- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Spinoff: Do you Think Everybody Should Have an Interlock Device?
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:18 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:18 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
I'm actually going to agree with the OP on this one - as long as it is set to .08. Working in bars all my life - I HATED having to cut people off who were obviously drunk, but not bothering anybody. Also worried me when we couldn't stop somebody from going to their car for whatever reasons. This takes it out of our hands as vendors.
Also - I know tons of people who got DWIs despite "not drinking that much" or "not feeling drunk"... shite happens. This would solve some of it.
Also - I know tons of people who got DWIs despite "not drinking that much" or "not feeling drunk"... shite happens. This would solve some of it.
1
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:20 pm to yurintroubl
quote:So the solution to the government's inflexible standards, and problematic application, is more government involvement?
Also - I know tons of people who got DWIs despite "not drinking that much" or "not feeling drunk"... shite happens. This would solve some of it.
This post was edited on 10/15/15 at 11:22 pm
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The vast majority of drivers are not driving drunk. In fact, even those with DUIs probably spend more time driving sober.
I'd rather spend my time not worrying if people were drunk driving or not. If I had a child I would like to not have to worry about if when they're coming home somebody isn't going to drunkenly veer into their lane and smash into them or vice versa.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So the solution to the government's inflexible standards, and problematic application, is more government involvement?
No - it's idiot-proofing ourselves.
Doesn't have to be the government. Insurance companies could say you have to have one to be insured.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:27 pm to yurintroubl
quote:
No - it's idiot-proofing ourselves. Doesn't have to be the government. Insurance companies could say you have to have one to be insured.
That's what I was thinking about the idiot-proofing. But I hadn't thought about the insurance companies making it a requirement.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:30 pm to Artie Rome
quote:
The things go off randomly while you drive and you have to blow again.
Are we still talking about interlock devices?
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:35 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Should be required for anyone with a DUI for at least 5 years
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:38 pm to yurintroubl
quote:Ahhhh the "we must protect us from ourselves" argument. Nevermind that those policies usually result in an failure.
No - it's idiot-proofing ourselves.
Doesn't have to be the government. Insurance companies could say you have to have one to be insured
As for insurance tracking, they already offer tracking devices as a financial incentive. If their actuaries thought it was going to be viable, they would probably already offer it.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:42 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:There are already policies in place to prevent drunk driving, yet you're still worried. Why would this be any different?
I'd rather spend my time not worrying if people were drunk driving or n
quote:Nice Appeal to Emotion.
If I had a child I would like to not have to worry about if when they're coming home somebody isn't going to drunkenly veer into their lane and smash into them or vice versa.
Posted on 10/16/15 at 12:47 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
There are already policies in place to prevent drunk driving, yet you're still worried. Why would this be any different?
Uhhh...because people way over the limit can still start their car and drive away. If you're over the limit with an interlock device in your car, it won't start. What in the frick is so hard to understand that this would be a good thing for literally everybody? Drunk driving deaths literally would almost never happen.
Posted on 10/16/15 at 12:49 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Ahhhh the "we must protect us from ourselves" argument. Nevermind that those policies usually result in an failure.
Except this is one that is pretty much fail safe. Seeing as the car wouldn't start if you're over the legal limit. Never mind that you can't read.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News