All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[Galloism]

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

And cost hundreds of billions per year in maintenance and calibration, along with indirect costs (breathalyzer interlocks often fail in winter) levied on businesses when their employees fail to get to work on time.

[Ifreann]

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

And cost hundreds of billions per year in maintenance and calibration, along with indirect costs (breathalyzer interlocks often fail in winter) levied on businesses when their employees fail to get to work on time.

We'll fix that. Somehow.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

I could see situations where the breathalyzer is more of a hindrance and/or is simply removed from the car voluntarily. But it's an interesting idea in a more ideal society.

[Valystria]

Or, we could like, you know, not give the government more methods of spying on us.

Perhaps you have something to hide. Is that your reason for being so uncomfortable with the thought of the state being able to see you in public like everyone else can? It's for your own safety.

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

We should remove all drivers.

No, the drunk drivers should be removed.

and I thought your cost estimates couldn't get more mind-bogglingly ridiculous

I mean, its as though you felt the line hadn't yet already been crossed when you said this would cost more than nationalized healthcare + the military

WHAT'S YOUR NUMBERS? You haven't refuted Gallo's estimate, you only said "I don't think so".

There simply isn't any way that the trackers system could cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined.

Having a breathalyzer in every car really is an excellent idea. I don't want to be at risk of getting hit by drunk drivers. The breathalyzer locking devices would go a long way at reducing the potential risk everyone faces from drunk drivers. Usage of a breathalyzer to start up a vehicle would be at most a minor inconvenience everyone would quickly adjust to.

And cost hundreds of billions per year in maintenance and calibration, along with indirect costs (breathalyzer interlocks often fail in winter) levied on businesses when their employees fail to get to work on time.

It can be gradually phased in. The technologies can be improved and the costs can be reduced.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes, it does automatically make your argument better.

You're the one claiming that Gallo's cost estimate is exaggerated, yet you have offered no hard data to back that up. Arguing that it's "common sense" doesn't cut it, because common sense also says that a large number multiplied by a large number gives you a very large number.

No this is a logical fallacy. Just because he is the first to come up with a cost estimate and I have not, does not make his argument in any better standing. Why? Because his cost-estimate could be (and it clearly is) flat out wrong and over-exaggerated.

Then fucking prove it.

Being the first or even only side in an argument to bring up a problematic cost estimate is nothing to brag about. If anything, its more prejudicial than it is probative.

Kindly tell me what law school you attend, so that I may make sure to never have one of the graduates of that school represent me.

[Galloism]

Or, we could like, you know, not give the government more methods of spying on us.

Perhaps you have something to hide. Is that your reason for being so uncomfortable with the thought of the state being able to see you in public like everyone else can? It's for your own safety.

We should remove all drivers.

No, the drunk drivers should be removed.

WHAT'S YOUR NUMBERS? You haven't refuted Gallo's estimate, you only said "I don't think so".

There simply isn't any way that the trackers system could cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined.

And cost hundreds of billions per year in maintenance and calibration, along with indirect costs (breathalyzer interlocks often fail in winter) levied on businesses when their employees fail to get to work on time.

It can be gradually phased in. The technologies can be improved and the costs can be reduced.

Once again, breathalyzers have been around since 1969. I'm not saying the technology can't improve, but there's been a 46 year window for improvements and they still fail in winter and cause accidents.

[Gauthier]

Perhaps it's best this thread is abandoned lest too many good posters end up like Radagast the Brown as Saruman noted to Gandalf.

Yeah but Saruman is dead and Radagast is not...I think.

Saruman made a rather appropriate observation regarding this thread and others like it if you think about it.

[Esternial]

Yeah but Saruman is dead and Radagast is not...I think.

Saruman made a rather appropriate observation regarding this thread and others like it if you think about it.

Yeah but can we really trust a dirty turncoat?

[Immoren]

No, the drunk drivers should be removed.

No,. Fully cyborg cars or bust.

[Gauthier]

No, the drunk drivers should be removed.

No,. Fully cyborg cars or bust.

Go further. Transformers.

[Immoren]

No,. Fully cyborg cars or bust.

Go further. Transformers.

That's just silly. computer piloted cars are enough.

[Gun Manufacturers]

WHAT'S YOUR NUMBERS? You haven't refuted Gallo's estimate, you only said "I don't think so".

There simply isn't any way that the trackers system could cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined.

Prove it. Show me some sourced numbers for the cost, like Gallo did.

[Galloism]

I want to explain to everyone why I used the GPS units I did in calculating my cost.

See, in a court of law, it's not sufficient for the person have been doing "about 60 in a 45" or "around 55 in a 40". You need to be able to prove they were doing that exact speed within a very small margin of error. You also need to determine what speed limit zone they were in at the time. When I use the term "very small" regarding speed, I'm talking in increments like 0.2mph or 0.1mph (varies depending on jurisdiction). If there is reasonable doubt as to the exact speed, then the speeder will walk away without a fine. Here's why.

If you are doing 60 in a 45, that comes with a certain fine. 61 in a 45 comes with a different fine. 59 in a 45 comes with a different fine. If it is even reasonable that the person was doing 59, the case is thrown out, because you've charged them with the wrong offense. If it's reasonable they were doing 61, the case is thrown out, because you've charged them with the wrong offense. You haven't charged them with their actual infraction. This is why police officers tune their radar guns with tuning forks every day, and those tuning forks are themselves calibrated (and/or replaced) regularly.

The GPS system comes with certain timing and position errors (largely caused by speed-related time dilation), which can cause minor variations in detected speed and location. In order to counteract this, your GPS system must have, at a minimum, RAIM. RAIM stands for Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring, and it is capable of cross-referencing additional satellites to determine if one of them is slightly out of its position or slightly out of the proper time, and, if sufficient satellites are available, exclude that satellite and calculate your actual position and actual speed - not the one that would be shown if it relied on the faulty data transmitted by that satellite.

This happens often enough that all instrument GPS installations in airplanes MUST have RAIM, or they MAY NOT be used for instrument navigation, as they may give you the wrong position and cause you to fly right into a mountain.

As an alternative, you could use WAAS. WAAS satellites are relatively new and, combined with ground-reference stations and a few atomic clocks, correct the time-dilation caused by speed and can be used to calculate the satellite's ACTUAL time, and therefore your ACTUAL distance, rather than excluding the satellite entirely. This resolves the problem of you not having RAIM at certain times (due to insufficient available satellites), but also comes at a significantly higher price tag.

I used the cheaper RAIM alternative in my calculations. That's right - I took the cheap one.

THIS is why it's so expensive. If you use the cheap $50 GPS receivers, every case will be thrown out.

[Alvecia]

I want to explain to everyone why I used the GPS units I did in calculating my cost.

See, in a court of law, it's not sufficient for the person have been doing "about 60 in a 45" or "around 55 in a 40". You need to be able to prove they were doing that exact speed within a very small margin of error. You also need to determine what speed limit zone they were in at the time. When I use the term "very small" regarding speed, I'm talking in increments like 0.2mph or 0.1mph (varies depending on jurisdiction). If there is reasonable doubt as to the exact speed, then the speeder will walk away without a fine. Here's why.

If you are doing 60 in a 45, that comes with a certain fine. 61 in a 45 comes with a different fine. 59 in a 45 comes with a different fine. If it is even reasonable that the person was doing 59, the case is thrown out, because you've charged them with the wrong offense. If it's reasonable they were doing 61, the case is thrown out, because you've charged them with the wrong offense. You haven't charged them with their actual infraction. This is why police officers tune their radar guns with tuning forks every day, and those tuning forks are themselves calibrated (and/or replaced) regularly.

The GPS system comes with certain timing and position errors (largely caused by speed-related time dilation), which can cause minor variations in detected speed and location. In order to counteract this, your GPS system must have, at a minimum, RAIM. RAIM stands for Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring, and it is capable of cross-referencing additional satellites to determine if one of them is slightly out of its position or slightly out of the proper time, and, if sufficient satellites are available, exclude that satellite and calculate your actual position and actual speed - not the one that would be shown if it relied on the faulty data transmitted by that satellite.

This happens often enough that all instrument GPS installations in airplanes MUST have RAIM, or they MAY NOT be used for instrument navigation, as they may give you the wrong position and cause you to fly right into a mountain.

As an alternative, you could use WAAS. WAAS satellites are relatively new and, combined with ground-reference stations and a few atomic clocks, correct the time-dilation caused by speed and can be used to calculate the satellite's ACTUAL time, and therefore your ACTUAL distance, rather than excluding the satellite entirely. This resolves the problem of you not having RAIM at certain times (due to insufficient available satellites), but also comes at a significantly higher price tag.

I used the cheaper RAIM alternative in my calculations. That's right - I took the cheap one.

THIS is why it's so expensive. If you use the cheap $50 GPS receivers, every case will be thrown out.

Solution: Change the law *nods*

[The Two Jerseys]

I want to explain to everyone why I used the GPS units I did in calculating my cost.

See, in a court of law, it's not sufficient for the person have been doing "about 60 in a 45" or "around 55 in a 40". You need to be able to prove they were doing that exact speed within a very small margin of error. You also need to determine what speed limit zone they were in at the time. When I use the term "very small" regarding speed, I'm talking in increments like 0.2mph or 0.1mph (varies depending on jurisdiction). If there is reasonable doubt as to the exact speed, then the speeder will walk away without a fine. Here's why.

If you are doing 60 in a 45, that comes with a certain fine. 61 in a 45 comes with a different fine. 59 in a 45 comes with a different fine. If it is even reasonable that the person was doing 59, the case is thrown out, because you've charged them with the wrong offense. If it's reasonable they were doing 61, the case is thrown out, because you've charged them with the wrong offense. You haven't charged them with their actual infraction. This is why police officers tune their radar guns with tuning forks every day, and those tuning forks are themselves calibrated (and/or replaced) regularly.

The GPS system comes with certain timing and position errors (largely caused by speed-related time dilation), which can cause minor variations in detected speed and location. In order to counteract this, your GPS system must have, at a minimum, RAIM. RAIM stands for Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring, and it is capable of cross-referencing additional satellites to determine if one of them is slightly out of its position or slightly out of the proper time, and, if sufficient satellites are available, exclude that satellite and calculate your actual position and actual speed - not the one that would be shown if it relied on the faulty data transmitted by that satellite.

This happens often enough that all instrument GPS installations in airplanes MUST have RAIM, or they MAY NOT be used for instrument navigation, as they may give you the wrong position and cause you to fly right into a mountain.

As an alternative, you could use WAAS. WAAS satellites are relatively new and, combined with ground-reference stations and a few atomic clocks, correct the time-dilation caused by speed and can be used to calculate the satellite's ACTUAL time, and therefore your ACTUAL distance, rather than excluding the satellite entirely. This resolves the problem of you not having RAIM at certain times (due to insufficient available satellites), but also comes at a significantly higher price tag.

I used the cheaper RAIM alternative in my calculations. That's right - I took the cheap one.

THIS is why it's so expensive. If you use the cheap $50 GPS receivers, every case will be thrown out.

Solution: Change the law *nods*

No, have the Supreme Court reinterpret it, because reasons. *nods*

[Alvecia]

Solution: Change the law *nods*

No, have the Supreme Court reinterpret it, because reasons. *nods*

*gasp* unelected officials creating laws! The travesty!

[Infected Mushroom]

There simply isn't any way that the trackers system could cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined.

Prove it. Show me some sourced numbers for the cost, like Gallo did.

so if i come up with a cost estimate first that this entire thing would cost the price of a lollipop, you would be on the losing side of the debate until you find a scholarly peer-reviewed article to something that can be established by common sense?

[Galloism]

Prove it. Show me some sourced numbers for the cost, like Gallo did.

so if i come up with a cost estimate first that this entire thing would cost the price of a lollipop, you would be on the losing side of the debate until you find a scholarly peer-reviewed article to something that can be established by common sense?

You would need to source your figures, like I did, and provide reasonable explanations, like I did.

It's not "I said it'll cost this much". I linked to a device capable of doing what you want, multiplied it by the number of vehicles currently registered, and got a cost for a universal installation.

I even cut the price by 50% to account for bulk purchasing (which I thought was pretty generous).

So, do a cost estimate - with sources. And keep in mind the data has to be accurate enough to be used in court.

[The Two Jerseys]

Prove it. Show me some sourced numbers for the cost, like Gallo did.

so if i come up with a cost estimate first that this entire thing would cost the price of a lollipop, you would be on the losing side of the debate until you find a scholarly peer-reviewed article to something that can be established by common sense?

Common sense says that you should provide proof to back up your accusations.

Seriously, I'd expect a "law student" to understand the concept of evidence.

[Alvecia]

Prove it. Show me some sourced numbers for the cost, like Gallo did.

so if i come up with a cost estimate first that this entire thing would cost the price of a lollipop, you would be on the losing side of the debate until you find a scholarly peer-reviewed article to something that can be established by common sense?

"Common sense"

[Infected Mushroom]

so if i come up with a cost estimate first that this entire thing would cost the price of a lollipop, you would be on the losing side of the debate until you find a scholarly peer-reviewed article to something that can be established by common sense?

You would need to source your figures, like I did, and provide reasonable explanations, like I did.

It's not "I said it'll cost this much". I linked to a device capable of doing what you want, multiplied it by the number of vehicles currently registered, and got a cost for a universal installation.

I even cut the price by 50% to account for bulk purchasing (which I thought was pretty generous).

So, do a cost estimate - with sources. And keep in mind the data has to be accurate enough to be used in court.

I don't come here to be assigned homework assignments by other posters

[Vassenor]

You would need to source your figures, like I did, and provide reasonable explanations, like I did.

It's not "I said it'll cost this much". I linked to a device capable of doing what you want, multiplied it by the number of vehicles currently registered, and got a cost for a universal installation.

I even cut the price by 50% to account for bulk purchasing (which I thought was pretty generous).

So, do a cost estimate - with sources. And keep in mind the data has to be accurate enough to be used in court.

I don't come here to be assigned homework assignments by other posters

So what you're saying is that you're not going to bother providing the evidence that you claim exists in order to disprove the claim being made against your argument?

You've been arguing that that your idea can be implemented cheaply. Now prove it.

[The Two Jerseys]

You would need to source your figures, like I did, and provide reasonable explanations, like I did.

It's not "I said it'll cost this much". I linked to a device capable of doing what you want, multiplied it by the number of vehicles currently registered, and got a cost for a universal installation.

I even cut the price by 50% to account for bulk purchasing (which I thought was pretty generous).

So, do a cost estimate - with sources. And keep in mind the data has to be accurate enough to be used in court.

I don't come here to be assigned homework assignments by other posters

Then stop making threads for your asinine ideas.

Now put up or shut up.

[Hetland 2]

I don't come here to be assigned homework assignments by other posters

Then stop making threads for your asinine ideas.

Now put up or shut up.

>Constantly posts flawed idea threads
>Gets annoyed when people ask them to back up said ideas.

...Mmm...

[The Two Jerseys]

Then stop making threads for your asinine ideas.

Now put up or shut up.

>Constantly posts flawed idea threads
>Gets annoyed when people ask them to back up said ideas.

...Mmm...

Seriously, we ask for some sort of evidence to back up a claim and all we get is "We don't need no stinkin' badges!".