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

[QUOTE=Lankist;36597396] You guys need to come up with a consensus on what you think this is supposed to do.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.alcoholalert.com/car-breathalyzer.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;36593324]Just to clarify this decision has been made BEFORE the new socialist government was elected. It was already being endorsed by the right wing government about a year ago.[/QUOTE] Also, I would like to point out that socialism =/= nanny state Even the UK, the most notorious "nanny state", has been ruled by a conservative majority government for the last 5 decades.

[QUOTE=scout1;36597423][url]http://www.alcoholalert.com/car-breathalyzer.html[/url][/QUOTE] and how do you think france is going to mandate that is installed on every car in the country? you do realize that they have the same [I]ex post facto[/I] restrictions we have in the US, right? Like, when the US government mandates emission standards, they can't enforce it on cars manufactured prior to the mandate, because that would be an [I]ex post facto [/I]law. Similarly, France couldn't just up and say "all cars must have this installed now." They could only say "all newly manufactured cars must have this now." They can't legally force the entire country to modify every automobile to that specification. That's not how they're handling this.

[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 or guilty. It's treating people who've never had a drop of alcohol in their lives the same as raging alcoholics, just as paying customers are treated like pirates.[/QUOTE] The fuck are you talking about. If you're drunk, then you shouldn't drive. If you're not drunk, then what's the big fucking deal about having to take a Breathalyzer to drive?

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36597561]The fuck are you talking about. If you're drunk, then you shouldn't drive. If you're not drunk, then what's the big fucking deal about having to take a Breathalyzer to drive?[/QUOTE] What's the big deal about submitting to pat-downs? What's the big deal about always being online when you're playing vidya? It's the same principle. "What's the big deal?" is a diminishing argument.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;36597561]The fuck are you talking about. If you're drunk, then you shouldn't drive. If you're not drunk, then what's the big fucking deal about having to take a Breathalyzer to drive?[/QUOTE] They are taking away my freedoms man... I mean it is not like driving a car is a potently deadly activity and should be treated with respect man... Freedom. [editline]3rd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36597637]What's the big deal about submitting to pat-downs? What's the big deal about always being online when you're playing vidya? It's the same principle. "What's the big deal?" is a diminishing argument.[/QUOTE] They are different, they are not the same issues. Pat-downs are useful, if conducted correctly. DRM is useful, if conducted correctly. Making sure people are sober before driving, is useful, if conducted correctly. See the connection.

[QUOTE=Chevron;36597639]They are taking away my freedoms man... I mean it is not like driving a car is a potently deadly activity and should be treated with respect man... Freedom.[/QUOTE] You cannot make drunk driving [I]more[/I] illegal. All you've done is invented a new crime. [QUOTE=Lankist;36597019]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.[/QUOTE] [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Chevron;36597639]They are different, they are not the same issues.[/QUOTE] No, they aren't. They're the exact same principle. This thread is not even two full pages long yet and you're already repeating shit that's already been addressed. Read.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36597669]You cannot make drunk driving [I]more[/I] illegal. All you've done is invented a new crime. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] No, they aren't. They're the exact same principle.[/QUOTE] It is illegal to drink and drive. Many people do not know when they are over the limit and drive anyway. This measure makes sure you are aware you are over the limit. You are using the slippery slope argument out the asshole. This is no more of an issue then it being illegal not wearing a seat belt.

[QUOTE=Chevron;36597712]It is illegal to drink and drive. Many people do not know when they are over the limit and drive anyway. This measure makes sure you are aware you are over the limit. You are using the slippery slope argument out the asshole. This is no more of an issue then it being illegal not wearing a seat belt.[/QUOTE] You did not read that entire post in two minutes. This is not slippery slope. Slippery slope takes the slip as a given and takes it to a world-shattering extreme. I am neither saying this is assured nor is it the worst thing ever. I'm saying it's a terrible idea. I said this sort of lawmaking results in a feedback loop, not a slippery slope. Go back. Sit down. Read. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Chevron;36597712]This is no more of an issue then it being illegal not wearing a seat belt.[/QUOTE] Considering that is a victimless crime enforced solely for the sake of boosting ticketing revenue (massively, I might add,) yes, it's roughly on par with that issue.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36597733]You did not read that entire post in two minutes. This is not slippery slope. Slippery slope takes the slip as a given and takes it to a world-shattering extreme. I am neither saying this is assured nor is it the worst thing ever. I'm saying it's a terrible idea. Go back. Sit down. Read. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] Considering that is a victimless crime enforced solely for the sake of boosting ticketing revenue (massively, I might add,) yes, it's roughly on par with that issue.[/QUOTE] You didn't read the OP so we are even, this doesn't stop you from driving the car drunk, makes you have no excuse when you do. People should have choice and I agree that a lot of crimes are petty, lot of drug related offences should be scrapped. But so what, those are drugs this is a huge metal box that drives at over 100Km/h, I cannot kill a lot of people by just taking pot. It is not a victimless crime, you are making precarious measure to reduce injury. You can tell me who is victimless when your head ploughs through the windscreen because some asshole hit you front on, where as if you where wearing your seatbelt you may live. And before you say well that is my choice, it is not the choice of the passenger to watch you fly though the windscreen now is it. Deaths have gone down since making wearing seat belt law. Less people who are unsure if they are drunk would not drive due to knowing.

[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 or guilty. It's treating people who've never had a drop of alcohol in their lives the same as raging alcoholics, just as paying customers are treated like pirates.[/QUOTE] DRM doesn't kill people.

Breathalyzers as ignitions for cars (in addition to a key, obviously) have been something I can only dream about. It's a seriously good idea, but they should come stock when the manufacturer produces the car, not an add-on the consumer has to buy.

I think under EU law you're supposed to carry a hi vis vest in the car at all times too, but no-one uses it. It'll just be stashed under the seat and never looked at for a few years.

The way I see it, if you're sober, you have nothing to worry about. Using a breathalyzer isn't very hard and it won't be that much of a burden. It's nothing like DRM.

[QUOTE=TamTamJam;36597847]DRM doesn't kill people.[/QUOTE] Neither do breathalyzers and patdowns? You're mixing up the analogies here. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FFStudios;36597904]The way I see it, if you're sober, you have nothing to worry about. Using a breathalyzer isn't very hard and it won't be that much of a burden. It's nothing like DRM.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what people said back when the TSA was created. This is what people say when the subject of warrantless wiretaps, internet monitoring and tracking comes up. This kind of complacent logic does [I]not[/I] work. This is not how you write laws.

[QUOTE=Aide;36592808]I bet if this was America someone would of posted. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiLzf72Jtrw[/media] This does seem a bit excessive to prevent drunk drivers.[/QUOTE] what episode is that

[QUOTE=Chevron;36597835]But so what, those are drugs this is a huge metal box that drives at over 100Km/h, I cannot kill a lot of people by just taking pot.[/QUOTE] I did not say drunk driving should not be illegal. I said not breathalyzing yourself every time you start your car should not be illegal. This is the fallacy of this kind of bullshit logic. The victimless crime is the breathalyzer, not the drunk driving. You consider both of these crimes to be the same thing and they simply aren't. This is why you aren't understanding what I am saying.

[QUOTE=Pantz76;36592783]Nobody is complaining about taking measures to stop drunk driving. They just think that this is going too far.[/QUOTE] How? What else do you suggest, allowing people to operate the death machine and only get in trouble if they do something wrong? This isn't "going too far", this is how it should have always been, and this is how it should be everywhere. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36597950]Neither do breathalyzers and patdowns? You're mixing up the analogies here. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] This is exactly what people said back when the TSA was created. This is what people say when the subject of warrantless wiretaps, internet monitoring and tracking comes up. This kind of complacent logic does [I]not[/I] work. This is not how you write laws.[/QUOTE] How does it not work? The breathalyzers don't monitor your internet usage, touch your butt, steal your stuff, listen to you, do anything besides be a tool that makes sure you aren't drunk and save lives. This literally affects NO ONE except those who are drunk, as all a sober person has to do is breath into something, the horror, my rights, oh NOOOOO111111111111111

[QUOTE=Clementine;36598122]How does it not work? The breathalyzers don't monitor your internet usage, touch your butt, steal your stuff, listen to you, do anything besides be a tool that makes sure you aren't drunk and save lives. This literally affects NO ONE except those who are drunk, as all a sober person has to do is breath into something, the horror, my rights, oh NOOOOO111111111111111[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lankist;36597396]That's like telling people to buy their own handcuffs just in case they get arrested. Motherfuckers will tamper with them.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36597950]This is exactly what people said back when the TSA was created. This is what people say when the subject of warrantless wiretaps, internet monitoring and tracking comes up. This kind of complacent logic does [I]not[/I] work. This is not how you write laws.[/QUOTE] Wrong, security lines =/= blowing into a tube for literally 3 seconds (the time it takes for the machine to register your breath).

[QUOTE=FFStudios;36598228]Wrong, security lines =/= blowing into a tube for literally 3 seconds (the time it takes for the machine to register your breath).[/QUOTE] The security lines weren't like the way they are now when the TSA was implemented. What makes you think this measure will always be as simple as blowing into a tube that isn't even connected to your car? It's ineffectual and flawed. Do you really think it will not become more severe? Because unless you think that having a breathalyzer in your car for traffic stops will solve drunk driving, you're simply wrong. Say this somehow miraculously lowers DUI fatalities to 15% of all traffic fatalities. Do you really think legislators will be like "okay, that's good enough. We won't take this any further."

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;36597902]I think under EU law you're supposed to carry a hi vis vest in the car at all times too, but no-one uses it. It'll just be stashed under the seat and never looked at for a few years.[/QUOTE] Only a few countries have that law, and even fewer enforce it. The idea is that you are not allowed out of the vehicle in an emergency situation (ie breaking down) without a high-vis jacket, so it must be inside the car for you to be able to get out with it on.

[QUOTE=Jsm;36598355]Only a few countries have that law, and even fewer enforce it. The idea is that you are not allowed out of the vehicle in an emergency situation (ie breaking down) without a high-vis jacket, so it must be inside the car for you to be able to get out with it on.[/QUOTE] "My car is on fire. Shit let me get my vest." It isn't enforced because there are so many situations where, if they bring someone up on that charge, the entire law could be overturned. Lots of laws work like that. Things are technical illegal, but they're never enforced for fear that one wrong case and the entire law goes out the window.

[QUOTE=SappinMyNick;36593206]Yeah... it doesn't work that way here. They just revoke your drivers license and give you a fee pretty much.[/QUOTE] this is what i heard anyway, i guess i was wrong~

It's a good purpose but it's way over the top. Technically breaking the law just because you don't have your breathalyzer with you is ridiculous. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36597019]Actually, yes. [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] 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. [/QUOTE] This makes no sense at all when it comes to breathalyzer tests. Subjecting EVERYONE to the test, and denying drunk users to start their car, is the most strict form of enforcement possible in those circumstances, and in its strictest form it's not even bad. I know the principle is the same but comparing TSA and always-on DRM to something as harmless as breathalyzes just doesn't fly, it's basically apples and oranges. I'd buy your argument instantly if you could just provide a plausible example of how this specific situation could become more invasive if it happened to be enforced stricter. [editline]3rd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36597396]That's like telling people to buy their own handcuffs just in case they get arrested. Motherfuckers will tamper with them. [/QUOTE] So most of those people, technically inept like most retards that consider drunk driving acceptable, will break them, and then their car won't start until they install a new one. Seems fine to me.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36600254]So most of those people, technically inept like most retards that consider drunk driving acceptable, will break them, and then their car won't start until they install a new one. Seems fine to me.[/QUOTE] Uhh, these aren't installed in the car. [img]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/hIx9jh26z8kHyqx4BqJX4A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNDE7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/photo_1341162966403-1-0.jpg[/img] If you'd read the article (as I had been asking you people to make up your damned minds what tests you think are being mandated right now) you would realize that this merely requires "chemical or electronic breathalyzer tests" to be carried in one's car, similar to (as someone else mentioned) several nations requiring you have a hazard vest in your vehicle at all times. These tests are not the kind of tests that are directly installed into the ignition system. Not only did the article indicate otherwise, but I explained how it would be both impractically expensive and [I]illegal[/I] for a government with any restrictions on [I]ex post facto[/I] legislation to implement such a mandate. Presumably, these tests would not be used in any circumstances other than a routine traffic stop, implying the police will order you to use your [I]own[/I] breathalyzer or charge you with this crime if you do not possess one. By the looks of it, France is merely trying to save itself some money by pushing the cost of single-use breathalyzer tests onto the individual. Please stop arguing in favor of the fiction you have concocted in your own head rather than what is actually happening. Drunk drivers will still be driving drunk at the same rates. The best outcome of this mandate is that they will be damned by [I]their own tests[/I] rather than the polices' when they get pulled over.

-snip- Lankist answered right above me

The article says drivers must [B]carry[/B] breathalyzers. Not [B]install[/B] breathalyzers. There's a very, very strong implication that they are separate from the ignition system [editline]2nd July 2012[/editline] And like Lankist said the one pictured is probably the one in question

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36600635]And like Lankist said the one pictured is probably the one in question[/QUOTE] It says right in the article that the picture is of a woman in France using a breathalyzer, presumably the exact sort which is being mandated. Quite honestly, anyone who thinks this is solving anything is either deluded or they simply have no idea what this article is [I]about[/I]. These tests won't be used unless an officer pulls someone over, which means drunk driving will happen at the same rates all the same unless they just pull over more people. In which case, there's no goddamn difference between using a police breathalyzer and a civilian one, save for the fact that the police breathalyzer is assured accurate while the civilian one could have been tampered with. This is not only a stupid, reactionary mandate. It's also [I]completely worthless.[/I] It will accomplish nothing. It's just a foot in the door to say "we have accomplished nothing, we need more drastic measures."