New Socialist French Nanny State Mandates Breathalyzers in All Cars - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;36593327]Nope we must fight crime by treating everyone like a criminal. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] That isn't the point. That's the same kind of logic that got the TSA put in place here in the US. "It's not that much trouble, and if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about!" It doesn't work out that way in practice. Treating everyone like suspects in a crime that hasn't even been committed yet [I]never[/I] works. The whole convenience argument is inherently flawed, too. Just because it's convenient when it's implemented does not mean it's going to [I]stay[/I] convenient.[/QUOTE] Breathing into a breathalyzer and getting fondled every time you want to do something are two completely different things. And the DRM equivalent would be lower than steam, which fp is apparently okay with.

Is the test the type that immobilizes the car if you fail or the type you do to just check your blood alcohol level? If it's the latter it won't do shit, drunk people aren't going to use it and those that do will end up ignoring it.

I actually think this is a brilliant idea and I don't see why you're all getting upset about it. A friend of mine got into an accident with a drunk driver, but he got away with a trashed car and "just" a broken leg. But it could've ended worse, he could've died. I think the minor annoyance of the breathalyzer is quite a worthy trade for what could be your life.

[QUOTE=waxrock;36593895]Breathing into a breathalyzer and getting fondled every time you want to do something are two completely different things. And the DRM equivalent would be lower than steam, which fp is apparently okay with.[/QUOTE] The TSA didn't start as a fondling agency. They didn't even do pat-downs. They were just new people in blue shirts to man the metal detectors and luggage scanners. People were okay with them because they seemed non-intrusive, convenient and wholly innocuous.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36593327] That's the same kind of logic that got the TSA put in place here in the US. "It's not that much trouble, and if you've done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about!" It doesn't work out that way in practice. Treating everyone like suspects in a crime that hasn't even been committed yet [I]never[/I] works. The whole convenience argument is inherently flawed, too. Just because it's convenient when it's implemented does not mean it's going to [I]stay[/I] convenient.[/QUOTE] Your reasoning is entirely correct, but I'm trying to look at this from a more practical, pragmatic standpoint. Some methods are intrusive, some are not. I'm cherrypicking here and saying TSA is too intrusive for airport security and SecuROM is too intrusive for DRM, Steam and breathalyzer ignition locks aren't. I also understand the "not guaranteed to stay convenient" argument for DRM and airport security but I fail to see how it could be applied to breathalyzer. The situation where you cannot start your car without passing the breathalyzer test can't really get any more inconvenient; you can't drive if you're positive and that's it. It could only possibly be made more convenient through the implementation of faster, slimmer and more accurate breathalyzers.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36593989]Your reasoning is entirely correct, but I'm trying to look at this from a more practical, pragmatic standpoint. Some methods are intrusive, some are not. I'm cherrypicking here and saying TSA is too intrusive for airport security and SecuROM is too intrusive for DRM, Steam and breathalyzer ignition locks aren't.[/QUOTE] The point is that the TSA didn't start its life being as intrusive as it is today. They really didn't do anything that wasn't already being done prior to 9/11. And they were allowed to exist and operate free of accountability [I]because[/I] people said "well, it's not intrusive, and everyone benefits." It simply never works out like you're expecting. Measures like these are fluid and dynamic. The good intentions will fade long before the authority of the measure does. The simple fact is that passing laws out of fear always ends in disaster, regardless of how non-intrusive they are at the beginning.

Lets ignore the fact that this law has been coming for many years and has fuck all to do with their new government. You really think something can get done that fast? France has a drink driving problem, this is one of the many solutions.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36594021]The point is that the TSA didn't start its life being as intrusive as it is today. They really didn't do anything that wasn't already being done prior to 9/11. And they were allowed to exist and operate free of accountability [I]because[/I] people said "well, it's not intrusive, and everyone benefits." It simply never works out like you're expecting. Measures like these are fluid and dynamic. The good intentions will fade long before the authority of the measure does. The simple fact is that passing laws out of fear always ends in disaster, regardless of how non-intrusive they are at the beginning.[/QUOTE] That's because the TSA is its own entity. It isn't so far-fetched that they would be delegated with more direct power and authority as time went on. This breathalyzer doesn't have the same apparent potential. I mean, if another law was passed that made it a major inconvenience to drive and it negatively impacted those with a 0 BAC then yeah it'll be a problem. But I don't see how that pertains to breathalyzers at all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36594021]The point is that the TSA didn't start its life being as intrusive as it is today. They really didn't do anything that wasn't already being done prior to 9/11. And they were allowed to exist and operate free of accountability [I]because[/I] people said "well, it's not intrusive, and everyone benefits." It simply never works out like you're expecting. Measures like these are fluid and dynamic. The good intentions will fade long before the authority of the measure does. The simple fact is that passing laws out of fear always ends in disaster, regardless of how non-intrusive they are at the beginning.[/QUOTE] Again, your argument regarding TSA and similar measures is 100% sound and I agree. I just don't see how breathalyzer tests has any potential of becoming more intrusive when it's just a simple machine that is already functionally perfected rather than a paranoid human-run organization that has been given excessive authority? There is no "dynamic" in a breathalyzer machine. I wouldn't have any problems with TSA either if my permission to board an airplane was decided by a reliable emotionless non-political machine, if that was possible. This law doesn't put drivers at risk of having to take an anal probe to start their car; they'd have to make an entirely new law for that and it would be unlikely to happen considering the accuracy of the breathalyzer method in determining intoxication (unlike TSA, where there's room for a whole world of subjectivity when determining the efficiency of the organization). Besides the circumstances leading to the implementation of this law are not exactly similar. TSA happened because 9/11 suddenly made everyone crap their pants, like you said. France's DUI problem is unsurprising, well mapped-out and not plotted by organizations of drunk drivers.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36594212]Again, your argument regarding TSA and similar measures is 100% sound and I agree. I just don't see how breathalyzer tests has any potential of becoming more intrusive when it's just a simple machine that is already functionally perfected rather than a paranoid human-run organization that has been given excessive authority? There is no "dynamic" in a breathalyzer machine. I wouldn't have any problems with TSA either if my permission to board an airplane was decided by a reliable emotionless non-political machine, if that was possible. No drivers are ever at the risk of having to take an anal probe to start their car. Besides the circumstances leading to the implementation of this law are not exactly similar. TSA happened because 9/11 suddenly made everyone crap their pants, like you said. France's DUI problem is unsurprising, well mapped-out and not plotted by organizations of drunk drivers.[/QUOTE] But this method is a waste of time A bag that you have to breathe in that's not even connected to the car doesn't stop drunk drivers from turning on the vehicle.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36594240]But this method is a waste of time A bag that you have to breathe in that's not even connected to the car doesn't stop drunk drivers from turning on the vehicle.[/QUOTE] Well that seems like a waste of money indeed. What does the plastic bag do?

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36594268]Well that seems like a waste of money indeed. What does the plastic bag do?[/QUOTE] I think it's the chemical breathalyzer that they mention in the article and is pictured. I don't think it integrates with the vehicle at all. There's nothing stopping a drunk person from driving, it's just "well my BAC is over legal limits but oh well since alcohol impairs my reasoning I'll drive anyway" Right problem, wrong solution.

It doesn't say in this article or any article that I've found if it's for ignition or not, it doesn't seem like it wouldn't be.

Well based on the wording, "carry" a breathalyzer, it doesn't sound like it does.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36593295]So are you in favor of DRM in games? Because this is the same tactic as DRM. Everyone is a suspect and everyone must abide, regardless of whether or not they're innocent... Etc[/QUOTE] So you're saying that entitled teenagers will circumvent the breathalyzers because they don't believe that the car manufacturers deserve the knowledge that they are driving safely?

See I was trying to go for context clues as well but then it says "equip", that's pretty strong wording for just keeping a loose bag in your car. Nope shit just googled another article, "It's also important to note that while immobilizers tied into the breathalyzer system (often called alcolocks in Europe) are compliant with the law, they're not required. A driver in compliance with the law could have a breathalyzer, use it, and still drive away drunk if they choose to. And of course, the classic alcolock loophole of having another, sober person blow into the unit still exists." Shit nvm this law is useless.

An interlock device would be good. Treating everyone like a drunk is a small price to pay to keep people from killing each other with cars.

[QUOTE=DarkendSky;36592951]I prefer the Swedish method of just jailing you for over a year first offense, but honestly taking any measures is good. At least here in the States, people do it all the damned time because DUI offenses are basically nothing unless you kill someone.[/QUOTE] Here in Connecticut it's legal to drive while drunk as long as you are able to prove you are on your way to a Viking funeral.

You won't all be singing its praises when your car won't start because your breathalyzer is faulty - or is giving a misreading because [url=http://www.breathalyzer.net/faq.html]'Semiconductor models will sometimes show a false positive result for [someone who is diabetic or on a low calorie diet.]'[/url] or a variety of other reasons.

No way I would ever do this, after all, I haven't sipped any alcohol in my entire life, and [I]never[/I] plan to.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;36594490]So you're saying that entitled teenagers will circumvent the breathalyzers because they don't believe that the car manufacturers deserve the knowledge that they are driving safely?[/QUOTE] Actually, yes. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Im Crimson;36594212]Again, your argument regarding TSA and similar measures is 100% sound and I agree. I just don't see how breathalyzer tests has any potential of becoming more intrusive when it's just a simple machine that is already functionally perfected rather than a paranoid human-run organization that has been given excessive authority?[/QUOTE] Simple. First, they criminalize driving without doing the test. Then they start arresting/fining people who drive without doing the test. Then they pull up the statistics and say "look at how much crime has risen since we made this thing a crime! We must enforce it more strictly!" Then they start enforcing it more strictly, the numbers of fines and arrests go up, and the process repeats itself. This is why it's a horrible idea to make something innocuous a crime (such as driving without doing a breathalyzer) for the sake of making [I]another[/I] crime more difficult to commit. It results in a feedback loop. You criminalize something which shouldn't be a crime because crime rates are too high. Then crime rates go even further [I]up[/I] due to something non-criminal now being treated as a crime, so further measures are taken to curb it. Take drugs, for instance. Most illicit substances were banned under the pretense [I]not[/I] that they were unhealthy or immoral, but that people committed crimes when they were [I]on[/I] the drugs. The criminalization of most hard drugs themselves was a measure to [I]prevent[/I] existing crimes. And now what does the drug war look like? Drugs are arbitrarily illegal for a plethora of rationalized reasons. We've invented dozens of new crimes just to curb drugs. Crime has risen sharply since their prohibition, criminal industries have sprouted up around the contraband, and everything is generally shittier. It's all the same principle. You simply cannot lower the crime rate by inventing new crimes. Whatever good intentions are behind such a move evaporate very quickly, and you end up making up more and more crimes to lower the rates of the other crimes you made up to prevent the initial crimes. Practically, what do you think France is going to do when this fails miserably and the crime rates go up? Do you think they'll repeal the law, leave it be, or start enforcing it more and more strictly? I'd venture to guess you'd bet the law will get even more restrictive when this doesn't work.

I think this can be quite annoying for people who go on holiday to France by car. If I recall correctly the neighbouring countries of France don't have this measure in action at least not where I live, so this will probably cause some trouble for people who are driving to France on holiday, It wouldn't surprise me if those breathalyzer aren't as widespread available certain neighbouring countries.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36594347]Well based on the wording, "carry" a breathalyzer, it doesn't sound like it does.[/QUOTE] It's just a disposable one use thing. From what I understand the idea is that if you are pulled over in France for suspected drink driving they get you to use your breathalyser. But surely there is a market for making fake ones that give false readings.

[QUOTE=Jsm;36597319]It's just a disposable one use thing. From what I understand the idea is that if you are pulled over in France for suspected drink driving they get you to use your breathalyser. But surely there is a market for making fake ones that give false readings.[/QUOTE] Isn't it the responsibility of the police to supply the breathalyzer ? for all we know the drivers could tamper with it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36593985]The TSA didn't start as a fondling agency. They didn't even do pat-downs. They were just new people in blue shirts to man the metal detectors and luggage scanners. People were okay with them because they seemed non-intrusive, convenient and wholly innocuous.[/QUOTE] so we should oppose every governmental agency on the grounds that at one point we might no longer like them!

[QUOTE=SubZero;36597316]I think this can be quite annoying for people who go on holiday to France by car. If I recall correctly the neighbouring countries of France don't have this measure in action at least not where I live, so this will probably cause some trouble for people who are driving to France on holiday, It wouldn't surprise me if those breathalyzer aren't as widespread available certain neighbouring countries.[/QUOTE] The ideal situation would be them being available near borders (in petrol stations etc) so people can buy them before crossing the border. From what I understand they are on sale in the port of Dover. Its not like they are expensive anyway, only €1.

[QUOTE=Jsm;36597319]It's just a disposable one use thing. From what I understand the idea is that if you are pulled over in France for suspected drink driving they get you to use your breathalyser. But surely there is a market for making fake ones that give false readings.[/QUOTE] In that case, this is an incredibly stupid idea opening the door to tampered equipment.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36594240]But this method is a waste of time A bag that you have to breathe in that's not even connected to the car doesn't stop drunk drivers from turning on the vehicle.[/QUOTE] Actually that is [I]exactly how the device functions.[/I]

[QUOTE=SubZero;36597372]Isn't it the responsibility of the police to supply the breathalyzer ? for all we know the drivers could tamper with it.[/QUOTE] Yeah that is what I thought. I need to read some more about it, I am going on UK media speculation.

That's like telling people to buy their own handcuffs just in case they get arrested. Motherfuckers will tamper with them. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=scout1;36597389]Actually that is [I]exactly how the device functions.[/I][/QUOTE] You guys need to come up with a consensus on what you think this is supposed to do.