www.ditl.org

Cpl Kendall wrote: Thank you Captain Obvious, yes driving on public roads is a priveldege. If you want to get gooned and trash your own land, I really don't care what happens to you.

Good - then don't force me (metaphorically speaking) to take a test on my own land to start my own car, when I can do what the hell I want.

However your point about drinking less is simply wrong, have you ever met an alcoholic? I used to be one and I can tell you that drinking less does not enter into the equation.

You've completely missed the point by a trillion miles. You've responded to a point I never even made. If you want to discuss alcoholism - by all means, I know plenty about - but where, exactly, did I bring that up? I said a lot of people won't drive if they've had anything to drink - even 1, 2 or 3 pints. However, if you took the breathalyzer test and knew you'd passed, then you're a lot more likely to drive, even though at 2 or 3 pints you may be unsuitable to do so. Please, if you're going to be sarcastic, respond to my points properly.

Except it's not your needs, Blackstar. It's your convinience.
Your convinience < thousands of peoples' lives.

Rochey wrote:Except it's not your needs, Blackstar. It's your convinience.
Your convinience < thousands of peoples' lives.

First of all, I'm not the one who started saying it was a need. I was mearly responding to someone else's posts.

And I ask once again, how is a breathalyzer in my car going to save thousands of peoples lives. I don't drink, and no one I'd let drive my car drinks.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

me,myself and I wrote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--AND the one!

To quote a famous Starfleet captain, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many"

Only in extenuating circumstances.

And I ask once again, how is a breathalyzer in my car going to save thousands of peoples lives. I don't drink, and no one I'd let drive my car drinks.

A breathalyzer in all cars would. Just put out a law stating that from Jan 1st 201X all new cars have to be manufactured with a built in breathalyzer. Over the years, phase out the old cars, and eventualy make it illegal to own a car without a breathalyzer at all.
There. They're introduced easily enough and the manufacturing company gets the bill.

Rochey wrote:

And I ask once again, how is a breathalyzer in my car going to save thousands of peoples lives. I don't drink, and no one I'd let drive my car drinks.

A breathalyzer in all cars would. Just put out a law stating that from Jan 1st 201X all new cars have to be manufactured with a built in breathalyzer. Over the years, phase out the old cars, and eventualy make it illegal to own a car without a breathalyzer at all.
There. They're introduced easily enough and the manufacturing company gets the bill.

Until the first time you've got to repair/recalibrate it. And that would never work. There would always be cars without Breathalyzer because people won't want to ruin their classic cars with an after-market add-on like a breathalyzer. What's needed is stricter punishments for drunk driving offenses that are strict enough that people wouldn't want to risk it. Not another useless gadget that will never be foolproof, effective, or practical.

Until the first time you've got to repair/recalibrate it. And that would never work.

Have them insured by the government. Problem solved.

There would always be cars without Breathalyzer because people won't want to ruin their classic cars with an after-market add-on like a breathalyzer.

Too bad for them. If they don't have one in their car, they get penalised.

What's needed is stricter punishments for drunk driving offenses that are strict enough that people wouldn't want to risk it. Not another useless gadget that will never be foolproof, effective, or practical.

Given that banning alcohol altogether didn't stop it happening, exactly what do you propose?

Have them insured by the government. Problem solved.

As in have the government pay for them? That would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. The government is over its head as it is as far as debt, not to mention we can barely get funding for our schools. Do you really think they'd be willing to pay for this kind of system?

Too bad for them. If they don't have one in their car, they get penalised.

Which isn't fair to people who own their cars, take care and maintain them, and are smart enough not to consume alcohol.

Given that banning alcohol altogether didn't stop it happening, exactly what do you propose?

Harsher laws. Taking away a driver's license perminatly for the first offense would be good incentive not to drink and drive. I belive that's what they do in Germany.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:...Do you really think they'd be willing to pay for this kind of system?

If they're going to mandate it's use, they're either going to pay for it, or I won't be using it.

I suppose the pirate emoticon would work here as well.

As in have the government pay for them? That would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. The government is over its head as it is as far as debt, not to mention we can barely get funding for our schools. Do you really think they'd be willing to pay for this kind of system?

Fine. Then have them included on a normal insurance policy, just like everything else in the car.

Which isn't fair to people who own their cars, take care and maintain them, and are smart enough not to consume alcohol.

Too bad. It saves thousands of lives. If you think having to take a little extra time to get your car started is worth more than thousands of lives, then you live in one very screwed up world.

Harsher laws. Taking away a driver's license perminatly for the first offense would be good incentive not to drink and drive. I belive that's what they do in Germany.

Which is pretty pointless, as they've probably killed someone already at that stage. Does the word 'prevention' mean nothing to you?

Rochey wrote:

As in have the government pay for them? That would be funny if it wasn't so stupid. The government is over its head as it is as far as debt, not to mention we can barely get funding for our schools. Do you really think they'd be willing to pay for this kind of system?

Fine. Then have them included on a normal insurance policy, just like everything else in the car.

Sure, give them another excuse to jack up my rates. The only possible thing that could encourage me to get one is a serious lowering of my rates. And we all know that will never happen.

Too bad. It saves thousands of lives. If you think having to take a little extra time to get your car started is worth more than thousands of lives, then you live in one very screwed up world.

Oh, gee...what was your first clue?

Harsher laws. Taking away a driver's license perminatly for the first offense would be good incentive not to drink and drive. I belive that's what they do in Germany.

Which is pretty pointless, as they've probably killed someone already at that stage. Does the word 'prevention' mean nothing to you?

I mean first offense of driving drunk, at any alcohol content level. That would put enough fear into anyone to not drink and drive. And you should not be talking about prevention. America invaded Iraq to prevent worse things from happening in the long wrong yet most of the UN objected to it.

Mikey wrote:If even a fraction of drunks fail to circumvent the system, I'd say it succeeded. OK, it might not work all the time; but what's the downside?

The downside is you are inconveniencing tens of millions of people. Not only do they have to waste time every time they start their car, they also have to waste major time when the thing breaks down and immobilises the car for no reason, or gives false positives - which they certainly will, sometimes.

You are also basically ordering people to prove their innocence of a crime before you let them drive, and making them pay for the privilege, both of which are unacceptable and uncivilised.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Mikey wrote:If even a fraction of drunks fail to circumvent the system, I'd say it succeeded. OK, it might not work all the time; but what's the downside?

The downside is you are inconveniencing tens of millions of people. Not only do they have to waste time every time they start their car, they also have to waste major time when the thing breaks down and immobilises the car for no reason, or gives false positives - which they certainly will, sometimes.

You are also basically ordering people to prove their innocence of a crime before you let them drive, and making them pay for the privilege, both of which are unacceptable and uncivilised.

Yes, finally someone agrees with me.

And what happened to innocent until proven guilty guys? The basis of our legal system.

I agree with you I just cant be arsed argueing it.

Basically your innocent till proven guilty. This makes the opposite assumption.

me,myself and I wrote:
It was tried once---didn't work. Ever hear of a little thing called Prohibition?

I'm all in favour of prohibition. But only because I want to open up a speak easy in my spare room. Maybe a bit of Rum Running in my friends canal boat. Its about time this towns pier (which is 50 miles inland btw) was put to some good use again.