 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007PA Bill to mandate breathylzer interlocks on ALL cars.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp "Clymer's proposal would require that, by 2009, all new cars sold in Pennsylvania have a device installed to estimate the amount of alcohol on the breath of a driver. If the machine believes the driver's BAC is greater than .025 percent -- significantly less than the legal limit of .08 percent -- the car will not start. By 2010, all motorists would be forced to install the devices on existing cars before being able to sell them as used vehicles." ----------------------- The MADD neo-prohibitionist movement is apparently doing good on their press release from several months back. Either that or the lobby for those gizmos has made it's first successful payoff. Ed calling this an off-topic-paranoid political post in 3...2...1.... > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > press release from several months back. Either that or the lobby for > those gizmos has made it's first successful payoff. Yup - another scam by the automakers to increase car prices and thereby profits for themeselves. The was to fight drunk drivers is to stop coddling them. No more fines - give these killers and maimers prison time. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS, the lover of GAY KID PORN, spewed forth this crapola all over the landscape in rec.autos.driving: << ECP to off topic ngs removed >> > Yup - another scam by the automakers to increase car prices and thereby > profits for themeselves. The was to fight drunk drivers is to stop > coddling them. No more fines - give these killers and maimers prison time. So, you'd rather see drunks get in the car and drive to potentially kill someone rahter than to stop them before they even start.... Looking for new lovers in the joint, I take it??? OBTW, thanks for a new .sig!  Signature"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," supports letting drunks drive: "Yup - another scam by the automakers to increase car prices and thereby profits for themeselves." --"Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS," 3/27/07 Ref: http://snipurl.com/1dwi4 Message ID: mKaOh.17057$tD2.15903@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net All that mandating breathalyzer interlocks in all new cars would do is destroy the car industry. Even people who never drink aren't going to meekly pay extra for an unneeded accessory that may or may not work - and may need extra repair costs. Such a mandate just would create a brisk market in used cars. No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com On Mar 27, 1:29 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote: > All that mandating breathalyzer interlocks in all new cars would do is > destroy the car industry. Even people who never drink aren't going to > meekly pay extra for an unneeded accessory that may or may not work - > and may need extra repair costs. Such a mandate just would create a > brisk market in used cars. Woman who runs the desk at the local Midas told me they had a customer with one of those devices on her car (obviously, court-mandated). Customer showed up to pick up her car, obviously toasted, and offering ten bucks to anybody willing to blow in the thing for her. The customer service rep at Midas told me she called the cops, by the time they got there the customer was out on the sidewalk soliciting passerby for, I can't resist the pun, a blow job. > All that mandating breathalyzer interlocks in all new cars would do is > destroy the car industry. Even people who never drink aren't going to > meekly pay extra for an unneeded accessory that may or may not work - > and may need extra repair costs. Such a mandate just would create a > brisk market in used cars. No, you couldn't SELL a used car unless it was first retro-fitted with the device, to the tune of about 2 grand. -Dave >> All that mandating breathalyzer interlocks in all new cars would do is >> destroy the car industry. Even people who never drink aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, you couldn't SELL a used car unless it was first retro-fitted with > the device, to the tune of about 2 grand. -Dave So people will just buy cars in Ohio, West VA, New Jersey, New York or any of the other states that are close to the major population centers of PA. Sure, not everyone will, but this bill is ridiculous, especially considering the low limit they are imposing. At 0.025 BAC - especially given the margin of error which is surely inherent in these devices, one or two drinks could render your car undrivable. This would probably not have a major effect on car sales, but it WOULD have an effect of booze sales in restaurants, and it would become common place for parents who had a couple of drinks over dinner to get their children to blow for them. > >> All that mandating breathalyzer interlocks in all new cars would do is > >> destroy the car industry. Even people who never drink aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > inherent in these devices, one or two drinks could render your car > undrivable. .025 is even less than one drink for most people. Most mouthwash would make you late for work. I would imagine that certain foods may even ferment enough in your digestive tract to register .025. Signature~~~ Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Fred G. Mackey said in rec.autos.driving: << reply limited to r.a.d >> > At 0.025 BAC - especially given the margin of error which is surely > inherent in these devices, one or two drinks could render your car > undrivable. If you factor in that these interlocks are more than likely going to be mass produced consumer grade items (i.e. cheap crap) and not "professional grade," (for lack of a better word) that would be admissible in a court, then an already huge margin of error becomes enormous. SignatureSincerely, The New World Order. > So people will just buy cars in Ohio, West VA, New Jersey, New York or any > of the other states that are close to the major population centers of PA. > Sure, not everyone will, but this bill is ridiculous, especially > considering the low limit they are imposing. And PA will not allow you to register the car in PA. > At 0.025 BAC - especially given the margin of error which is surely > inherent in these devices, one or two drinks could render your car > undrivable. A sip of wine could render your car undrivable. ONE full drink will put most people over .08, which is the legal limit, regardless if your car is equipped with one of these devices or not!!! > This would probably not have a major effect on car sales, but it WOULD > have an effect of booze sales in restaurants, and it would become common > place for parents who had a couple of drinks over dinner to get their > children to blow for them. Bullshit. Detroit is already going under for want of people with the cash flow to buy its product when the Japanese brands are better. You really think - when General Motors lost its shirt last year - that raising the price of a Chevy for something not of any benefit to the typical driver wouldn't cause a lot of potential buyers to just keep their current car? No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com >>This would probably not have a major effect on car sales, but it WOULD >>have an effect of booze sales in restaurants, and it would become common >>place for parents who had a couple of drinks over dinner to get their >>children to blow for them. > > Bullshit. So, you disagree. > Detroit is already going under for want of people with > the cash flow to buy its product when the Japanese brands are better. That's irrelevant - Jap cars would also be required to have the devices. > You really think - when General Motors lost its shirt last year - that > raising the price of a Chevy for something not of any benefit to the > typical driver wouldn't cause a lot of potential buyers to just keep > their current car? Forever? > No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com On Mar 28, 7:31 am, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote: > > This would probably not have a major effect on car sales, but it WOULD > > have an effect of booze sales in restaurants, and it would become common [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > typical driver wouldn't cause a lot of potential buyers to just keep > their current car? What's with you kissinng Jap butt every chance you get? Are you japanese or something? >> No, you couldn't SELL a used car unless it was first retro-fitted with >> the device, to the tune of about 2 grand. -Dave [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of PA. Sure, not everyone will, but this bill is ridiculous, especially >considering the low limit they are imposing. They probably wouldn't be able to register the out-of-state car in PA. There's other alternatives, of course, like the dealerships will remove and buy the devices back after the sale. Nothing in the bill (yet) says you have to leave them on there. >At 0.025 BAC - especially given the margin of error which is surely >inherent in these devices, one or two drinks could render your car >undrivable. 0.025 will definitely render your car undrivable after one drink, in most cases. That's likely the point. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Mar 27, 12:29 pm, "edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote: > All that mandating breathalyzer interlocks in all new cars would do is > destroy the car industry. Even people who never drink aren't going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com I expects a brisk market in 'good air' aerosol dispensers.. if such don't exist already.. But more ominous is the government's PRESUMPTIVE STANCE that all citizens should be punished because this legislation posits that ALL (including the innocent) ARE 'A PRIORI' PRESUMED TO BE GUILTY... In traditional and legal america.. all were presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise. Looks like some neocon dumbasses are trying to reverse and invert that constitutional right. Just another thumb-screw in racheting away US civil rights.. > > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > profits for themeselves. The was to fight drunk drivers is to stop > coddling them. No more fines - give these killers and maimers prison time. Interlocks on all vehicles will never happen. The state and municipalities in PA make WAY too much money from the fining, house arrest and "treatment" of so-called drunk drivers who, after just one drink, are breaking the law even though they probably drive better than much of PA's senior citizen population. Signature~~~ >> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > profits for themeselves. The was to fight drunk drivers is to stop > coddling them. No more fines - give these killers and maimers prison time. I don't drink, but I would be skeptical about the accuracy of these devices. I can envision some non-drinkers left without a functioning car if they malfunctioned (and some drinkers able to drive away for the same reason). And I wonder what the cost to install and repair will be?? MaryL On Mar 27, 9:28 am, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > profits for themeselves. The was to fight drunk drivers is to stop > coddling them. No more fines - give these killers and maimers prison time. Not likely to pass. You may not be old enough to remember, but there was once a time when a car wouldn't start unless the seat belt was engaged. After there was a woman dragged from her car and murdered because she couldn't get the car started, that attempt died a horrible death. Matt On Mar 27, 8:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: <brevity snip> > The MADD neo-prohibitionist movement is apparently doing good on their > press release from several months back. Either that or the lobby for > those gizmos has made it's first successful payoff. Duh. You can't recognize political pandering of even this extraordinary level of obviousness?! > Ed calling this an off-topic-paranoid political post in 3...2...1.... It's on-topic, but only a paranoid conspiracy theorist and exceptional fool would believe this has any chance of becoming law. ----- - gpsman > On Mar 27, 8:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Duh. You can't recognize political pandering of even this > extraordinary level of obviousness?! Of course. > > Ed calling this an off-topic-paranoid political post in 3...2...1.... > > It's on-topic, but only a paranoid conspiracy theorist and exceptional > fool would believe this has any chance of becoming law. The current administration has managed to accomplish quite a bit through fear-mongering and spin; no matter how nutty the idea, the nuttiness needs to be explicitly and publicly exposed or some people will blindly support it. I suppose you're about to call me an exceptional fool, but I feel that this needs to be taken seriously and seriously opposed. nate >> It's on-topic, but only a paranoid conspiracy theorist and exceptional >> fool would believe this has any chance of becoming law. > The current administration has managed to accomplish quite a bit > through fear-mongering and spin; no matter how nutty the idea, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I suppose you're about to call me an exceptional fool, but I feel that > this needs to be taken seriously and seriously opposed. What I am seeing more and more of are things no one would have dared propose just a few years ago let alone a few decades ago. Sure it won't likely pass -this try-. But how did we get to a point where such insanity gets taken seriously? One little step at a time, I suppose. Besides, what have we seen on one item after another? Attempt after attempt after attempt until it is law, and then it's damn near impossible to get rid of. Or in other cases a scaling back to incrementally get to the goal. This bill is interlocks in all cars... it could be 'compromised' to in the cars of convicted drunk drivers. Then awhile later another bill takes a step, and then another one and before we know it, this original bill that 'never had a chance of passing' has effectively been passed. How do you eat an elephant? A little at time. On Mar 27, 6:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Ed calling this ... Troll. E.P. >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp > >"Clymer's proposal would require that, by 2009, all new cars sold in >Pennsylvania have a device installed to estimate the amount of alcohol on >the breath of a driver." Thankfully this fuckhead isn't MY rep. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Mar 27, 9:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ed calling this an off-topic-paranoid political post in 3...2...1.... Politicians introduce all sorts of crazy bills all the time. Doesn't mean it will be law. I remember when it was my dates that had to either blow or walk. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Time is the best teacher; Unfortunately it kills all its students. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.