www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:I think the point shi's trying to make is: if you can't afford to fix it when it stops working, you can't get to work, can't pay rent, and soon will be homeless. There's already enough expensive crap on cars that can break down.

Like I said, as long as I don't have to pay for the thing (or for repairs if it breaks), I have no problem with it at all.

Seeing as it's government mandated, than have them permantly under warrenty/insurance.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:I think the point shi's trying to make is: if you can't afford to fix it when it stops working, you can't get to work, can't pay rent, and soon will be homeless. There's already enough expensive crap on cars that can break down.

Like I said, as long as I don't have to pay for the thing (or for repairs if it breaks), I have no problem with it at all.

Seeing as it's government mandated, than have them permantly under warrenty/insurance.

That's what I'm talking about. Then, there's really no problem.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Yet, we still haven't been able to fix the radio on my dad's van(it only get's power when the van's on meaning that it has no memory). Anyway, the last thing I need to worry about is some pain-in-the-ass breathalyzer, which I don't need, while I'm working on the bloody fan.

Yet again you miss the issue, if your lock out doesn't work than you can't go anywhere. So then you have to get it fixed. And once again: why are your personal wants more important than societies safety?

That is the issue. If the damn lock out malfunctions I could end up with a locked up car and no way to move the damn thing. Which means I'd probably have to have it towed to a legit garage and get over charged to have it repaired.

Actually that's not covered in American History in high school

I'm going to call BS on that, considering it's covered in Canadian history classes.

Why is minor american history being covered in canadian history classes? Do you not have enough history of your own to study?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
That is the issue. If the damn lock out malfunctions I could end up with a locked up car and no way to move the damn thing. Which means I'd probably have to have it towed to a legit garage and get over charged to have it repaired.

And how is this any different than if your engine siezes/tranny fails/tires go flat etc? The lockout is a mechanical device and a computer to measure BAL, there's already a fragging computer in the car to begin with and it's rare that they fail.

And of course you miss the point where I stated it could be covered under insurance or a permanent warrenty. And guess what a decent insurance company offers? That's right, roadside assistance.

Why is minor american history being covered in canadian history classes? Do you not have enough history of your own to study?

Because we were busy selling booze to your asses.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
That is the issue. If the damn lock out malfunctions I could end up with a locked up car and no way to move the damn thing. Which means I'd probably have to have it towed to a legit garage and get over charged to have it repaired.

And how is this any different than if your engine siezes/tranny fails/tires go flat etc? The lockout is a mechanical device and a computer to measure BAL, there's already a fragging computer in the car to begin with and it's rare that they fail.

And of course you miss the point where I stated it could be covered under insurance or a permanent warrenty. And guess what a decent insurance company offers? That's right, roadside assistance.

Well, it's different because engines, trannys, and tires are essential components, whereas a breathalyzer would be punishment for living in a world were people are stupid drunks. Besides, I can barely afford liability only as it is.

Why is minor american history being covered in canadian history classes? Do you not have enough history of your own to study?

Because we were busy selling booze to your asses.

So you were selling booze to americans when it was illegal to sell booze in the US? Not exactly something I'd be proud of.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Why is minor american history being covered in canadian history classes? Do you not have enough history of your own to study?

Dude (or Dudette), Prohibition is not "minor." It was the first major attempt at policing morals. All it did was lead to a spread in organize crime. How do you think gangsters like Al Capone became so powerful? Selling booze. Heck, it's part of the way the Kennedy's made there money.

Also, Prohibition was covered in my 9th grade Honors American Cultures Class (which last time I checked, was High School) and again in my AP. US History Class junior year.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, it's different because engines, trannys, and tires are essential components, whereas a breathalyzer would be punishment for living in a world were people are stupid drunks. Besides, I can barely afford liability only as it is.

And this would be no defferent now would it?

So you were selling booze to americans when it was illegal to sell booze in the US? Not exactly something I'd be proud of.

Who said anyone was proud of it? It's history, they teach it so we know where we came from and how to avoid the pitfalls of the past. Your countries little stunt on moral policing is a big factor in your and our history, try to pay attention to why the world is as it is man.

Prohibition is covered in college briefly over here, too. Mostly to show why such attempts at banning substances like that are predoomed to failure.
Alcohol will never be banned. That's a simple fact. So the only thing we can do is try to minimise the damage that can be caused when people go overboard on it. One way of doing this is stopping people taking control of one tonne of steel moving at high speeds.

Someone said earlier than driving is a priveledge, not a right, which is categorically wrong. It is a right - driving on the public roads (even though you're paying it in road tax) is a priveledge. Driving on non council owned land is a right, you can do what you want. If you really want to drink drive on your own land, you can. You could probably make a rather amusing racing sport of drink driving.
I think that a breathalyzer would actually only cause harm - I will never drive after drinking, but if I were able to start the car (passing the breathalyzer) after having 2 or 3 pints I would probably drive. I think the case of more 'lower levels of drunks' on the road would outnumber those who couldn't figure out how to circumnavigate the system. If you knew you'd pass the test, then you'd drive, even if you feel you're not up to the job.

Thorin wrote:...You could probably make a rather amusing racing sport of drink driving...

I imagine drunken NASCAR racing would actually be rather interesting.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, it's different because engines, trannys, and tires are essential components, whereas a breathalyzer would be punishment for living in a world were people are stupid drunks. Besides, I can barely afford liability only as it is.

And this would be no defferent now would it?

Except it's not essential. Engines, trannys, and tires make the car go. What use would I have for a breathalyszer? I'm not even of legal age yet, not to mention I hate the taste.

I imagine drunken NASCAR racing would actually be rather interesting

NASCAR Saftey is not a joke. People have died in NASCAR

Except it's not essential. Engines, trannys, and tires make the car go. What use would I have for a breathalyszer? I'm not even of legal age yet, not to mention I hate the taste.

So what you're saying is that this shouldn't be done because you, personaly, don't drink?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:NASCAR Saftey is not a joke.

The precautions taken certainly were for long enough.

People have died in NASCAR

Largely through their own stupidity - that prat who used the fact that "I've not ripped my brain stem out" as evidence that basilar skull fractures weren't a risk for example. And who was then killed by precisely that.

What did you expect from a group of people who drive cars around in circles for a living?

Thorin wrote:Someone said earlier than driving is a priveledge, not a right, which is categorically wrong. It is a right - driving on the public roads (even though you're paying it in road tax) is a priveledge. Driving on non council owned land is a right, you can do what you want. If you really want to drink drive on your own land, you can. You could probably make a rather amusing racing sport of drink driving.
I think that a breathalyzer would actually only cause harm - I will never drive after drinking, but if I were able to start the car (passing the breathalyzer) after having 2 or 3 pints I would probably drive. I think the case of more 'lower levels of drunks' on the road would outnumber those who couldn't figure out how to circumnavigate the system. If you knew you'd pass the test, then you'd drive, even if you feel you're not up to the job.

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.

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.

Except it's not essential. Engines, trannys, and tires make the car go. What use would I have for a breathalyszer? I'm not even of legal age yet, not to mention I hate the taste.

Seatbelts and airbags aren't essential either, yet we have them. And I will take your refusal to answer why your personal wants are more important than societies safety as a concession that you have no actual rebuttal.