All new cars will be required to come with passive alcohol detection systems to prevent drunk driving by 2024?

[FESTER665]

When I drive without a seatbelt, a little light blinks and me and makes noise. My car still starts and drives.

The point is that I dont drink and drive, why should I need to be subject to a vehicle monitoring my BAC and doing god knows what with that information.

What if it monitors your BAC and at .06 it starts and you kill someone, are you off the hook because according to your car it was okay for you to be driving?

 

[Blood on Blood]

You give an inch, they take a mile. Guaranfuckingteed that information is going to be saved SOMEWHERE whether it's onboard memory or relayed. It has 100% to do with what I said because the moment government opens that door of legislating the ability to DISABLE YOUR VEHICLE based on sensors THEY mandated, they can create whatever agency or task force to use that information collected about you against you.

To your previous post, let me know when the airbag and seat belt system have the ability to disable your vehicle. That's the issue.

Keep letting government mandate and rule you further and further, subject. That's my issue.

Black box, gps, phone, every purchase from a credit / debit card, street cameras, business cameras, employer, others with phones, home address, ISP, Google, Facebook, etc.

The Govt and Corporations already has the means to track

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

Airbag light comes on and your vehicle is disabled? No.
Cutting out the airbag or disabling it results in violation of federal mandate? No.
Provide the means to remove LATCH system from vehicles where customers will never use it and end up with armed and armored Feds raiding your place of business? No.

There is a world of difference in what you posted as manufacturer mandates versus mandates imposed on citizens. It would be more equivalent to the diesel aftertreatment industry, and look how that's turning out for everybody.

Emissions don't result in immediate injury or death like drunk driving accidents do....so that's a pretty terrible comparison. Aaaand the airbag or latch system only impact the people in that specific vehicle, not other drivers on the road

I'm not saying i'm for or against this, but you guys crying "BUT MUH CONSTITUTION" are cracking me up. There's no violation here, driving isn't a right, stfu.

As for my official stance: if this is cheap technology, which it seems like it would be, i'm good with it. If it's not, i'm not OK with it.

With the mountains of personal data you guys voluntarily give up on a daily basis, I don't think this is much to be concerned about.

 

[FESTER665]

So if I pay for a breathalyzer you'll install it in your ride Conrad? You know, just to make sure you dont drink and drive. I'll feel much safer with you using it every time you enter the vehicle.

 

[Blood on Blood]

When I drive without a seatbelt, a little light blinks and me and makes noise. My car still starts and drives.

The point is that I dont drink and drive, why should I need to be subject to a vehicle monitoring my BAC and doing god knows what with that information.

What if it monitors your BAC and at .06 it starts and you kill someone, are you off the hook because according to your car it was okay for you to be driving?

So there are benefits.

- Lower insurance rates for not driving with alcohol in the system for “X” amount of time

- Off the hook for alcohol related fatality, but you may still get vehicular manslaughter depending on the circumstances

 

[ragingclue]

Emissions don't result in immediate injury or death like drunk driving accidents do....so that's a pretty terrible comparison. Aaaand the airbag or latch system only impact the people in that specific vehicle, not other drivers on the road

It's not a terrible comparison at all; it's not my fault you didn't get the point. I'm talking about the application of the technology and enforcement when it's bypassed or deleted. You can bet your ass this will be treated like the diesel aftertreatment/tuning industry and not like LATCH/airbags/seat belts.

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

You give an inch, they take a mile. Guaranfuckingteed that information is going to be saved SOMEWHERE whether it's onboard memory or relayed. It has 100% to do with what I said because the moment government opens that door of legislating the ability to DISABLE YOUR VEHICLE based on sensors THEY mandated, they can create whatever agency or task force to use that information collected about you against you.

To your previous post, let me know when the airbag and seat belt system have the ability to disable your vehicle. That's the issue.

Keep letting government mandate and rule you further and further, subject. That's my issue.

So your belief is that one day the OEM's will proactively send your BAC to the local PD? Pretty ridiculous thought if you ask me. THAT'S where the constitutionalists will go fucking crazy, and they'll win in court. If your concern is that the data gets pulled after a severe accident that injures or kills someone, that already happens today and they already have your BAC.

 

[Blood on Blood]

So if I pay for a breathalyzer you'll install it in your ride Conrad? You know, just to make sure you dont drink and drive. I'll feel much safer with you using it every time you enter the vehicle.

Weak

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

So if I pay for a breathalyzer you'll install it in your ride Conrad? You know, just to make sure you dont drink and drive. I'll feel much safer with you using it every time you enter the vehicle.

Nope, but if it becomes standard on all vehicles, i'll still upgrade to a new vehicle with that technology

 

[FESTER665]

Sweet dashboard....

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Conrad, if it's clearly for safety, you don't mind putting a breathalyzer somewhere in your house that locks your gun safe and locks the interior/exterior garage door with locks you can't access.

And actually, for safety, you may as well just turn in your guns so the government can destroy them.

You know, for safety.

 

[FESTER665]

Weak

How is it weak, youre both in favor of the government forcing us to do this exact thing.

I dont even drink alcohol and am 100% opposed to this kind of non-sense. It's fucking ridiculous.

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

To your previous post, let me know when the airbag and seat belt system have the ability to disable your vehicle. That's the issue.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but if they did disable the vehicle, it still wouldn't be a violation of your rights

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

This thread reminds me of the people that get fired for saying something stupid then cite the "right to free speech" as defense

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

Conrad, if it's clearly for safety, you don't mind putting a breathalyzer somewhere in your house that locks your gun safe and locks the interior/exterior garage door with locks you can't access.

And actually, for safety, you may as well just turn in your guns so the government can destroy them.

You know, for safety.

Guns are a constitutionally protected right, driving is not

 

[Blood on Blood]

Conrad, if it's clearly for safety, you don't mind putting a breathalyzer somewhere in your house that locks your gun safe and locks the interior/exterior garage door with locks you can't access.

And actually, for safety, you may as well just turn in your guns so the government can destroy them.

You know, for safety.

Actually, more accurate comparison would be a breathalyzer installed on the gun for it to shoot.

Though, you may be on to something. Pelosi might pick up on this....

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

Do joo guys understand how the constitution and basic rights work? If not maybe I can find you some quick sources, then you can read them and stop throwing amendments around where they don't apply

 

[FESTER665]

I don't disagree that it's not an infringement on rights, all I'm saying is that I am 100% against it because then because of your definition they can do anything they want to vehicles in the name of "safety" and it's okay.

No seat belt on? Car wont start.
Vehicle notices you have a phone on in the car? Car wont start.
Speed limit is 70MPH maximum? Cars only go 70 MPH.
Noticed you had aftermarket parts on the car? Car won't start.
Noticed you tuned your car? Car wont start....

You know, cause safety.

 

[Blood on Blood]

How is it weak, youre both in favor of the government forcing us to do this exact thing.

I dont even drink alcohol and am 100% opposed to this kind of non-sense. It's fucking ridiculous.

Emotionally charged post that makes little sense.

Talking about new technology coming down the pipe for new vehicles for the mass consumer (not solely targeting Conrad)

 

[FESTER665]

We have determined you are more likely to die in an accident on a motorcycle than in a vehicle with airbags. Please turn in motorcycles by 01/01/2024.

Then Conrad will be like "what the fuck man, this is bullshit!"

 

[FESTER665]

Emotionally charged post that makes little sense.

Talking about new technology coming down the pipe for new vehicles for the mass consumer (not solely targeting Conrad)

Its targeting people that are not driving drunk to try to stop the small amount of people who are.

I'll gladly pay for you to have one installed as well... You know, for safety.

 

[Blood on Blood]

I don't disagree that it's not an infringement on rights, all I'm saying is that I am 100% against it because then because of your definition they can do anything they want to vehicles in the name of "safety" and it's okay.

No seat belt on? Car wont start.
Vehicle notices you have a phone on in the car? Car wont start.
Speed limit is 70MPH maximum? Cars only go 70 MPH.
Noticed you had aftermarket parts on the car? Car won't start.
Noticed you tuned your car? Car wont start....

You know, cause safety.

Hence the importance of helping to ensure the right people are voted into Office

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

I don't disagree that it's not an infringement on rights, all I'm saying is that I am 100% against it because then because of your definition they can do anything they want to vehicles in the name of "safety" and it's okay.

No seat belt on? Car wont start.
Vehicle notices you have a phone on in the car? Car wont start.
Speed limit is 70MPH maximum? Cars only go 70 MPH.
Noticed you had aftermarket parts on the car? Car won't start.
Noticed you tuned your car? Car wont start....

You know, cause safety.

All I'm saying is, more vehicle regulation WILL happen, and despite Carter's ramblings, there will be nothing very little we can do about it because driving is not a right.

As far as vehicle regulation goes, this drunk driving one is actually rather logical IMO. Examples like you cited above are less logical and would suck. I do bet we eventually see cell phone screen functionality automatically deactivate for the driver of a vehicle, except for phone calls etc.

 

[FirstWorldProblems]

Its targeting people that are not driving drunk to try to stop the small amount of people who are.

I'll gladly pay for you to have one installed as well... You know, for safety.

Point is that people who aren't drunk driving can still be hit...that's why I say this is actually logical. It's usually the sober people that die in these accidents.

The seatbelt law I was never a fan of because it didn't impact anyone except the decision maker. BUT..now it's law..and will be forever

 

[FESTER665]

All I'm saying is, more vehicle regulation WILL happen, and despite Carter's ramblings, there will be nothing very little we can do about it because driving is not a right.

As far as vehicle regulation goes, this drunk driving one is actually rather logical IMO. Examples like you cited above are less logical and would suck. I do bet we eventually see cell phone screen functionality automatically deactivate for the driver of a vehicle, except for phone calls etc.

And I think Carters "ramblings" are simply a point to not just bend over and take any government regulation just cause it "will happen" or is in the name of "safety".