Alchol interlocks in every victorian car WTF????

[Boza]

Was watching the morning news during morning tea.
Well Terry Mulder reared his ugly face again with a plan to fit interlock devices into every victorian car to curb drink driving.
What I want to know is who is going to foot the bill for an install I'm a disabled pensioner I have no spare money for this I only work 10 hours a week max to supplement my income not allowed to work more due to health restrictions.
I don't drink at all why should I be penalized for some other idiots drinking problem also don't want ugly interlock device in my car will make me feel like a criminal these are gestapo tactics in my mind.
I dont lend my car to anyone as I'm a pedantic OCD person who knows when my seat has been moved even one click so no one but me drives my car.
If this comes to fruition I will consider moving interstate we are supposedly a free country but feels more like an oppressed regime to me I'm disgusted by this

[Wretched]

No, only for all drink drivers.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dr...527-390lq.html

[Boza]

Yeah I saw the camera thing but after that from what I understood he wanted to fit interlock devices in the next few years to all cars as the technology improves in the interlock devices what are the gonna have sensors in your car to sniff you if you smell like alcohol hell I use rubbing alcohol all the time

[neptune blue]

Originally Posted by Boza

Yeah I saw the camera thing but after that from what I understood he wanted to fit interlock devices in the next few years to all cars as the technology improves in the interlock devices what are the gonna have sensors in your car to sniff you if you smell like alcohol hell I use rubbing alcohol all the time

He can go **** him self

[lucas2]

I hope they don't bring this in. Why punish the majority for stupidity of a minority? Seems like another way the government may attempt to gather private information from us.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by lucas2

Why punish the majority for stupidity of a minority? .

Since drink-driving is becoming less and less socially acceptable, i don't think that govts need to go to extreme lengths (eg low level dui). they already have a three-strikes-no-license policy, don't they?

[Wretched]

I think you guys misunderstood it, it is for ALL drink drivers, not ALL drivers.

[Focused]

I'm amazed at how easily people jump on the whinge bandwagon and this thread demonstrates perfectly the problem with the internet and social media (giving a voice to people that probably shouldn't have one...)

Seriously, have a look at the article linked to where it clearly states in the first sentence that this will only affect drink drivers. Further down it says that the law will be extended to low-range drink drivers... But I wonder how many people read the first post and are now going to spend the rest of the day telling all their friends that the government are going to put these in EVERY car and spying on us...blah blah.

Don't believe everything you read people. If something sounds unjust, stop and think about it before jumping on the standard bandwagon whinging about the government. Gee, even google it and see if there's any articles which may shed some light on the topic.

BTW I think the interlocking devices are fantastic and will go a long way to keeping idiots off the roads.

[Whitey-AMG]

Doesnt stop them getting P!$$@D and jumping into a mates car or another available car and driving off into oblivion. Call me cynical - but just means there may be an overabundance of low klm cars up for sale in 5 years time.....

( Had to think about the title for a sec , I thought WTF is Alchol... )

[Focused]

Originally Posted by ESP

Doesnt stop them getting P!$$@D and jumping into a mates car or another available car and driving off into oblivion. Call me cynical - but just means there may be an overabundance of low klm cars up for sale in 5 years time.....

( Had to think about the title for a sec , I thought WTF is Alchol... )

True but at least it'll stop some and you only need one drink driver to kill a family of four or crash their car and demand a pension for the rest of their lives.

[GK]

Originally Posted by ESP

Doesnt stop them getting P!$$@D and jumping into a mates car or another available car and driving off into oblivion. Call me cynical - but just means there may be an overabundance of low klm cars up for sale in 5 years time.....

( Had to think about the title for a sec , I thought WTF is Alchol... )

Won't stop 'helpful people' for blowing into the device for a mate who's had a few too many either. It's a known problem.

Some people are just not thinking straight.

GK

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by GK

Won't stop 'helpful people' for blowing into the device for a mate who's had a few too many either. It's a known problem.

Some people are just not thinking straight.

GK

There will be cameras fitted to audit that its the owner that breath tests to start the car. I guess the camera footage would be checked regularly to ensure compliance ?

But, it doesnt stop them driving someone elses car home. Issue remains.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm amazed at how easily people jump on the whinge bandwagon and this thread demonstrates perfectly the problem with the internet and social media (giving a voice to people that probably shouldn't have one...)

Seriously, have a look at the article linked to where it clearly states in the first sentence that this will only affect drink drivers. Further down it says that the law will be extended to low-range drink drivers... But I wonder how many people read the first post and are now going to spend the rest of the day telling all their friends that the government are going to put these in EVERY car and spying on us...blah blah.

Don't believe everything you read people. If something sounds unjust, stop and think about it before jumping on the standard bandwagon whinging about the government. Gee, even google it and see if there's any articles which may shed some light on the topic.

BTW I think the interlocking devices are fantastic and will go a long way to keeping idiots off the roads.

all laws introduced have an arterial motive, "money"...

makes me wonder who on the board/ceo of this device... pork barrel you watch.

[cheap]

Exactly how BIG is this latest threat to mankind? Are we talking about thousands of repeat drink drivers, hundreds, dozens?

Unfortunately Victoria is at the forefront of introducing all sorts of laws aimed a curbing problems and when fewer offences occur instead of congratulating the community they then progressively lower tolerances to the point of it being punishable to drive 1-2km over the speed limit! As for many of the other brain dead states they simply replicate the Victorian stupidity.

People can play the emotion card all they like, it is all about revenue collect.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by cheap

Exactly how BIG is this latest threat to mankind? Are we talking about thousands of repeat drink drivers, hundreds, dozens?

Unfortunately Victoria is at the forefront of introducing all sorts of laws aimed a curbing problems and when fewer offences occur instead of congratulating the community they then progressively lower tolerances to the point of it being punishable to drive 1-2km over the speed limit! As for many of the other brain dead states they simply replicate the Victorian stupidity.

People can play the emotion card all they like, it is all about revenue collect.

They are masters at implementing the Hegelian dialectic: they create a problem, enrage the masses, said masses demand a solution, govco creates the solution. Yet most won't realise they've been hoodwinked.

[Focused]

Originally Posted by burnz

all laws introduced have an arterial motive, "money"...

Arterial hey?
All laws? So murder is illegal because locking people up in prison for years makes the government money? Or are they secretly harvesting their arteries and selling them on the black market.

Geesh... Back in my day the first thing to go into the Cusso was a full esky!

Yes they were great times. The road toll was >3 times what it was now. Young people, families... all killed on the road at the hands of drunk idiots.

I agree. Totally over the top and a blatant form of revenue raising. I don't see how a first time offender, with for example a perfect driving record over a few decades, has 2 beers at the pub and blows 0.06 and has to have an interlock device fitted, which costs a bomb. The punishment totally exceeds the crime.

For repeat offenders or high range readings then so be it, but low range first timers is a joke.

I'd tend to agree that this is OTT for first offenders and those with a low range DUI charge.

[GasoLane]

I'm not sure how it's revenue raising as the Drink driving offender is going to get fined anyway.

The only ones that I can see profiting from this would be the Interlock makers, not the Gov.

Oh and burnz, I think you meant 'ulterior' motive

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm amazed at how easily people jump on the whinge bandwagon and this thread demonstrates perfectly the problem with the internet and social media (giving a voice to people that probably shouldn't have one...)

This statement is borderline abhorrent. Where do you get off writing people off and denying them free speech simply because their ideas and opinions don't correlate with yours??? Chuck them in re-education camps all because they show a sliver of opposition and dissent hey?

Originally Posted by Focused

Seriously, have a look at the article linked to where it clearly states in the first sentence that this will only affect drink drivers. Further down it says that the law will be extended to low-range drink drivers... But I wonder how many people read the first post and are now going to spend the rest of the day telling all their friends that the government are going to put these in EVERY car and spying on us...blah blah.

Don't believe everything you read people. If something sounds unjust, stop and think about it before jumping on the standard bandwagon whinging about the government. Gee, even google it and see if there's any articles which may shed some light on the topic.

You preach the don't believe everything you read mantra yet you believe the government spiel completely... Does decades of precedent from deceitful politicians not mean anything?

[Focused]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

This statement is borderline abhorrent. Where do you get off writing people off and denying them free speech simply because their ideas and opinions don't correlate with yours??? Chuck them in re-education camps all because they show a sliver of opposition and dissent hey?

I'm sorry but who's opinion is different from mine? My issue has nothing to do with differing views but ill-informed views. In fact, if what the original poster said was true, I'd agree with him. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even though a little bit of research could have set the record straight.
Anyway, I hope you not trying to "write off and deny" my free speech because before you know it you'll be wanting to chuck people who disagree with you into re-education camps ...and whatever else you said.

You preach the don't believe everything you read mantra yet you believe the government spiel completely... Does decades of precedent from deceitful politicians not mean anything?

The government said that taking drink drivers off the road saves lives? Call me naive (maybe your reeducation camp could educate me ;) ) but I'll accept that that's probably true.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm sorry but who's opinion is different from mine? My issue has nothing to do with differing views but ill-informed views. In fact, if what the original poster said was true, I'd agree with him. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even though a little bit of research could have set the record straight.
Anyway, I hope you not trying to "write off and deny" my free speech because before you know it you'll be wanting to chuck people who disagree with you into re-education camps ...and whatever else you said.

The government said that taking drink drivers off the road saves lives? Call me naive (maybe your reeducation camp could educate me ;) ) but I'll accept that that's probably true.

so what is the current "alcohol" related road toll?

[Trump]

Originally Posted by Focused

I'm sorry but who's opinion is different from mine? My issue has nothing to do with differing views but ill-informed views. In fact, if what the original poster said was true, I'd agree with him. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even though a little bit of research could have set the record straight.

Those you labelled ill-informed. Their skepticism of the talking heads that are the mouth pieces of the government is totally justified knowing full well that when govco says one thing, they do something completely different and almost always to the detriment of the nation. Have we forgotten what happened two weeks ago on budget night?

Originally Posted by Focused

Anyway, I hope you not trying to "write off and deny" my free speech because before you know it you'll be wanting to chuck people who disagree with you into re-education camps ...and whatever else you said.

I respect everyone's opinion and more importantly their right to air it.

Originally Posted by Focused

The government said that taking drink drivers off the road saves lives? Call me naive (maybe your reeducation camp could educate me ;) ) but I'll accept that that's probably true.

Inebriated people shouldn't be on the roads, but I don't believe for a second that govco has the best interests of the electorate in mind when they propose interlocking for all drink drivers. Too many vested interests are involved and stand to make a hell of a lot of money for the proposed action to be seen as a purely selfless and safety driven idea.

[Franco Cozzo]

Its already law for P platers anyway, if you get done at all for alcohol on Ps in Victoria its interlock on first offense even for a low range one .01 etc.

[Lotte]

His plan to roll it out to 0.05 to 0.07 first time offenders is pretty disturbing if you ask me. They're a great idea for repeat or high level offenders, but that's just running into the "you make a mistake once and we'll just assume you're a regular irresponsible ****tard" territory.
And it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up wanting this installed in every car in victoria, I mean, the guy wanted to fit speedo's that only went up to 100km/h in all victorian cars to curb speeding.
Or was it another one of the geniuses? I can't remember anymore

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Lotte

His plan to roll it out to 0.05 to 0.07 first time offenders is pretty disturbing if you ask me. They're a great idea for repeat or high level offenders, but that's just running into the "you make a mistake once and we'll just assume you're a regular irresponsible ****tard" territory.
And it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up wanting this installed in every car in victoria, I mean, the guy wanted to fit speedo's that only went up to 100km/h in all victorian cars to curb speeding.
Or was it another one of the geniuses? I can't remember anymore

I agree. Totally over the top and a blatant form of revenue raising. I don't see how a first time offender, with for example a perfect driving record over a few decades, has 2 beers at the pub and blows 0.06 and has to have an interlock device fitted, which costs a bomb. The punishment totally exceeds the crime.

For repeat offenders or high range readings then so be it, but low range first timers is a joke.

Victoria- The Revenue State

[tweeked]

Its about the money to be made, You pay your fine, and then have to keep paying to get these things fitted, and also a fee to have them monitored.

Why not just increase the fine to cover all the costs - what is the use of a fine of $1000, but then have a couple of thousand in compliance with the interlock devices?

Wouldnt an up front fine of $3000 be more of a deterrent? It smacks of the ridiculous storage charges for impounded vehicles, way above a market rate. Just call it a fine and be done with it.

[cheap]

Another attempt to save us from ourselves. Victoria really is the epicentre of nannyism... Why can't the sensible people in Victoria grow a pair and tell the nannies to shove off?

[Trump]

Originally Posted by cheap

Another attempt to save us from ourselves. Victoria really is the epicentre of nannyism... Why can't the sensible people in Victoria grow a pair and tell the nannies to shove off?

Because govco and its willing partner in crime, the media, have been very successful in pacifying the populace into slumber and convincing them of the omnipotence of the state.

It wouldn't even take that many people, 100,000 is all it would take to stand up to the bass turds.

[Focused]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Its about the money to be made, You pay your fine, and then have to keep paying to get these things fitted, and also a fee to have them monitored.

Why not just increase the fine to cover all the costs - what is the use of a fine of $1000, but then have a couple of thousand in compliance with the interlock devices?

Wouldnt an up front fine of $3000 be more of a deterrent? It smacks of the ridiculous storage charges for impounded vehicles, way above a market rate. Just call it a fine and be done with it.

No because drunk people can't be reasoned with.
Unlike several other recent dubious road safety campaigns, this is actually a good idea.

Another attempt to save us from ourselves. Victoria really is the epicentre of nannyism... Why can't the sensible people in Victoria grow a pair and tell the nannies to shove off?

What's the alternative? No rules and whenever someone gets hurt, everyone complains that the government should be doing something to protect them?

Hospitals are full of people who needed to be protected from themselves (drunks who crash cars, alcoholics who kill their liver, smokers who kill their lungs, people who can't control how much they eat) so yes, we need nannying. If the government is going to pay for people's health care (with my tax money), they're perfectly entitled to try and stop people hurting themselves in the first place.

The problem isn't the government here. It's the people they represent.

[03 GHIA]

Although the article states it's only for repeat offenders or high range, watching the attached video they state none of that.
They say it would be for all Victorian drivers. So would be easy enough to get confused about it.

How would they go about fitting one of these to a motorbike? Don't think it would be too easy or even possible?

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by 03 GHIA

They say it would be for all Victorian drivers. So would be easy enough to get confused about it.

The news bulletin I heard stated it was for ALL drivers. Typical sensationalist media.