All Cars Should Be Tracked and Locked

[Hetland 2]

>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!".

Then again, that is why we love them.

[Valystria]

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.

I don't need to show a made up number to counter a made up number.

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 burden of proof is on those saying it would be too expensive to implement.

[Vassenor]

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

I don't need to show a made up number to counter a made up number.

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 burden of proof is on those saying it would be too expensive to implement.

Which has been proven, with actual supporting evidence, on multiple occasions.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't need to show a made up number to counter a made up number.


The burden of proof is on those saying it would be too expensive to implement.

Which has been proven, with actual supporting evidence, on multiple occasions.

Which evidence? What post?

[Valystria]

I don't need to show a made up number to counter a made up number.


The burden of proof is on those saying it would be too expensive to implement.

Which has been proven, with actual supporting evidence, on multiple occasions.

There wasn't any evidence provided. Saying X costs Y amount of money isn't sufficient. Kefka and I refuse to do what you are doing. We're not going to make up our own fabricated numbers to counter someone else's fabricated numbers. Evidence matters.

[Hetland 2]

Which has been proven, with actual supporting evidence, on multiple occasions.

There wasn't any evidence provided. Saying X costs Y amount of money isn't sufficient. Kefka and I refuse to do what you are doing. We're not going to make up our own fabricated to counter someone else's fabricated numbers. Evidence matters.

So you refuse to support the idea you back because someone else asks you to?

[Vassenor]

Which has been proven, with actual supporting evidence, on multiple occasions.

Which evidence? What post?

Less than two weeks ago.

[Cybraxia]

This is fucking hilarious.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you add this as a grandfather regulation; (No new cars may be sold without this equipment. Akin to emissions testing requirements.) then this isn't too expensive to implement, not by a long shot. Environmental standards for cars are far more prohibitive.

This wouldn't even factor. This would shift a minor cost to the consumer. When you factor in the lowered insurance rates from roads becoming safer, this may even be a net gain or break even.

There is absolutely no basis to say a breathalyzer system would be expensive to implement

[Ostroeuropa]

Which evidence? What post?

Less than two weeks ago.

That isn't referring to mass breathalyzers.

[Vassenor]

If you add this as a grandfather regulation; (No new cars may be sold without this equipment. Akin to emissions testing requirements.) then this isn't too expensive to implement, not by a long shot. Environmental standards for cars are far more prohibitive.

This wouldn't even factor. This would shift a minor cost to the consumer. When you factor in the lowered insurance rates from roads becoming safer, this may even be a net gain or break even.

There is absolutely no basis to say a breathalyzer system would be expensive to implement

What universe are you living in where $10,000 is a "minor cost"?

[Valystria]

There wasn't any evidence provided. Saying X costs Y amount of money isn't sufficient. Kefka and I refuse to do what you are doing. We're not going to make up our own fabricated to counter someone else's fabricated numbers. Evidence matters.

So you refuse to support the idea you back because someone else asks you to?

No. I refuse to debunk fabricated numbers with a response of fabricated numbers.

http://www.lifeguardbreathtester.com/Preventing_DUI/dui_ignition.shtml

Installation, $100 to $200. That is not mass production cost. That is a single installation cost. With an order of hundreds of thousands of these devices the cost would be significantly reduced, especially if being manufactured at slightly above production cost for a bulk order.

It is not going to cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined no matter how much you would like to believe so. There can't be a price placed on public safety, and in this case it happens to be very affordable. No one should be at risk of being harmed or killed by drunk drivers.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you add this as a grandfather regulation; (No new cars may be sold without this equipment. Akin to emissions testing requirements.) then this isn't too expensive to implement, not by a long shot. Environmental standards for cars are far more prohibitive.

This wouldn't even factor. This would shift a minor cost to the consumer. When you factor in the lowered insurance rates from roads becoming safer, this may even be a net gain or break even.

There is absolutely no basis to say a breathalyzer system would be expensive to implement

What universe are you living in where $10,000 is a "minor cost"?

10,000? What?

[Valystria]

If you add this as a grandfather regulation; (No new cars may be sold without this equipment. Akin to emissions testing requirements.) then this isn't too expensive to implement, not by a long shot. Environmental standards for cars are far more prohibitive.

This wouldn't even factor. This would shift a minor cost to the consumer. When you factor in the lowered insurance rates from roads becoming safer, this may even be a net gain or break even.

There is absolutely no basis to say a breathalyzer system would be expensive to implement

I agree with this. It is a very minor cost, and it's very easy to implement by making it required for all new cars. I would also add to the regulations that for a used car to be sold it would need to be fitted with a breathalyzer.

[Vassenor]

So I take it that we're no longer pushing for the magic GPS network that will detect erratic driving and automatically issue speeding fines?

[Valystria]

So I take it that we're no longer pushing for the magic GPS network that will detect erratic driving and automatically issue speeding fines?

The OP never said it needed to be a GPS network.

It's a separate issue from the breathalyzers which have been demonstrated to be very affordable and at no cost to the state.

[Esternial]

So you refuse to support the idea you back because someone else asks you to?

No. I refuse to debunk fabricated numbers with a response of fabricated numbers.

http://www.lifeguardbreathtester.com/Preventing_DUI/dui_ignition.shtml

Installation, $100 to $200. That is not mass production cost. That is a single installation cost. With an order of hundreds of thousands of these devices the cost would be significantly reduced, especially if being manufactured at slightly above production cost for a bulk order.

It is not going to cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined no matter how much you would like to believe so. There can't be a price placed on public safety, and in this case it happens to be very affordable. No one should be at risk of being harmed or killed by drunk drivers.

We can all use google, yes.

But how much would this cost the state?

[Valystria]

No. I refuse to debunk fabricated numbers with a response of fabricated numbers.

http://www.lifeguardbreathtester.com/Preventing_DUI/dui_ignition.shtml

Installation, $100 to $200. That is not mass production cost. That is a single installation cost. With an order of hundreds of thousands of these devices the cost would be significantly reduced, especially if being manufactured at slightly above production cost for a bulk order.

It is not going to cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined no matter how much you would like to believe so. There can't be a price placed on public safety, and in this case it happens to be very affordable. No one should be at risk of being harmed or killed by drunk drivers.

We can all use google, yes.

But how much would this cost the state?

It doesn't need to be paid for by the state. It's an option. If being phased in the way Ostro suggested, it would be a minor consumer expense paid for upon vehicle purchase or sale.

[Vassenor]

So I take it that we're no longer pushing for the magic GPS network that will detect erratic driving and automatically issue speeding fines?

The OP never said it needed to be a GPS network.

It's a separate issue from the breathalyzers which have been demonstrated to be very affordable and at no cost to the state.

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

How many other tracking systems exist apart from GPS?

[Ostroeuropa]

No. I refuse to debunk fabricated numbers with a response of fabricated numbers.

http://www.lifeguardbreathtester.com/Preventing_DUI/dui_ignition.shtml

Installation, $100 to $200. That is not mass production cost. That is a single installation cost. With an order of hundreds of thousands of these devices the cost would be significantly reduced, especially if being manufactured at slightly above production cost for a bulk order.

It is not going to cost more than single-payer healthcare and the military combined no matter how much you would like to believe so. There can't be a price placed on public safety, and in this case it happens to be very affordable. No one should be at risk of being harmed or killed by drunk drivers.

We can all use google, yes.

But how much would this cost the state?

To install breathalyzers in all new vehicles sold? Nothing really.
Just introduce it as a new car regulation akin to environmental regulations.

If the car companies contracted out and for each individual car had someone install the device, it would still only add 100 to 200 to the cost of the car.
If they contracted out and managed to get a bulk deal, it would be cheaper. But more likely, they'll add the system in-house and get it done for dollars or cents per unit.

The cost shifts to the consumer, but when you factor in the money saved on insurance premiums which are likely to decrease when it becomes apparent drunk driving is no longer a factor, it may break even for consumers.

[Ostroeuropa]

The OP never said it needed to be a GPS network.

It's a separate issue from the breathalyzers which have been demonstrated to be very affordable and at no cost to the state.

1. The government mandate that all cars be installed with mandatory tracking devices. This allows the police to monitor the positions of all cars and their speed at any given time. This is to deter speeding and ease the administration of speeding regulation for the public good.

How many other tracking systems exist apart from GPS?

A surveillance network of cameras could do it, as well as have ancillary benefits.

[Vassenor]

We can all use google, yes.

But how much would this cost the state?

To install breathalyzers in all new vehicles sold? Nothing really.
Just introduce it as a new car regulation akin to environmental regulations.

If the car companies contracted out and for each individual car had someone install the device, it would still only add 100 to 200 to the cost of the car.
If they contracted out and managed to get a bulk deal, it would be cheaper. But more likely, they'll add the system in-house and get it done for dollars or cents per unit.

The cost shifts to the consumer, but when you factor in the money saved on insurance premiums which are likely to decrease when it becomes apparent drunk driving is no longer a factor, it may break even for consumers.

Your premise assumes that "likelihood of driving drunk" is a risk factor in determining insurance. Rather than, say, the vehicle being insured, or the experience of the driver, or the locale where the vehicle is registered.

[Vassenor]

How many other tracking systems exist apart from GPS?

A surveillance network of cameras could do it, as well as have ancillary benefits.

Explain how that would work.

[Ostroeuropa]

To install breathalyzers in all new vehicles sold? Nothing really.
Just introduce it as a new car regulation akin to environmental regulations.

If the car companies contracted out and for each individual car had someone install the device, it would still only add 100 to 200 to the cost of the car.
If they contracted out and managed to get a bulk deal, it would be cheaper. But more likely, they'll add the system in-house and get it done for dollars or cents per unit.

The cost shifts to the consumer, but when you factor in the money saved on insurance premiums which are likely to decrease when it becomes apparent drunk driving is no longer a factor, it may break even for consumers.

Your premise assumes that "likelihood of driving drunk" is a risk factor in determining insurance. Rather than, say, the vehicle being insured, or the experience of the driver, or the locale where the vehicle is registered.

Drunk driving causes a number of crashes and such. Without those crashes, premiums will decrease.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

I'm saying there is no obligation to come up with numerical reports when there is a good faith basis that the other side is making things up (I mean REALLY? my proposal is going to cost more than universal healthcare + military expenditures?); its absurd, patently so