My cousin was killed by a drunk driver and a friend of mine was killed by a kid on drugs. I know about loss personally yet I know that government will take any bit of power it can. Though a letter isn't a law, it does have more influence due to the people who wrote it and support it being high ranking officials.
Government never gives back power or influence it has taken from people. Give government power to get results from complaining via a letter and they'll hold that as a precedent for them doing it again. Their ego's will be so inflated that if their letters don't get results they'll feel more offended and come at companies with laws and regulations in retaliation. Even if they fail at getting a specific law passed, they'll still hold sway over companies that don't comply by using tax codes or creating other regulations to spite companies that didn't do as they "requested".
The government, I would point out, is us.
Legislators are incredibly responsive to what the electorate thinks they want (since they want to get reelected.) Which is why they do so many stupid things. A vocal, politically active, and ignorant but effective portion of the electorate think sobriety check points, "just say no" (to sex, drugs or whatever) "nuclear free" zones, subsidies for big business, low taxes but big budgets, climate denial, etc. etc. are effective policy/great ideas/smart laws, etc. It covers left, right, center?all the viewpoints. We are the government. And we are simultaneously both the problem and solution.
Publicized or not, if the app didn’t encourage driving drunk, or make it easier to get away with it, it wouldn’t be functional.
That means it is helping to commit a crime that kills innocent people.
Are you certain someone you know won’t be the next person killed because this app encouraged them to save taxi fare?
(No, the app itself is not a sobriety test. That’s a nice sound bite, though )
It's just information. You can use it any way you want. So the app itself doesn't encourage anything.
To illustrate: I never drink alcohol, but if I see a checkpoint I'll circumvent it if I can, just because it's cumbersome and time consuming. This in turn will make the checkpoint more effective because one sure negative test is out and a possible positive replaces it.
If your forbidding information exchange, you must forbid people to use a phone and the internet. God forbid if someone calls another about a checkpoint...
Legislators are incredibly responsive to what the electorate thinks they want (since they want to get reelected.) Which is why they do so many stupid things. A vocal, politically active, and ignorant but effective portion of the electorate think sobriety check points, "just say no" (to sex, drugs or whatever) "nuclear free" zones, subsidies for big business, low taxes but big budgets, climate denial, etc. etc. are effective policy/great ideas/smart laws, etc. It covers left, right, center?all the viewpoints. We are the government. And we are simultaneously both the problem and solution.
Your mistaken. We're not the government.
The point is that government consists of institutions with a lot more momentum than the next election. Some institutes like the CIA are almost completely autonomous and have inherent needs and intentions in conflict with the free use of data encryption and anonymity of people, just to be able to obtain the objective.
Agreed that if one was drunk they wouldn't even bother with these apps in the first place. Also they're not really meant for drunk people. They're meant for people who want to get a heads up that they might be stopped for the monthly check that cops need to do for their "quota". Just another way for government to try to control what people can and cannot do. They figure people are dumb enough to comply with doing things like going through heavy-radiation, privacy-invading full body scanners at the airport (oh, yeah right, it's for "terrorists"), then they sure would comply with having less tools and information about protecting themselves against more privacy invasion. They don't want the masses smart and informed and deciding for themselves. From federal laws all the way down to phone apps.
Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing.
OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of ?not? completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like ?not? from our writings every now and then, it?s the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldn?t care less about that I feel is ignorant.
How is it entrapment to sit outside a bar and catch intoxicated people as they attempt to operate a motor vehicle? The police are not selling the alcohol. They are not encouraging the use of alcohol. THey are not misleading or falsely representing themselves either. In fact - have a uniformed officer standing right outside the door as people enter - and checking them via breathalizer as they leave.
Now if the police departments where to get on the apps and enter false information about where the checkpoints were located - thus directing the drunk drivers TO the checkpoints rather than AWAY from the checkpoints then *maybe* you would have a case - but then you would also rather quickly stop using the app.
Or you could end up with stories like this:
Recently a routine Police patrol parked outside a local neighborhood tavern. Late in the evening the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the officer quietly observing.
After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles, the man managed to find his car, which he fell into. He was there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.
Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a fine, dry night), flicked the indicators on and off, tooted the horn and then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches, reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more patrons left in their vehicles. At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the road!
The police officer, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and carried out a Breathalyser test.
To his amazement the breathalyser indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!
Dumbfounded, the officer said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the Police Station, this Breathalyser equipment must be broken."
"I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."
Here the police make them mobile checkpoints. Any police car can pull you over and test your blood alcohol concentration in a simple breathe test. Problem solved.
PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn?t seem very helpful.
Sure do and they work very, very well - if a cop is using radar mine goes off at least 1/2 mile before I get to them and often times much more than that. You have to know how to use it and not just slam on your breaks every time it goes off but they do work and they work very well if the cops are using radar. If they are using laser you're probably screwed but that's where being a smart driver comes into play.
Where is the accountability from the bars? Yeah, let's all just blame the drivers and take the high and mighty road. These bars are using the allure of alcohol just as much as fast food is use the allure of french fries. Bars don't give a crap if you're too drunk to drive - I have never, ever seen a bar stop someone on the way out because they had, say, 4 or 5 beers.
I proposed this on MR but what would be wrong with a "Taxi-tax" where there's a 5 or 10 cent tax on each and every drink and every bar is responsible for the BAC of their patrons. If they blow .08 or higher they can either 1) get a ride with a cab that's paid for by the tax or 2) sit around and drink water/eat food until you're under .08. If this was really about public safety and not about padding the police coffers they'd do this and save thousands of lives each year but, right, yeah, we don't do that. We'd rather pull them over, throw them in jail and fine the ever living crap out of them and give the bar that took their money to get them drunk off scott-free.
Yes, this is way too reasonable, and no, it won't happen and we'll just continue to allow innocent people to die because the city police want the money...
The senators cited growing law enforcement concerns over the apps, quoting a police captain as having said, "If people are going to use those, what other purpose are they going to use them for except to drink and drive?"
It gets interesting when you replace "apps" with "guns" and "drink and drive" with "kill".
The question in my mind is whether the checkpoints are effective anyway. Seems that we should be writing letters to have the senators do more to prevent the issue in the first place.
Smart keys would be cool. When I buy a drink, I hand my card and key, the key get's put into a machine which deactivates the device for X minutes, based on the drink. After 3 glasses of wine, no starting the car.
This would actually curb the issue. The checkpoints, IMHO, only make it look like they are trying to solve the problem, and firing at Apple makes it look like they care about it. I suspect the truth is revenue related since these stops net $$$ for non-drunk driver related fines.
Publicized or not, if the app didn’t encourage driving drunk, or make it easier to get away with it, it wouldn’t be functional.
That means it is helping to commit a crime that kills innocent people.
Are you certain someone you know won’t be the next person killed because this app encouraged them to save taxi fare?
(No, the app itself is not a sobriety test. That’s a nice sound bite, though )
USDOT has studies that show that radar detectors actually act as a deterrent to speeding: people don't want to get caught so they slow down when it pings.
The police can only catch so many people, or set up so many traps. Habitual speeders are going to speed elsewhere anyway. At least they get them to slow down for a period, and maybe keep them afraid of getting caught for a while.
I see the same effect for this app. Maybe someone who's legally drunk will check the app before leaving the bar and decide against it, sober up a bit and wait.
If not, they still were going to drive home drunk, with or without this app.
Sobriety checkpoints tend to be on heavily trafficked routes. This at least will divert them to routes with less traffic.
This is completely stupid and I hope Apple writes them back a letter telling the senators to 'shove it!'. It's a simply issue of control and censorship. What will the request they take down next?
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting drunks have their limbs removed by the bartender? :P
I'm suggesting that bars should be accountable for the drunks they let out on the roads. So yea, remove their arms if it keeps your wife and kids alive. :P
The joke that a drunk driver would be to drunk to use the app isn't funny. You could be pretty drunk and still work an iPhone but that doesn't mean you should drive. I strongly believe that this APP should be removed.
What's next an APP that informs people where a drunk chick is passed out so guys can rape her? The DUI APP is a terrible idea.
Actualy, It is funny, very funny. Also it is already public available. So forbidding this app is a laugh.
If they catch the guy, they should check if he did use the app to avoid the catch and judge him for that.
Also, if they feel that the app is helping to a crime, they should ask and go for the creator. It is a very stupid idea, to put responsabilty, in someone else hands, like a coorp. This stinks as a start to corparated global controll.
It's just information. You can use it any way you want. So the app itself doesn't encourage anything.
To illustrate: I never drink alcohol, but if I see a checkpoint I'll circumvent it if I can, just because it's cumbersome and time consuming. This in turn will make the checkpoint more effective because one sure negative test is out and a possible positive replaces it.
If your forbidding information exchange, you must forbid people to use a phone and the internet. God forbid if someone calls another about a checkpoint...
J.
In addition, the process of looking up the checkpoints may make the drunk have second thoughts about whether he should be driving - and possibly keep him off the road in the first place.
This thread gave me an idea for a Beer Googles app. You snap a picture of someone, it gets sent to the server, it gets rated, and a thumbs up/down reply is returned. If you send more than 3 pics with a thumbs down the app sends your GPS location to the server which sends a cab to pick you up.
Fk the senators and those saying these apps should be banned. This is a free speech issue. But more importantly, the bar has been set so ridiculously low for "drunk driving" that it is an outrage. I feel total sympathy for those that have lost loved ones to truly drunk drivers but the movement has gone way way too far! It is time to put some sanity back into regulations! When only one or two drinks can make you "impaired" under the law, that is what is a joke.
Comments
My cousin was killed by a drunk driver and a friend of mine was killed by a kid on drugs. I know about loss personally yet I know that government will take any bit of power it can. Though a letter isn't a law, it does have more influence due to the people who wrote it and support it being high ranking officials.
Government never gives back power or influence it has taken from people. Give government power to get results from complaining via a letter and they'll hold that as a precedent for them doing it again. Their ego's will be so inflated that if their letters don't get results they'll feel more offended and come at companies with laws and regulations in retaliation. Even if they fail at getting a specific law passed, they'll still hold sway over companies that don't comply by using tax codes or creating other regulations to spite companies that didn't do as they "requested".
The government, I would point out, is us.
Legislators are incredibly responsive to what the electorate thinks they want (since they want to get reelected.) Which is why they do so many stupid things. A vocal, politically active, and ignorant but effective portion of the electorate think sobriety check points, "just say no" (to sex, drugs or whatever) "nuclear free" zones, subsidies for big business, low taxes but big budgets, climate denial, etc. etc. are effective policy/great ideas/smart laws, etc. It covers left, right, center?all the viewpoints. We are the government. And we are simultaneously both the problem and solution.
Publicized or not, if the app didn’t encourage driving drunk, or make it easier to get away with it, it wouldn’t be functional.
That means it is helping to commit a crime that kills innocent people.
Are you certain someone you know won’t be the next person killed because this app encouraged them to save taxi fare?
(No, the app itself is not a sobriety test. That’s a nice sound bite, though
It's just information. You can use it any way you want. So the app itself doesn't encourage anything.
To illustrate: I never drink alcohol, but if I see a checkpoint I'll circumvent it if I can, just because it's cumbersome and time consuming. This in turn will make the checkpoint more effective because one sure negative test is out and a possible positive replaces it.
If your forbidding information exchange, you must forbid people to use a phone and the internet. God forbid if someone calls another about a checkpoint...
J.
The government, I would point out, is us.
Legislators are incredibly responsive to what the electorate thinks they want (since they want to get reelected.) Which is why they do so many stupid things. A vocal, politically active, and ignorant but effective portion of the electorate think sobriety check points, "just say no" (to sex, drugs or whatever) "nuclear free" zones, subsidies for big business, low taxes but big budgets, climate denial, etc. etc. are effective policy/great ideas/smart laws, etc. It covers left, right, center?all the viewpoints. We are the government. And we are simultaneously both the problem and solution.
Your mistaken. We're not the government.
The point is that government consists of institutions with a lot more momentum than the next election. Some institutes like the CIA are almost completely autonomous and have inherent needs and intentions in conflict with the free use of data encryption and anonymity of people, just to be able to obtain the objective.
@Smallwheels: couldn't agree more.
J.
Not all criticism or corrections are patronizing and based on the phrasing his comment was not patronizing.
OK, this one I do take issue with. The exclusion of ?not? completely alters the meaning and a little critical thinking should make most realize that. Even though we all exclude a negative like ?not? from our writings every now and then, it?s the excessive exclusion without understand what they could or couldn?t care less about that I feel is ignorant.
I do like the way you think sir!
Please go flatter President Hamlet some more and leave me alone.
Signed,
Steve.
Incidentally I think it's a perfectly reasonable request. Apple should comply.
Now if the police departments where to get on the apps and enter false information about where the checkpoints were located - thus directing the drunk drivers TO the checkpoints rather than AWAY from the checkpoints then *maybe* you would have a case - but then you would also rather quickly stop using the app.
Or you could end up with stories like this:
Recently a routine Police patrol parked outside a local neighborhood tavern. Late in the evening the officer noticed a man leaving the bar so intoxicated that he could barely walk. The man stumbled around the car park for a few minutes, with the officer quietly observing.
After what seemed an eternity and trying his keys on five vehicles, the man managed to find his car, which he fell into. He was there for a few minutes as a number of other patrons left the bar and drove off.
Finally he started the car, switched the wipers on and off (it was a fine, dry night), flicked the indicators on and off, tooted the horn and then switched on the lights. He moved the vehicle forward a few inches, reversed a little and then remained stationary for a few more minutes as more patrons left in their vehicles. At last he pulled out of the car park and started to drive slowly down the road!
The police officer, having patiently waited all this time, now started up the patrol car, put on the flashing lights, promptly pulled the man over and carried out a Breathalyser test.
To his amazement the breathalyser indicated no evidence of the man having consumed alcohol at all!
Dumbfounded, the officer said "I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the Police Station, this Breathalyser equipment must be broken."
"I doubt it," said the man, "Tonight I'm the designated decoy."
PS: Do people even use radar detectors anymore? I had friends that had them when i was a teenager. They didn?t seem very helpful.
Sure do and they work very, very well - if a cop is using radar mine goes off at least 1/2 mile before I get to them and often times much more than that. You have to know how to use it and not just slam on your breaks every time it goes off but they do work and they work very well if the cops are using radar. If they are using laser you're probably screwed but that's where being a smart driver comes into play.
I proposed this on MR but what would be wrong with a "Taxi-tax" where there's a 5 or 10 cent tax on each and every drink and every bar is responsible for the BAC of their patrons. If they blow .08 or higher they can either 1) get a ride with a cab that's paid for by the tax or 2) sit around and drink water/eat food until you're under .08. If this was really about public safety and not about padding the police coffers they'd do this and save thousands of lives each year but, right, yeah, we don't do that. We'd rather pull them over, throw them in jail and fine the ever living crap out of them and give the bar that took their money to get them drunk off scott-free.
Yes, this is way too reasonable, and no, it won't happen and we'll just continue to allow innocent people to die because the city police want the money...
The senators cited growing law enforcement concerns over the apps, quoting a police captain as having said, "If people are going to use those, what other purpose are they going to use them for except to drink and drive?"
It gets interesting when you replace "apps" with "guns" and "drink and drive" with "kill".
Smart keys would be cool. When I buy a drink, I hand my card and key, the key get's put into a machine which deactivates the device for X minutes, based on the drink. After 3 glasses of wine, no starting the car.
This would actually curb the issue. The checkpoints, IMHO, only make it look like they are trying to solve the problem, and firing at Apple makes it look like they care about it. I suspect the truth is revenue related since these stops net $$$ for non-drunk driver related fines.
Publicized or not, if the app didn’t encourage driving drunk, or make it easier to get away with it, it wouldn’t be functional.
That means it is helping to commit a crime that kills innocent people.
Are you certain someone you know won’t be the next person killed because this app encouraged them to save taxi fare?
(No, the app itself is not a sobriety test. That’s a nice sound bite, though
USDOT has studies that show that radar detectors actually act as a deterrent to speeding: people don't want to get caught so they slow down when it pings.
The police can only catch so many people, or set up so many traps. Habitual speeders are going to speed elsewhere anyway. At least they get them to slow down for a period, and maybe keep them afraid of getting caught for a while.
I see the same effect for this app. Maybe someone who's legally drunk will check the app before leaving the bar and decide against it, sober up a bit and wait.
If not, they still were going to drive home drunk, with or without this app.
Sobriety checkpoints tend to be on heavily trafficked routes. This at least will divert them to routes with less traffic.
I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting drunks have their limbs removed by the bartender? :P
I'm suggesting that bars should be accountable for the drunks they let out on the roads. So yea, remove their arms if it keeps your wife and kids alive. :P
The joke that a drunk driver would be to drunk to use the app isn't funny. You could be pretty drunk and still work an iPhone but that doesn't mean you should drive. I strongly believe that this APP should be removed.
What's next an APP that informs people where a drunk chick is passed out so guys can rape her? The DUI APP is a terrible idea.
Actualy, It is funny, very funny. Also it is already public available. So forbidding this app is a laugh.
If they catch the guy, they should check if he did use the app to avoid the catch and judge him for that.
Also, if they feel that the app is helping to a crime, they should ask and go for the creator. It is a very stupid idea, to put responsabilty, in someone else hands, like a coorp. This stinks as a start to corparated global controll.
It's just information. You can use it any way you want. So the app itself doesn't encourage anything.
To illustrate: I never drink alcohol, but if I see a checkpoint I'll circumvent it if I can, just because it's cumbersome and time consuming. This in turn will make the checkpoint more effective because one sure negative test is out and a possible positive replaces it.
If your forbidding information exchange, you must forbid people to use a phone and the internet. God forbid if someone calls another about a checkpoint...
J.
In addition, the process of looking up the checkpoints may make the drunk have second thoughts about whether he should be driving - and possibly keep him off the road in the first place.