No, you’re a criminal when you have been convicted of a crime.
What if your spouse and child were held at gunpoint and you were forced to commit crime X? Apparently you’re intractably a criminal in your world. In the normal world, however, you may be relieved of criminal liability. Point being, nothing’s determined yet until due process has run its course.
This. What happens if it just gets out of calibration on you and thinks that you’re drunk when you’re not, or worse, thinks you’re not drunk when you are? Whose fault is it at that point when you plow into a car of orphans and missionaries? Once you install that sort of mechanical nanny in the car, you’ve effectively removed personal responsibility from the equation.
Seriously though, there’s a major conflict brewing 1984-style between the rights of the individual and technological advances in ways to prevent crime. There are plenty of things we can do to prevent crimes, but they tend to infringe on individual rights and choice, even when that choice and right IS to commit that crime.
That’s a separate issue from your lack of criminality. I don’t drink at all, why should I be put at risk of being crushed by a drunken driver ? There isn’t any scenario here where someone’s freedom or safety isn’t being compromised.
That argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Is someone who breaks law after law, commits fraud, rape, murder, theft, and so on not a criminal if he never gets caught ? Or is he just good at it ?
Have you ever driven faster than the speed limit by even .1 MPH? Ever done it multiple times a day? Ever done it successive days?
And as for your question, it entirely depends on what the person’s state of mind for each of those offenses was at the time of commission or if he had alternative legal justification for his actions. Without due process no, I’m not going to say that this person is or isn’t a criminal.
What’s to keep you from blowing up a balloon before you hit the bar?
Because it isn’t my fault the drunk driver chose to do that. So why should I be stranded? Why not just ban alcohol? That’d prevent drunk drivers, drunk beatings, all sorts of stuff.
I mean people’s right to not receive beatings outweighs your right to alcohol right?
We could have mandatory breathalyzers needed to blown in every few hours or the cops come to enforce prohibition 2.0.
Why not a GPS speeding disabler too? Lot’s of wrecks from speeding.
Plus why not a remote door locker/engine disabler? That way the cops can turn your car into a prison at will.
Why don’t we repeal the second amendment?
Maybe we could have implants that be remotely triggered to release tranquilers. It’d be for the public safety! Surely the lives this could save outweighs your right not to have implantation surgery against your will.
I haven’t driven drunk, much less been convicted of it in court, so I resent the idea that I should be treated as if I had. I should not be obliged to prove my innocence before starting my car.
Equip all toilets with blood analyzer interlocks, because if junkies want to act like animals, they can shit outside like 'em.
There was some state rep in PA who proposed just this…
http://www.dui.com/dui-library/pennsylvania/news/pennsylvania-law-ignition-interlock
I wonder if he waited for the checks from MADD and Liberty Mutual to clear before he filed it?
Yep, that sounds about right.
The phrase “shit happens” comes to mind. Do you really think any of this has anything to do with a safety feature in a car? What if your friend drives stick and you don’t? What if you’re too fat to get behind the wheel of your friend’s car? There is no expectation that any vehicle has to be available to either the owner or a passenger under any possible scenario.
And if you or your friend carry a disinfectant wipe with you, you can disinfect the mouthpiece, should you be so germophobic and “terminally prepared” that you’d feel the need.
I honestly can’t believe you’re slogging on with THIS particular aspect of this piece of equipment. There are many more worthwhile reasons to not want it. If I were so afraid of germs that I’d get this worked up about them, I wouldn’t even ride in a vehicle with ANYONE for fear I’d be sharing air with them.
I agree 100%, but where is the outrage on every other intrusion? IMO, airport security is much more costly and takes away more freedom than this proposal.
Hell, why should I have to put a license plate on my car because other people do things where they need to be identified?
If we used the currently available interlocks, which require you to blow into them occasionally while driving, there’s the distraction factor, too. You’ve got a piece of equipment that is making drivers pay attention to something other than driving. That’s going to cause some accidents. That might be acceptable for people with a known history of driving drunk, but what if it causes more accidents than would have happened due to the drunk driving it prevents?
You’d think ignition interlocks would be more popular among parents of teenagers. There are very few parents who want their teenagers to be able to drive drunk, and at least some parents will go to great inconvenience and expense to keep their kids safe. But you don’t see a lot of parents getting these things for their teenage kids. Either someone’s missing a huge marketing opportunity here, or there’d be a lot of resistance to interlocks in cars other than by court order, for one reason or another.
You’re missing the point, which is that the vast majority of us drivers who do not drive drunk resent being treated as potential criminals with no self-control or sense of responsibility.
Years ago there was a feminist group that had taken all of the male names from a college student directory and published them in a list titled “POTENTIAL RAPISTS.” Those listed were rightly indignant, and in the same vein I resent the idea that you regard me - with my decades-long, accident-free, alcohol-free driving record - as little more than a potential drunk driver who is not ever to be trusted to his own judgment.
yeah that damn pesky innocent until proven guilty thing. If we just get rid of that then these blow and go things are great!
:rolleyes:
There are plenty of people who object to the airport security nonsense. There’s no shortage of them on this board, for sure.
I don’t find that intrusive. Do we have to be outraged at everything you perceive as an instrusion in order to justify an objection to any intrusion?
Maybe insurance companies could lower the premiums of people who install one electively.
Absolute non-sequiter. The legal presumption (fiction) of innocent till proven guilty applies only as to those in jeopardy of criminal prosecution. In my hypothetical, there is no criminal jeopardy – if you’re too drunk to drive, the only consequence is, your car won’t start. When you’re sober again – it will.
If you believe the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a fiction, I guess it’s not surprising that you think everybody should be presumed drunk until proven sober.
This ignores the fact that your little sensor will break, under which circumstances it may very well stop me from driving sober.
Would there be any legal problems with me in circumventing the device in order to prevent its flaws from messing with my driving?
Would I be in legal jeopardy if I didn’t spend $200 to get a broken unit fixed, or pay to have it tested every six months?
I doubt it.
I was told (many years ago) that if I got formal driver’s Ed, I’ld get a break on my insurance. My dad paid for a (week long) course.
I was told that if I had a car alarm in my car, I might get a break on the premiums.
Neither scenario has panned out for me.