Car Crashes

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

About 18,000 teens (this is just teens) died in car accident related deaths in 2007.

Clearly, this needs to be improved.

The question is, what? Should we revoke elderly's license? Should we make the minimum driving age higher?

 

[1048576]

Nope, human life has a finite value. Otherwise we'd cryogenically freeze/life support everybody. There's no reason to believe that cost of deaths > benefits of fast transport.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

About 18,000 teens (this is just teens) died in car accident related deaths in 2007.

Clearly, this needs to be improved.

The question is, what? Should we revoke elderly's license? Should we make the minimum driving age higher?

More than anything, just removing distractions relating to cell phones as a collective unit (e.g. no cell phone use while driving) would drop this statistic greatly.

I even showed this in an old thread I made way back when, but don't necro it...unless you're the boss' wife. :3

 

[Bookworm]

It depends on what the main cause of those deaths was.

If youths simply lack driving competence, well then perhaps the system and requirements set in place for them to allain their licence should be reviewed.

If it's related to ignorance towards alcohol, then perhaps a suggestion could be compulsory drink driving simulations. That way, the youth makes the error without costing any lives. Another alternative would be complulsory attendance to lecturers, where a relative of a car crash victim, or former drink driver speaks of their experience/s. There could also be a graphic cinema of a car accident.

 

[spookyskeptic]

If it's related to ignorance towards alcohol, then perhaps a suggestion could be compulsory drink driving simulations. That way, the youth makes the error without costing any lives. Another alternative would be complulsory attendance to lecturers, where a relative of a car crash victim, or former drink driver speaks of their experience/s. There could also be a graphic cinema of a car accident.

Neither of those will do much good, I'm afraid. I'm not so far out of my high school years that I don't remember some of the caustic and stupid remarks we made about the guy with the sad story because his kid was killed because someone DUI'd. It's not cool to drive safely and I think that, in the case of teens, it just takes a close call or a tragedy. It's sad, but my own experience tells me that's the case. Of course, more strenuous examinations and graduated licenses are important steps.

More experience with an adult is going to provide someone with experience if the unfortunate does happen and will help make good driving behavior an actual habit. Teenagers will do what they're supposed to when there's an adult, but when backs are turned... Well, we were (or are) all teenagers once, right? Practice does make perfect. Take my head lamps. I don't need them during the day, but I'm so programmed to turn them on from driving at night so much that I turn them on everytime I start the car.

As far as graduated licenses, reducing the opportunities for teenagers to get into accidents is really a common sense kind of thing. Accidents are more likely to happen at night because it's dark and because of the sorts of activities that occur at night. If a kid can't drive home at night after the party because of a license restriction, there's less chance they'll drive home drunk. At least in my state, being suspected of violating your license b/c of your age is probable cause to be pulled over. So, there's that.

Something else, too, that I don't think anyone really discusses is who can drive certain classes of vehicles. To be honestly, teenagers don't need giant yacht-sized SUVs or sports cars. Both of those vehicles foster the kind of habits that can cause accidents. Even restrictions on certain modifications should be considered. There's a guy that buys parts from that put 24" wheels on a Charger. He can't turn the vehicle properly, which isn't safe and should be illegal.

While it's only tangentially related, the OP did mention it: The elderly. No, their licenses shouldn't be taken, per se, but more frequent tests of things like visual acuity and reflexes are needed. Especially when they insist on buying cars with features they don't understand. One thing that should also be looked at (not just seniors, mind you) ties back into my previous point: The kind of vehicle. Yeah, you can drive a car, but can you drive this car? I can't tell you how many people I've seen that are used to automatics decide to switch to manual and chaos ensues. Not too long ago, in fact, a woman drove her car into a store front near where I work because she just bought the car and didn't realize how loose auto-stick can be. She slipped it past reverse and right into a towing gear. I like to think I'm a good driver, but the first time I used a car with that, something similar happened.

The question, then, is who pays for the testing? Maybe it could be factored into the license. I'd gladly pay more in licensing fees to have safer roads. Anyone who wouldn't is either selfish or foolish. A price cannot be put upon safety.

 

[1048576]

A price cannot be put upon safety.

So you'd be in favor of building a traffic light at every intersection?

 

[spookyskeptic]

That would actually be counterproductive to safety, 1048576. I tried to find the report, but a few years ago, the Mississippi Dept. of Transportation did a study to determine the efficacy of traffic lights and low speed limits. They noticed that reduced speed limits and stop lights actually increased the number of fatalities. It specifically involved the major north-south corridor of US Highway 49, but they raised the speed limit 10 miles per hour and removed half the lights and accidents plummeted. Impeding the flow of traffic is pretty dangerous.

If I can find the study, I'll post a link but Mississippi is notorious for not having accessible information. The news story that ran on local TV may even be available. Again, I'll post a link when I find it.

It's worth nothing, though, that the speed-limit-associated danger was because the road was designed for highway-speed traffic and people knew that, so they'd speed. A lot of people would still just do the limit and that, plus excessive stop lights, caused an unusually high number of rear-end collisions.

 

[1048576]

Fine, so you'd be in favor of a 5mph country-wide speed limit?

My point is that you can put a price on safety. There is a point at which you'd be willing to give up a little safety for a lot of something else.

 

[spookyskeptic]

Here's a story in which the MDOT commissioner is quoted as referencing those statistics.

I believe the results on page 3 of this PDF from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration will explain what I meant. In fact, the whole study is pretty interesting.

 

[spookyskeptic]

And actual monetary cost is what I was referring to, not abstract prices like convenience or time.

 

[1048576]

You just have to take it back up the chain. If you drive 20mph faster you'll be able to spend more time producing valuable things which you'll earn money for.

But let's see, there's gotta be some ridiculously expensive thing out there that increases vehicle safety, right?

Oh how about hiring like 20x more trucks to salt icy roads.

 

[spookyskeptic]

If you'd have read the post, you'd have seen that I was very specific. It was in regards to the costs associated with more strenuous licensing requirements. It had nothing to do with road salt or someone saving money because they saved time. You're arguing against points that were never made.

As far as speed limits and other traffic impedences go, you'd realize we're on the same page.

The question, then, is who pays for the testing? Maybe it could be factored into the license. I'd gladly pay more in licensing fees to have safer roads. Anyone who wouldn't is either selfish or foolish. A price cannot be put upon safety.

More testing, more often would mean more man-hours at the DMV/DPS, which would mean more expensive licenses. Keeping inexperienced kids and feeble seniors off the roads would be worth it to any sane person. Everything else you're mentioning are unrelated to that cost. You're debating a point that I conceded and agree on. That's just being difficult, not debating.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

About 18,000 teens (this is just teens) died in car accident related deaths in 2007.

Clearly, this needs to be improved.

The question is, what? Should we revoke elderly's license? Should we make the minimum driving age higher?

We shouldn't take away the elderly's licenses because teenagers die, unless a majority of those deaths are related to the elderly.

Basically, we just need to get more Police out on the roads.

 

[1048576]

If you'd have read the post, you'd have seen that I was very specific. It was in regards to the costs associated with more strenuous licensing requirements. It had nothing to do with road salt or someone saving money because they saved time. You're arguing against points that were never made.

As far as speed limits and other traffic impedences go, you'd realize we're on the same page.

The question, then, is who pays for the testing? Maybe it could be factored into the license. I'd gladly pay more in licensing fees to have safer roads. Anyone who wouldn't is either selfish or foolish. A price cannot be put upon safety.

More testing, more often would mean more man-hours at the DMV/DPS, which would mean more expensive licenses. Keeping inexperienced kids and feeble seniors off the roads would be worth it to any sane person. Everything else you're mentioning are unrelated to that cost. You're debating a point that I conceded and agree on. That's just being difficult, not debating.

Let's just make sure you're saying what you said. You cannot put a price on safety. IYO, true or false?

In other words, would you take $1,000,000,000 of capital out of the market to increase safety enough to save one life?

 

[jaswa]

Not adding to the 'price on safety' discussion just now, but thought I'd contribute the following.

Australian laws already have things tied down pretty well, not too sure what things are like in America. Can someone give the American complement to the Australian driving laws/processes;

Learner Driver - complete a multiple choice test when you're 16+, max 80km/h, need a fully licensed driver in the car with you, 0.00BAC

Provisional 1 Driver - complete 100hrs driving +20hrs night driving on 'L-plates' (which you've had for a year) then take a driving test, max 90km/h, only 1 passenger after 11pm, 0.00BAC

Provisional 2 Driver - take a touch-screen test after 1yr on 'red P-plates', can drive 100km/h, 0.00BAC

Full license - take another touch screen test after having your 'green P-plates' for 2 years, 0.005BAC

More than anything, just removing distractions relating to cell phones as a collective unit

We get a fine and loss of demerit points for talking on the phone whilst driving.

Basically, we just need to get more Police out on the roads.

We have cops roaming around on Thurs/Fri/Sat nights and they also set up RBT (random breath test) on main roads.

I know atleast that you guys allow a BAC of 0.08 which seems rather silly as you can start to become impaired in your reactions and perceptions as low as 0.04

Maybe you guys need to take a metaphorical page out of our book - or a physical one of our laws =]

 

[ballin4life]

Just make sure that people pay for the damage they cause. I would actually be in favor of increasing speed limits, allowing drunk driving, etc, so long as people are responsible for any damage they cause and there is still a reckless driving regulation (so a drunk person swerving all over the road will get stopped for reckless driving).

 

[Sieguest]

Just make sure that people pay for the damage they cause. I would actually be in favor of increasing speed limits, allowing drunk driving, etc, so long as people are responsible for any damage they cause and there is still a reckless driving regulation (so a drunk person swerving all over the road will get stopped for reckless driving).

Wouldn't having reckless driving regulations defeat the purpose of allowing drunk driving?

As to speed limits considering that the above misconstruction I'm asking about wasn't there, that seems like it would be more of a hassle than it's worth. The increase in crashes that would result from legalized drunk driving and high speed limits (not that extremely drunk drivers heed speed limits) may end up costing more not only to the guilty party, but to the victim as well if they survive due health care bills (they're either paying it themselves or health insurance will cover some of it, but then that leads to an increase in premium.) Also, less experience drivers would be entering a more volatile environment as well when they start learning to drive.

 

[ballin4life]

Wouldn't having reckless driving regulations defeat the purpose of allowing drunk driving?

As to speed limits considering that the above misconstruction I'm asking about wasn't there, that seems like it would be more of a hassle than it's worth. The increase in crashes that would result from legalized drunk driving and high speed limits (not that extremely drunk drivers heed speed limits) may end up costing more not only to the guilty party, but to the victim as well if they survive due health care bills (they're either paying it themselves or health insurance will cover some of it, but then that leads to an increase in premium.) Also, less experience drivers would be entering a more volatile environment as well when they start learning to drive.

Reckless driving rules would serve the same purpose that they do today. They will impose penalties on those that are seriously endangering the other drivers. Allowing drunk driving, on the other hand, lets people who are driving fine continue to drive. Now there may not be many drunk drivers who were truly driving well, but I think that having a looser criteria (reckless driving) is better than an arbitrary limit (.08 BAC) that does not mean the same thing for everyone.

 

[jaswa]

I would actually be in favor of increasing speed limits, allowing drunk driving, etc, so long as people are responsible for any damage they cause and there is still a reckless driving regulation

Whatever happened to "prevention is better than cure." Do you mind if I give you cancer and you can wait around for a cure?

 

[ballin4life]

Yes I do mind. What does that have to do with what I said? I simply prefer not to have arbitrarily decided limits.

If you are saying that you would go around driving recklessly and causing accidents, then you will be punished for that, just like in today's system.

 

[Sieguest]

Reckless driving rules would serve the same purpose that they do today. They will impose penalties on those that are seriously endangering the other drivers. Allowing drunk driving, on the other hand, lets people who are driving fine continue to drive. Now there may not be many drunk drivers who were truly driving well, but I think that having a looser criteria (reckless driving) is better than an arbitrary limit (.08 BAC) that does not mean the same thing for everyone.

Driving under the influence does seriously endanger other drivers. Allowing drunk driving is allowing people to perform an activity in which they need to pay attention to so many things in an impaired state.

So answer me this: Would you allow a blind person to drive? I'd wager you would say no because a blind person can't see and then say that drunk people can see, however given results from many sobriety tests it's evident that a person who is drunk, while they can see, have distorted vision, seeing blurred images. So what's the difference between the two?

This limit which you call arbitrary is at the point where people experience lasting impairment of their faculties, the main reason reckless driving occurs. The NIAAA has made many publications concerning alcohol, this happens to be one of them. Although old, it still holds relevant information to the effects of alcohol and how this translates into the discussions, there are also other publications if you wish to view them too.

Yes I do mind. What does that have to do with what I said? I simply prefer not to have arbitrarily decided limits.

It's a parallel of the line of logic you're using. Increasing the risk of a bad thing occurring and only doing something once the bad thing happens.

 

[ballin4life]

In that case, you are causing cancer, just as a reckless driver would be causing accidents, and you should be punished for the damage you cause. Still not sure what this has to do with anything, as I'm talking about rules of driving in general.

Note that there are still preventative measures in place, like reckless driving, and the fact that you will lose a bunch of money for any harm you cause.

Do you support banning people driving while sleepy? Driving tired is much more dangerous than driving drunk (I took a class on sleep, and this is what they said). The main reason is that a drunk driver still has some reaction time, but someone asleep at the wheel has no reactions at all. I heard a statistic cited that there are fatalities in 80% of accidents that were caused by people falling asleep at the wheel.

Do we suddenly need to have "sleepy driving" checkpoints?

Consider also this hypothetical: Suppose there exists a person who drives perfectly fine at a .10 BAC. Does this person need to be taken off the road?

Really, I just want people to be punished for the consequences of their actions, rather than for having a chemical in their blood stream.

 

[Sieguest]

In that case, you are causing cancer, just as a reckless driver would be causing accidents, and you should be punished for the damage you cause. Still not sure what this has to do with anything, as I'm talking about rules of driving in general.

And the analogy is talking about the rules of medicinal practice. You're also misinterpreting the analogy. Cancer is a cause of death. Reckless driving is a cause of death. Allowing doctors to inject people with Cancer is a catalyst in which someone gets Cancer and eventually dies, just as allowing drunk driving is a catalyst in which reckless driving will occur, causing accidents.

Note that there are still preventative measures in place, like reckless driving, and the fact that you will lose a bunch of money for any harm you cause.

That doesn't shadow the fact that you're still increasing the risk for damage to occur meaning these preventative measures don't live up to their purpose. I don't want you to throw a ball at all, so I give you a ball and say that if you throw the ball at all that I'll punish you. If I really didn't want you to throw the ball, I would never have given the ball to you in the first place. This is analogous to trying to prevent car crashes. I don't want you to drive recklessly but I'll allow you to drive drunk and say that if you drive recklessly I'll punish you. If I really wanted to cut down reckless driving, I just won't let you drive drunk.

Do you support banning people driving while sleepy? Driving tired is much more dangerous than driving drunk (I took a class on sleep, and this is what they said). The main reason is that a drunk driver still has some reaction time, but someone asleep at the wheel has no reactions at all. I heard a statistic cited that there are fatalities in 80% of accidents that were caused by people falling asleep at the wheel.

Do we suddenly need to have "sleepy driving" checkpoints?

You make it seem as if those who fall asleep at the wheel are not punished for doing so. Falling asleep at the wheel is classified as reckless driving. It's reckless by means of negligence.

Consider also this hypothetical: Suppose there exists a person who drives perfectly fine at a .10 BAC. Does this person need to be taken off the road?

And this is why some hypotheticals don't make a convincing argument: Suppose there is a person who actually grows wings and flies when they drink red bull. There is no person who will grow wings and fly from drinking red bull, just like there will be no person who will retain their full mental capacity at .10 BAC. So why even mention it?

Really, I just want people to be punished for the consequences of their actions, rather than for having a chemical in their blood stream.

They aren't punished for having a chemical in their blood stream, they're punished for having too much of a chemical in their blood stream, too much being a point where they are a danger to others on the road.

 

[ballin4life]

Ok you're really confusing me now.

There is a huge difference between allowing people to drive drunk and allowing doctors to give people cancer.

I already said I want there to be reckless driving, so I don't understand your response to the sleepy driving example. Why can't drunk driving be classified under reckless driving the way that sleepy driving is?

Also it is much more likely that someone could drive at .10 BAC than someone growing wings.

 

[jaswa]

There is a huge difference between allowing people to drive drunk and allowing doctors to give people cancer.

I understand there's a difference I was purposely showing a 'more extreme' example to show my point so you can see how it works under the same principle.

I already said I want there to be reckless driving, so I don't understand your response to the sleepy driving example. Why can't drunk driving be classified under reckless driving the way that sleepy driving is?

There's an inherent difference between drink and sleepy driving. In the case of drinking you consciously choose to drink at all, and the amount you drink - therefore it is purely your fault if you go over the limit and decide to drive. Whereas with sleepy driving you can't consciously choose when to feel sleepy, but do need to discern when you're too sleepy to drive. Plus there are suggestions for this just like being under a certain %BAC - ie. every 2hrs stop-revive-survive!

Also it is much more likely that someone could drive at .10 BAC than someone growing wings.

Also it is much more likely that someone could die from cancer than someone driving with .10BAC

Just because one thing is more unlikely than another thing, doesn't mean it's never going to happen. You really don't seem to grasp analogies very well...

 

[Nicholas1024]

Ok you're really confusing me now.

There is a huge difference between allowing people to drive drunk and allowing doctors to give people cancer.

I already said I want there to be reckless driving, so I don't understand your response to the sleepy driving example. Why can't drunk driving be classified under reckless driving the way that sleepy driving is?

Also it is much more likely that someone could drive at .10 BAC than someone growing wings.

Well, yes and no. Obviously, one is far more likely to result in death than the other, but the point is that both cause big safety risks that easily could be prevented.

Anyway, sleepy driving is reckless, but you can only really classify it by the results in my opinion. It's easy enough to test if someone's driving drunk, but how do you qualify what's "too sleepy"?

On a related point, talking on your cell phone while driving needs to be banned. It's much more difficult to drive safely while having only one hand on the steering wheel and dealing with all the distractions of a cell phone conversation, and tons of accidents are caused by this.

Finally, the evolution crowd might disagree with you on that last sentence... (Sorry, I just couldn't resist)

 

[ballin4life]

I understand there's a difference I was purposely showing a 'more extreme' example to show my point so you can see how it works under the same principle.


There's an inherent difference between drink and sleepy driving. In the case of drinking you consciously choose to drink at all, and the amount you drink - therefore it is purely your fault if you go over the limit and decide to drive. Whereas with sleepy driving you can't consciously choose when to feel sleepy, but do need to discern when you're too sleepy to drive. Plus there are suggestions for this just like being under a certain %BAC - ie. every 2hrs stop-revive-survive!


Also it is much more likely that someone could die from cancer than someone driving with .10BAC

Just because one thing is more unlikely than another thing, doesn't mean it's never going to happen. You really don't seem to grasp analogies very well...

You don't make analogies very well.

Doctors giving people cancer is intentionally harming them. Driving drunk is not intentionally harming anyone. Driving recklessly does endanger people, but it's not intentional harm. It's certainly not analogous to PURPOSEFULLY GIVING PEOPLE CANCER. If doctors were accidentally giving people cancer, then they would be punished for this, just like reckless drivers are punished.

I also don't understand your distinction between drunk and sleepy driving. You choose to drive while sleepy, just like you choose to drive while drunk. Not sleeping leads to sleepiness, just like drinking leads to drunkenness.

We should focus on how the person is actually driving.

Well, yes and no. Obviously, one is far more likely to result in death than the other, but the point is that both cause big safety risks that easily could be prevented.

Anyway, sleepy driving is reckless, but you can only really classify it by the results in my opinion. It's easy enough to test if someone's driving drunk, but how do you qualify what's "too sleepy"?

On a related point, talking on your cell phone while driving needs to be banned. It's much more difficult to drive safely while having only one hand on the steering wheel and dealing with all the distractions of a cell phone conversation, and tons of accidents are caused by this.

Finally, the evolution crowd might disagree with you on that last sentence... (Sorry, I just couldn't resist)

So you would support sleepy driving checkpoints, and throwing people in jail for sleepy driving (even if they weren't driving recklessly), if only we could have a good measure for sleepiness, so that we can set an arbitrary limit? There are a few methods proposed for determining sleepiness, but it is difficult to tell the exact level of impairment (much like drunkenness).

How about driving with the radio on, or driving with other people in the car? Certainly these reduce the driver's focus. However, we don't ban them because they aren't an issue UNTIL THEY CAUSE THE DRIVER TO DRIVE POORLY. In that case, the driver is CITED AND PUNISHED FOR DRIVING POORLY.

and hey, I didn't say that a person sprouting wings was impossible

 

[jaswa]

Anyway, sleepy driving is reckless, but you can only really classify it by the results in my opinion. It's easy enough to test if someone's driving drunk, but how do you qualify what's "too sleepy"?

Yes I meant to bring this up in my above post - You can objectively measure a person's BAC, but being sleepy is subjective and can't be objectively measured.

On a related point, talking on your cell phone while driving needs to be banned. It's much more difficult to drive safely while having only one hand on the steering wheel and dealing with all the distractions of a cell phone conversation, and tons of accidents are caused by this.

I am awesome at multi-tasking, and can talk just fine on a mobile (lolAustralia) phone whilst driving. However because the majority of people can't, I think there should be a rule in place across all people driving cars. I can also probably drive safely with .10BAC, again there should be a general rule for all people driving...

Maybe a better option than overhauling the driving ruleset would be to test people and personalise their allowances and record it on their licence.

 

[Ballistics]

In all seriousness, the solution is:

Annual Causes of Death in the US
Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

 

[ballin4life]

20,000 from sexual behaviors? what does that mean? heh.

 

[Ballistics]

20,000 from sexual behaviors? what does that mean? heh.

Probably STDs

 

[jaswa]

Probably STDs

Possibly **** followed up with murder too. I'm sure the site would elaborate on the statistics somewhere...

 

[1048576]

Negligence is morally and legally better than malice, but the court still recognizes that harm can come from negligence, and negligent people should be punished. So maybe driving while lit up isn't as bad as a doctor giving people cancer, but it is as bad as the doctor using a crystal ball instead of a CT scan or whatever to detect cancer.

 

[Pragmatic]

In all seriousness, the solution is:

Annual Causes of Death in the US
Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

It's difficult to wrap your head around these staggering numbers...

Car crashes? There's not much we can effectively implement, unfortunately.

 

[Oracle]

Thousands of car crashes would be stopped if we could somehow implement a breathalyzer car start system. (at least in theory) It doesn't seem to invasive, and while admittedly it is, the number of lives that it would save greatly outweighs the lack of freedom

 

[ballin4life]

Uh ... not necessarily. I really don't think most people would agree to that. Now I'm all for having it as an option, but forcing it on everyone is going way too far.

Also, have you seen the 40 year old virgin? Seems like it would be possible to get around anyway.

 

[1048576]

Thousands of car crashes would be stopped if we could somehow implement a breathalyzer car start system. (at least in theory) It doesn't seem to invasive, and while admittedly it is, the number of lives that it would save greatly outweighs the lack of freedom

There'd be some dude at the party willing to blow on everyone else's car.

 

[jaswa]

Thousands of car crashes would be stopped if we could somehow implement a breathalyzer car start system. (at least in theory) It doesn't seem to invasive, and while admittedly it is, the number of lives that it would save greatly outweighs the lack of freedom

This is already in existence. My friends dad got caught for drink driving and managed to get out of losing his license all together (what normally happens) and they installed a breathalyser and he had to blow under 0.05 (Australian) to start the ignition.

I don't really think this is out of line in terms of freedom etc. because he's shown he's untrustworthy. Not sure what I think about making them for everyone. Heck, we could even put speed cameras onto every road or some kind of device in every car that responds to the speed zone you're in and alerts authorities if you go over.