|
On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age 
Why? Why does the government need to infringe on mine and your privacy and check on what everyone is doing. Plus how are you going to do this? There will need to be more government regulations on car makers and car dealers and its going to infringe on your privacy and you may not be able to drive home at a cold winter night and freeze in the car until you are not drunk.
I mean its just crazy talk.
|
Why an alcohol lock? It should be mandatory for every car to have a camera equipped inside, with the feed directed to the closest police department. No one should be allowed to commit any sort of crime in their car. Its only reasonable.
|
On November 15 2011 20:29 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote:On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong. Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion. aye the technology does exist, its based on the "blow in this" thing the police have.. there's also self-test devices and such... so all in all a self test device that must show green for the car to start.. Indeed there's ways around any lock... but then its also easy to increase the penalty for getting caught while drunk driving massivly though i'm also guessing that they wont be more accurate than the police devices.. and there are rare situations where you get a red reading even though you're sober... myths contain eating orange, mouthwash, aftershave.. stuff like that Sorry to be re-posting this but I posted above you explaining the breathalyzer. Please read that post. There is no way around it unless you manage to change something with the actual devices; as far as I know, it's impossible to control your blood stream. Eating things like oranges, mouthwash or aftershave won't work because those are scents and even if they manage to overpower the scent of alcohol, the alcohol molecules are still coming out of your mouth and still going into the breathalyzer.
I am pretty sure that some smart person would come up with something like blowing humid air through a pump into that thing, or something like that. You have to realize that there is noone checking whether you actually breath into it, unlike in police controls. Also, there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk. I really find it hard to believe that that technology even exists at the moment, seeing as even breath test made by the police often are not enough in court.
|
On November 15 2011 20:33 TheBomb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age Why? Why does the government need to infringe on mine and your privacy and check on what everyone is doing. Plus how are you going to do this? There will need to be more government regulations on car makers and car dealers and its going to infringe on your privacy and you may not be able to drive home at a cold winter night and freeze in the car until you are not drunk. I mean its just crazy talk.
What? Of course you shouldn't be able to drive home on a cold winter night until you are not drunk. That could be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on this website. If it's a cold winter night there's going to be snow as well as ice; top it off with the fact that you're totally inebriated and you have a guaranteed accident. If it's a cold winter night and you know you need to drive home then don't drink alcohol. If that situation were to occur it would be entirely your own fault.
On November 15 2011 20:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:29 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote:On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong. Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion. aye the technology does exist, its based on the "blow in this" thing the police have.. there's also self-test devices and such... so all in all a self test device that must show green for the car to start.. Indeed there's ways around any lock... but then its also easy to increase the penalty for getting caught while drunk driving massivly though i'm also guessing that they wont be more accurate than the police devices.. and there are rare situations where you get a red reading even though you're sober... myths contain eating orange, mouthwash, aftershave.. stuff like that Sorry to be re-posting this but I posted above you explaining the breathalyzer. Please read that post. There is no way around it unless you manage to change something with the actual devices; as far as I know, it's impossible to control your blood stream. Eating things like oranges, mouthwash or aftershave won't work because those are scents and even if they manage to overpower the scent of alcohol, the alcohol molecules are still coming out of your mouth and still going into the breathalyzer. I am pretty sure that some smart person would come up with something like blowing humid air through a pump into that thing, or something like that. You have to realize that there is noone checking whether you actually breath into it, unlike in police controls. Also, there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk. I really find it hard to believe that that technology even exists at the moment, seeing as even breath test made by the police often are not enough in court.
Of course there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk - but it's not possible to get enough alcohol in your breath for the test to consider you drunk without actually being drunk. And yes, I can tell you that that test does exist, at least in Canada, for that's what Police use every time they pull someone over here if they suspect drinking. That, and I own one.
However you are right with the idea of blowing humid air through a tube of some sort.
|
|
|
On November 15 2011 20:18 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 19:57 Doctorasul wrote:
Discrimination is treating individuals by the average traits of the group they are a part of instead of by their own traits. It doesn't matter if it's true that young men in general are significantly more reckless than other drivers (I think it's true), it's still not morally right to treat an individual young man as a reckless driver until he himself has given you reason to do so, based only on his own actions.
It's the same as racism. While it may be true that prison populations have a higher percentage of blacks than the general population, it's still indefensible to treat every individual black person as more crime-prone than non-blacks. Showing correlation between race and crime is not the same as showing a causal link, but even if there was a causal link, the moral argument would stay the same.
So sure, there may well be a causal link between high testosterone levels in young males (for example) and reckless driving. It's still discrimination if you make a law that affects each individual young man based on the group's traits.
What's more interesting is what happens if you show about one specific man he can't help himself be more reckless than others. Is it wrong to limit his driving freedom because he's more likely to cause an accident, although it's not his choice to be like this, it's just who he is? How much more reckless does he have to be before it becomes moral to prohibit him from driving? Is it ever moral to do so, even before he causes any accident? No, it's not wrong to limit his driving freedom regardless if it's not his choice to be that way. Hurting other people is still hurting other people even if you don't mean to, and if his chances of hurting other drivers are more elevated than others then yes it is moral to prohibit him from driving. I would even argue that it would be immoral to not do so as you're risking countless of other lives. Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:
Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that/ Assuming it would use a normal breathalyzer that would be impossible. Breathalyzers calculate the amount of alcohol in your blood based on the amount of alcohol contained in your breath. When you drink alcohol it goes through your bloodstream and thus into your lungs, where it becomes infused with the water and co2 molecules. Normally when you breath outwards you expel co2 and h2o molecules, however after drinking alcohol your breath also contains ones of alcohol. Unless you can somehow manage to keep alcohol from getting to your lungs, or keep the alcohol molecules from leaving your mouth, cheating the breathalyzer is impossible.
like just a few lines further down in the same post.. its an automated system... his sober friend could have done the breathtest for him... so the automated breathalyzer is simple to bypass... dumb.. illegal, idiotic... but possible
its not wrong per say to limit people from driving... if you physically is not able to properly control a car (blind for example) mentally unstable though is a grey zone thats damn hard to prove and cant be based on "you have this and that diagnose, therefor you cant drive" since most mental illnesses have a wide range of degreee. It would be way to much ifs and or buts... except for open/shut cases... like so extreme cases of ah/hd that you cant sit still for more than 10 seconds before you go on a rampage
|
On November 15 2011 20:40 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 18:46 Kickboxer wrote:
Women don't drive recklessly. It's a statistical fact. While they do create chaos in traffic by being indecisive and slow, they practically never "race" like your average asshole kid (who most of the time can't even drive) and are also radically less prone to driving drunk. Not sure why everything is considered discrimination these days. This. I think that you are taking it out of line OP and being much too defensive. It's not that women are trying to overthrow men or something, she is legitimately trying to reduce the amounts of collisions in your country and for that you should be for it. If those restrictions were imposed upon men in Norway then I can guarantee you that the collision rate would plummet as those are the very people that cause the most collisions in the world. Not all men are the same. Shouldn't punish all young men when not all young men are idiots whilst driving. Hence, it is discrimination. You are assuming someone is a bad driver just because they're a certain age/gender. Bullshit idea. Should be shot down. Better education, harder testing and stricter punishments are the way to stop people acting like dicks in cars.
Not once did I say it wasn't discrimination. I know that it's discrimination and it's discrimination that I agree with because it will save lives.
On November 15 2011 20:41 ZergOwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:18 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 19:57 Doctorasul wrote:
Discrimination is treating individuals by the average traits of the group they are a part of instead of by their own traits. It doesn't matter if it's true that young men in general are significantly more reckless than other drivers (I think it's true), it's still not morally right to treat an individual young man as a reckless driver until he himself has given you reason to do so, based only on his own actions.
It's the same as racism. While it may be true that prison populations have a higher percentage of blacks than the general population, it's still indefensible to treat every individual black person as more crime-prone than non-blacks. Showing correlation between race and crime is not the same as showing a causal link, but even if there was a causal link, the moral argument would stay the same.
So sure, there may well be a causal link between high testosterone levels in young males (for example) and reckless driving. It's still discrimination if you make a law that affects each individual young man based on the group's traits.
What's more interesting is what happens if you show about one specific man he can't help himself be more reckless than others. Is it wrong to limit his driving freedom because he's more likely to cause an accident, although it's not his choice to be like this, it's just who he is? How much more reckless does he have to be before it becomes moral to prohibit him from driving? Is it ever moral to do so, even before he causes any accident? No, it's not wrong to limit his driving freedom regardless if it's not his choice to be that way. Hurting other people is still hurting other people even if you don't mean to, and if his chances of hurting other drivers are more elevated than others then yes it is moral to prohibit him from driving. I would even argue that it would be immoral to not do so as you're risking countless of other lives. On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:
Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that/ Assuming it would use a normal breathalyzer that would be impossible. Breathalyzers calculate the amount of alcohol in your blood based on the amount of alcohol contained in your breath. When you drink alcohol it goes through your bloodstream and thus into your lungs, where it becomes infused with the water and co2 molecules. Normally when you breath outwards you expel co2 and h2o molecules, however after drinking alcohol your breath also contains ones of alcohol. Unless you can somehow manage to keep alcohol from getting to your lungs, or keep the alcohol molecules from leaving your mouth, cheating the breathalyzer is impossible. like just a few lines further down in the same post.. its an automated system... his sober friend could have done the breathtest for him... so the automated breathalyzer is simple to bypass... dumb.. illegal, idiotic... but possible its not wrong per say to limit people from driving... if you physically is not able to properly control a car (blind for example) mentally unstable though is a grey zone thats damn hard to prove and cant be based on "you have this and that diagnose, therefor you cant drive" since most mental illnesses have a wide range of degreee. It would be way to much ifs and or buts... except for open/shut cases... like so extreme cases of ah/hd that you cant sit still for more than 10 seconds before you go on a rampage
Possible, but if there were two people, one drunk and one sober and one had to blow the test - why would you make the sober one blow the test then make the drunk one drive? That's so unreasonable. Also - I understand your points, and this law wouldn't make it impossible for men to drive, it would just impose rules. Rules that are there for safety.
|
|
|
lol
User was warned for this post
|
On November 15 2011 20:44 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:41 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 20:40 Sated wrote:On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 18:46 Kickboxer wrote:
Women don't drive recklessly. It's a statistical fact. While they do create chaos in traffic by being indecisive and slow, they practically never "race" like your average asshole kid (who most of the time can't even drive) and are also radically less prone to driving drunk. Not sure why everything is considered discrimination these days. This. I think that you are taking it out of line OP and being much too defensive. It's not that women are trying to overthrow men or something, she is legitimately trying to reduce the amounts of collisions in your country and for that you should be for it. If those restrictions were imposed upon men in Norway then I can guarantee you that the collision rate would plummet as those are the very people that cause the most collisions in the world. Not all men are the same. Shouldn't punish all young men when not all young men are idiots whilst driving. Hence, it is discrimination. You are assuming someone is a bad driver just because they're a certain age/gender. Bullshit idea. Should be shot down. Better education, harder testing and stricter punishments are the way to stop people acting like dicks in cars. Not once did I say it wasn't discrimination. I know that it's discrimination and it's discrimination that I agree with because it will save lives. Muslims aren't allowed on planes anymore. It will save lives! Fat people can't buy McDonald's anymore. It will save lives! Women being able to smoke and drink is now banned. It will prevent smoking and drinking during pregnancy and save lives! Look how silly all those statements are, your reasoning doesn't cut it. Preventing people from doing things based on their gender/race/age/sexual orientation is silly.
I don't agree with all of those statements however. I understand that you're trying to use an analogy to convince me on your terms, but that isn't going to cut it. Terrorist organizations aren't only muslim - that's a ridiculous assumption to make. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to buy McDonalds. I 100% agree with that statement. It will save lives. And no, not all women shouldn't be able to smoke and drink, only the pregnant women shouldn't be able to smoke and drink.
|
Alcohol locks? Wtf is that supposed to be? a breathalyzer build into the car? That wouldn't work for so many reasons. 1. anyone could blow into it, not just the driver 2. you need to bow at a certain strength, otherwise it wouldn't give an accurate reading — AFAIK someone needs to supervise. Even fake mouth-lung tools could be made
3. It would be terribly expensive, as well as take maintenance (increasing cost some more)
Speed locks have always made sense to me though, personally.
Wireless transmitters should send signals to cars what the speed limit is, and hence set the speed lock for the car while in that zone. I'd think the insurance companies would buy right into that, and frankly I don't know why it hasn't been implemented a year or few ago on the newer models of cars (or even retrofit kits). People with the modules equipped could get discounts on their insurance, for instance.
|
On November 15 2011 20:37 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:33 TheBomb wrote:On November 15 2011 18:19 ZergOwaR wrote:alcohol and speed lock aint that a bad idea.. IF! they aim it to be for everyone.. any gender.. any age Why? Why does the government need to infringe on mine and your privacy and check on what everyone is doing. Plus how are you going to do this? There will need to be more government regulations on car makers and car dealers and its going to infringe on your privacy and you may not be able to drive home at a cold winter night and freeze in the car until you are not drunk. I mean its just crazy talk. What? Of course you shouldn't be able to drive home on a cold winter night until you are not drunk. That could be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read on this website. If it's a cold winter night there's going to be snow as well as ice; top it off with the fact that you're totally inebriated and you have a guaranteed accident. If it's a cold winter night and you know you need to drive home then don't drink alcohol. If that situation were to occur it would be entirely your own fault. Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:36 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 20:29 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 20:24 ZergOwaR wrote:On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:On November 15 2011 19:45 Neeh wrote:
Alcho-lock makes sense, it's kinda of hard to argue not to implement, but otherwise it's hillarious to even suggest something like this.
Does that technology even exist? To work, it would have to have a very high reliability while still being completely automated and ideally not require any unusual maintenance. Things that must not happen basically ever are for example the system randomly locking up and not letting you drive even though you are sober, the system locking up and letting you drive even though you are drunk, because in that case you could blame the system because you relied on it, you having to exchange some kind of battery regularly to keep it working, or anything like that. Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that. It must also not be a hassle to use, i don't want to have to give a car a blood sample everytime i want to start it. I don't think that automated alcohol tests with that sort of reliability exist, but i don't know anything about it, so i could be wrong. Of course, any such system could be cracked or cheated by simply letting someone else take the test, but that would also prove that you had intended to drive drunk, while still being sober, or puts in another hurdle of convincing someone sober to take the test for you, so that is not a large problem in my opinion. aye the technology does exist, its based on the "blow in this" thing the police have.. there's also self-test devices and such... so all in all a self test device that must show green for the car to start.. Indeed there's ways around any lock... but then its also easy to increase the penalty for getting caught while drunk driving massivly though i'm also guessing that they wont be more accurate than the police devices.. and there are rare situations where you get a red reading even though you're sober... myths contain eating orange, mouthwash, aftershave.. stuff like that Sorry to be re-posting this but I posted above you explaining the breathalyzer. Please read that post. There is no way around it unless you manage to change something with the actual devices; as far as I know, it's impossible to control your blood stream. Eating things like oranges, mouthwash or aftershave won't work because those are scents and even if they manage to overpower the scent of alcohol, the alcohol molecules are still coming out of your mouth and still going into the breathalyzer. I am pretty sure that some smart person would come up with something like blowing humid air through a pump into that thing, or something like that. You have to realize that there is noone checking whether you actually breath into it, unlike in police controls. Also, there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk. I really find it hard to believe that that technology even exists at the moment, seeing as even breath test made by the police often are not enough in court. Of course there are possibilities to get alcohol in your breath without being drunk - but it's not possible to get enough alcohol in your breath for the test to consider you drunk without actually being drunk. And yes, I can tell you that that test does exist, at least in Canada, for that's what Police use every time they pull someone over here if they suspect drinking. That, and I own one. However you are right with the idea of blowing humid air through a tube of some sort.
I know that these things exist. I have never questioned it. What i am questioning is if they have the necessary accuracy, and can be emplied without supervision. For example, for the police both a 1% chance of false positive or negative while being supervised are absolutely acceptable. It has been a few years since i last had anything to do with that, but if i remember correctly at least here in germany if you get tested positive they actually make you do a blood test, because the breath analyzers alone are not always accepted as proof by courts. However, for this to be emplied mandatorily in cars to make them not start without a green test, you would need an accuracy which is a few orders of magnitude higher, especially on false positives, but also on false negatives, and all of that without any supervision at all.
NO testing device for anything is 100% accurate, but different applications have different demands, and this one would have far higher demands then the self-tests you can do, or the tests the police uses.
|
then another politician should make an law that women cant leave the kitchen? its as good as this one
|
Automatic speed radars? that's such a dumb idea and it would never work. People could counterfeit licence plates, you could drive someone else's car, and putting them in every street in the world would be terribly expensive.
Plus, they are a blatant violation of people's privacy. Why not have a street camera connected to a police station? That's basically the same thing.
|
On November 15 2011 20:58 dementrio wrote:
Automatic speed radars? that's such a dumb idea and it would never work. People could counterfeit licence plates, you could drive someone else's car, and putting them in every street in the world would be terribly expensive.
Plus, they are a blatant violation of people's privacy. Why not have a street camera connected to a police station? That's basically the same thing.
I think the idea is more along the lines of building a device into a car that makes it impossible to accelerate beyond the speed limit. Which is far more practical, and also does not really invade your privacy in any way.
Edit: Also, Police stations have windows. Are you against that, too?
|
Another thing about speed locks, what if i want to take my car on a track day?
What if im driving on the autobahns?
What if im on private property?
Such a terrible idea.
|
On November 15 2011 20:41 zakmaa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:40 Sated wrote:On November 15 2011 18:51 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 18:46 Kickboxer wrote:
Women don't drive recklessly. It's a statistical fact. While they do create chaos in traffic by being indecisive and slow, they practically never "race" like your average asshole kid (who most of the time can't even drive) and are also radically less prone to driving drunk. Not sure why everything is considered discrimination these days. This. I think that you are taking it out of line OP and being much too defensive. It's not that women are trying to overthrow men or something, she is legitimately trying to reduce the amounts of collisions in your country and for that you should be for it. If those restrictions were imposed upon men in Norway then I can guarantee you that the collision rate would plummet as those are the very people that cause the most collisions in the world. Not all men are the same. Shouldn't punish all young men when not all young men are idiots whilst driving. Hence, it is discrimination. You are assuming someone is a bad driver just because they're a certain age/gender. Bullshit idea. Should be shot down. Better education, harder testing and stricter punishments are the way to stop people acting like dicks in cars. Not once did I say it wasn't discrimination. I know that it's discrimination and it's discrimination that I agree with because it will save lives.Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 20:41 ZergOwaR wrote:On November 15 2011 20:18 zakmaa wrote:On November 15 2011 19:57 Doctorasul wrote:
Discrimination is treating individuals by the average traits of the group they are a part of instead of by their own traits. It doesn't matter if it's true that young men in general are significantly more reckless than other drivers (I think it's true), it's still not morally right to treat an individual young man as a reckless driver until he himself has given you reason to do so, based only on his own actions.
It's the same as racism. While it may be true that prison populations have a higher percentage of blacks than the general population, it's still indefensible to treat every individual black person as more crime-prone than non-blacks. Showing correlation between race and crime is not the same as showing a causal link, but even if there was a causal link, the moral argument would stay the same.
So sure, there may well be a causal link between high testosterone levels in young males (for example) and reckless driving. It's still discrimination if you make a law that affects each individual young man based on the group's traits.
What's more interesting is what happens if you show about one specific man he can't help himself be more reckless than others. Is it wrong to limit his driving freedom because he's more likely to cause an accident, although it's not his choice to be like this, it's just who he is? How much more reckless does he have to be before it becomes moral to prohibit him from driving? Is it ever moral to do so, even before he causes any accident? No, it's not wrong to limit his driving freedom regardless if it's not his choice to be that way. Hurting other people is still hurting other people even if you don't mean to, and if his chances of hurting other drivers are more elevated than others then yes it is moral to prohibit him from driving. I would even argue that it would be immoral to not do so as you're risking countless of other lives. On November 15 2011 20:16 Simberto wrote:
Also you should not be able to cheat the system while being drunk through some sort of action like breathing in a specific way, or anything like that/ Assuming it would use a normal breathalyzer that would be impossible. Breathalyzers calculate the amount of alcohol in your blood based on the amount of alcohol contained in your breath. When you drink alcohol it goes through your bloodstream and thus into your lungs, where it becomes infused with the water and co2 molecules. Normally when you breath outwards you expel co2 and h2o molecules, however after drinking alcohol your breath also contains ones of alcohol. Unless you can somehow manage to keep alcohol from getting to your lungs, or keep the alcohol molecules from leaving your mouth, cheating the breathalyzer is impossible. like just a few lines further down in the same post.. its an automated system... his sober friend could have done the breathtest for him... so the automated breathalyzer is simple to bypass... dumb.. illegal, idiotic... but possible its not wrong per say to limit people from driving... if you physically is not able to properly control a car (blind for example) mentally unstable though is a grey zone thats damn hard to prove and cant be based on "you have this and that diagnose, therefor you cant drive" since most mental illnesses have a wide range of degreee. It would be way to much ifs and or buts... except for open/shut cases... like so extreme cases of ah/hd that you cant sit still for more than 10 seconds before you go on a rampage Possible, but if there were two people, one drunk and one sober and one had to blow the test - why would you make the sober one blow the test then make the drunk one drive? That's so unreasonable. Also - I understand your points, and this law wouldn't make it impossible for men to drive, it would just impose rules. Rules that are there for safety.
With logic like this, society can't even exist. Why not discriminate based on every possible factor? Black people and latinos constitute the large majority of the prison population in America. Should all black and latino males be incarcerated from youth? The problem with this logic is that it quickly snowballs out of control. Taking away rights of groups becomes seemingly logical, which is fine and dandy because it will "save more lives". This is wrong when you consider the fact that the possibility of human interaction always runs the risk of endangering human life. Should human interaction be banned? Should society exist at all? Interaction always poses risks as opposed to isolation. Your logic results in some pretty damn scary fascist, and to an extreme, anti-societal, viewpoints.
|
It's ridiculous.
If I had to agree with any part of this it would be "cars must be outfitted with an alcohol-lock and speed-lock."
Drinking and driving is bad mmkay.
|
On November 15 2011 18:46 Kickboxer wrote:
Women don't drive recklessly. It's a statistical fact. While they do create chaos in traffic by being indecisive and slow, they practically never "race" like your average asshole kid (who most of the time can't even drive) and are also radically less prone to driving drunk. Not sure why everything is considered discrimination these days.
It's discrimination because you are making a generalisation about a huge group of people and consequently treating them differently based on the actions of a select few within that group... That is textbook definition of discrimination my friend.
That's like saying because black people are more likely to commit a crime (which is a 'statistical fact') then we should impose special restrictions on them, such as police being allowed to search their property without a warrant, or force them all to undergo some sort of crime awareness education, or preventing them all from buying knives/guns.
They have these kinds of restrictions in Australia, where whilst you are on your 'red plates' (a probationary period) you are only allowed to have a maximum of 1 passenger who is between 16-21 and not related to you. Whilst it is a nuisance I can understand it because a. it isn't unreasonable like those mentioned in the OP, and 2. it applies to everyone on red plates, not just males of a certain age.
So sick of morons here all debating about more stupid restrictions to put in place (the not driving between 11pm-6am was suggested here as well), people who drink/drive or speed are breaking the law anyway, what makes people think that by punishing 99% of sensible people by implementing stupid laws they are going to suddenly stop people from breaking the ones already there? They will just take their P-Plates off and keep driving lol.
At least we live up to our title of 'nanny nation'...
Edit: banning driving in general would eliminate the road toll completely, why don't we do that lol...stupid 'reasoning'
|
In the same way terrorist organisations aren't only muslim, people driving like idiots aren't only men. '
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
