MADD At Odds Over DUI Proposal (For Seaoats)

boards of FL wrote:Apparently in "Libertopia", there is no policy that exists between "BAN ALL CARS!!!111" and "DRIVE AS DRUNK AS YOU LIKE!!!!!111" And this makes sense. If we use our local libertarians as a guide, it is clear that they haven't quite thought this whole "Libertopia" thing through.


Right, PkrBum?

People make bad decisions... so the fewer they have the safer we all are. Laws might not stop people that break laws... but there's no reason not to make as many as we can think of. Prohibitions promote a free society... cheers comrades..!!

33000 deaths from impaired drivers. I'd be willing to bet that more people die from drowning or being beat by a claw hammer than that.

Perhaps they can tell us how little it cost and how wonderfully it works when they voluntarily installed one in their car?

Mr Ichi wrote:It would be logical to approach the issue on relevance.  First things first.  

Top Accident Causes

Driver distraction and speeding ranked above drunk driving as the leading causes of motor vehicle accidents, but in 2010, deaths due to speeding and alcohol were about equal. NHTSA reported that 32,885 people were killed in 2010, of which 10,228 died in alcohol-related crashes and 10,395 as a result of speeding. It's important to note, however, that 39 percent of the speed-related crashes were by males aged between 15 and 24. The 21 to 24 age group also accounts for 34 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities

So only 10,000 died due to impaired driving? Good lord! Why is this even in debate?

Because it promotes govt controls. You have to realize the sort of people we're dealing with. Govt is God to them.

PkrBum wrote:Because it promotes govt controls. You have to realize the sort of people we're dealing with. Govt is God to them.

That's right.

These people sit up there looking at every little flaw in humanity and then come up with some gov solution. sell it to the gullible public in order to create more control for them. More need for them and more of our money going towards them. And I have yet to see many of their gov solutions actually produce worthy results.

It seems to me that it should also be noted that "alcohol impaired" does not mean legally drunk. MADD, and other advocacy groups use the figure to advance their cause. Many times to their own detriment.

I guess 2seaoats wants the same for marijuana, every other type drug and how do you have a ignition lock for texting?

Have you considered banning 5 gallon buckets? Infants drown in them every year.

Hard as it is to imagine, stuff happens. It is not anyone's business if I wear or do not wear a seatbelt.

There is a simple solution if all these folks really want to save thousands of lives from accidents.

Instead of a stupid lockout system, each and every car is equipped with a sharp pointed, six inch spike, pointed at the driver in place of the airbag on the steering wheel. Oh, at the same time, do away with all traffic signals.

I guess 2seaoats wants the same for marijuana, every other type drug and how do you have a ignition lock for texting?

There are currently effective cell phone blockers which block a cell phone when are car is running. You could have block with car running in park, or turned off. There is no reason that a cell phone should operate in a car which is in gear. We went fifty years without them, and we can save lives by mandating blocking of cell phones in a vehicle which is on and in gear.

Pot, prescription drugs, and other agents which can impair driver performance have to be looked at in the future. However, the enemy of good is perfect, and to wait for a system that can detect the full spectrum of agents which impair is simply silly. We need mandatory ignition interlocks, and some people who have the courage to fight for the legislation and take on the alcohol industry.

There is no reason that a cell phone should operate in a car which is in gear

So no GPS or Navigation?   I guess navigation aids like a Tom Tom device and such should also be banned? No 911 calls while the car is moving or in gear?

Mr Ichi wrote: There is no reason that a cell phone should operate in a car which is in gear

So no GPS or Navigation?   I guess navigation aids like a Tom Tom device and such should also be banned?  No 911 calls while the car is moving or in gear?

Might be a good idea to tie your hands to the steering wheel too( some people are kinky). Ball gags for anyone riding with you, no radio, no eating or drinking of any beverages.

2seaoat wrote:I guess 2seaoats wants the same for marijuana, every other type drug and how do you have a ignition lock for texting?

There are currently effective cell phone blockers which block a cell phone when are car is running.  You could have block with car running in park, or turned off.  There is no reason that a cell phone should operate in a car which is in gear.  We went fifty years without them, and we can save lives by mandating blocking of cell phones in a vehicle which is on and in gear.

Pot, prescription drugs, and other agents which can impair driver performance have to be looked at in the future.  However, the enemy of good is perfect, and to wait for a system that can detect the full spectrum of agents which impair is simply silly.  We need mandatory ignition interlocks, and some people who have the courage to fight for the legislation and take on the alcohol industry.

You have a court ordered one in your car and don't want to be so conspicuous. Got it!

Gunz wrote:So only 10,000 died due to impaired driving?   Good lord!  Why is this even in debate?

Imagine a world where you find yourself in an online debate about the effectiveness of having firefighters on hand to fight fires.  Imagine if you knew that, prior to having firefighters on hand, over 20,000 people died per year due to fires.  Then firefighters were introduced.  With the introduction of firefighters, fire related deaths were reduced to 10,000 per year.

Then you see someone say "What?!?!  Only 10,000 people die per year due to fires?!  Ha!  This is a non issue!  Why are we even discussing this?!?!  Get rid of firefighters!  What a waste!  They're taking our freedom!"

I suspect you would think to yourself  "This person is fairly dense."

Also, the "over 20,000" and "10,000" numbers that I used are the actual numbers that pertain to fatalities related to drunk driving and the policies that aim to reduce those fatalities.  As for fires, only 2,600 people die annually in fires.  Will you lead the charge in ridding the world of firefighters, GUNZ?  I mean.  It's only 2,600 deaths.  I doubt you would find any resistance.  Hell.  It wouldn't even be a debate.

If fires were all we did then you might have a "smidgen" of a point. About 100 years ago the fire service branched out and began doing first responder, EMT and Paramedic qualified rescues. As a result, thousands more lives than you cited are saved each year. Thanks for playing

So no GPS or Navigation? I guess navigation aids like a Tom Tom device and such should also be banned? No 911 calls while the car is moving or in gear?


If a person needs to check for directions, or make a 911 call they need to pull over and park, and turn the car off. People are dying because of impaired and distracted drivers. This is not complex. Every vehicle should have an ignition interlock. They are not perfect, but they will reduce impaired driving deaths by 95%.

Back up cameras were mandated this year to save 250 lives. Was there a lobby who made money from crushed children who were fighting this mandated safety feature? No. The whole debate with mandated safety features which can save perhaps 10k lives a year(one fifth of all those who died in Viet Nam every year) is the alcohol industry who profits when people die. How corrupt and weak have we become to think this is about big government, intrusions which take away liberty......etc....etc......this is about profits for death merchants......nothing more, and nothing less.

alcohol industry who profits when people die

You are a big supporter of Quint Studer. He sells Alcohol. Where do you draw the line? Could he be part of the problem...............Easy now....
watch the old blood pressure. I used the "S" word...

I was walking downtown last week and a man was leaning up against the wall. There was a fire truck, two police cars, a fire pickup truck, and an ambulance. When I got close I counted eight government employees circled around this man as people were putting on latex gloves and talking to the man.........it was Otis.....he was drunk........and Andy has left the building.

We have tens of thousands of employees in the public safety sector and specifically the criminal justice system who try to correct impaired driving after the fact.......after my wife's cousin was dead in her vehicle from a drunk driver leaving a one year old child to be raised by grandparents..........trillions of dollars punishing addiction, when for less than one hundred bucks a car, we could not allow impaired drivers to hurt people.

This of course means the Alcohol profits will go down.......this means there will be massive layoffs in the criminal justice system where as much as 15% of the entire system deals with impaired drivers after the fact......no Barney has been running this country long enough.......it is time to get Andy back in the building.

Gunz wrote:If fires were all we did then you might have a "smidgen" of a point.   About 100 years ago the fire service branched out and began doing first responder, EMT and Paramedic qualified rescues. As a result, thousands more lives than you cited are saved each year.  Thanks for playing

You missed the point there.

But why devote any resources to fighting fires at all?  They only kill 2,600 annually, so shouldn't we just let them burn?  Shouldn't firefighters abandon the fire fighting thing and just rebrand themselves as first responders, or something along those lines?  Further, if you didn't have to waste resources on fighting something that has a negligible effect on civilization such as fires, you could devote even more time towards the other stuff (first response, EMT, and paramedic rescues), which also may or may not even be worthy of discussion (using your logic) if we had the relevant numbers.

Let's contrast all of this with ignition locks:

Ignition locks:

 - Cost is paid by the offender that requires the lock

 - Addresses an issue that currently claims 10,000 annually  

 - Prior to ignition locks and other policies aimed at reducing drunk driving fatalities, over 20,000 people died each year in such crashes

 - Only impacts the offender.  The ignition lock has no impact on anyone else beyond the fact that they are less likely to be killed by a drunk driver

- Reduces the need for firefighters, fist responders, police, etc. due to the fact that it reduces the number of DUI related crashes


You deem the above as not even worthy of debate.  A dumb idea that should be junked.  An utter waste of time.


Firefighting:

 -  Cost is paid by everyone, whether they ever require the services of a firefighter or not

 -  Addresses an issue that kills 2,600 annually, 1/4th that of DUI fatalities

 -  Currently requires the employment of over 300,000 people.  

 -  Requires buildings, vehicles, gear, etc...all paid by everyone, whether they ever use any of this or not


If we were to apply your logic to the above...

You are a big supporter of Quint Studer. He sells Alcohol. Where do you draw the line? Could he be part of the problem...............Easy now....
watch the old blood pressure. I used the "S" word...


Mr. Studer will lose revenue with mandatory ignition interlocks. The driver of a vehicle who goes to a game will know if he has too many beers his car will not start and he will have to spend two hours sitting in the grass after the game looking at the beautiful bay views from the park. However, the chance of that driver being impaired and killing a family on his way home from the game is significantly lessened. This is not politics, but simple common sense......common sense especially to folks who have lost family to an impaired driver.

when for less than one hundred bucks a car,

Where in the hell do you get a figure like that? Is the constant reference to the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam some how relevant??

2seaoat wrote:You are a big supporter of Quint Studer. He sells Alcohol. Where do you draw the line? Could he be part of the problem...............Easy now....
watch the old blood pressure. I used the "S" word...


Mr. Studer will lose revenue with mandatory ignition interlocks.  The driver of a vehicle who goes to a game will know if he has too many beers his car will not start and he will have to spend two hours sitting in the grass after the game looking at the beautiful bay views from the park.  However, the chance of that driver being impaired and killing a family on his way home from the game is significantly lessened.   This is not politics, but simple common sense......common sense especially to folks who have lost family to an impaired driver.

Do you suspect that ,being there not now any inter locks, people drive away from a game, Drunk or impaired? ? FWIW I lost my Son and Law and my Daughter just missed being killed by a drunk driver. The old "common sense" is just a straw man to gain sympathy for your cause. Gee=zus

The logic jumps out in Boards example that we need to invest in ignition interlock systems. However, just as important as addressing the carnage from impaired drivers is the failed paradigm of fire protection services in 2014.

First, the model has not much changed from the 1890s in fire protection where geographic spaced stations have equipment which is called upon to put out fires. Since 1890 the BOCCA building codes have single handed reduced fire deaths, as doors, walls, floors, and other building components have minimum fire ratings. Smoke detectors, and heat detectors have in addition greatly reduced fire deaths. Yet, with all these government employees imposing strict standards for buildings, we still deploy our assets like it was 1890.

Second, there are robust systems of automated fire protection which maintain smoke and heat detectors, and do not allow the largest contributor to fire deaths today......non working detectors......to exist. We have allowed private companies to profit instead of changing the paradigm to incorporate fire departments acting as central monitoring services. Most commercial buildings get a once annual inspection by the fire inspector to see compliance of sprinklers, fire extinguishers, and other fire safety issues in that building. Every residence in a fire district should have a fire department control module on the outside of the building where an annual test of the interior system can be performed during a once a year inspection. This of course will be monitored 24/7/365 at the central station, and any malfunction of smoke detectors or modules will be immediately addressed by public servants.

The savings you ask is where? Instead of every governmental unit, town, village creating fire protection districts, they would be regional organizations where equipment would be shared and reduced, where first responders would use reverse 911 to inform neighbors of a fire or crime, and have police and fire cross trained on initial extraction at fire scenes. The chimney saver specialized equipment will be deployed from regional sites, with the understanding that the equipment response time will probably be less than it currently is......but much better than 1950 times.

The truth is the 1890 fire protection paradigm is broken in America, and has become even more skewed since 911 when literally trillions of dollars have been poured down that rabbit hole where only a couple thousand die each year in fires. We need to separate out some functions within fire safety, we need cross training of both fire and police into public safety officers, and we need to stop this huge budget killing waste of resources, when huge budget cuts in both areas and shifting of the paradigm could actually result in billions being saved and less fire deaths.

Walking would solve more problems.

Edit: How is this thread not political asshole? The answer can only be the same as the rationalization I gave.