Arizona: Ignition Interlock Devices for First Time DUI Offenders

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Snowball wants to save lives. The arrogant prick thinks he is God or something.



[/ QUOTE ]

Keep this up, and I'm gonna have an interlock device installed on your desktop.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If there were no logistical drawbacks involved (hypothetical scenario of course), would you be opposed to Drunk Driving Checkpoints on every major intersection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, because they'd be run by police, and police abuse their powers all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about weapons patdowns for everyone every time you go out on the street? It would arguably make us safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks. This would be carried out by corrupt cops. It would be expensive as hell, and very intrusive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So ignition interlock devices for DUI'ers = quite possibly OK and very possibly a good thing, but ignition interlock devices for everyone = no way, no thank you Police State.

[/ QUOTE ]


Dude. You do realize that "DUIers" are just a very small fraction of the larger set of people who drive drunk. Most people don't get caught.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, yet the same could also be said of many types of criminal activity. I don't think screwing everybody over to ensure that nobody can commit (insert crime here) is generally a good or fair idea.

I'm sure I would be safer on the road if ignition interlock devices were as common as airbags. It's not a trade-off I'd be willing to make, though. Personally speaking, I'm not much worried about getting hit by a drunk driver. In the unlikely event that I get run over dead someday by a drunk driver, hey, those are the breaks and I doubt I'll remember it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] I'm actually more concerned about daily quality of life, and am 100% convinced it would be a royal pain to have to blow into a Breathalyzer every time before zipping down to the corner store. My opinion on that would be: screw that, and let me take my chances.

edit: By the way, I have a similar view on seatbelt laws (even though I choose to buckle up). If I were to decide that I no longer wanted to buckle up, I wouldn't appreciate the threat of a ticket. And yes, I am aware that buckling up can save other motorists' lives too by virtue of helping the driver to not lose control of the car. I'm just not so much of a statistics nit that very low-probability death risks influence me much one way or the other. To me, a .0001 risk of dying is about the same as a .0005 risk of dying when comparing it to matters of freedom or autonomy or quality of life.

[AJackson]

[ QUOTE ]

And then there's that thing you can't put a price on, but some people think it's worth something anyway. It's called human life.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't?

You should let everyone know because it's done all the time. The first example that comes to mind is two lane highways. Every year where I live there are dozens of head on collisions. If the government would just spend more money and have them separated by a median or a barrier it would save lives, no question about it.

Why don't they do it? Too expensive. Therefor, human life does have an absolute value.

Basic cost analysis. Companies and governments make these life and death decisions every day.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If we cut off everyone's hands no one could pull the trigger of a gun anymore. Hell, if we lobotomized everyone no one could invent WMD's.

[/ QUOTE ]


These things infringe on a person's rights.

The OP is simply an example of an owner of property (government) enforcing the conditions on which someone may use their property (roads).

[GoodCallYouWin]

It would be simpler to simply charge people who kill someone while driving with murder.