Author Topic: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)  (Read 60729 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #925 on: January 29, 2011, 01:21:35 pm »
I heard on the news that all manufactures are considering a voluntary breathalyzer in the starter mechanism that picks up on your breath. I am in favor of this.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #926 on: January 29, 2011, 02:12:54 pm »
I heard on the news that all manufactures are considering a voluntary breathalyzer in the starter mechanism that picks up on your breath. I am in favor of this.
I would actually love that.  Being that I am not really intoxicated at all at .08, if I have had more than two drinks at dinner (I allow myself a maximum of three drinks equivalent in alcohol content to a beer), I am never sure if I am technically legal to drive or not.  This has never really been a problem since I don't really speed more than the average driver in Northern Virginia and do NOT drive impaired but I would still prefer to be below the legal limit at all times when driving because DUIs just aren't worth the risk, however minute it may be.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5516
  • Party’s Over
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #927 on: January 29, 2011, 03:45:13 pm »
I heard on the news that all manufactures are considering a voluntary breathalyzer in the starter mechanism that picks up on your breath. I am in favor of this.
That would be a pain in the ass for people like me who don't drink.

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10726
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #928 on: January 29, 2011, 03:46:06 pm »
Which is why it's voluntary.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5516
  • Party’s Over
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #929 on: January 29, 2011, 03:47:18 pm »
Which is why it's voluntary.
Crap. Misread that.

Offline PANatsFan

  • Posts: 37398
  • dogs in uncensored, nudes in gameday
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #930 on: January 29, 2011, 03:49:46 pm »
Which is why it's voluntary.

Sorry voluntary as in the manufacturers are doing it without a law being passed. The idea is the technology needs to advance to a point where it is an unnoticeable part of the startup of the car. It just tests the air. It won't be a pain for anyone who has a right to be driving.

Offline The Chief

  • Posts: 31838
    • http://www.wnff.net
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #931 on: January 29, 2011, 03:50:00 pm »
I'm opposed to the idea on principle.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5516
  • Party’s Over
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #932 on: January 29, 2011, 03:51:02 pm »
It's a sad state of affairs when car manufacturers have to even think about doing something like that.

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10726
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #933 on: January 29, 2011, 03:54:18 pm »
So what happens when you're the DD with other drunk people in the car?  Then you're SOL.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #934 on: January 29, 2011, 04:05:19 pm »
Sorry voluntary as in the manufacturers are doing it without a law being passed. The idea is the technology needs to advance to a point where it is an unnoticeable part of the startup of the car. It just tests the air. It won't be a pain for anyone who has a right to be driving.

Two problems with that then.
One:
So what happens when you're the DD with other drunk people in the car?  Then you're SOL.
This.

Two:  It's not like they would stop people who drive drunk consistently as they would just have it removed from their cars so it would really only serve as a way to help responsible people (who presumably are not getting hammered and driving in the first place) and be a real pain in the ass when they malfunction, shutting down your car.

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 18596
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #935 on: January 29, 2011, 04:22:25 pm »
Sorry voluntary as in the manufacturers are doing it without a law being passed. The idea is the technology needs to advance to a point where it is an unnoticeable part of the startup of the car. It just tests the air. It won't be a pain for anyone who has a right to be driving.

Why should a non-drinker have to incur the cost of such a device? What happens if it fails? Why couldn't you just blow up a balloon, get mangled then use said balloon as your breath? What happens if you slam down 3 double Jamesons then drive your car ?


Can't see this as a good idea at all.

Offline Obed_Marsh

  • Posts: 7593
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #936 on: January 29, 2011, 04:27:45 pm »
I won't buy a car that includes a breathalyser on principal. This idea flies like a lead balloon.

MADD has brainwashed too many people if this is seriously being discussed.



Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45568
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #939 on: January 29, 2011, 05:11:12 pm »
Sorry voluntary as in the manufacturers are doing it without a law being passed. The idea is the technology needs to advance to a point where it is an unnoticeable part of the startup of the car. It just tests the air. It won't be a pain for anyone who has a right to be driving.
There was a state senator up in Boston who had a breathalyzer in his car by court order.  he could not start the car without blowing clean.  I think he had his kid blow in it the last time he crashed.  PatsNats - ring a bell?  someone from Cambridge, I think.

Offline Nathan

  • Posts: 10726
  • Wow. Such warnings. Very baseball. Moderator Doge.
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #940 on: January 29, 2011, 05:12:02 pm »
There was a state senator up in Boston who had a breathalyzer in his car by court order.  he could not start the car without blowing clean.  I think he had his kid blow in it the last time he crashed.  PatsNats - ring a bell?  someone from Cambridge, I think.
Yeah, that rings a bell, I just didn't know PatsNats was a senator.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45568
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #941 on: January 29, 2011, 05:13:24 pm »
Yeah, that rings a bell, I just didn't know PatsNats was a senator.
No, he's a National.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8522
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #942 on: January 29, 2011, 05:52:42 pm »
There was a state senator up in Boston who had a breathalyzer in his car by court order.  he could not start the car without blowing clean.  I think he had his kid blow in it the last time he crashed.  PatsNats - ring a bell?  someone from Cambridge, I think.

:lol:

I'm not sure who, I don't really follow local politics (or politics at all for that matter)

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #943 on: January 29, 2011, 05:57:17 pm »
:lol:

I'm not sure who, I don't really follow local politics (or politics at all for that matter)
This guy.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33885
  • Hell yes!
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #944 on: January 29, 2011, 06:14:46 pm »
I'm not sure if they do this, but they should give out free breathalyzers to people so if you're a party, you can see if you can drive legally or not with it.

A fair number of bars in London area had them when I visited, people would get hammered to see who could score the highest.    :?

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 45568
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #945 on: January 29, 2011, 06:25:43 pm »
This guy.
Yes.  A few different details, but Galluccio is the guy I thought about.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #946 on: January 29, 2011, 07:41:51 pm »
A fair number of bars in London area had them when I visited, people would get hammered to see who could score the highest.    :?
Reminds me of "I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell"

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 13806
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, dog
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #947 on: January 29, 2011, 08:05:43 pm »
There was a state senator up in Boston who had a breathalyzer in his car by court order.  he could not start the car without blowing clean.  I think he had his kid blow in it the last time he crashed.  PatsNats - ring a bell?  someone from Cambridge, I think.

They do this in Maryland. I know a guy who had one in his car because he's an idiot and got two DUIs. It's a breathalyzer, certainly not something that "tests the air". He had to blow every 15 minutes or something, just in case he was literally drinking and driving.

I wouldn't mind if a breathalyzer became standard with ignition, personally. Less idiots on the road means less lost life.

Offline PatsNats28

  • Posts: 8522
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #948 on: January 29, 2011, 08:21:13 pm »
That would be annoying... I mean, I've never drunk in my life (other than a sip of champagne at a party when I was 12), that'd be a waste of time.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 13806
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, dog
Re: The "Former Nat Watch" Thread (2010)
« Reply #949 on: January 29, 2011, 09:25:25 pm »
Better a waste of eight seconds than a waste of life.