Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this a dumb idea?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this a dumb idea?

    Why don't they just require all car manufacturers to install ignition locks in the first place, wouldn't that effectively prevent DWI? Make it one of those things that has to be inspected, make it a misdemeanor to tamper with the thing. Maybe have the insurance companies offer breaks to owners of older cars to get them retrofitted. I don't see why this could not be done and it seems to me like it would help everybody except drunks trying to start cars...well, even them, truly.
    shepherdess extraordinaire

    "Man stands in his own shadow and wonders why it is dark."- Zen proverb

  • #2
    Bad Idea


    This would be yet another unnecessary cost (for most people) on new vehicles, which are already too costly as it is. Also, what if a drunk just avoided it all by simply buying a used car?

    I doubt you'd get much of a break from any insurance company for such a thing, as most premiums are based upon prior driving habits. This would be a prime method of punishing 99.99% of the population because of the actions of the other .01%. Me thinks we have enough of that in our society as it is!

    Close, but no cigar for you!




    The comments above reflect my personal opinion as a private citizen, ordinary motorist and all-around good guy.

    The aforementioned advice should not be construed to represent any type of professional opinion, legal counsel or other type of instruction with regard to traffic laws, judicial proceedings or official agency policy.

    ------------------------------------------------

    "Ignorance on fire is hotter than knowledge on ice."

    Comment


    • #3
      Because of the additional costs per vehicle. Which will be reflected on the MSRP sticker of course. Why should normal people have to pay for the actions of a few alcoholics?

      Plus, being electronic in nature, can you imagine the malfunctions resulting in cars having to be towed into the shop.

      Comment


      • #4
        Deleted................
        Last edited by Frank Booth; 11-20-2006, 08:00 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree...sounds like an expensive option. Pro-lock was something that had to be discontinued because of the failure rate. It really stinks being 150 miles from no-where and have a pro-lock device decide that I am a car thief and cannot drive my own car.

          Same will happen to DUI lockouts if installed in every car. Anyway a persistant drunk can get around the DUI lockout device. 5-6 ft of rubber hose will give you enough clean air to get past a lockout device.

          Comment


          • #6
            OK, thanks, good answers. Another thought though: around here they seem to wait until somebody's third or fourth DWI to require this, would it not make a certain amount of sense to make it automatic on the first offense?
            shepherdess extraordinaire

            "Man stands in his own shadow and wonders why it is dark."- Zen proverb

            Comment


            • #7
              It takes 3 or 4 DUI's for anything to happen to the bad guy in most states. Just the way it is...

              Comment


              • #8
                Thing is, there seem to be thirty or so a week around here and it seems to me that things do happen to them, financial incovenience mostly, but one does indeed have to screw up royally for a long time before anything like treatment or prevention kicks in.

                Driving drunk is selfish and foolish, and I know that the end results can be absolutely every bit as ugly as mass murder- but the initial intentional malice and hate isn't there. And the real hardcore drinker doesn't stop because they're suddenly broke and hassled. Heck no! all the more reason to drink.

                I guess I was reasoning like this: Alcohol is legal. Alcohol impairs judgment necessary to drive a car, for that matter judgment necessary to decide whether or not to drive said car in the first place. A great many people use cars and a great many people use alcohol, so it would be great if it was just by definition IMPOSSIBLE to do both at once.

                Hadn't realized the thing was so a) costly and b) easy to get around. Maybe the better answer would be to make the drinking driver course now given to offenders part of driver ed before one gets a license. Didn't by any means intend to suggest y'all could be made obsolete by technology
                just looking to lighten everybody's load.
                shepherdess extraordinaire

                "Man stands in his own shadow and wonders why it is dark."- Zen proverb

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Old Copper
                  It takes 3 or 4 DUI's for anything to happen to the bad guy in most states. Just the way it is...
                  Or until they kill someone, or six at once. And even then, you can be out of jail within 2 months and in a healing lodge.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ... a better idea would be to make DWI a felony. Then it would actually get prosecuted, and officers would actually make arrests. 3 hours of paperwork is not worth a class B.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes, that's a dumb idea. Blanket policies, or those that punish everyone for the mistakes of a few, are always dumb.

                      Better to increase the penalties, for both DUI and driving on a suspended license (if suspended for DUI).
                      1* 5%'er Sheepdog

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree that this is a bad idea. The cost is just too high. I'd rather see DUI become a felony with required permanent revocation of the driver's license and mandatory seizure of the vehicle, regardless of how much is owed or who owns it.
                        "The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep." -Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by fair witness
                          Alcohol impairs judgment necessary to drive a car, for that matter judgment necessary to decide whether or not to drive said car in the first place.
                          Most people that drive impaired left house sober knowing full well that they were going to the bar, a friends house, a BBQ, or company party, and would be driving home

                          I've never gone to the bar or a company functions and been surprised to booze. We all know it's going to be there in advance, and people that drink and drive know full well they are going to be doing so, well in advance of that first drink.

                          Harsher sentencing, less loop holes, and even more public awareness is needed!

                          Comment

                          MR300x250 Tablet

                          Collapse

                          What's Going On

                          Collapse

                          There are currently 5614 users online. 363 members and 5251 guests.

                          Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                          Welcome Ad

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X