FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > In car breathalysers mandatory from 2022 onwards.
In car breathalysers mandatory from 2022 onwards.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What? To keep one in your Car?
"
No, cars from 2022 onwards will be mandated to have them prefitted, I presume with some kind of biometrics to avoid cheating.
And cars built before 2022 will have to get one fitted by 2024. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What? To keep one in your Car?
No, cars from 2022 onwards will be mandated to have them prefitted, I presume with some kind of biometrics to avoid cheating.
And cars built before 2022 will have to get one fitted by 2024."
Dunno if by then, and cant say Id be bothered having one, but sure the, infringement of my rights brigade will have something to say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Would hopefully put people off taking the chance of drink driving.
But you know you're gonna have the liars who say "it's faulty, it told me I was under" when they get caught."
They wouldn't get caught. The idea is that if you fail the breathalyser the engine wouldn't start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What? To keep one in your Car?
"
They're used a lot in some countries like Australia. They're attached to your car's ignition system via the dashboard and you can't start the engine unless you are below the legal limit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think that is amazing good news my grandfather was killed by a d*unk driver my step mum killed by a guy driving while high on drugs so I say yes and I hope the idiots who fail can't start three it cars and late for work.. In a positive way of course  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I sent see it TBH maybe if you have previous DUI and have reported you have had a drink problem in the past. That just like saying ALL cars and motorbikes should be chipped so they can’t go over the speed limit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Surely those a-holes will get someone else to blow in it??? If they think they are over limit
"
Most likely they will be periodic based or locked to owners biometrics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
"
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Surely those a-holes will get someone else to blow in it??? If they think they are over limit
Most likely they will be periodic based or locked to owners biometrics."
so how’s that going to work you can’t get DNA from breath and if it’s periodic what’s going to happen if your doing 70mph in the fast lane of a motorway and you fail the test will it stop the car instantly there and then |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would hopefully put people off taking the chance of drink driving.
But you know you're gonna have the liars who say "it's faulty, it told me I was under" when they get caught.
They wouldn't get caught. The idea is that if you fail the breathalyser the engine wouldn't start."
Ohhhh, so you're car won't start if you don't use it either? You'd have to blow before every engine start? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Would hopefully put people off taking the chance of drink driving.
But you know you're gonna have the liars who say "it's faulty, it told me I was under" when they get caught.
They wouldn't get caught. The idea is that if you fail the breathalyser the engine wouldn't start."
Get a randomer to hot wire it, nothing is infallible these days 
Also, does this breathyliser test for illegal drugs as well? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation."
"Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them?"
Because otherwise they would fail MOT and wouldn't be legally allowed to drive.
I would argue a breathalyser is as important as seat belts when it comes to safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Would hopefully put people off taking the chance of drink driving.
But you know you're gonna have the liars who say "it's faulty, it told me I was under" when they get caught.
They wouldn't get caught. The idea is that if you fail the breathalyser the engine wouldn't start.
Get a randomer to hot wire it, nothing is infallible these days
Also, does this breathyliser test for illegal drugs as well? "
You say that now, but cars now so heavily electronic based, they could probably remotely turn off your engine by then, if they see it moving via GPS tracking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There’s nothing stopping your passengers from blowing into it
When you read a book, do you also read every other page and skip half the story?"
I’ve been reading from the start so how can they stop you doing it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation.
"Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them?"
Because otherwise they would fail MOT and wouldn't be legally allowed to drive.
I would argue a breathalyser is as important as seat belts when it comes to safety."
Not to a teetotaller it isnt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit. "
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation.
"Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them?"
Because otherwise they would fail MOT and wouldn't be legally allowed to drive.
I would argue a breathalyser is as important as seat belts when it comes to safety.
Not to a teetotaller it isnt."
You're speaking to one and I think it makes perfect sense for cars to be outfitted with them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s as daft as the government saying they’re going to get ALL cyclists to pay road tax "
Hahaha! I can just see kids having to fill out an online registration form when they get their new bike on Christmas day! Oh yes, then of course theres the insurance to sort out....
I think there are a lot of people that must never have owned a bike in their entire lives. They should try it. They might even enjoy it!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation.
"Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them?"
Because otherwise they would fail MOT and wouldn't be legally allowed to drive.
I would argue a breathalyser is as important as seat belts when it comes to safety.
Not to a teetotaller it isnt.
You're speaking to one and I think it makes perfect sense for cars to be outfitted with them."
And what about all the peopl who can barely afford to run the one they have at the moment? Or are you suggesting the govt pays for it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s as daft as the government saying they’re going to get ALL cyclists to pay road tax
Hahaha! I can just see kids having to fill out an online registration form when they get their new bike on Christmas day! Oh yes, then of course theres the insurance to sort out....
I think there are a lot of people that must never have owned a bike in their entire lives. They should try it. They might even enjoy it!
"
Exactly how can the police it they can’t. It means every bicycle sold now has to have a log book and registration number |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit.
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU!"
It’s a freedoms and free market argument Vs the imposition of rules by an increasingly big brother government who’ve generally not balanced a budget since they had a part round. No one is suggesting that they aren’t well-intended.
Sarcastic replies aside... If road safety is the only concern why are cars allowed to exceed 30mph for arguments’ sake? Clearly there’s a balance to strike between cars that are safe, cars that people want to drive and companies who are private sector profit-making organisations.
I for one am pleased the EU are out of our hair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation.
"Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them?"
Because otherwise they would fail MOT and wouldn't be legally allowed to drive.
I would argue a breathalyser is as important as seat belts when it comes to safety.
Not to a teetotaller it isnt.
You're speaking to one and I think it makes perfect sense for cars to be outfitted with them.
And what about all the peopl who can barely afford to run the one they have at the moment? Or are you suggesting the govt pays for it?"
Where does affordability draw the line?
If you can't afford to fix your breaks when they fail, should you still be able to drive your car?
Whether we like it or not, whether we can afford it or not. New laws will always come into place, maybe there will be a government scheme to cover part of the cost, or maybe the cost will be passed onto manufacturers/insurance companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit.
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU!
It’s a freedoms and free market argument Vs the imposition of rules by an increasingly big brother government who’ve generally not balanced a budget since they had a part round. No one is suggesting that they aren’t well-intended.
Sarcastic replies aside... If road safety is the only concern why are cars allowed to exceed 30mph for arguments’ sake? Clearly there’s a balance to strike between cars that are safe, cars that people want to drive and companies who are private sector profit-making organisations.
I for one am pleased the EU are out of our hair."
Oh god, if I knew the tonight's audience I would have took my tin foil hat out the drawer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit.
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU!
It’s a freedoms and free market argument Vs the imposition of rules by an increasingly big brother government who’ve generally not balanced a budget since they had a part round. No one is suggesting that they aren’t well-intended.
Sarcastic replies aside... If road safety is the only concern why are cars allowed to exceed 30mph for arguments’ sake? Clearly there’s a balance to strike between cars that are safe, cars that people want to drive and companies who are private sector profit-making organisations.
I for one am pleased the EU are out of our hair.
Oh god, if I knew the tonight's audience I would have took my tin foil hat out the drawer."
I just believe in free market economics, in the freedom and privacy of people and the ability of those people to remove the people who write laws that govern them. No tin hat worn, no apologies made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think this policy will come into law by then?
No. New cars maybe, but that wouldnt be for another few years. It's never going to get rolled out to old cars. Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them? Plenty of cars on the road that if you sold them, you wouldnt raise enough to pay for one to be fitted to your next used car. The logistics of getting it done dont stack up to get it done in that short a time frame either.
The only way you can do it is bring it in via new cars, much like we did with unleaded fuel. There are still cars allowed to drive with leaded fuel as they have a dispensation.
"Why should a teetotaller pay to have something fitted that checks something that is of no interest and consequence to them?"
Because otherwise they would fail MOT and wouldn't be legally allowed to drive.
I would argue a breathalyser is as important as seat belts when it comes to safety.
Not to a teetotaller it isnt.
You're speaking to one and I think it makes perfect sense for cars to be outfitted with them.
And what about all the peopl who can barely afford to run the one they have at the moment? Or are you suggesting the govt pays for it?
Where does affordability draw the line?
If you can't afford to fix your breaks when they fail, should you still be able to drive your car?
Whether we like it or not, whether we can afford it or not. New laws will always come into place, maybe there will be a government scheme to cover part of the cost, or maybe the cost will be passed onto manufacturers/insurance companies."
But you cant just stop people being able to drive because they cant afford to get a device (they may not even need) fitted, in order to pass the MOT. That isnt how we do things. We bring in legislation for the new cars, and allow the current cars on the road to carry on until they are scrapped. Thats fair AND workable. Manufacturers cant be TOLD to put them in retrospectively. It wouldnt stand up in court. And its got nothing to do with insurance companies. What kills more people on the roads, drinking or speeding? Doesnt it make more sense to put speed limiters on every car? Perhaps link them in to a sat-nav so the car knows what road your on and wont allow you to break the speed limit? Or perhaps...allow people to take some personal responsibility and if they trangress any highway code rules, actually punish them properly? Dont give people the option of a fine and a course instead of points. You know what happened to the frequency of RTAs when seatbelts were made madatory? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago
Hull |
Whether a car which I was driving and was fitted with such a device, it would make no difference to me; in fact, it would serve no purpose, as I'm strictly Teetotal.
But in another way, how would it react or cope with low or Zero alcohol drinks?
Or my favourite, a pack of Wine Gums, which I like to chew on when driving? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Ah, I wonder what would be said if the push for seatbelts in every seat of a car was happening now? Plenty would want their freedom to fly through the windscreen to be kept intact and their right to cause the deaths of their children and passengers not to be infringed.
I'll remind the room that getting seatbelts fitted became retrospective in the end. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah, I wonder what would be said if the push for seatbelts in every seat of a car was happening now? Plenty would want their freedom to fly through the windscreen to be kept intact and their right to cause the deaths of their children and passengers not to be infringed.
I'll remind the room that getting seatbelts fitted became retrospective in the end."
And what happened to the frequency of RTAs? Frequency mind, not severity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah, I wonder what would be said if the push for seatbelts in every seat of a car was happening now? Plenty would want their freedom to fly through the windscreen to be kept intact and their right to cause the deaths of their children and passengers not to be infringed.
I'll remind the room that getting seatbelts fitted became retrospective in the end.
And what happened to the frequency of RTAs? Frequency mind, not severity."
The frequency of RTAs has essentially halved since 1979. It's almost like making cars safer and installing driver aids like ABS have helped in that?! Also lowering speed limits on many rural roads and installing safety devices on roads, like reflective surfaces, lights, barriers etc.
Total accidents 1979: 254,967
Total accidents 2019: 117,536
Source: gov.uk road safety data (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-accidents#accidents-by-severity-since-1979) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What? To keep one in your Car?
No, cars from 2022 onwards will be mandated to have them prefitted, I presume with some kind of biometrics to avoid cheating.
And cars built before 2022 will have to get one fitted by 2024."
.
The post 2022 cars having them is one thing, but who pays the price to retro fit millions of these devices to older vehicles?
It simply will not work, and would be fairly simple to "get around" on older vehicles without an ecu (such as my mk5 cortina) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah, I wonder what would be said if the push for seatbelts in every seat of a car was happening now? Plenty would want their freedom to fly through the windscreen to be kept intact and their right to cause the deaths of their children and passengers not to be infringed.
I'll remind the room that getting seatbelts fitted became retrospective in the end.
And what happened to the frequency of RTAs? Frequency mind, not severity.
The frequency of RTAs has essentially halved since 1979. It's almost like making cars safer and installing driver aids like ABS have helped in that?! Also lowering speed limits on many rural roads and installing safety devices on roads, like reflective surfaces, lights, barriers etc.
Total accidents 1979: 254,967
Total accidents 2019: 117,536
Source: gov.uk road safety data (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras10-reported-road-accidents#accidents-by-severity-since-1979)"
Number of cars on the road in 1979 and 2019? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The accuracy of the police STATS19 statistics, and thus much of the data published in the RCGB, and therefore its suitability for measuring trends in road casualties was examined in two studies in 2006 and has subsequently been commented on by the Department for Transport who concluded that the figures for deaths were accurate, however the actual total injuries is likely considerably higher than the reported figure, possibly three times higher. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Cant see this ever happening. I could see a system like in europe where your required to carry testers by law but as for devices fitted... itd never happen.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You should just not drink and drive.
Same as you shouldn't drive whilst overly tired, or drove whilst being distracted by kids, or on the phone, or reading a newspaper (people do it).
Will we have devices to stop all of those?
Unlikely. The better solution is to have the in car computer monitor the driving and warm the driver if they are driving dangerously or erratic, and if it doesn't stop it turns on the hazard lights to warn others and get the attention of the police.
Both these ideas have the issue though, and that is that they will only be available in new cars developed after that date.
But why wait when there is something they can do 'now'.
Restart the anti drink drive campaigns (not seen one for years), whack up the penalties to a ban (potentially not lifetime, depending on the case, but it needs to be more than financial as that doesn't disuade the rich).
Chucking out a vague plan for something like this is just pretending to be doing something about it, whilst actually just passing on the issues to whoever is in charge in the future. It's a cowards way out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I sent see it TBH maybe if you have previous DUI and have reported you have had a drink problem in the past. That just like saying ALL cars and motorbikes should be chipped so they can’t go over the speed limit "
The government looked into getting all cars fitted with a GPS tracker, the data would be downloaded during your service or MOT and fines and points issued afterwards. So watch this space, it could just happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit.
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU!
It’s a freedoms and free market argument Vs the imposition of rules by an increasingly big brother government who’ve generally not balanced a budget since they had a part round. No one is suggesting that they aren’t well-intended.
Sarcastic replies aside... If road safety is the only concern why are cars allowed to exceed 30mph for arguments’ sake? Clearly there’s a balance to strike between cars that are safe, cars that people want to drive and companies who are private sector profit-making organisations.
I for one am pleased the EU are out of our hair.
Oh god, if I knew the tonight's audience I would have took my tin foil hat out the drawer."
If you really want to live under EU rules, by all means move to somewhere across the English Channel. You could even save money and row one of the abandoned dinghy's back, there are plenty on the south coast! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think in England rather than all cars they would more than likely make them mandatory on cars for people with convictions for drink driving or other alcohol related offences. I kow in some places they already fit them to peoples cars that have repeated drink driving offences |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More Govt red tape / big brother / imposition on the private sector when they’re trying to make a profit. It doesn’t suprise me that it’s an EU idea, but if it came in to force I’d be suprised. Laudably-intended they might be I hope the U.K. doesn’t follow suit.
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU!
It’s a freedoms and free market argument Vs the imposition of rules by an increasingly big brother government who’ve generally not balanced a budget since they had a part round. No one is suggesting that they aren’t well-intended.
Sarcastic replies aside... If road safety is the only concern why are cars allowed to exceed 30mph for arguments’ sake? Clearly there’s a balance to strike between cars that are safe, cars that people want to drive and companies who are private sector profit-making organisations.
I for one am pleased the EU are out of our hair.
Oh god, if I knew the tonight's audience I would have took my tin foil hat out the drawer.
If you really want to live under EU rules, by all means move to somewhere across the English Channel. You could even save money and row one of the abandoned dinghy's back, there are plenty on the south coast!"
If its that easy, why didn't you just move out of the EU rather than fighting for years to get the country to leave? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What kills more people on the roads, drinking or speeding? Doesnt it make more sense to put speed limiters on every car? Perhaps link them in to a sat-nav so the car knows what road your on and wont allow you to break the speed limit? "
That's coming too...
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/mandatory-speed-limiters/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When seat belts were made compulsory did people have to fit them in old cars ?"
I think they did have to, and in the back seats which initially didn't have to have them. Not sure about vintage cars though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Having actually been to a coroner's call out to a motorcyclist killed by a d*unken driver...I think it is a good idea moving forward to bring this type of device in... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I can't see it coming into effect by then, we have more pressing issues right now but as someone who never drinks and drives I can't see why I should have to pay for one to be fitted to my car |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We all know hundreds of drivers who would never drink and drive yet many will know of a few who have been convicted of drink driving.
Working in a place with a lot of people, you do get to find out of a few who have been convicted and my own experience of these tells me that they never do it just the once.
One guy was given a lifetime ban after being caught a 4th time and continued to drive after that as well until he died of drink related illness.
To make everyone else have to pay the added costs to retrofit any system to their own car for the few who they are actually trying to prevent from drink driving is prohibitive for a lot of people and why should we have to pay to catch out the few.
As Lily has said above, anyone convicted of drink driving should have to have one of these systems by law, why penalise everyone else for the transgressions of the few.
There are far more serious issues on our roads that are much more frequent than drink driving that could be addressed instead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Would hopefully put people off taking the chance of drink driving.
But you know you're gonna have the liars who say "it's faulty, it told me I was under" when they get caught.
They wouldn't get caught. The idea is that if you fail the breathalyser the engine wouldn't start.
Ohhhh, so you're car won't start if you don't use it either? You'd have to blow before every engine start?"
I’ve met a fair few men like this  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
National express had these fitted to coaches did not work tho as in Birmingham drivers were getting cleaners to blow into them so vehicle would start . All came out when a driver was nearly double limit and was on way back to Birmingham from Leeds ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When seat belts were made compulsory did people have to fit them in old cars ?
Yes, they did. There were some exemptions for vehicles built before a certain date (1960-something?)"
I think they made people fit indicators to cars without them or that had trafficators too but then relented when the classic car owners rose up because it was damaging some amazing vehicles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You're right, what a heinous idea to try and improve road safety and save live in the process.
Such cruelty must be contained within the EU!"
Why not mandate that all cars are limited to 10mph then. After all that'd save lives too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When seat belts were made compulsory did people have to fit them in old cars ?
Yes, they did. There were some exemptions for vehicles built before a certain date (1960-something?)
I think they made people fit indicators to cars without them or that had trafficators too but then relented when the classic car owners rose up because it was damaging some amazing vehicles. "
My Grandma's car (a Honda Civic) had no rear seatbelts and was exempt. I have its reg number imprinted in my brain. It was 'old' T-reg |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Cars that won't start without a successful breathalyser test are just like cars that physically can't exceed the speed limit: A great idea and long overdue.
As for the comment about all cyclists paying "road tax": Road tax was abolished in the UK in 1936. *Nobody* has paid road tax here in 85 years.
If you're referring to Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), well, that's linked to emissions. Bicycles don't have any emissions. And the money from VED doesn't pay for roads. It just goes straight in to the Treasury's central coffers and thus pays for lots of things.
Sure, hate cyclists all you want, but hate them for the right reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think it's a great idea to be honest and I would have no issues with that being installed in my car. It's not going to cause me any issues unless I am drink driving.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cars that won't start without a successful breathalyser test are just like cars that physically can't exceed the speed limit: A great idea and long overdue.
As for the comment about all cyclists paying "road tax": Road tax was abolished in the UK in 1936. *Nobody* has paid road tax here in 85 years.
If you're referring to Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), well, that's linked to emissions. Bicycles don't have any emissions. And the money from VED doesn't pay for roads. It just goes straight in to the Treasury's central coffers and thus pays for lots of things.
Sure, hate cyclists all you want, but hate them for the right reasons. "
They need to lower the beam of their front lights. It’s blinding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cars that won't start without a successful breathalyser test are just like cars that physically can't exceed the speed limit: A great idea and long overdue.
As for the comment about all cyclists paying "road tax": Road tax was abolished in the UK in 1936. *Nobody* has paid road tax here in 85 years.
If you're referring to Vehicle Excise Duty (VED), well, that's linked to emissions. Bicycles don't have any emissions. And the money from VED doesn't pay for roads. It just goes straight in to the Treasury's central coffers and thus pays for lots of things.
Sure, hate cyclists all you want, but hate them for the right reasons.
They need to lower the beam of their front lights. It’s blinding. "
They need to get off the fucking pavement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Even the technology the police use in their breathalysers gives spurious readings. So many factors can affect the result. A breathalyser assumes the breath sample is an indication of blood alcohol level and it quite frequently isnt. The only true test of blood alcohol levels is to test the blood. The equipment required for that isnt going to fit your car. And who is going to calibrate them? And how often?
The technology just doesnt exist to make this viable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
Really shows the character 