PA proposal. Car won't operate at a .025 BAC « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

PA proposal. Car won't operate at a .025 BAC

[51 posts] [16 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 5 years ago by WorkingMusician
Latest reply from WorkingMusician

Tags:

No tags yet. Add them below.

12 3 Next »

WorkingMusician

Login to Send PM

It's next door and not in Ohio (yet), but even so. Think the current rabid anti mentally climate won't touch you if you are a non-smoker? Well.......I'd think again.
I'll have to look up what it would take to get .025 reading. Perhaps slugging too many near beers on a wild night out on the town?
thenewspaper.com wrote Pennsylvania: Proposal Mandates Ignition Interlocks for All Cars
A bill introduced last week in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would mandate that every car sold in the state be equipped with a breath testing device. State Representative Paul I. Clymer (R-Bucks County) insists that every motorist must prove that he is not drunk before starting a vehicle.
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.
READ MORE

Posted 5 years ago #
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM

So now you're pro-drunk driving? Wow...just wow.
Let me ask you this...what do you think about all of those crazy bible banging conservatives that make up the majority of the population in San Francisco banning plastic shopping bags? 8)
By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: March 28, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, March 27 Ã¢â‚¬â€ Paper or paper?
That may soon be the only question heard at grocery counters across San Francisco, as the cityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Board of Supervisors cast a decisive blow in the paper versus plastic debate on Tuesday, banning non-biodegradable plastic bags in its large grocery stores and pharmacies.
The ordinance, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, will remove standard plastic bags from supermarkets and pharmacies with sales of more than $2 million a year, said its author, Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who said his city was simply following a worldwide trend toward greener grocers.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Scores of nations have already gone through this,Ã¢â‚¬Â said Mr. Mirkarimi, citing similar laws in places including South Africa and Taiwan. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s really astounding the United States would be so late in the game to come online to do something that should be common sense.Ã¢â‚¬Â
READ MORE

Posted 5 years ago #
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM

But I will agree that the 0.025 should be 0.08 (pennsylvania's legal limit).

Posted 5 years ago #
Anne
King Lincoln
Login to Send PM

I usually take my plastic bags back to the store bins to recycle them. However, I have never looked into how much energy that takes.
When I remember, I take canvas bags, you used to get a bag credit, but I don't think I have recently. I noticed Giant Eagle is now selling reusuable canvas bags for 99 cents each.

Posted 5 years ago #
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM

Anne wrote I usually take my plastic bags back to the store bins to recycle them. However, I have never looked into how much energy that takes.
When I remember, I take canvas bags, you used to get a bag credit, but I don't think I have recently. I noticed Giant Eagle is now selling reusuable canvas bags for 99 cents each.
These bags are awesome for groceries...
http://www.reusablebags.com/store/acme-bags-workhorse-style-1500-p-1.html
The fold up inside themselves so you can throw them in your basket while you're shopping

Posted 5 years ago #
lifeliberty
Here
Login to Send PM

i use all my plastic bags I get from the grocery store

Posted 5 years ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

Brewmaster wrote So now you're pro-drunk driving? Wow...just wow.
I hardly think it makes you pro-drunk-driving to have to blow-start your car. :lol:
I'd personally be pretty annoyed to have to blow into a device every time I want to start my car. I can see this leading to more car idling because people wouldn't want the hassle of having to re-blow their car every time they shut it off. Hooray for wasting gas!
I guess this would also destroy the market for remote starters for cars, right? Unless you could blow into your keychain device too?
Although it would be nice to use the excuse for being late for work because you accidentally swallowed some mouthwash and your car wouldn't start because you were blowing over a 0.025 into it. :lol:
I'm all about keeping drunk drivers off the road, but I'm also all about non-invasive laws that don't inconvenience law abiding citizens.

Posted 5 years ago #
Paul
Vancouver, BC
Login to Send PM

I would rather they more strictly enforce current laws than create new ones.

Posted 5 years ago #
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM

Sometimes you have to protect people (and yourself) from others' stupidity. I liken the inconvenience to blowing before you start your car to the inconvenience of having to get your airbag reset after an accident.
Why does the big brother government have to mandate that airbags need to be installed all over the place in cars? It's damn expensive to reset them and really inconvenient! I want to buy a car without airbags!
Don't even get me started on mandatory catalytic converters or fuel efficiency standards. They rob me of more horsepower and my freedom to burn gas like there's no tomorrow!
:roll:

Posted 5 years ago #
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is just not reading the story.
1. You're inconveniencing 100% of automobile drivers for the sake of a very small percentage in a BIG way.
2. The idea of creating a new standard of 25 instead of 8 is ridiculous.
3. Forcing all automobile owners to install these at their expense by 2010 if they want to sell their car is completely insane, cost prohibitive to many, and not realistic.
All the things you're describing Brew, affect 100% of drivers...so the changes are implemented for 100% of drivers. This change is nothing of the sort.
EDIT: You want to install them in all the automobiles of convicted drunk drivers, you'd get a helluva lot less argument from me.

Posted 5 years ago #
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM

Coremodels wrote All the things you're describing Brew, affect 100% of drivers...so the changes are implemented for 100% of drivers. This change is nothing of the sort.
I've never been in an accident, can afford more expensive gasoline, and don't have any breathing issues related to air pollution, so those things I mentioned don't apply to me. Airbags and catalytic converters aren't free...you pay for those when you buy your car. This makes many cars cost prohibitive for many people too.
:D

Posted 5 years ago #
dru
IV
Login to Send PM

you don't have to be pro-drunk driving to be annoyed by this law. look at the installation fees and the monthly fees to maintain this. you could be the most sober person in the state, and this llaw will cost you a minimum of $1500 per year! While MADD will be a powerful lobby for this, other powerful lobbies (i.e. the auto industry, booze industry and restaurant/retail industry will, at least silently, fight this thing to the death).
as for the bag issue, G Eagle has me po'd. they used to give you a whopping .05 discount per every bag you used and saved them them the cost of a plastic bag (which I am sure is probably only .00005). but they eliminated that eco-sensitive, customer friendly gesture over a year ago, and now they want you to pay .99 per bag to buy their logo bags, save them the plastic bags, bag em yourself, and give them free advertising. thanks GE. but i still like em for staffing the VV with more than one person (a la Big Cheap Bear)

Posted 5 years ago #
ddavis
Westgate
Login to Send PM

Brewmaster wrote
Coremodels wrote All the things you're describing Brew, affect 100% of drivers...so the changes are implemented for 100% of drivers. This change is nothing of the sort.
I've never been in an accident, can afford more expensive gasoline, and don't have any breathing issues related to air pollution, so those things I mentioned don't apply to me. Airbags and catalytic converters aren't free...you pay for those when you buy your car. This makes many cars cost prohibitive for many people too.
:D
Yea, but isn't the difference there that those things are mandated on a national level rather than a state level?

Posted 5 years ago #
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM

Whether or not you are affected by pollution or are in an accident are well outside of your control...and by the way, not having breathing issues doesn't mean you aren't affected by emissions. Personally, I do think the seatbelt and airbag laws are ridiculous because those things affect no one but you and should still be a choice...a choice to be stupid, but a choice nonetheless. Emissions affect everyone in the world, not the same thing.
You DO control whether or not you drive drunk. There are police on the streets looking for people doing it. There are relatively stiff sentences to those that are caught. This is the equivalent to giving every driver in the state a breathalyser every time they drive with no reasonable suspicion or cause.
Some people also cheat on their taxes, this would be the equivalent of requiring all tax returns be accompanied by a polygraph (at your expense)...think that's a good idea too?
Let the police do their job not a straw in a car doing it for them at the expense of every single driver NOT breaking any laws.

Posted 5 years ago #
Brewmaster
Portland, OR
Login to Send PM

Coremodels wrote Whether or not you are affected by pollution or are in an accident are well outside of your control

It's also outside my control if a drunk driver runs a red light and t-bone's me.
...and by the way, not having breathing issues doesn't mean you aren't affected by emissions.
I know, but it was the best I could do. :wink:
Air is a tough one...see SmokeFree Ohio.

Personally, I do think the seatbelt and airbag laws are ridiculous because those things affect no one but you and should still be a choice...a choice to be stupid, but a choice nonetheless. Emissions affect everyone in the world, not the same thing.
Well...if someone wanted to argue it, that someone could say that fatalities from drivers (drunk or not) impact everyone's insurance rates.
Just for the record...I think this law is silly...I'm just in the mood for a debate. :twisted:
If the BA analyzing technology were better, it would make more sense. My original point was that we already have mandates that inconvenience all for the benefit of a few, and most of them are grounded in common sense.
I really just wanted to prod WorkingMusician about his/her smoking ban craziness one more time!

Posted 5 years ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

Brewmaster wrote I liken the inconvenience to blowing before you start your car to the inconvenience of having to get your airbag reset after an accident.
Really?
I liken the inconvenience of blowing before I start my car to the inconvenience of getting struck by lightning! OUCH!

Posted 5 years ago #
lifeliberty
Here
Login to Send PM

I've been looking at getting a 78 bronco, no cats required!

Posted 5 years ago #
Ndcent
OTE
Login to Send PM

Anyone that thinks this could become reality, please remove your foil hats now.

Posted 5 years ago #
lifeliberty
Here
Login to Send PM

the foil hat is for something

Posted 5 years ago #
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM

Not so far fetched...from another article on this:
"The Toyota Motor Co. is already experimenting with steering wheel sensors that would detect a driverÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s blood alcohol level and hopes to fit cars with the system by 2009, according to The Associated Press. The Nissan Motor Co. experimented with breathalyzer technology."
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/16978983.htm

Posted 5 years ago #