Not a joke - was almost in an accident the other day

[Got Stripers]

They drunk being prevented from starting his car wasn’t my primary comment, I was agreeing with old goat that cars as they are developed certainly can incorporate technology to prevent cell phone use if you are driving solo or under a certain age and that might be a freedom many might not want to give up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

over 90% of households own a cars

data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes


25 % of us households own guns In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S


you guy do love your false equivalence's

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. Do stupid tricks, win stupid prizes.

Originally Posted by detbuch

But, see, in your scenario your blaming the driver, not the car.

No, he's not, he is using the legal system, after a court hearing, to restrict a right to someone that has broken a law (DUI), with sufficient checks and balances to restrict such a law breaking again.

I'm OK if you apply that in many firearms cases where someone is going to do harm to others or themselves, through the legal system, with sufficient checks and balances where pertaining to restricting someone's rights. Some people should not have access to firearms, some people should not have access to vehicles.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

No, he's not, he is using the legal system, after a court hearing, to restrict a right to someone that has broken a law (DUI), with sufficient checks and balances to restrict such a law breaking again.

I'm OK if you apply that in many firearms cases where someone is going to do harm to others or themselves, through the legal system, with sufficient checks and balances where pertaining to restricting someone's rights. Some people should not have access to firearms, some people should not have access to vehicles.

I responded to a post which responded to a previous post by comparing a car that stops a drunk to the original post about "a car that stops if someone has a cell phone and is sitting in the driver seat." I don't see anything in either mentioning a court hearing. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the posts suggests to me the possibility of manufacturing cars that stopped if a driver has a cell phone or could stop a drunk from driving--that all cars would have that feature built into them. The reason for that feature being the prevention of a driver from using the car, not because the car would be at fault for an accident if it didn't have the feature, but because the driver would be at fault, regardless of the model of the car. And so the driver would be limited, not the car. And that would not, by most, be considered a loss of freedom.

I fleshed out the comparison with guns in a similar situation in which guns had a built in feature: "Nor is there, in a corollary scenario re guns, a loss of freedom for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, even an AR15 type, if guns would not fire in the hands of repeat criminals." As in the car scenarios, all guns would be manufactured with this feature

In either the gun or car scenarios, I said it is "the individual, not the instrument" that is being prevented regardless of the model.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

They drunk being prevented from starting his car wasn’t my primary comment, I was agreeing with old goat that cars as they are developed certainly can incorporate technology to prevent cell phone use if you are driving solo or under a certain age and that might be a freedom many might not want to give up
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I apologize for misunderstanding your intention or your primary comment. I mistakenly responded to your secondary comment, "Yes indeed, similar to the repeat drunk not being able to start their cars, but many here would consider that another lost freedom." I totally missed, or could not find the other comment.

In either case, I doubt that there would be many who would think that OLD GOAT's suggestion would create a loss of freedom. We generally, don't have an individual right to force car manufacturers on how to build their cars. On the other hand, maybe your right. Maybe many would consider it a loss of freedom. I would hope that there would also be a failsafe built in to such cars that they wouldn't come to an immediate stop while driving, especially on an expressway. Probably should have some warning that the car would slow down and then stop shortly if the phone was not off. Might be a good idea.