Here comes Big Mother "MADD"

[qdemn7]

Well I feared this would eventually happen. Once again the Neo-Prohibitonist Fascists are on the march and you can here their jackboots hitting the pavement. For any of you to young to remember, a similar stupidity was tried back in the 70s with seat belts. In order to force people to wear seat belts car had an ignition interlock installed that would prevent the car from starting unless the belt or belts were buckled. All of this falls under the stupid ignorant mindset of "if it saves one life, it's worth it." As far as I'm concerned that mindset is 100% pure unadulterated Bullshit...... Whether referring to this, Gun Control or any similar "Safety Fascism".

This reminds of the line from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" "Doin good ain't got no end."

A New Strategy to Discourage Driving Drunk

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 — The threat of arrest and punishment, for decades the primary tactic against drunken drivers, is no longer working in the struggle to reduce the death toll, officials say, and they are proposing turning to technology — alcohol detection devices in every vehicle— to address the problem. We’ve seen no progress in 10 years; we’re completely stalled,” said Susan A. Ferguson, a researcher at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Ms. Ferguson said the most promising technologies would work automatically, like air bags. “We don’t want the soccer mom dropping kids off, going to the grocery store and the preschool, and having to blow into something every time,” she said.Chuck Hurley, the chief executive of MADD, said that automatic sensors might be used first in fleets, and that eventually insurance companies might give discounts on coverage to drivers who had them. Two companies have introduced products that hint at future strategies. Saab, which is owned by General Motors, is testing in Sweden a Breathalyzer that attaches to a key chain and will prevent a car from starting if it senses too much alcohol. Taxi companies and other fleet owners are the target market, the company said. A New Mexico company, TruTouch Technologies, is modifying a technique developed for measuring blood chemistry in diabetics and using it to measure alcohol instead. The appliance shines a light through the skin on the forearm and analyzes what bounces back. Future devices may read alcohol content when a driver’s palm touches the steering wheel or the gear shift lever, said Jim McNally, the chief executive of TruTouch. A national campaign against drunken driving began a quarter-century ago with President Ronald Reagan, and the death toll was cut by about 40 percent through a change in public attitudes and an increase in the legal drinking age. But over the past decade, the number of deaths has not changed.

[qviri]

A national campaign against drunken driving began a quarter-century ago with President Ronald Reagan, and the death toll was cut by about 40 percent through a change in public attitudes and an increase in the legal drinking age.

Because as we all know, teens in America widely respect the 21-and-up limit. What a joke.

[qdemn7]

I think if you read the article, you'll see that they reached the bottom, and the hard-core drinkers are the only ones left. Maybe throw THEM in the slammer permanently instead of infringing on the rights of the law abiding. What's gong to be considered "Drunk" .08? .06? .04? .02? .01? How low will these things be set? And what happens when they malfunction, and you know they will? What then? Are you stuck in the middle of nowhere with a car that won't start because of some bull**** device? You want to talk "potential" saving lives? What if some criminal is chasing you and your only hope to escape is your car, but OOPS, it won't start because of the anti-drunk driving interlock. What then?

Might want to read this: Back Door to Prohibition The New War on Social Drinking

[jaganath]

Until computers can drive cars without human intervention you are always going to get things like this; what about the person who's not drunk, but just a lousy driver? They pull out without looking, bam, one dead schoolchild, but that was not caused by drink.

It's a lot easier in Europe, cos most big cities have good public transport, so you can get wasted and not have to worry about driving home.

[qdemn7]

It's a lot easier in Europe, cos most big cities have good public transport, so you can get wasted and not have to worry about driving home.

Definitely a plus. Some large cities in the US, Arlington, Texas, for example, don't even have Public Buses. Your only choice is a taxi.

[aristide1]

Until computers can drive cars without human intervention you are always going to get things like this;

We'll see much worse if our cars are controlled by MS Windows.

[aristide1]

Once again the Neo-Prohibitonist Fascists are on the march

This adds an important aspect to your argument.

Perhaps you can shoot your way out of it.

I don't believe you should force people to wear seat belts, but I managed to leave the "YEE-HAW!!!" out of the equation.

[jaganath]

Until computers can drive cars without human intervention you are always going to get things like this;

We'll see much worse if our cars are controlled by MS Windows.

LOL, there's an old joke about that:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/autos.asp

The basic premise of this gag — the computer industry's touting advances in computing technology by comparing them to the automotive industry is met by a stinging rejoinder from car manufacturers — began life as a mere three-line joke at least as far back as early 1997:
There's word in business circles that the computer industry likes to measure itself against the Big Three auto-makers. The comparison goes this way: If automotive technology had kept pace with Silicon Valley, motorists could buy a V-32 engine that goes 10,000 m.p.h. or a 30-pound car that gets 1,000 miles to the gallon — either one at a sticker price of less than $ 50. Detroit's response: "OK. But who would want a car that crashes twice a day?"

[mathias]

My "car control" idea would work much better, since it would target all dangerous drivers, not just drunks, but should have plenty of effect on drunk driving too.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

I just heard some more details on this on NPR, and I think the proposal is NOT to have these devices in every car, but only in cars of convicted drunk drivers. Big difference.

[qdemn7]

Once again the Neo-Prohibitonist Fascists are on the march

This adds an important aspect to your argument.

Perhaps you can shoot your way out of it.

I don't believe you should force people to wear seat belts, but I managed to leave the "YEE-HAW!!!" out of the equation.

Read this Back Door To Prohibition

[aristide1]

Read this Back Door To Prohibition

I have no complaints about energy or idiot taxes. Taxes that can be avoided by acting in ways that benefits all of society are not much different than parents that reward their kids for good grades. And make no mistake, too many adults are just older kids.

Tickets for bad driving also fall into this category. Don't like fines? Don't speed, don't run red lights. You live and your insurance rates drop. Or you can be a idiot and pay the idiot tax. I'd like to see an "excessive and unneccessary noise" law enforced for vehicles, whether the exhaust or the subwoofers rattle my windows, I really don't care.

In fact, what's wrong with doubling all fines on all laws and sending half the money to Washington? Then eliminate the income tax.

All this, and still 100% YEEHAW! free.

[floffe]

What's gong to be considered "Drunk" .08? .06? .04? .02? .01?

You mean now there are no limits, just some kind of judgement from the police? Pretty much all of Europe has set limits, in Sweden it's .02%, and .1% for severe DIU. Many bus and truck companies have had these installed on a voluntary basis.

[Mar.]

MADD is one of the most insane organizations there is. Driven by revenge, they frequently lie and cheat to spread their Nazi-like propaganda. They can go straight to hell, which had better freeze over before I would ever agree to them putting one of those damn things in my car.

[aristide1]

The basic premise of this gag — the computer industry's touting advances in computing technology by comparing them to the automotive industry is met by a stinging rejoinder from car manufacturers — began life as a mere three-line joke at least as far back as early 1997:
There's word in business circles that the computer industry likes to measure itself against the Big Three auto-makers. The comparison goes this way: If automotive technology had kept pace with Silicon Valley, motorists could buy a V-32 engine that goes 10,000 m.p.h. or a 30-pound car that gets 1,000 miles to the gallon — either one at a sticker price of less than $ 50. Detroit's response: "OK. But who would want a car that crashes twice a day?"

The difference is I am joking. We should all be quite scared.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

MADD is one of the most insane organizations there is. Driven by revenge, they frequently lie and cheat to spread their Nazi-like propaganda. They can go straight to hell, which had better freeze over before I would ever agree to them putting one of those damn things in my car.

This is one of the silliest statements I have heard. The mothers of people who have been killed by drunk drivers are to blame?! WTF?

Drivers under the influence of alcohol kill thousands of people every year, in the USA alone. Drunk driving is the problem; not the people who are trying to stop it.

If you are a convicted DUI, and your state has this law, then you'll have to have a sobriety interlock. If you are drunk, then you cannot drive, and would be prevented from endangering others. If we could depend on personal integrity, then the world would be a better place. But it the current world, a lot of people get killed by drunk drivers.

[qdemn7]

This is one of the silliest statements I have heard.

Really? Read this.

[andyb]

Fantastic Idea, one of my friends suggested this years ago, you can now buy a reusable DIY testing kit for £15, so the cost built into cars would be tiny, and the added nusance is as minor as putting on a seatbelt.

I would love for this to be made law in the UK, likewise all of the cock who dont wear seatbelts should be given a £1,000 on the spt fine by passing coppers. The current £50 fine is pointless as the cops are not really interested in all of the hassle of the paperwork, but a more serious crime and punishment would be far more effective. This (in the UK anyway) would also reduce the overall amount of car insurance, as Insurance companies are required by law to pay hospitals back what it cost to fix people involved in car accidents.

It might not work in the US, but hopefully it should work in the UK where the current limit is 1/2 a pint of 4% beer, 5% is borderline.


Andy

[qviri]

I would love for this to be made law in the UK, likewise all of the cock who dont wear seatbelts should be given a £1,000 on the spt fine by passing coppers.

Please refrain from telling people how to die.

[mathias]

I would love for this to be made law in the UK, likewise all of the cock who dont wear seatbelts should be given a £1,000 on the spt fine by passing coppers.

Please refrain from telling people how to die.

You think it's all that bad to be getting paid $2000 for telling someone how to die? I wouldn't have a problem with getting paid that much for, for example, talking someone out of eating a death cap. Even if I were to not like them, I wouldn't want them to suffer that much, and I sure as hell wouldn't want a liver donation to be wasted on saving someone from a suicide attempt.

Seriously though, I find this nanny state that such brits approve of disturbing. Letting cops fine you that much for something that would be your word against theirs is crazy. People always claim that one thing or another will result in insurance companies passing the savings onto consumers, but I'm not seeing it.

[andyb]

Qviri, I am certainly NOT telling people how to die, but expressing the fact that I would have much cheaper car insurance if people didnt kill themselves in their cars, and wore seatbelts instead. and a good incentive is always a hefty bit of cash dissapearing from their bank, maybe their stupid friends might even wear their seatbelts.

Anyway back to the point, great idea, would love to see it on every car made from xxx year, and they would slowly filter through the system, it could also be made a compulsary test item in the annual MOT.

If someone was found to cheat the system, then an immediate ban would be the punishment.


Andy

[andyb]

Mathias, you seem to mis-understand British LAW, if someone is injured in an accident, an insurance comany pays for EVERY bit of hospital treatment When this was introduced all car insurance in the whole country went up by 25%, if less people injured/killed themselves by not wearing a seatbelt, then the insurance cost would go down. This it absolutely true, its a very competetive market, they would all rush to charge us less.


Andy

[qviri]

Andy, what about cases where someone drowns or burns because they can't get their seatbelts open? Sure it may not be as common, but it happens.

Personally I wear a seatbelt, it's no big deal for me, but I don't want to force other people to do it if they feel it will make them less safe. Maybe they're right. Who am I to tell them?

With regards to lowering insurance costs, why don't we ban everyone under the age of 25 from driving? That age group is responsible for unproportionally large percentage of accidents.

[mathias]

They would rush to charge you less? You have very strange insurance companies in your fairy land.

The way it would work here, if less people got into accidents, they'd up the rates! Cause now they wouldn't be able to as often raise the rates of the person causing the accident to pay back what they paid and while they're at it raise the rate of everyone else affected almost as much.

[jaganath]

Seriously though, I find this nanny state that such brits approve of disturbing.

Most brits acutally don't approve of it; a recent survey found that the British are the most spied-upon nation on earth:

Smile, You're on Hundreds of Cameras

It's a shame the film isn't showing there, because it has interesting, if oblique, things to say about the omniscient eyes and ears monitoring everyday life in Britain, which by some measures is the most spied-upon country on Earth....

20 per cent of the world's CCTV cameras operate in Britain. In fact, there is one camera for every 14 people in Britain, and you're liable to be captured up to 300 times a day on CCTV, according to a report issued this week by Britain's privacy commissioner.

[Beyonder]

[quote="qdemn7"]Well I feared this would eventually happen. Once again the Neo-Prohibitonist Fascists are on the march and you can here their jackboots hitting the pavement. For any of you to young to remember, a similar stupidity was tried back in the 70s with seat belts. In order to force people to wear seat belts car had an ignition interlock installed that would prevent the car from starting unless the belt or belts were buckled. All of this falls under the stupid ignorant mindset of "if it saves one life, it's worth it." As far as I'm concerned that mindset is 100% pure unadulterated Bullshit...... Whether referring to this, Gun Control or any similar "Safety Fascism".

This reminds of the line from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" "Doin good ain't got no end."

A New Strategy to Discourage Driving Drunk[quote]WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 — The threat of arrest and punishment, for decades the primary tactic against drunken drivers, is no longer working in the struggle to reduce the death toll, officials say, and they are proposing turning to technology — alcohol detection devices in every vehicle— to address the problem. We’ve seen no progress in 10 years; we’re completely stalled,â€

[andyb]

Qviri, you watch way way too many films, I would be amazed to find that even 0.1% of car deaths were due to burning or drowning if they could NOT get their seatbelt off. And of course the other 99.9% of people would be really really screwed.

I appreciate that you wear a seatbelt, but why would you not force people to wear one.??? I just cant understand that at all. I personally know 3 people who would be very much dead and buried if they werent wearing seatbelts at the time of their accidents. None of those people accidents were their faults.

Person A: Travelling in a car with 2 other people, neither were wearing seatbelts, both were in the front, one ended up in the back DEAD, the other was somewhere else DEAD. This person didnt used to wear seatbelts, but because of an accident involving a friend, that person started wearing seatbelts, they are alive.

Person B: Driving along, something rather important broke, the car rolled repeatedly, that person would have been thrown through the side window and cut in half. No one else was in the car.

Person C: Driving along, the car was hit in the side (T-Boned), again that person would be dead if they were not wearing a seatbelt.

All 3 of those people are all alive because they were wearing seatbelts, 2 of them had broken bones, one still has back and neck problems. they are all rather happy that they are alive.

Qviri, another great idea, minumum driving age of 25. No arguments there, also anyone over the age of 70 should be banned. If you think that was a joke think again.

Mathias, you should visit this fairy land of mine sometime, its called the UK, Britain, or more accurately to me England. Better still pay for car insurance here that will break your high spirits.


Andy

[mathias]

First off, this entire thread should be locked on the grounds of Goodwin's Law.

So you're implying someone here works for mad?

1. Nobody is proposing mandatory alcohol detection devices for all drivers.

Ahem...

Anyway back to the point, great idea, would love to see it on every car made from xxx year, and they would slowly filter through the system, it could also be made a compulsary test item in the annual MOT.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hello,

This is one of the silliest statements I have heard.

Really? Read this.

Do you always believe everything that you read? You would do well to try and find other sources. As somebody already pointed out, even the source you quoted is not saying what you seem to think it does. Do you know for a fact that that person who wrote it, doesn't have an agenda, and/or who is pay his salary?

I happen to know a person who used to manage the MADD office here in Massachusetts, and she is anything but crazy, revengeful, or a fascist.

I'll say it again: deaths due to drunk drivers are a very serious issue, and until all the people who have too much to drink abstain from driving until they are sober, we need to explore means and methods of preventing them from endangering the rest of us.

[qviri]

Qviri, you watch way way too many films, I would be amazed to find that even 0.1% of car deaths were due to burning or drowning if they could NOT get their seatbelt off. And of course the other 99.9% of people would be really really screwed.

No, they wouldn't. I said they are welcome to wear a seatbelt if they wish. It's up to them to decide.

FYI, I watch few films in general.

I appreciate that you wear a seatbelt, but why would you not force people to wear one.??? I just cant understand that at all.

I don't like forcing people to do what they don't want to do and what doesn't hurt others. If you cannot understand that, then I am truly sorry.

I personally know 3 people who would be very much dead and buried if they werent wearing seatbelts at the time of their accidents.

And I've read an autobiography of a person who doesn't buckle up (she's still alive BTW - having driven across Europe at least half a dozen times), who advocated the right to not buckle up and provided examples of four people whose lives were saved. Personal anecdotes are meaningless.

Qviri, another great idea, minumum driving age of 25. No arguments there, also anyone over the age of 70 should be banned. If you think that was a joke think again.

I disagree with statements like these profusely. Generalisations like this may make life easier, but are wholly unfair. How do you think a 40-year-old would feel if I told him he wasn't allowed to buy a computer because old pricks like him can't handle the newest technology?

I hate, hate, hate generalisations and stereotypes. It is not my fault that some people my age are irresponsible idiots, I cannot do anything to change that, and I would appreciate it greatly if you didn't punish me for what I didn't do. Generalisations and stereotyping are a lazy man's way out; they are saying "I can't be arsed to determine who actually can drive, so I'll just classify people based on their age and call it a day."