LeX2K

Ban teenage drivers this will save thousands of lives. 16-19 year olds are 3x more likely to die in a wreck vs 20+.
Exactly.

LexusForever

Make interlock devices mandatory then let's talk.

SW17LS

Interlock devices impinge upon people's freedom to operate their vehicle as they see fit. Nothing is perfect, just because a safety improvement doesn't solve all issues and eliminate all risk doesn't mean its not worthwhile.

In the era of distracted driving, these systems absolutely prevent accidents and make the roads safer for everybody. No different than mandating ABS or airbags or shoulder seatbelts etc.

LexusForever

See fit as in driving intoxicated? I'm not sure thats a hill to die on.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this thread. Take care.

SW17LS

I should not be required to prove I am not intoxicated to drive my vehicle. Asking us to prove we are not breaking the law is a very bad precedent. If somebody wants to accuse me of breaking the law the burden of proof is on them.

By your logic none of the safety requirements that have been phased into vehicles are worthwhile because they have not ended traffic fatalities. They all work together to make cars safer and safer as the years go by, this is just one more step towards that goal.

I have had 7 cars with this technology, its a great safety feature.

LeX2K

This is a bridge too far for me as well.

mmarshall

What you say would be correct IF driving was a Constitutional right. But, the legal fact (always has been) is that, in all 50 states and D.C., driving on public roads is not a right, but a privilege. As drivers, we all have to put up with some things that we don't like...that just goes with the license. It was the same way when I got my Airman's (Pilot) License years ago.

https://driversed.com/driving-inform...e-not-a-right/

LeX2K

You are correct. But do you really want a condition of having a drivers license be you have to prove at all times you are sober? That's a slippery slope why not also prove you are not tired, or angry, or depressed.

mmarshall

Well, with today's technology, at least the way I see it, it's not so much you or me proving ourselves sober, it's the technology and sensors. We just sit there in the driver's seat.

Now, having said that, I'm not suggesting that alcohol-detectors in vehicles are 100% effective by any means...or that they can't be fooled if you have certain things in your mouth that could mask the smell of alcohol....or hold your breath long enough without gasping. But, at least, they are at least a step in the right direction if we are ever going to get a handle on the DUI/DWI problem.

Anyhow, we've gotten somewhat off-topic.....which was automatic braking.

SW17LS

For 1, this is not really true, its an often used phrase...everybody has the right to get a drivers license...you just have to comply with the local jurisdictions requirements to get one. Your license can be revoked or suspended according to the jurisdictions laws, but they have to prove that you broke those laws for that to happen. They cannot just decide to take away your drivers license. The fact that people have to get in so much legal trouble and get caught so many times before they take it away shows you how difficult legally that is to accomplish. Hence...its more right than privilege.

My issue is the implication that I must prove every time I start my vehicle, which is my property, that I am not breaking the law. That is contrary to our way of life here...it presumes I am guilty until I can prove I am innocent. That doesn't work here.

For people who have been convicted of DUI, then by all means they should have interlocks installed. Its been proven in a court of law that they broke the law. I do not need to prove my innocence and neither do you.

mmarshall

Let me ask you this: ......do you think we should have systems like we do, where one's foot has to be on the brake pedal (or the clutch-pedal in a stick-shift car) to start the engine, the transmission lever has to be in Park before the engine will start or shut off, and one's foot has to be on the brake pedal before you can shift out of Park? Personally, I don't see much difference between those and having a clear breath before the ignition will work.

SW17LS

Absolutely, those things make cars safer without having anything to do with the legal compliance of the vehicle's owner. I don't have to submit to being searched by my own car for any of those safety features to work.

Its all about me having to prove that I am not committing a crime to drive my car. We don't need to prove we aren't breaking the law in this country, if we are accused of breaking the law then our accuser has to prove that we were doing so. A police officer can't even compel me to prove I am not drunk without probable cause, I sure as hell don't want to let my car compel me to do so.

mmarshall

Fine....we will agree to disagree. Certainly not the first time....and probably not the last.

SW17LS

You either care about your personal freedoms or you don't...you can't have freedom without risk, and the threat of risk is often the justification used to convince us to give up our freedom.

tex2670

You seriously don't see a difference? You can still press the brake pedal if you're intoxicated. These are completely different scenarios. It's like saying you have to unlock your car before you can open it. You are grasping for straws in an attempt to prove a point.