-driving arrest since 1999. He had quit drinking but installed it as a "safeguard with me."
The decision was fortunate: Four months ago, Carter had a relapse and tried to drive his car after drinking at a bar.
It wouldn't start, so he took a cab home and went back the next day to get it. It still wouldn't start because he set his device to detect alcohol above a 0.01 blood-alcohol level.
Carter, 27, who is hoping to compete as a skier in the 2010 Winter Olympics, thinks interlocks should be required on all cars. He believes insurance company discounts for voluntary installation — which some interlock makers are pushing — would be a good place to start.
"Some of my friends see it as a toy, but in my opinion, it's more like a life preserver," Carter says.
State Farm Insurance spokesman Dick Luedke says interlock discounts wouldn't make much sense because "for the majority of our customers, installing one of these things would have absolutely no impact. For the person who does have the problem and does install (the device), if it does inhibit him from driving impaired, that's worth way more than a lower insurance rate."
Barry Sweedler, a former National Transportation Safety Board official, is trying to persuade automakers to put the wiring for ignition interlocks in all cars to make it easier to install the devices. And once interlocks can automatically check alcohol levels without any action from drivers, Sweedler thinks they should be standard equipment on cars.
Current technology requires a driver to blow heavily into a breathalyzer device before starting the car and regularly while driving. With that system, "Unless a person is an offender, to require it for everyone is too intrusive," says Sweedler, past president of an anti-impaired-driving group that has sponsored ignition interlock conferences for the past six years.
George Ballance, director of sales and marketing for device maker DraegerSafety, says his company advocates interlocks as part of teen driving laws and insurance company discounts.
"We want to get on the preventive side of the cycle and not just be on the court-ordered side," he says.
Draeger encourages its employees to carry pocket breath analyzers and would fire any worker convicted of drunken driving.
"We're not here to say, 'Don't drink.' We're here to say 'Don't drink and drive,' " Ballance says.
Opposition to breathalyzers
Such talk makes John Doyle, executive director of the American Beverage Institute, cringe. "This campaign is a lot further down the pike than people realize," says Doyle, whose group is funded by chains including Outback Steakhouse and Chili's and is leading the opposition to broader use of interlocks.
He says the existing devices are costly and easy to defeat, by getting someone else to blow into them or using an air compressor instead of a driver's own breath. Besides, he says most drunken-driving deaths are caused by hard-core offenders who have slipped through the system.
"How far are you going to go to reduce alcohol-related fatalities?" Doyle asks. "Maybe they should make driving at night illegal."
Opposition comes from other sources, too. Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU, says his group opposes laws that require judges to mandate interlocks for convicted drunken drivers. Rhode Island's Legislature is considering a bill that would require interlocks for second-time offenders and first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol level above 0.15, which correlates to drinking seven drinks in an hour for a 170-pound male.
"Our concern about mandatory penalties is that they don't allow courts to take all situations into account, including that the cost is quite significant and the effect it has on family members," Brown says. "Some individuals can't afford it."
While automakers are working on interlock technology, they are cautious. General Motors safety chief Bob Lange says his company has been working on ways to integrate alcohol-detection devices into cars for 30 years, but still doesn't think any are close to ready for widespread use in this country.
"If the technology incorrectly restricts ... sober individuals, it is unlikely to be supported," says Lange, who says systems must be "transparent" to non-drinkers. "Public acceptance and technological viability are essential."
Sue Cischke, Ford Motor's safety chief, agrees obstacles remain. "Some of the challenges include designing a system that is most of all accurate, not easily disabled or avoided, is easy to use and does not create driver-distraction issues."
Swedish brands Volvo, owned by Ford, and Saab, owned by GM, are at the forefront of auto industry efforts to incorporate interlocks into cars. Swedish regulators are expected to soon propose a deadline of 2012 for all cars in that country to have alcohol interlocks.
Volvo's Alcolock — which is built into the seat belt buckle — will likely be available as an option on cars in Sweden within three years. Saab's Alcokey has the technology built into the key.
For automakers, anything that keeps a car from starting sounds too much like the public relations nightmare that came out of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 1973 decision to require devices that would prevent cars from starting if seat belts weren't buckled. After a huge public outcry and widespread disconnections, Congress passed a law the following year prohibiting NHTSA from requiring seat belt interlocks or warning buzzers lasting more than eight seconds.
Some critics say alcohol-related interlocks would be even more problematic than seat belt interlocks because about 40% of adults say they don't drink at all. MADD's Hurley says most people don't steal or have their cars stolen, but keys still have built-in anti-theft technology.
Ortiz agrees: "This is a tool that will save lives. We have to stop putting parameters on it."
Ortiz disputes claims that the technology is not ready, but even interlock makers don't think their systems should be offered on all cars — yet. Albuquerque-based TruTouch Technologies, which makes a device that detects alcohol using light rays through the surface of the skin, will introduce a version for use in police stations next year to replace breathalyzers. CEO Jim McNally says he is talking to automakers about offering his system as an option, but not until at least 2010.
New Mexico, which has the toughest interlock law in the country, isn't ready to go as far as Ortiz is proposing. Last year, New Mexico passed the first law requiring interlocks for first-time drunken-driving offenders after earlier debating — and rejecting — mandatory installation in all vehicles.
Wary of 'annoying' car buyers
Volvo technical safety adviser Thomas Brobergsays he isn't sure mandating interlock technology is the way to go: "It might not be good to force these kinds of systems onto customers. There are quite a few things that can be quite annoying to the customer."
Jim Champagne, a former Louisiana state police lieutenant colonel who spent decades responding to drunken-driving crashes and now chairs the Governors Highway Safety Association, is guardedly optimistic about the prospects for interlocks.
Champagne says he would "love to see" optional interlock devices offered.
"It would give an opportunity for parents and guardians to get more involved," he says. But as standard equipment on all cars? "To tell the American public this is going to be on your car? No way."
Will all autos some day have breathalyzers?
By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY
Could the day be coming when every driver is checked for drinking before starting a car?
Widespread use of ignition interlock devices that won't allow a car to be started if a driver has had too much alcohol, once considered radical, no longer seems out of the question. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gives a qualified endorsement to the idea. New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here.
Manufacturers are perfecting technology that could detect alcohol on the skin surface, eliminating the need for the current, cumbersome, blow-into-a-tube breath-analyzing systems. Current breathalyzers cost about $1,000. The newer systems are expected to cost about the same.
The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts.
But Ortiz's bill faces a tough fight. The idea of forcing every driver to pass a blood alcohol test to start a car raises privacy concerns, irritates non-drinkers and has some restaurant industry officials worrying about a march back to Prohibition, or at least the demonizing of social drinking.
MADD and others trying to reduce the 17,000 alcohol-related fatalities a year say ignition interlocks are the only sure way to separate potential drunken drivers from their "weapons."
"If the public wants it and the data support it, it is literally possible that the epidemic of drunk driving could be solved where cars simply could not be operated by drunk drivers," says Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD, which is hosting its first conference on drunken-driving technology in June.
"What a great day that would be."
MADD doesn't currently support requiring the devices on all cars because it doesn't think the technology is ready. For now, the organization prefers requiring the devices, called ignition interlocks, for anyone convicted of a first drunken-driving offense.
About 70,000 ignition interlocks are on vehicles — most of them ordered by courts for repeat drunken-driving offenders.
Even without universal use, there's a huge potential market in the 1.4 million people who are arrested for drunken driving each year. Legislation is pending in at least 12 states that would require interlocks for some or all first-time offenders.
Driver sees it as 'a life preserver'
Steven Carter, a Colorado Springs-based photographer, voluntarily put one on his Honda Prelude last year after his third drunken-driving arrest since 1999. He had quit drinking but installed it as a "safeguard with me."
The decision was fortunate: Four months ago, Carter had a relapse and tried to drive his car after drinking at a bar.
It wouldn't start, so he took a cab home and went back the next day to get it. It still wouldn't start because he set his device to detect alcohol above a 0.01 blood-alcohol level.
Carter, 27, who is hoping to compete as a skier in the 2010 Winter Olympics, thinks interlocks should be required on all cars. He believes insurance company discounts for voluntary installation — which some interlock makers are pushing — would be a good place to start.
"Some of my friends see it as a toy, but in my opinion, it's more like a life preserver," Carter says.
State Farm Insurance spokesman Dick Luedke says interlock discounts wouldn't make much sense because "for the majority of our customers, installing one of these things would have absolutely no impact. For the person who does have the problem and does install (the device), if it does inhibit him from driving impaired, that's worth way more than a lower insurance rate."
Barry Sweedler, a former National Transportation Safety Board official, is trying to persuade automakers to put the wiring for ignition interlocks in all cars to make it easier to install the devices. And once interlocks can automatically check alcohol levels without any action from drivers, Sweedler thinks they should be standard equipment on cars.
Current technology requires a driver to blow heavily into a breathalyzer device before starting the car and regularly while driving. With that system, "Unless a person is an offender, to require it for everyone is too intrusive," says Sweedler, past president of an anti-impaired-driving group that has sponsored ignition interlock conferences for the past six years.
George Ballance, director of sales and marketing for device maker DraegerSafety, says his company advocates interlocks as part of teen driving laws and insurance company discounts.
"We want to get on the preventive side of the cycle and not just be on the court-ordered side," he says.
Draeger encourages its employees to carry pocket breath analyzers and would fire any worker convicted of drunken driving.
"We're not here to say, 'Don't drink.' We're here to say 'Don't drink and drive,' " Ballance says.
Opposition to breathalyzers
Such talk makes John Doyle, executive director of the American Beverage Institute, cringe. "This campaign is a lot further down the pike than people realize," says Doyle, whose group is funded by chains including Outback Steakhouse and Chili's and is leading the opposition to broader use of interlocks.
He says the existing devices are costly and easy to defeat, by getting someone else to blow into them or using an air compressor instead of a driver's own breath. Besides, he says most drunken-driving deaths are caused by hard-core offenders who have slipped through the system.
"How far are you going to go to reduce alcohol-related fatalities?" Doyle asks. "Maybe they should make driving at night illegal."
Opposition comes from other sources, too. Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU, says his group opposes laws that require judges to mandate interlocks for convicted drunken drivers. Rhode Island's Legislature is considering a bill that would require interlocks for second-time offenders and first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol level above 0.15, which correlates to drinking seven drinks in an hour for a 170-pound male.
"Our concern about mandatory penalties is that they don't allow courts to take all situations into account, including that the cost is quite significant and the effect it has on family members," Brown says. "Some individuals can't afford it."
While automakers are working on interlock technology, they are cautious. General Motors safety chief Bob Lange says his company has been working on ways to integrate alcohol-detection devices into cars for 30 years, but still doesn't think any are close to ready for widespread use in this country.
"If the technology incorrectly restricts ... sober individuals, it is unlikely to be supported," says Lange, who says systems must be "transparent" to non-drinkers. "Public acceptance and technological viability are essential."
Sue Cischke, Ford Motor's safety chief, agrees obstacles remain. "Some of the challenges include designing a system that is most of all accurate, not easily disabled or avoided, is easy to use and does not create driver-distraction issues."
Swedish brands Volvo, owned by Ford, and Saab, owned by GM, are at the forefront of auto industry efforts to incorporate interlocks into cars. Swedish regulators are expected to soon propose a deadline of 2012 for all cars in that country to have alcohol interlocks.
Volvo's Alcolock — which is built into the seat belt buckle — will likely be available as an option on cars in Sweden within three years. Saab's Alcokey has the technology built into the key.
For automakers, anything that keeps a car from starting sounds too much like the public relations nightmare that came out of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 1973 decision to require devices that would prevent cars from starting if seat belts weren't buckled. After a huge public outcry and widespread disconnections, Congress passed a law the following year prohibiting NHTSA from requiring seat belt interlocks or warning buzzers lasting more than eight seconds.
Some critics say alcohol-related interlocks would be even more problematic than seat belt interlocks because about 40% of adults say they don't drink at all. MADD's Hurley says most people don't steal or have their cars stolen, but keys still have built-in anti-theft technology.
Ortiz agrees: "This is a tool that will save lives. We have to stop putting parameters on it."
Ortiz disputes claims that the technology is not ready, but even interlock makers don't think their systems should be offered on all cars — yet. Albuquerque-based TruTouch Technologies, which makes a device that detects alcohol using light rays through the surface of the skin, will introduce a version for use in police stations next year to replace breathalyzers. CEO Jim McNally says he is talking to automakers about offering his system as an option, but not until at least 2010.
New Mexico, which has the toughest interlock law in the country, isn't ready to go as far as Ortiz is proposing. Last year, New Mexico passed the first law requiring interlocks for first-time drunken-driving offenders after earlier debating — and rejecting — mandatory installation in all vehicles.
Wary of 'annoying' car buyers
Volvo technical safety adviser Thomas Brobergsays he isn't sure mandating interlock technology is the way to go: "It might not be good to force these kinds of systems onto customers. There are quite a few things that can be quite annoying to the customer."
Jim Champagne, a former Louisiana state police lieutenant colonel who spent decades responding to drunken-driving crashes and now chairs the Governors Highway Safety Association, is guardedly optimistic about the prospects for interlocks.
Champagne says he would "love to see" optional interlock devices offered.
"It would give an opportunity for parents and guardians to get more involved," he says. But as standard equipment on all cars? "To tell the American public this is going to be on your car? No way."
04-25-2006, 02:49 PM
#7
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a great idea. Sure, it will be the Gov't telling you what to do again but it can save lives. It's a fact that it could save tens of thousands of lives every year. How in the hell could you argue with something like that? The only way I could see it being useful to bypass it is if you don't drink at all. Otherwise, that would be stupid to do IMHO.
For those that say... "but if I'm driving, I'll only have one drink!"
Fact: 1 drink slows down your reaction time down 25% regardless of tolorance.
For those that say... "but if I'm driving, I'll only have one drink!"
Fact: 1 drink slows down your reaction time down 25% regardless of tolorance.
Trending Topics
04-25-2006, 03:57 PM
#8
Registered Member
Same idiots who would like to see microchips in handguns so only the owner can use them. Governments are inherently evil. Watch them like a hawk.
04-25-2006, 04:45 PM
#9
Senior Moderator
Like nicholbr said, there could be situations where this could be dangerous.
In any event, I think its stupid to force everyone to have them in their cars. I can understand for someone who has been caught drunk driving, but making everyone have one in the car does not sit right with me.
I can see it now:
Cars cost more
Govt benefits monetarily in some way
Annoying malfunctions and machines not working properly
Costly repairs of these devices
Ppl can bypass them
Whats next, limiters in cars so you cant break the speed limit? Signs that send out signals to cars, so the engine wont allow the car to break the posted speed limits? What about microchips in your neck so you can be tracked by the govt if needed?
In any event, I think its stupid to force everyone to have them in their cars. I can understand for someone who has been caught drunk driving, but making everyone have one in the car does not sit right with me.
I can see it now:
Cars cost more
Govt benefits monetarily in some way
Annoying malfunctions and machines not working properly
Costly repairs of these devices
Ppl can bypass them
Whats next, limiters in cars so you cant break the speed limit? Signs that send out signals to cars, so the engine wont allow the car to break the posted speed limits? What about microchips in your neck so you can be tracked by the govt if needed?
04-25-2006, 05:03 PM
#10
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny thing about this is the fact that if they did actually do this, the gov't stands to lose money. It would greatly reduce the DUI/DWAI fines. With fines, jail (not including the states costs), cummunity service fees, and attattorney fees, the average cost of a DUI in CO is between $8,000 - $10,000. I know someone in this line of work so I hear the statistics all the time. I agree that it will put "the man" even more in charge of your life but hey, it still saves lives. That alone makes it worth it IMO.
Life > Death or injury by drunk driver.
Life > Death or injury by drunk driver.
04-25-2006, 05:57 PM
#12
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lord Helmet
I agree that it will put "the man" even more in charge of your life but hey, it still saves lives. That alone makes it worth it IMO.
Life > Death or injury by drunk driver.
Life > Death or injury by drunk driver.
You're not looking at this from a completely objective view. This is a much bigger deal than just saving lives. Legislation such as this being passed could potentially be the catalyst for other much more freedom limiting laws. I'm not saying it necessarily will but who's to say they won't be like "oh, well the breathalyser worked, lets see what else we can control to save lives". I keep thinking about the scene in I, Robot where Will Smith is rescued and not the little girl. Making things black and white such as this tends to not work.
If it ever does become law, I foresee it not lasting long.
04-25-2006, 05:58 PM
#13
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nicholbr
care to back that up with authoritative documented evidence?
04-25-2006, 06:00 PM
#14
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nicholbr
You're not looking at this from a completely objective view. This is a much bigger deal than just saving lives. Legislation such as this being passed could potentially be the catalyst for other much more freedom limiting laws. I'm not saying it necessarily will but who's to say they won't be like "oh, well the breathalyser worked, lets see what else we can control to save lives". I keep thinking about the scene in I, Robot where Will Smith is rescued and not the little girl. Making things black and white such as this tends to not work.
If it ever does become law, I foresee it not lasting long.
If it ever does become law, I foresee it not lasting long.
04-25-2006, 07:00 PM
#15
Registered Member
Originally Posted by nicholbr
You're not looking at this from a completely objective view. This is a much bigger deal than just saving lives. Legislation such as this being passed could potentially be the catalyst for other much more freedom limiting laws. I'm not saying it necessarily will but who's to say they won't be like "oh, well the breathalyser worked, lets see what else we can control to save lives". I keep thinking about the scene in I, Robot where Will Smith is rescued and not the little girl. Making things black and white such as this tends to not work.
If it ever does become law, I foresee it not lasting long.
If it ever does become law, I foresee it not lasting long.
04-25-2006, 09:20 PM
#17
Ha, I need permission to drive my car? Over my dead fuckin' body. 
If a person is a repeat offender, then by all means, require the equipment on his/her car. But don't put it on EVERYONE's cars. It's like the TPMS. Stupid-ass idiots don't know any better than to check the tire pressure, so the government mandates a system to alert the driver on every vehicle. For the people who DO check their tire pressure, they are now paying a higher price for no reason other than for people's stupidity.
If a person is a repeat offender, then by all means, require the equipment on his/her car. But don't put it on EVERYONE's cars. It's like the TPMS. Stupid-ass idiots don't know any better than to check the tire pressure, so the government mandates a system to alert the driver on every vehicle. For the people who DO check their tire pressure, they are now paying a higher price for no reason other than for people's stupidity.
04-26-2006, 11:52 AM
#18
Learn to swim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lord Helmet
I think it's a great idea. Sure, it will be the Gov't telling you what to do again but it can save lives. It's a fact that it could save tens of thousands of lives every year. How in the hell could you argue with something like that? The only way I could see it being useful to bypass it is if you don't drink at all. Otherwise, that would be stupid to do IMHO.
For those that say... "but if I'm driving, I'll only have one drink!"
Fact: 1 drink slows down your reaction time down 25% regardless of tolorance.
For those that say... "but if I'm driving, I'll only have one drink!"
Fact: 1 drink slows down your reaction time down 25% regardless of tolorance.
Remember this when you use Listerine right before going out to work and your car won't start because it thinks you are under the influence.
04-26-2006, 11:54 AM
#19
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tuleman
Remember this when you use Listerine right before going out to work and your car won't start because it thinks you are under the influence.
04-27-2006, 06:33 PM
#20
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,442
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tuleman
Remember this when you use Listerine right before going out to work and your car won't start because it thinks you are under the influence.
also people who wear alot of cologne can breath it in and run the risk of not being able to drive their cars.
04-27-2006, 06:51 PM
#22
Senior Moderator
You arent legally drunk by listerine, im sure theres a limit the breathalyzers would allow.
I dont even seeing this taking off. How hard would it be to get a random stranger to blow into it just to get your car started.
I dont even seeing this taking off. How hard would it be to get a random stranger to blow into it just to get your car started.
04-27-2006, 07:19 PM
#23
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
You arent legally drunk by listerine, im sure theres a limit the breathalyzers would allow.
I dont even seeing this taking off. How hard would it be to get a random stranger to blow it just to get you started.
I dont even seeing this taking off. How hard would it be to get a random stranger to blow it just to get you started.
04-28-2006, 11:37 AM
#26
Learn to swim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Crazy Sellout
You arent legally drunk by listerine, im sure theres a limit the breathalyzers would allow.
I dont even seeing this taking off. How hard would it be to get a random stranger to blow into it just to get your car started.
I dont even seeing this taking off. How hard would it be to get a random stranger to blow into it just to get your car started.
Take a drink of beer and take a breath test right after... registers way over the limit.. .18 last time I tried it. Directions say to wait 20 - 30 minutes after eating or drinking anything... but that's no fun.
A buddy of mine had a court appointed breath-alizer in his car. He had to blow into it before he could start his car. It would beep randomly while you were driving. Every time it beeped you had to blow into it.
04-28-2006, 11:55 AM
#27
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tuleman
A buddy of mine had a court appointed breath-alizer in his car. He had to blow into it before he could start his car. It would beep randomly while you were driving. Every time it beeped you had to blow into it.
04-28-2006, 12:24 PM
#28
The sizzle in the Steak
Thank God the government is there to save us from ourselves.
04-28-2006, 01:19 PM
#29
Learn to swim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lord Helmet
If he didn't blow into it or if he blew "hot" would the horn start going nuts? That's what they do here. I guess all of the cops here are trained to know what that means.
He did have to go in once a month so they could download the info from it. It would tell them how many times he was tested and what the results were.
04-28-2006, 01:24 PM
#30
I'm here in spirit...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CO
Age: 47
Posts: 7,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tuleman
Not sure.. to my knowledge he never "tested" it.
He did have to go in once a month so they could download the info from it. It would tell them how many times he was tested and what the results were.
He did have to go in once a month so they could download the info from it. It would tell them how many times he was tested and what the results were.
Highway robbery at it's finest.
04-28-2006, 03:27 PM
#31
Learn to swim
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Reno NV
Posts: 1,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lord Helmet
Those things are expensive. I was told that not only do you have to pay like $300 to get it installed but every month when you go in to have it checked or whatever, they charge you like $100-$150, PLUS you have to pay like $50+/mo just to have it. All in all it ends up being up to $200/mo!
Highway robbery at it's finest.
Highway robbery at it's finest.
Yes they are expensive....
this backed up my arguement with him on a 100.00 + cab ride.
Cab is cheaper than a DUI.... no matter what
04-28-2006, 04:07 PM
#32
Registered Member
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
Thank God the government is there to save us from ourselves.
Amen. God save us, Big Brother. We just can't seem to do for ourselves.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cycdaniel
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
8
12-17-2019 10:58 AM
JarrettLauderdale
2G CL Dynograph Gallery
5
09-21-2015 07:51 PM
nuldabz
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-03-2015 05:49 PM
