Why does this just seem wrong ???

My first impression was that this is wrong, but then I got to reading the article and low and behold the interlock had already prevented at least one driver from leaving while intoxicated at Ulch. Maybe, just maybe, the interlock prevented that one massive pileup that would have put them out of business.. and ruined the owners' live forever thereafter. I think its a great idea..
 
Then by extension every car, motorcycle, boat, and airplane should have them as well. Right ???
Explain to a truck driver why he/she, a professional driver, can't be trusted, but a professional airplane driver can, or a professional boat driver can, or every moron on the QEW except him/her can ???

I'm not disagreeing that impaired driving is a bonehead move, but really ... people have the right to not be treated like a criminal before they have done something wrong.

The right way to deal with impaired driving is like they do in northern europe ... The first time you get caught impaired you lose your license ... forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salma, Igor Galanter and Shakey
I'm most fascinated by the fact that in multiple industry sessions where I've been in the room with them, I've never heard them beating that drum. The article makes it seem like they are being ignored which is bizarre considering that until I saw the article which made them out to be ignored by the industry.
 
I would agree but for that fact that the system has already caught at least one driver and perhaps averted a serious accident. If you don't drink and drive then you've got nothing to worry about. And look at that Ulch driver.. he KNEW that his employer had an interlock in his trucks and STILL he got caught attempting to drive while intoxicated! That guy is either seriously stupid and/or has a serious drinking problem.. Ulch apparently is under no illusions about who they employ.. And I don't think pilots should be trusted either.. it ain't the profession it was 40 years ago.. lots of twits and nitwits fly planes nowadays too. Test everyone.. I'd be ok with an interlock in any vehicle I drive as well.. I don't drink and drive.. so it would be of no consequence to me.
 
Freight Broker said:
he KNEW that his employer had an interlock in his trucks and STILL he got caught attempting to drive while intoxicated .
Click to expand...
You left out one critical word in your rant...allegedly intoxicated is what you should have said. There is NO mention of the reading being verified OR that a law enforcement officer was brought in and a breathalyzer test performed. These are machines and like your phone, your computer and your car, sometimes they fail. STOP convicting people before they have had an opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law. Rant over!
 
No rant... I didn't convict anyone.. no names mentioned even ..and no harm done. . Sure its possible that the technology failed.. just as its possible that it didn't and that it stopped this driver from driving drunk. Given that this isn't new technology, I'd say the odds are better than 1000 to 1 that the technology worked properly.. just like when you get on a plane.. there's always a chance that the wings will come off at some point.. but the odds of that happening are very small (again proven technology with the bugs worked out of it).
 
Last edited:
With the legalization of pot only weeks away I think we should expect alot more of these types of checks and balances. We're going to be free to smoke, eat,drink and do whatever else with pot soon, but we're all going to pay a price for that in terms of being checked and double check by the police and on board devices.. imho.. goodbye to the freedoms we took for granted until now. What Ulch is doing is just the tip of the iceburg.. these and more will likely be mandatory within 5 years.. We will look back and perhaps reminisce about the relatively wild days of unfettered freedoms as described in George Orwell's 1984.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salma and Igor Galanter
Perhaps I'm not old enough to remember, was there an uproar when seat belts became mandatory? Was there an uproar when baby/child seats became mandatory?

I do remember being a little guy on the front or back BENCH of Dad's station wagon (yes it was purple with wood panelling) without seat belts, and we survived just fine. In the name of progress/safety seat belts became mandatory and the technology has improved. Now I have to buy a $500++ seat to strap in the car for my 1 year old. This is progress though because lives have allegedly been saved.

Who knows what else we will be forced to do in the future in order to operate a vehicle, I know this though: I don't start the car without my seat belt being fastened and I don't shift from park until I hear all the 'clicks' for the number of passengers with me. No matter what we're told to do, over time it becomes second nature because we're good little lemmings.

Keep well,
Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salma, Freight Broker and economy
Same with bicycle helmets. I was a bicycle courier in Montreal back in the early 80s and never wore a helmet as I weaved in and out of dark alleys and busy streets all day long.. Now, to get on a bike without first strapping on a helmet..OMG!! Wouldn't even dream of it. Same with seatbelts..and soon it will be second nature for us to get into our cars... blow into the interlock and away we go. While I'm not thrilled about having safety measures imposed on me, we're living in an increasingly crowded world where's there's just less room for people to behave irresponsibly..
 
Like most of the rules and regulations we endure everyday, the vast majority of them are made for the benefit of the stupidest members of our species. As displayed in the posts here, most of us wouldn't think of getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle if we'd been drinking alcohol. Nor would we get on a bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet, or proceed into an intersection when the traffic light shows red. We don't need laws and regulations to tell us what is primarily, simple common sense. Unfortunately however, there are those in society that either don't know how make a good decision, or refuse to do so and as a result laws are made for the "lowest common denominator". Reminds me of the joke, "what's the last thing a redneck says before he dies............hey y'all, watch this!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: lowmiler88, Freight Broker, Salma and 2 others
loaders said:
Like most of the rules and regulations we endure everyday, the vast majority of them are made for the benefit of the stupidest members of our species. As displayed in the posts here, most of us wouldn't think of getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle if we'd been drinking alcohol. Nor would we get on a bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet, or proceed into an intersection when the traffic light shows red. We don't need laws and regulations to tell us what is primarily, simple common sense. Unfortunately however, there are those in society that either don't know how make a good decision, or refuse to do so and as a result laws are made for the "lowest common denominator". Reminds me of the joke, "what's the last thing a redneck says before he dies............hey y'all, watch this!"
Click to expand...
Well said. Loaders
 
Freight Broker it did not say the driver was intoxicated it said it registered. AZ drivers have a zero tolerance and they say 12 hours from beer to steer so if buddy poured a couple back with the boys at 7 pm but had a 4 am start the machine picked it up. Nothing about intoxicated or even close to it.
 
It registered and wouldn't let him go because he blew above 0%. Ok.. not intoxicated.. and not drunk either.. but impaired? Maybe.. maybe not. Would rather have the interlock tell me that than an accident investigator after the fact..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom