Building an interlock device for DUI parolee.

[[email protected]]

Vehicular manslaughter is pretty much a felony anywhere you go. Punish
him for that. But "punishing _everyone_ based on what _someone_ _might_ do"
is getting a little extreme.

Wow, we are not on the same page. You say "punishing _everyone_ based on
what _someone_ _might_ do" can be extreme and I agree. Why do you seem to
be implying that I advocate punishment for something someone -might- do?

I said if you drive drunk, and you kill someone, you ought to die too. I
didn't say if you drive drunk, you should die. I do recall saying if you
get caught driving drunk, once, that is it for you. Learn to hail a cab,
or get used to public transit.

I am unable to recall where I implied a punishment for someone who did not
do anything. If you want to keep tweaking me, and throwing out stuff just
to troll for a response, you have to at least stick to the facts at hand.
Anyone can distort the words and make a big issue out of something.


I think maybe you figure I want the death penalty for drunk drivers, and
that is not correct.

How many times do you think a drunk driver should be caught, slapped on
the wrist, and allowed to do the same thing again?

There are already laws against doing damage. Prior restraint is anathema
to a truly free society.

Again, you are not talking about the same thing I am talking about. I just
want stricter penalties for breaking those laws. What the heck are you
talking about?

guess there's no reason to continue to attempt to enlighten you. --

This implies that if it was your mother who was run down by a drunk, you would carry on the explanation, but since it was a child, "oh well, who cares?"

Near as I can tell, you advocate everyone to be able to drive any way they want. In your town, it ought to be okay to drive on the wrong side of the road, because the other person should be getting out of your way. Running stop signs and red lights are permitted because everyone should be driving defensively anyway. I lived in NYC for years, and it doesn't always work out when you drive like that.

On your planet, there is no fault in any accident. Its an interesting concept. Its bullshit, but its interesting.

Its against the law to run a red light. If you do, you are punished. Its against the law to drive on the wrong side of the road, and if you do, you pay the penalty. Its against the law to drive drunk, and if you do, you have to pay the price.

Which of those statements don't you agree with?

JB

 

[Rich The Newsgropup Wacko]

I think you are just fishing for a reaction here. Are you implying that a
person moving at 70 mph northbound, has any chance at all to cope with a
drunk who crosses the median fromthe southbound lane at 70mph and heads
straight for them?

No, I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying it right out in plain English:
If you do not have the driving skills, forethought, and common sense to
be able to avoid an oncoming car, crossing the median and coming right
at you, then you have no business driving a car at 70 MPH.

Are you saying that a person who moves through an intersection, along with
other traffic, has any say in whether a person who runs the red light at
high speed, t-bones them?

Of course not. That's why you're supposed to look both ways.

Are you trying to absolve the drunk driver from
responsibility?

Not with the same ardor as you seem to be trying to absolve the one who
wasn't impaired, but was supposed to be paying attention.

We all have to drive defensively, but that means WE ALL
have to, which includes the drunk.

No, it does not. _*I*_ drive defensively, precisely because no one else
does. For all practical purposes, they're all drunk, they're all armed,
and they're all out to get me, so it behooves to watch my precious little
white ass, as opposed to flinging myself at the mercy of the whim of the
lunatics out there and then whining "It's all his fault" when the
inevitable happens.

If you jump into a snake pit without any protective equipment and annoy
the snakes, is it the snake's fault that you got bit?

Not all defensive moves in a car are
going to avoid the crash.

This is why you look in front of the car first. If there's already
something there, don't go there. That will avoid 90% of the situations
that require "defensive moves". The defensive move should have come
long before you crash into the drunk. Hell, they're a moving target!
You'd have to try even harder to hit them!

If we are all driving defensively, does that
mean there is no one to blame for a crash?

If we were all driving defensively, there wouldn't be any crashes.

Besides, tell your story of 'no blame' to my best friend who's daughter
was WALKING home from school, but never made it. Explain what her "virtual
car" ought to look like, and explain how the drunken bastard ought not be
accountable for drinking, getting into his 2 ton vehicle, and driving it
on the sidewalk where she was walking and a laughing with her friends.

Now, youj're changing the subject.

Vehicular manslaughter is pretty much a felony anywhere you go. Punish him
for that. But punishing _everyone_ based on what _someone_ _might_ do is
getting a little extreme.

There are already laws against doing damage. Prior restraint is anathema
to a truly free society.

I
suppose you think she is somehow liable, because she was not paying
attention to traffic on the sidewalk, or because she was not "walking
defensively" and using rear view mirrors to monitor the cars moving along
the sidewal

Well, until you get off your "for the chiiiildrrruuuuuun" high-horse, I
guess there's no reason to continue to attempt to enlighten you.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Wow, we are not on the same page. You say "punishing _everyone_ based on
what _someone_ _might_ do" can be extreme and I agree. Why do you seem to
be implying that I advocate punishment for something someone -might- do?

I said if you drive drunk, and you kill someone, you ought to die too.

If you're talking "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" revenge-
type laws, then all bets are off.

If killing people is wrong, then killing people is wrong, regardless
the size of the lynch mob that happens to be in power at the moment.

But, if somebody does kill somebody, they need to be removed from
society.

If you can grant me that that's sufficient to continue with the discussion,
then I you'd let me modify our premise to, say, "If you kill someone with
your car, you should be treated the same as anybody who kills someone by
any means at all", I'd say, I agree wholeheartedly.

I'll probably push everyone's buttons when I say, "Regardless of
impairment." i.e., If you drive DRUNK OR SOBER and kill someone, then
you should be dealt with the way current society deals with killers.

But things like checkpoints just to catch people who are doing no harm
and are very likely to get home safely, even though they have a few
drinks in them, is too much.

And the hysteria and blaming and evasion of responsibility for one's
own well-being are just playing into the hands of the manipulators.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Jim Thompson]

Wow, we are not on the same page. You say "punishing _everyone_ based on
what _someone_ _might_ do" can be extreme and I agree. Why do you seem to
be implying that I advocate punishment for something someone -might- do?

I said if you drive drunk, and you kill someone, you ought to die too. I
didn't say if you drive drunk, you should die. I do recall saying if you
get caught driving drunk, once, that is it for you. Learn to hail a cab,
or get used to public transit.

I am unable to recall where I implied a punishment for someone who did not
do anything. If you want to keep tweaking me, and throwing out stuff just
to troll for a response, you have to at least stick to the facts at hand.
Anyone can distort the words and make a big issue out of something.


I think maybe you figure I want the death penalty for drunk drivers, and
that is not correct.

How many times do you think a drunk driver should be caught, slapped on
the wrist, and allowed to do the same thing again?



Again, you are not talking about the same thing I am talking about. I just
want stricter penalties for breaking those laws. What the heck are you
talking about?


This implies that if it was your mother who was run down by a drunk, you would carry on the explanation, but since it was a child, "oh well, who cares?"

Near as I can tell, you advocate everyone to be able to drive any way they want. In your town, it ought to be okay to drive on the wrong side of the road, because the other person should be getting out of your way. Running stop signs and red lights are permitted because everyone should be driving defensively anyway. I lived in NYC for years, and it doesn't always work out when you drive like that.

On your planet, there is no fault in any accident. Its an interesting concept. Its bullshit, but its interesting.

Its against the law to run a red light. If you do, you are punished. Its against the law to drive on the wrong side of the road, and if you do, you pay the penalty. Its against the law to drive drunk, and if you do, you have to pay the price.

Which of those statements don't you agree with?

JB

I believe Germany has a rule that one DUI and you lose your license
for a year. I certainly know that my German hosts were extremely wary
of drinking ANY alcohol while driving me around.

...Jim Thompson

 

[[email protected]]

In <[email protected]>, on 04/20/05
at 11:32 PM, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian

If killing people is wrong, then killing people is wrong, regardless the
size of the lynch mob that happens to be in power at the moment.

I will mellow out a bit, <g> but I will also start another fire and say
that murder, the taking of an innocent life, is wrong, and not the same
thing as killing a person who is no longer an innocent. I am not in
agreement with those who equate murder with putting someone to death for
committing murder. It is not the same thing, in that one is perpertrated
on an innocent, and the other is done to punish the crime.

Now, somewhere down the line, someone is going to throw out something
about "but we might kill an innocent person on death row" and I will just
smile and note that no one wants to kill an innocent person, so we would
agree with that. Someone who is without a doubt guilty of purposely
killing another, should be put to death. That kind of guilt is easily
applied to the subject of this thread, the drunk driver. Its kind of hard
to show him to be innocent when the accident scene is out there for all to
witness. Other stuff on death row is not going get discussed from me.....

However, I don't want to waste anymore time on the death penalty. If you
can get it so that person is put away, gets only what he needs to stay
alive, can't write a damn book to raise money, or have a TV show made
about him, if he lives in a hole and we never hear his name, or mention
it again, if Hillary Clinton doesn't try to get him on 60 minutes so she
can earn death row votes, then I would avoid the arguments and go along
with those conditions.

But, if somebody does kill somebody, they need to be removed from
society.

So long as you guarantee that removing them means I ain't paying for their
CATV, education, internet, dental, or butt exams (the real medical kind,
who cares if he gets the other kind <g>) then as I said, okay with me. Its
not a fight either side can win. Go ahead and err on the side of life, but
I just don't even want to see them on A&E, or even know they are still
alive. Make them a White Sox fan. No one cares about them either

IIf you kill
someone with your car, you should be treated the same as anybody who
kills someone by any means at all", I'd say, I agree wholeheartedly.

Okay, as long as the law views it as having purposely gotten drunk and
then committed the crime. Driving drunk is not an accident, it is a
choice, so killing someone that way ought to be considered aking first
degree murder, with the accompanying penalties. I really don't want to
hear about someone killing someone with their car, and the drunk saying "I
didn't mean it" He got drunk, got in the car, and killed someone. No
excuses, none of this, "it was an accident" crap.

I'll probably push everyone's buttons when I say, "Regardless of
impairment." i.e., If you drive DRUNK OR SOBER and kill someone, then you
should be dealt with the way current society deals with killers.

Okay. I am down with that. I just disagree with the way society deals with
murderers in the first place, but that's a whole 'nuther thread and I
ain't going there ;-)

(I think most times someone dies, its because of stupidity and could have
been easily avoided with a modicum of brainpower, but there are sometimes
reasonable explanations for someone getting into a wreck and maybe killing
someone. If its just stupid, inattentive driving, I have to agree with
you, but some things just happen in the mix of steel and speed on the
roads.)

But things like checkpoints just to catch people who are doing no harm
and are very likely to get home safely, even though they have a few
drinks in them, is too much.

Checkpoints are stupid. I don't approve. I also don't approve of assuming
one size fits all when it comes to assigning a blood level. Its like
saying everyone's car gets better mileage at 55mph. Its an incorrect
assumption. No checkpoints, but I think major punishment if you get
caught with even minimal blood alchohol levels would eliminate a lot of
incidents, and take away the need for checkpoints. It seems to me that
people don't generally shoot each other because of the laws prohibiting
it, and I think the same could save lives with drunk driving. Most people
are basically good folks doing dumb things. Make them think twice about
major jail time and fines, and perhaps they would reconsider taking the
chance.

And the hysteria and blaming and evasion of responsibility for one's own
well-being are just playing into the hands of the manipulators.

I only like to be manipulated in certain ways

John

 

[[email protected]]

In <[email protected]>, on 04/20/05

I believe Germany has a rule that one DUI and you lose your license
for a year. I certainly know that my German hosts were extremely wary
of drinking ANY alcohol while driving me around.

...Jim Thompson

I like their cars, I like their women, and I even admire the way they
handle crime. We could learn a bit from them if we would notice the
results that their efforts produce.

John

 

[Bob Monsen]

In <[email protected]>, on 04/20/05



One DUI and that should be it for you.

Expensive? Tell that to the kids whose dad doesn't make it home from work
because some drunk SOB took him out.

I recall a Swedish friend talking about the laws on DUI at home. They
sound similar to your proposal. Here is more information I just found:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=113056

-

The website below claims that over 20% of all highway fatalities in the
US are caused by drunk drivers:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/DrinkingAndDriving.html

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Imagine if sober people would bother to take responsibility for operating
their vehicle in a safe manner, even in the presence of road hazards. "Gee,
officer, I was just minding my own business, and this tree jumped out in
front of me..."

A drunk driver is a road hazard, nothing more or less. Blaming "the drunk
driver" is just a cop-out to evade responsibility for one's own negligence.

Thanks,
Rich

To borroe a line froom SNL, Rich, you ignoarnt slut!

Trees don't dive the wrong way on the interstate and crash into
school busses head on and kill the driver and most of the kids. trees
don't run off the road into the side of some's home and kill them in
thir beds. Drunk drivers do. The son of a bitch who hit the bus
survived. When he got to court he plead not guilty and his lawyer
stated, "He was ony drinking, it wasn't his fault he killed so many
people". I think they should have put both of them in the electric chair
and let them burnn for a half hour or ore.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

I believe Germany has a rule that one DUI and you lose your license
for a year. I certainly know that my German hosts were extremely wary
of drinking ANY alcohol while driving me around.

Jim Thompson

I think they should add a Taser to the breathalyzer in a drunk's
car. Fail the test, get zapped.

BTW, Rich should be proud. He is the only ID10T I ever got kill file
four IDs for at one time.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <[email protected]>

The website below claims that over 20% of all highway fatalities in the
US are caused by drunk drivers:

Should we not be more concerned about the just under 80% that aren't?

 

[Paul Burke]

Should we not be more concerned about the just under 80% that aren't?

This is actually serious: if 20% of fatalities are caused by drunk
drivers, is the proportion of drunk drivers in the whole population
greater than or less than 20%? My suspicion, based on my own reaction to
booze, is that the orthodox view is right, and that a tiny number of
drunks causes a disproportionate number of accidents. But unless you
know the actual figures for drunks in the whole driving population, it's
even possible that drunk makes you safer.

Threre's a proposal to make it an offence to be drunk in charge of a
boat on the British canals. For those who don't know the UK canal
system, it's an almost zen-like activity, where you putter along at
maximum 4mph, OAPs walking there dogs burn you off. But as the equipment
for testing drunk is only available for 70mph car drivers, they propose
to make the level the same, in a kind of Schlieffen plan way.

Paul Burke

 

[Bob Monsen]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <[email protected]>



Should we not be more concerned about the just under 80% that aren't?

Of course we should. However, if we could simply make cars refuse to
drive for drunks, we would save a lot of lives. Even the drunks would be
happier, not being maimed or killed.

According to this fun website, traffic accidents account for 1/160th of
the number of yearly deaths as tobacco. Since we as a society appear
unable to do anything about that, it appears unlikely that we will do
anything about drunk driving.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock

I took a computer architecture class in college in the 80s, and built a
device as my 'final project' that tested reaction time for the purpose
of detecting drunk drivers. It had a series of buttons and LEDs. The
LEDs lit up in a pseudo-random sequence and the subject was required to
push the associated buttons as the corresponding LEDs lit. It went on
for some number of cycles. If you failed to keep up, and missed a
button, it would light a red led at the end of the cycle. If you kept
up, it would light a green led at the end. The idea was to put this on a
car, and prevent it from starting if the ability of the driver to react
quickly was compromised. I no longer have the design, but I believe it
used a 556, one timer of which was used to clock some logic, and the
other of which was used as a monostable to detect a failure of the test
subject to push the proper button.

The day I was to demo it for the final grade, I had stayed up the entire
night before building it and tweaking it. Each student was given a
maximum of 10 minutes of time to show their project. Unfortunately, I
was so tired that I couldn't 'pass the test', at least at first. I guess
I had that monostable timer set to go off a bit too quickly. I finally
got it to go 'green', after about 10 tries, to the cheers of my
classmates. Afterwards, they all took turns trying to beat it.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <[email protected]>

The day I was to demo it for the final grade, I had stayed up the
entire night before building it and tweaking it. Each student was given
a maximum of 10 minutes of time to show their project. Unfortunately, I
was so tired that I couldn't 'pass the test', at least at first. I
guess I had that monostable timer set to go off a bit too quickly. I
finally got it to go 'green', after about 10 tries, to the cheers of my
classmates. Afterwards, they all took turns trying to beat it.

These devices are not fitted in cars because elderly politicians and
judges can't pass the test.

 

[[email protected]]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <[email protected]>
wrote (in <[email protected]>) about 'Building an
interlock device for DUI parolee.', on Wed, 20 Apr 2005:

Should we not be more concerned about the just under 80% that aren't? --

That number is way too low. Its more like 40%, not 20%. I missed the OP with the URL, but the usual google search comes up with a lot of sites that all hang right around 40%.

Figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure......

Even beyond the fatalities, we ought not pass over the percentage of total accidents caused by alchohol, and you are right, we should be paying attention to ALL the causes as well.

There is probably a whole thread just waiting to be born that considers fatalities, and matches them up with who the victims are If a person drives stupid and kills himself, that's one less person who is a threat to me, but if it happens that an impaired driver more often seems to injure or kill another, I would be concerned with that statistic more than others. If you want to kill yourself, be my guest. I just would prefer it if you didn't take me with you.....



John

 

[Pig Bladder]

In <[email protected]>, on 04/20/05



I like their cars, I like their women, and I even admire the way they
handle crime. We could learn a bit from them if we would notice the
results that their efforts produce.

Apparently neither of you has seen any German porno.

 

[Pig Bladder]

I think they should add a Taser to the breathalyzer in a drunk's
car. Fail the test, get zapped.

BTW, Rich should be proud. He is the only ID10T I ever got kill file
four IDs for at one time.

Heh. Well, I guess we all know what page Michael is on. ;-P

 

[Pig Bladder]

To borroe a line froom SNL, Rich, you ignoarnt slut!

^^^^^^ - did you mean "borrow"?

Trees don't dive the wrong way on the interstate and crash into
school busses head on and kill the driver and most of the kids. trees
don't run off the road into the side of some's home and kill them in
thir beds. Drunk drivers do. The son of a bitch who hit the bus
survived. When he got to court he plead not guilty and his lawyer
stated, "He was ony drinking, it wasn't his fault he killed so many
people". I think they should have put both of them in the electric chair
and let them burnn for a half hour or ore.

Ah, yes. The revenge/torture paradigm. That explains a lot.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bob Monsen <[email protected]>


Should we not be more concerned about the just under 80% that aren't?

I guess I should have embedded this link in one of the "Kill The Bastards"
threads:
http://www.neodruid.net/images/Safe-Car.gif

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Of course we should. However, if we could simply make cars refuse to
drive for drunks, we would save a lot of lives. Even the drunks would be
happier, not being maimed or killed.

According to this fun website, traffic accidents account for 1/160th of
the number of yearly deaths as tobacco. Since we as a society appear
unable to do anything about that, it appears unlikely that we will do
anything about drunk driving.

Feh. The religion of antismokerism.

If 400,000 people are killed every year by smoking, then obviously
the other 2,500,000 people killed every year are killed by NON-SMOKING!

NON-SMOKING KILLS FIVE TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS SMOKING!!!!!!!!

Check the statistics!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

If you can grant me that that's sufficient to continue with the discussion,
then I you'd let me modify our premise to, say, "If you kill someone with
your car, you should be treated the same as anybody who kills someone by
any means at all", I'd say, I agree wholeheartedly.

I'll probably push everyone's buttons when I say, "Regardless of
impairment." i.e., If you drive DRUNK OR SOBER and kill someone, then
you should be dealt with the way current society deals with killers.

---
That's a bogus argument.

The situation surrounding a drunk whose car jumps a median and kills
someone because of his lack of ability to control his vehicle should
be dealt with much differently than someone whose car jumps a median
and kills someone because of, say, a blowout. In the second case
there was no abrogation of responsibility on the driver's part, while
in the first case there clearly was.