The In-Car Checkpoint

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A new principle forms the basis of American criminal justice. It is that innocence is irrelevant. More accurately, it is an obstruction.

It gets in the way of what government wants – which is to bully and control everyone.

The former requirement in law – and general custom – that conviction had to precede punishment and that evidence to suggest wrongdoing had to precede investigation has been thrown in the woods – so to speak – in favor of making things easier for the criminal justice system by assuming everyone is a criminal.

And treating all of us presumptively as such.

The latest such being a proposal – a threatened law, HR 3374 – purveyed by a termagant to liberty named Kathleen Rice, who is a coercive authoritarian “representative” (of whom begs some interesting questions) from the state of New York. She is demanding that all new cars be fitted with Breathalyzers – and ignition interlocks – by 2029.

You used to have to be convicted of drunk driving before they installed a Breathalyzer machine in your car. Rice wants them installed in every car – whether you drink or not.

The “drunk” part of her proposed law – the End Drunk Driving Act – is especially fatuous given the already low national standard defining it. A Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .08  has been legally synonymous with presumptive “drunk” driving for the past 20-plus years – meaning no evidence of impaired driving had to be presented; the BAC alone suffices to convict.

This, of course, amounts to punishing people for violating a rule rather than for driving “drunk.” It specifically punishes people whose driving can’t be faulted – which also begs some interesting questions about the real motive behind all of this.

The former race car driver Bob Bondurant – who for years ran a high-performance driving school I was lucky enough to attend – likes his beer. And evenwith several in him was more in control of the Ford Econoline van he took us around the test track in  than my ex mother-in-law is in control of her Hyundai out on the public roads, absent any beers (or BAC) at all.

But never mind; virtue-signaling hysteria about booze trumps any discussion of impairment.

Which is why the maximum allowed BAC is in the process of being virtue-signaled to effectively zero in a number of states and actually is zero – if you’re not 21 years old old – in states that have a “zero tolerance” policy for any alcohol in your system if you’re not of legal age to drink.

It doesn’t matter that you’re obviously not “drunk” if your BAC is .01 or even .04  – and arguably not even .05, the new threshold defining “drunk” for all in states such as Utah

Or that you might be impaired by something else – such as poor driving skills, a form of behind-the-wheel debility far more common than the booze-infused kind and objectively far more dangerous because there are many more such out there and there are no checkpoints for the inept.

What matters – as far as the law and this Rice woman are concerned – is the use of the pretext to establish the precedent. If the government can force Breathalyzers on everyone then why not also random home checks by armed government workers to look for . . . well, anything? 

On the basis of . . . nothing.

How about monitoring software on your computer and cell phone to make sure you’re not going where you shouldn’t be on the Internet? After all, you – anyone – might.

Children are being exploited – or could be – and what have you got to hide?


The law loves precedent. Non-lawyers and those who don’t think as lawyers (and politicians) do don’t get this. They ought to – and the sooner they do, the less damage we’ll have to undo.

Rice herself may simply be an opportunistic legislative jihadi in search of a faux cause – or a genuinely fervid neo-Prohibitionist harpie with a neurotic fixation on alcohol in any amount as sinful.

And sins must be punished – no matter how faultless your driving.  

If her fatwa is passed, you will still be allowed to drink – provided you stay home. Or stay where you are. Any drinking prior to driving will mean no driving – whether you’re “drunk” being entirely beside the point. 

The car won’t go.

And you won’t have to “blow,” either. The Breathalyzer she is proposing is really a passive alcohol sensor that samples you via your skin – or can detect booze (or Listerine – another problem) on your breath by sampling the air inside the car.

Your Rice-approved new car will also very likely narc you out to the insurance mafia for even trying to drive – that constituting evidence of an “unsafe” attitude. Attempting to defeat the device, meanwhile, will probably be some sort of crime in and of itself – regardless of drinking (or not).

And even if you don’t drink, ever, you’ll still pay – for another cloying technology you don’t want and more importantly, don’t deserve.

See that earlier point about not having been convicted of  . . . anything.

Because  if Rice succeeds, you’ll be forced to pay for the Breathalyzer and related tech, both up front as well as down the road – when any of the various components involved breaks. Which you’ll be required to pay to have fixed.

For saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety! 

Just add it to the bar tab – so to speak. You’re already paying for things like air bags (at least $1,000 per car in up-front costs and may the finance gods help you if they ever deploy and need to be replaced).

You’ll also pay another way – in terms of the freedom you once enjoyed to not be treated as a criminal before being convicted of a criminal act.

But this Rice creature isn’t interested in any of that. She is here to Keep Us Safe – no matter what it costs us.

And no matter that Keeping Us Safe is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, ostensibly (but far from actually) the law of the land.

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  


Share Button


  1. Uber and Lyft have done more to reduce drunk driving than any laws or checkpoints. They may not have done anything to discourage drunkenness though, as not having to drive (or be driven by) a drunk driver means that people might feel it’s OK to drink more.

    The presence of an affordable, generally pleasant ride service makes it not worth the “risk” of drunk driving. Before these services were available, cabs were often hard to come by. Furthermore, they would refuse to take you to places they didn’t think they’d get a return fare from.

  2. The women commenting in this thread do have one thing right: men deserve some of the blame.

    If we men (myself included) were one tenth of what our forefathers were, none of this shit would be happening.

  3. one more reason to drive an older car…or truck. my newest truck is an 04 ram diesel…with any luck they’ll bury me in that rig

  4. While the instinctive libertarian reaction to this proposal is immediate rejection and disgust, there are larger considerations. First, if private roads existed, road owners would undoubtedly in endorse anti intoxicant tech for drivers using their roads. To avoid liability. The tech isn’t here yet but soon will be. And not just alcohol, also drugs like meth, opioids, hallucinogens, and perhaps THC. Secondly, I’m confident that a large majority of voters would support such measures if the tech were accurate and reasonably sensible. Why? Because impaired driving kills thousands. Just ask the family of someone killed or injured. Third, the “I can handle my liquor” reply isn’t going to cut it. It might be true, but relying on individual exceptions, even when valid, isn’t going to fly either. Just ask any commercial pilot.

    The sad fact is that more people are killed while driving on roads than any other way. Every year, more than were killed than during the entire Vietnam War (Americans only). No one running a business with any sense ignores safety or lets workers pick and choose when to wear helmets or follow safety protocols.
    Any “tech” detection method would only stop you temporarily from driving. Not put you in jail or prison, or in the morgue. Libertarians don’t believe you have the “right” to endanger others by your own actions. We believe in strict liability. You can’t recover from being dead, like the 55K people killed on roads, many by impaired drivers. No airline would last a nanosecond if they let pilots decide “how much they can handle.”

    You can’t set safety rules by basing them on the above average user like Eric here. And don’t call me silly names because I’m taking a contrary view here. The tech isn’t here yet despite what some NY state rep. thinks. But when it is, this will happen. The readers here aren’t the idiots (I hope) we need to fear on the roads. But where I live, people are killed by drunks and druggies on the roads every week. That’s a risk no one wants for themselves or their families. Would you visit a gun range that allowed obvious drunks or high shooters to use it? Cars are just as dangerous and kill more Americans than firearms.

    • Private roads might work if it was a stateless society. But so long as there is a state private roads would end up being owned by one to three major corporations partnered with the government. That’s where you would get the monitoring and control. In a stateless society the road owners would not be held responsible for user behavior. There would be no need for it.

      Since there is going to be a state private roads are only going to be worse than what we have today. Although crony high prices might reduce traffic for those able to pay.

      Any roads with a government are going to be problematic. So the solution is to severely limit the government or get rid of it. It doesn’t matter if the roads are privately owned and operated or publicly owned or operated so long as there is a huge government to exploit them.

    • “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

    • Instead of, as you seem to promote, treating EVERYONE as if they were impaired until your magic machine establishes they are not, why not treat those who are responsible for the impaired deaths as the true MURDERERS they are? IF a caulsal link can be established in front of the jury, negligent manslaughter should be tne sentence, and the penalty should be the ancient biblical one.. who by his hand sheds the blood of man, by the hand of man shall HIS blood be shed.

      A few months of legal misery then back to life as it was before for the responsible druk driver is NOT justice at all. Nor is it any deterrent.

      Insread you would have all of us pay the price for the actions of a few. You sound just like the gun grabbers.. some dirtbag convicted of three felonies and a dishonourable discharge gets some guns and goes and shoots up a church in Texas, so now I can’t go buy a Ruger 10/22 in m state, when Ive never shot ANYONE. In fact, I TEACH hundreds of others how to use their rifles safely, accuratly, responsibly and quickly. Yet MY stupid state government want to punish ME for the crimes of people that never should have been able to get their weapons, but did thanks to the incompetence and/or laziness of GOVERNMENT.

      Nah, I’ll go everywhere on my bicycle before I’ll drive a car with the blow-job machine in it. I rarely drink, and when I do it is moderately, and afterward I NEVER get behind the wheel of anything, not even my bicycle.

      You are a proponent of harming others by refusing to uphold the prniciple of personal responsibility, preferring collective “solutions” for perceived problems. Thos ridiculous “solution” will never pass Constitutional muster. Sadly, that is no guarantee it will never become law.

      Bogus idea. Put it in the crapper and pull the chain. Let the four inch vertical black pipe have it.

      • Tionico,

        “You sound just like the gun grabbers..”

        I’ve read your post a few times and I think you are the gun grabber.

        Where, in the 27 words of the second amendment, do you find a prohibition on felons and people with dishonorable discharges?

        “I TEACH hundreds of others how to use their rifles safely,”

        Would that be in a state where you are in a protected guild that requires your students to pay you before they are allowed to own a firearm?

    • American COMBAT deaths in Vietnam are currently tallied at 58,000. This doesn’t include deaths by accidents, criminal activity, suicide, or non-combat illnesses.

      IIRC, in no year has deaths in the USA exceeded the overall Vietnam combat figure for any given year. And considering that “alcohol-related” deaths are, in any given year, about half of the overall road deaths (note: this doesn’t mean that a person whose BAC exceeds or even approached the respective state’s statutory presumed-drunk concentration was the cause or even a significant contribution to the death(s), for example, a person whom had a few drinks and was NOT driving, whom perished, in fact, at the hands of the negligence of a SOBER driver, would be counted as an “alcohol-related’ fatality. Certainly, even some 25K to 30K “alcohol-related” deaths on Americans highways is 25K to 30K too many, but given the number of premature deaths from all manner of accidents and criminal activity, let alone alcohol and drug abuse not manifested behind the wheel, and, of course, SMOKING, it’s imperative does NOT remotely justify this unnecessary and intrusive proposed Federal law. Never mind that no where in the US Constitution does the Federal Government have the AUTHORITY to mandate certain automotive features, whether for s-a-a-a-a-f-t-e-e-e or whatever reason can be imagined.

    • Im worried more about women on cell phones personally. Ive seen women right next to me doing full makeup in their cars at 70 miles per hour. I guess you propose to ban women drivers makeup and cellphones as well. Your argument is weak and youre an authoritarian but dont know it apparently.

    • “But where I live, people are killed by drunks and druggies on the roads every week.”
      Most car accidents are caused by members of the alcohol and drug-free master race. Therefore, according to your logic of collective guilt, none of those idiots should be allowed to drive.

  5. I know I’ve said this before but Hall’s Mentholyptus lozenges will make you fail a breathalyzer.

    Fruits are known for their alcohol content that increases every day just “hanging out”. White onions as probably all onions, will send you straight to the pokey. I’m trying to remember everything we tried that showed us to be drunk. I should probably have a beer so I can remember.

    As far as blowing ‘dirty’, commercial drivers don’t even need to blow anything. An LEO can say he “smells” alcohol and your breath, regardless that you can blow a straight 0, and still shut you down for 24 hours on the spot.

    Well, it’s back under the house for me. I WILL have a beer and not just one when I’m out from under it for good. We have always kept a fridge just for beer and we buy as much as it will hold at one time since it only makes sense to not be burning gas going after beer when you don’t need to go anywhere for anything else. I was speaking of this in front of a co-worker one day and he said “Wow, if I bought that much beer I’d be drunk for days”. I was astounded that somebody could have several cases of beer and not be sober till it was gone. I drink, but not to the point of being drunk. Of course that wouldn’t keep me from getting a DWI.

    35+ years ago I was attending a safe driving course and it was being held by an old DPS who needed a good chunk of change since people were there to get out of tickets or get reduced insurance rates. I was there for both. At that time he said “You can drink a beer every hour for 6 hours and not be legally drunk”. Things have certainly changed since then, even the definition of over the limit was lowered by 20% in one fell swoop. It used to be .1 in Texas but was lowered to .08……to generate more revenue.

  6. It would be interesting to see this proceed to a limitation based on the federal standard for driver holding commercial drivers licenses, which is 0.0%.
    It is very common for truck drivers who are laid over in a truckstop to tie one on in a nearby bar. These drivers would pass the 0.08% limit proposed for this device, but still have more than 0.0% in their blood for more than the next day.
    What if the trip is to a nearby emergency room for a patient who won’t make it waiting on an ambulance?

  7. Brother, you are on a Libertarian, freedom loving fourth amendment roll these days. PLEASE keep it going! I love to share this sort of rational thinking in hopes that it might make a dent with someone. Alas, it usually results in my sanity and responsibility being questioned.

  8. It’s a fact that when women get the vote progressivism rears its ugly head. Like it or not it’s only natural, since they are mothers and therefore nurturers. Government jerks like Rice take it way beyond simple decency, sanitation, etc., of course. They wake up one morning thinking: “wouldn’t it be nice if _____?” [Fill in the blank with an idiotic pipe dream.] Then they float it, get MSM attention, and beam: “What a wonderful person am I!” [sound of trumpets….]

  9. BTW, how does this improve the driving skills of every basically inept, road-raging female driver I see blasting through the stop sign at the intersection 50 feet from my shop door every single day? Again, with only two exceptions, the 25 friends I have known that were hit and killed on their motorcycles were hit and killed by a female driver, and again none served the first minute in jail. Now, maybe I’m just being a bit unfair by citing examples that only involve female drivers, but in an age where privilege is reserved only for “special interest groups”, I really don’t see any unfairness with that: tit-for-tat, you might say.

    • Holy smoke! You know 25 friends who were killed on motorcycles? I’m a motorcyclist, but I’d swear off forever well before that marker was reached.

    • Hi Graves!

      Indeed; there is a large degree of prudery behind the crusade (right term) against “drunk” driving. Inept driving is practically encouraged – yet it’s arguably far more prevalent and thus dangerous than the technically “drunk” driving of someone competent who has a .05 BAC.

      So, we’re dealing with… termagants (no accident that it’s invariably “moms” who are “concerned”) who just hate drinking. At all.

      Carrie Nation, phone home!

    • And yet, motorcyclists continue to ride like they are bulletproof while disregarding the common sense solutions to the problem if the well-known foibles of equally incompetent automobile drivers are taken into account.
      What, exactly, can the average automobile driver do to avoid being T-boned by a motorcyclist that has done absolutely nothing to insure that they have been seen before blowing through an intersection under acceleration?
      Before I’m accused of being ignorant of what motorcyclists put up with, I’d like to put out that my 30-year clean CDL has had a motorcycle endorsement on it from the first issue, grandfathered from the also clean non-CDL motorcycle endorsement that preceded it by 15 years. The best way to avoid accidents is by avoiding accidents.

      • I agree, and there are probably roughly same % of bad motorcycle drivers as car drivers. One would think that a biker would realize the chances of surviving a collision on a bike are considerably less than in a car. However, bad drivers seem to overestimate their own skills, and underestimate their risks regardless of what they drive. The % of innocent victims of a collision is likely to be just as similar as car drivers, however the survival rate of motorcyclists is drastically less for sure.
        Motorcycle rider safety and survival is accomplished exactly as you mention, by taking every possible opportunity to avoid putting yourself in an inescapable situation. That can’t always be done, in a car or on a bike, so increasing your visibility by method of clothing, and strategic lane positioning are two useful tools that, unfortunately, many bikers don’t apply. I avoid riding in bad weather due to lack of visibility, mine and theirs, and I use my horn frequently to make others aware of my proximity. I tend to drive for everyone else, even when in my “cage” as I don’t care to have any collision regardless of my vehicle choice. People who bully with their car, van, or truck, will, surprisingly, often try to do the same on a bike. That’s just aggressive driving habits at work, vehicle notwithstanding.

      • Are you assuming that only reckless motorcyclists end up dead? And I suppose you are alive only because of your flawless ability to avoid every unforseeable obstacle that exists? Are you saying that every collision that occurs is avoidable, and that those who “allow” themselves to be hit are culpable merely by virtue of NOT avoiding a collision? What kind of asinine bullshit are you selling? And just what the hell do you know of ANY of the circumstances of ANY of the fatalities I have mentioned above from my personal experiences? The answer to that one is none. What I DO see, is that you’ve spent the afternoon trolling a half dozen or more members here with this same type of bullshit in some kind of attempt at character assassination. You need to take your sorry fuckin ass to YouTube where you belong with the rest of the Trolls!

    • GTC, years ago when I had my ZRX, I almost got taken out on 287 by some stupid bitch driving a Range Rover. She was just in front and to the right of me, and I was easing by her. Just as I came up to her rear quarter, she decided to change lanes, missing my front wheel by only a few feet. I backed of the throttle and hit the brakes; I freaked out a bit. I mean she was driving a big ass SUV and I’m on a bike, ok? I got mad, gassed it, blew by her and flipped her off doing 90! What did I see in my rear view mirror as I passed her? Her YACKING AWAY on her cell phone, totally oblivious to the world around her…

      • Seen it more times that I can recall. It’s common for that type to speed up, never looking at the rear view, but keeping a speed limited truck beside her. You move back in to let traffic around and nail it and about to her door and she’s pacing you again. I wanted to run one off the road one day, yacking with it stuck to her left side of her face, a baby and a small child in the car with her and something I hadn’t seen in a long time, a goddamn baby on board sign. She needed it facing her.

        • I interpret those signs in the back window as referring to the “baby” behind the steering wheel, and that’s the type never grows up. It’s both a virtue-signal and a red warning flag at the same time!

  10. I knew eventually some emotional-terrorist bitch would start screaming for this stupid shit. I violate the 1st, 4th AND 5th amendments, but what do a bunch of self-righteous control-freak bitches like this care? They won’t be satisfied until everyone else, except themselves, is a prisoner in their home or workplace. Boy, not where have we heard THAT shit before? Wanna know something amazing? Every person whom I
    know personally that was killed by a drunk driver (50% of them children) was a WOMAN. Not only that, NONE of them ever served the first minute in jail. So I wonder just who it is that needs the short leash? Men ought to stop screwing these busy-body holier-than-thou professional prostitutes so they have no children to scream “saaaaftey for our children” any more. People scoffed when I said this would happen 15 years ago. This isn’t a war on alcohol, but just another attempt to obliterate individual travel and any other liberty that can be conceived. Ever notice how these “women” seem to fit a certain category? In the words of George Carlin ” I wouldn’t fuck her with a stolen dick”!

    • Correction: The above line should read “Every person whom I
      know personally that was killed by a drunk driver (50% of them children) was killed by a drunk WOMAN driver.” I tend to think 1,000 times faster than I can type, my apologies.

    • Can’t wait until this device malfunctions and the car refuses to start. Hopefully it will be her daughter who gets stranded on a brutally cold night during a blizzard.

      • It won’t matter MIB. People like this are always “victims”. If she loses a child, then she just acquires more ammo to attack you and me.

      • Why wish her daughter to bear the consequences of her stupidity? I’d far rather see HER reap the direct rewards of her folly. SHE learns her lesson, and if she doesn’t make it through the ordeal, jusstice is served the lot of us. She won’t be about to cause any further pain… or amusement.

  11. Those of us that are diabetic and at times will throw Ketones which are proteins with an alcohol group will show false positives. If you are diabetic make sure the cop knows this and tell him you are under a doctor’s care for it, if you are even mildly hypoglycemic you may have slurred speech, balance problems and some memory impairment/short term memory recall. If they use a BAC, make sure you ask for a blood test almost immediately even if it is inconvenient and of course ask to talk with an attorney immediately too. I don’t want to sound like a safety clover but it is your license and reputation at stake.

  12. I am a woman and I hate to disparage my own gender, but it seems like it’s always women coming up with hare-brained schemes like this. I rarely vote for women for political office because they tend to be super liberal, nanny busybodies. Point out the fallacy of one of their proposals or refuse to vote for them and they screech at you about sexism or accuse you of defying the “sisterhood.”
    Sisterhood be damned. The best way to attract me is to get out of my life, my bankbook, my workplace, my car and my pants. Candidates of either gender who could promise that would be guaranteed my vote. As of now, I don’t vote “for” anyone, but I do go to the polls to register my displeasure with dim-witted twits like this.

    • With extremely rare exceptions, even if they promised you all that, they coudn’t be trusted to keep those promises.

      Government is about force and control. For myself, I am done with voting for candidates for any office. I will henceforth only vote against proposed ballot initiatives that strengthen the Stat in any way, or cause my taxes to go up in any way.

      I have tried voting for the lesser of two evils (DJT) and I still got evil. What’s the point anymore?

    • Amy wrote,

      “Sisterhood be damned. The best way to attract me is to get out of my life, my bankbook, my workplace, my car and my pants. Candidates of either gender who could promise that would be guaranteed my vote. As of now, I don’t vote “for” anyone, but I do go to the polls to register my displeasure with dim-witted twits like this.”

      Wish more women thought like that…but they don’t.

      Read about the newly elected colored lesbian in Denver who vows to enact “communal control” of all assets “by any means necessary”.

      • These people must have an IQ of a cold day. Where does the money come from? The few owners who pretend to be the federal govt.(The Fed)aren’t turning loose of a dime. They only have one direction for money.

      • Most of the women who think like that follow the biblical direction to stand behind their man, and most of their men don’t want to put themselves in the line of fire, either.
        When it comes down to the democratic grab for “my stuff” there won’t be anyone voting against it because there has never has been.
        The top 2% of the world’s population controls half of the world’s assets, and they don’t have any reason to give them up to those who have always used government to steal from the rich and give to the poor, even though the rich have more than brought it on themselves. Those of us who are too ignorant as a result on our reliance on the public fool system instead of our own intelligence and ability will ultimately be those who will do nothing more than complain about where their inaction led them.
        Thomas Jefferson knew this would happen when he wrote that “(t)he spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”

      • watch her swear her oath of office, then when she begins trashing the state and fed constitutions, have her charged with feloy perjury for swearing that oath then refusing to abide by it. Time some of these trators get their just rewards. And we get shut of them.

        • I think it was John Carter, but may be mistaken, who said “If Congressmen abided by the Constitutional oath they took we couldn’t pass any laws”. Sounds good to me.

  13. I don’t like the idea of mucking up a decent vehicle with extraneous devices, however imagine if vehicles just wouldn’t work if you were intoxicated. There would likely be few actual DWI/OUI charges and convictions, this device would uncouple the problem from their present solution which is to fleece you, bankrupt you and blackball you. Provided of course no charges could be laid upon a driver for simply checking to see if they were ready and or able to drive. What about those who make it through the system and crash, and then are later shown to be intoxicated would these people and those they have harmed have recourse to sue the device’s manufacturer for producing a defective product? A whole different can of worms.

    • So you don’t want me to ever drive again? Nice of you. I left the house last week drinking a beer, the first of the day. Drove 30 miles to Wally, shopped about 30 minutes, drove to another store and spent 15 minutes, drove home and still had been left. Of course it would have been enough to register DWI. I certainly appreciate you and the rest of the clovers saving me from myself.

        • My point was if they are going to assume and presume these things are to be required they ought to shoulder the results. “My car told me its safe to drive, take it up with the device YOU/CLOVER insisted I have, I followed your rules and regulations and a pile-up occurred that wasn’t supposed to” That’s on them if they really want to own it. We ought to know by now they will never decouple the responsibility while insisting upon another thing to relieve us of the former one. We can be sure it will not only tell you not to drive it will narc on you for considering it.

          • Let’s put responsibility for every damned thing where it belongs, the Congress of these United States. I think you’ll find this interesting if not downright overwhelming.

            Aha, WP is controlled of course so it won’t let me post a link to kick them all out. So just use that and the link will be found easily on a search.

            • I’ll be damned. WP wouldn’t let me post a link to kick them all out and then said the previous comment had already been submitted although it didn’t show up. Changing the wording 4 times and it finally goes through. Lots of good info here and I see Devi is in there. I had lost her for years.

    • I doubt if the devices will ever appear on production vehicles. What will happen is an app for the smartphone that will block the cranking circuit unless the blower is identified and determined to have blood alcohol below the requites level. Then some hacker will find a way around what a shadetree mechanic can’t, and we’ll be back to where we began. It reminds me of the seatbelt interlock that died a quick death.
      We should all have learned what Ayn Rand had to say about not trusting altruists.

  14. Still no way to accurately detect THC impairment. And if you can’t drink before getting behind the wheel, there’s always coke, meth, speed (Adderall -official pep pill of the US military and President’s club), valium, crank, horse, ether, whippets, ‘shrooms, and all the other prescription stuff.

    But this is more about creating identical people, and quashing individualism. Everyone is different, except when we’re all the same. My doctor thinks I have high blood pressure. That’s because she took the reading at 9:00 in the morning after I had about 5 cups of coffee. And having some pretty bad allergy symptoms. I showed her that in the evening it’s actually below normal and after a long workout I’ll often get lightheaded when I stand up. But no, if my BP measured at the doctor’s office isn’t 120/70 I have high blood pressure. If my BMI isn’t 23 I’m obese, no matter how far I can run or how much weight I can bench. When I let myself go and really was dangerously overweight I usually had to double up doses of aspirin and allergy pills for them to have any effect. But hey, I could drink a whole 6 pack and not notice it.

    We were on the cusp of a hyper customized world, where we could all have tailored clothes, custom cars and houses, individual news feeds that only show what we are interested in, and there seemed to be a move to decentralization in general. But that would require the existing rulers to retool and adapt, and we all know how everyone who’s got power is happy to give it up (looking at you, Queen Elizabeth). Especially when it means that no one has that power any more. So it’s Central Scrutinizers, Central Services, and eventually Rent A Center for us. And a binary line in the sand for everything.

    And we haven’t even begun to see the A.I. stuff yet. You feel pigeonholed now? Just wait until the Hollerith machines become charming enough to convince us they should run the show…

    • Amen, RK!

      It’s self-evident that people differ in almost every conceivable way – and yet, one-size-fits all (and invariably dumbed-down) standards are applied generally. Why not forbid structures to be built with more than two flights of stairs (and no elevator) since some people can’t climb them?

      Why not outlaw pools deeper than two feet, since some people can’t swim ?

      Et cetera…

      • I was just telling #1 son today that EVERYONE, as a condition of voting, should be required to view “Demolition Man” from 1993…a remarkably PRESCIENT film.

        Next thing you know, this frumpy bitch will require, even among “married” couples (but that’ll include the boy-boy, or girl-girl, or transgender versus “Gawd” knows what, etc.), a burdensome series of “consent” documentation, else the crime of RAPE will be presumed, after all, we MUST protect “womyn”, right? This dingbat would just probably LOOOOVE what Sandra Bullock’s Lt. Huxley wanted recently “thawed out” Officer (San Angeles PD) John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone) to do with her…that wacky form of VR “sex” where no physical contact actually happens…after all, in that dystopian view of our ‘future” (only 13 years from today, think of THAT), they’d experienced a horrific series of sexually transmitted diseases (first there was AIDS, then after AIDS there was ‘NRS’, and after NRS came ‘UBT’)…so their benevolent Dr. Cocteau (geez, even that name prompts ‘tittering’!), in order for the society to “be well”, mandated VR sex, and to actually get a gal knocked up, there had to be permits obtains, “bodily fluids” collected and “purified”, and so on.

        Me, I’d prefer to keep it as Officer Spartan proposed…”BONING, the WILD MAMBA, and (especially) the HUNKA CHUNKA”…after all, it leads to kids, smoking, and a desire to raid the fridge, behaviors which hopefully will piss off that twit US Rep Rice. In fact, when I “break the law”, as Officer Spartan ALMOST got to do with Lt. Huxley (a then 28 y.o. Sandra Bullock would do wonders for my enthusiasm) with a young lady friend with the hair with a hint of blue and purple, I’ll hope that somehow it’ll made that harpy wince with disgust…or JEALOUSY.

        • That scene was a throwback to Barbarella, the only Jane Fonda film I can tolerate but only because it’s so easy to give the MST3K treatment. It showed up in quite a few films in the 1970s, and was parodied in Sleeper too.

          The disturbing thing going on in remote sex is the rise of cam girls. They play the girlfriend experience over a chat line. The really good ones get gifts from their viewers, and the rubes on the line pay for the privilege of watching them unwrap the presents (usually clothing). Sure, I’ve put my share of FRNs in G-strings over the years, but about the time I start feeling chemistry between us that’s when it’s time to go home.

          Apparently it is far worse in China:

          • Hi RK,

            I feel myself evolving to equanimity with my singlehood. The paradigm today isn’t appealing to me. Perhaps because I’m divorced and been through the Ordeal and now that it is over, I find I have very little interest in accommodating myself to a woman. It is just too much goddamn work. And I have enough work already. I am working right now. And when I am done working, I know I can go home and spread out on the couch with a book and my cats and a PB&J sammich and read until I get sleepy and snooze in peace for a few hours.

            To be fair, there have been women who’ve been decent and tried. But something is missing in me. I just haven’t got the interest I once did. Not the sex part. The rest part.

            • Eric – you’ve discovered what a one-time business partner (we did janitorial together when I was putting myself through college) told me many moons ago: “If it FLOATS, FLIES, or FUCKS, it’s CHEAPER to ‘RENT’ !”

              You’ve found that cleaning up after yourself ain’t that difficult, and neither is making a ‘sammich’.

              I would also contrast the female choices portrayed in “King of the Hill”…Hank’s Dad, (Colonel, of the Texas State Militia, for all practical purposes an honorific), in spite of his “misogyny” (he’s one mean little asshole, thanks in part to, as he often recounts the tale, of having his knees shot off by ‘fiddy Tojos’, or fifty Japanese soldiers)…first a Japanese woman by whom he fathered a son, Junchiro, whom, for some reason, is a Jap version of Hank, though he should be about 15 years OLDER, and seems to actually treat her with respect. Then there’s Hank’s mother, Tilly, not often seen in the series, whom finally got fed up with Cotton’s shit and left him. Finally, there’s Didi, an ex-classmate of Hank’s, whom Cotton didn’t have problems knocking up (no issue with the “narrow urethra”, presumably passed via the mother), blonde, dumber than a post, and a verbal punching bag for Cotton.

              Only someone with balls (which apparently weren’t shot away as with other parts of Cotton during the War) could continually tell off a daughter-in-law that despises him and then demand that she prepare him a Bundt cake. Maybe Cotton Hill is a jerk, but he IS a man, hence why the little cantankerous fart knocker gets more and better than any male in the series, possibly even the roving Native American “massage therapist”, John Redcorn (the biological father of Joseph Dribble, whom the clueless Dale Dribble actually thinks is HIS).

            • Lucky for me, there aren’t many women who are attracted to roadie bicyclists who enjoy classical and jazz, watch old movies and think a good vacation is driving 12 hours, then getting up before dawn to drag a camera up the side of a mountain to catch the sunrise.

              And the whole libertarian/anarchist/quasi-atheist thing. That’s pretty much garlic too.

        • On women and equality:

          I recently opened my door to a man I trusted implicitly. (Not a boyfriend) The evening ended with him beating the absolute shit out of me.
          I can year you guys now, “she must have provoked him” “I’m sure she had it coming” “Bitch probably deserved it”
          You’re right, I asked him to leave after trashing my kitchen, and pouring his beer over my head as a “joke”. I didn’t understand the joke, so I had to be “put in my place”.
          No woman (and I’m no weakling) is a match for a grown man. This is why we seek your protection. This is why it is so sad when we feel that connection with a good dude, only to be used for sex and shown the door. We CANT do it alone, because it’s so unsafe.
          As I try to heal my body and mind from this, I have to do it afraid and alone.
          So guys, enjoy your freedom. Our need for your protection won’t go away, so give us a call when you want some pussy, because if you’re a good dude, we’ll give it right up so we can feel protected for the 30 minutes you spend on us. And if we don’t give you head/pussy, you can just dial up the next one. Rinse repeat. It really is your world.

          • While I’m sorry for what you went through Ma’am, women comprise the MAJORITY of the population; that means they’re the majority of the voters. You always here the politicos talking about women’s issues as a result. When was the last time you heard politicos even mentioning men’s issues?

            Secondly, it wasn’t MEN who broke the social contract of which you speak. It was WOMEN who did that. They burned their bras; they told us what scum we were; and how a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. You all NULLIFIED the contract, and you all said you didn’t want to be held to it anymore. Fine, but by doing so, you released men to uphold THEIR end of the social contract.

            • I meant to say, in conclusion of my first paragraph, that we have the society we have because it’s the society WOMEN WANT.

              • I already know that. That was exactly the point I was making.

                Not all whites are racists, not all women are feminazis.

                Men are of stronger fortitude both physically and mentally (in most cases). Women are no match. Never have been never will be. The ones of us that aren’t under the illusion that we are equal, are the ones that suffer the most.
                So, I’ll take my bruised face and body to work, the store, bank, and tell the curious how clumsy I am and laugh it off over the next several days.. because I deserved this, because of my foremothers. Thanks, bitches.

                • I’m sorry about what happened to you. FWIW, I don’t LIKE living in the society we have; in fact, I hate it. Unfortunately, it is what it is.

                  When I was younger, my big dream was to meet someone who could be my best friend and more to grow old with me. Unfortunately, that never happened. Plus, I got falsely accused along the way, and I could never trust a woman the same after that.

                  Also, FWIW, I think that very powerful people wanted to put a wedge in between men and women, and these same people did it to get control of society; they did it to satisfy their megalomaniacal desires. If men are disenfranchised; if they don’t have a meaningful STAKE in society; if they have no wives and families to protect, guess what? Anyone wanting to TAKE OVER that society will have a much easier time of it. I think THAT was the plan all along.

                  So, that leaves guys like me with a conundrum, and enigma. Do we marry someone and put all our present and future assets at risk in a divorce, so we can procreate and have kids for the future? The future belongs to whoever SHOWS UP for it. Or do we play it safe, have fun (if that’s our inclination), and stay single? Playing it safe means we cede the battlefield and society to those who shouldn’t have it, but it also means we won’t be eating Alpo in our old age, either. What’s good for the collective here is dangerous on an individual level; what’s good individually is bad for society as a whole.

                  To draw an analogy, it’s similar to when the country has an economic recession. When a recession hits, people clamp down on their spending; they save as much as they can, because they’re worried about having a job next week. However, since more than 2/3 of economic activity is driven by CONSUMER (i.e. individual) spending, this makes a bad situation worse; it makes the vicious circle even more so. What makes sense on an individual level (cutting spending) is the very thing that makes it worse for everyone. That’s the conundrum men face.

                  It sucks FOR EVERYONE. I didn’t ask for this, and I sure as hell didn’t want it. However, my wishes and desires will change nothing. The rules of the game are what they are, so I play the game accordingly to do the best I can.

          • Anonymous, you need a gun or a knife handy. I can’t imagine anyone you trusted “implicitly” doing something like that but trust is a weird thing that backfires on everyone regardless of sex.

            You need to live in the boonies so you can take advantage of the 3 S’s. Shoot, shovel and shut up. We had a guy drive up and walk in our house we didn’t know. He proceeded to threaten my wife and I and covered his ass by saying his buddy’s(family who were narcs)were waiting on him. I didn’t really believe it but I didn’t not believe it either.

            Turns out no one was waiting for him. Had I known that he would have never bothered another soul. Several months later his wife killed him in self defense. I got the call and was relieved but it would have been better if they’d have thought his ex-wife’s boyfriend had done him in. It wasn’t like he was going to be found. It’s simply human nature that some need to be culled. As a man, I learned that early in life. Sorry this happened to you. It’s a sign of the times when no matter what you do you become a victim. Men have known this all their lives although it’s much worse now than ever before.

            • Hey 8,
              Thanks. It was a family member. One who has NEVER displayed any violent tendencies to my knowledge. The ONLY reason I didn’t try to kill him. Besides, I was over powered so quickly that I couldn’t get to my weapons, even if they’d been on my person. I don’t dare involve police, for the obvious reasons, but also because I don’t want to alienate myself from the rest of my family. Which I have to do anyway, at least unil my face heals. Is a really sucky situation. Didn’t have anybody else I could talk to about it, so I dropped it here.

        • Yeah, “Demolition Man” IS a prescient, prophetic film. People miss the SIGNIFICANCE of it because it’s often described (and at times derided) as an action flick. Yes, it’s an action flick, but it’s so much MORE than that.

          The part I found chilling was when they were bringing John Spartan up to speed on the modern society. There’s a scene where they discuss the now cashless society, and they show him a screen displaying the right hand. In the film, that meant that one had chip or something implanted there, IIRC. However, it also brings visions of Revelation 13 in the Bible, which prophesies this very thing; they call it the mark of the beast. All who accept it will be damned. I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s not a gamble I’m willing to take…

        • My favorite part of that movie was the car spitting out tickets from the dash; that’s definitely in our future and probably not that far away. Although it won’t print out a paper ticket your car will surely rat you out via telematics and Uncle in league with the insurance mafia will slap you with fines up the wazoo.

          • Mike,

            My favorite part is when he gets that old Olds 442 from the museum. He says, “Not THAT’S more my style!”

            I like the other part where he cusses intentionally to get enough tickets to wipe himself.

          • There’s probably going to be printed tickets in the future, if only because there’s a law or regulation somewhere that requires it. Or because it’s easier to just keep making printers and paper than it is to get approval for electronic tickets.

            Sort of like the paper check refund issued in Brazil, where the administrator had no idea what to do with it, suggesting it might be better to hide it somewhere rather than give it to the widow Buttle.

          • This is old hat for truckers. It started with paying to use a highway and now it’s du jour logbook. They can only do it with 96 and newer trucks though since there’s no electronics, otherwise, they’d stop every truck(er) in violation. Emergencies don’t mean shit to computers.

            • Thinking I mightnbe needing to buy a twin screw truck tractor, perhaps with a small can on th reach for overnights. Now I know to make certain its a 95 or older. I think I’d probably prefer someting like a 70’s Pete or Mack, maybe KW, Cummins, I don’t care what for gears but it had better be able to pull 70 mph on the flat. Slower on grades is OK. Plenty of tankage, too. Might be making a long distance move. No way would I want to be monitored…..

              • T, wish I could send a pic of the last tractor I was hired to drive and then had to quit because of my wife having a stroke.

                It was 95 379 Pete in a beautiful green color that had more chrome and polished aluminum including chromed alloy Bud wheels and 300 “of wheel base. I was in hog heaven for a week. Had one of those pathetic little 3406B Cat’s with a 13 sp.

                It was what is called a flattop Pete, a large sleeper but only tall enough to have plenty ceiling for a person.

                If you aren’t up on things, the old 3406 was a smooth engine that sounded 5 times as smooth as the electronic C and E. That’s the sort of tractor that glides. It had 2 150 or 175 gallon fuel tanks, completely polished out.

                A friend was in line one day with all 3 of his 379’s, all with 3406’s. One was a B, sweet sounding, the other a C and the other an E. Both the electronic engines were fairly rough sounding.

                Cat engines have weights on the cam gears that will sometimes come off. They make a sh sh sh sh noise. I had a C12 like that and a friend had a 3406B doing that. He asked me what it was. I didn’t know and said so. Everybody was saying it was a head gasket but I said NoWay, I’ve run this truck for too long and it’s definitely not a head gasket. Someone else said it was an exhaust problem. Wrong again since it ran as it always had.

                So this fly by night a-hole with a shop told me “It may not be a head gasket….but that’s what we’re going to call it”. They changed it out and the truck didn’t run as well, it began using water……Meanwhile my buddy with the 3406B said he found out it was weights coming off the timing gears and got his fixed and tuned up. Man, was that ever a sweet sounding engine after that.

                We ran together every day for months hauling aggregate for a Farm to Market road, the first road I’d had any part of building that wasn’t private. The least we ran every day was 600 miles and the most was 700 mile(man, those were Looongg days). We fueled up together every day. My pitiful 60 series Detroit with a ten speed got 5 mpg and his 3406B got 6mpg…..and he outran me on every run. I’d finally catch him after the last load at the truck stop. 400 hp just ain’t enough and a ten speed will kill you mpg. Mine had a speed limiter and his didn’t. Just sayin…..stick with PACCAR. A 379 Pete or 900W KW.

    • Actually it is all about everyone being required to take personal responsibility for the results of exercising their individual rights, especially the right to be left alone when one is not harming anyone else.

    • Yeah, I’ve laely began to produce “high blood pressure readings” when I have to go visit the Whit Coats. Wondered.. because some things had changed in the while since I’d been to the doc much. Asked a friend of mine who is an MD. Yup. y suspicioins are pretty well spot on.

      They usher you in from the waiting room, sit you down, and before you can skritch round and get comfy she’s slapped that cordless thing round yuor upper arm, it squeezes REALLY tight, starts to drop, I can feel the two points they register coming very close together cause it deflates too fast. Bang, you’ve got BP that’s too high.

      The way its spozed ta work…. come in, sit down, relax, and wait at LEASE five full minutes. Further, those wrist machines read high, as do almost all the automatic cordless ones, even the ones up on your arm.

      I’m also in constant pain and partly in result of that sleep deprived. So I’m supposed to ask about them blue pills when my numbers are higher than they used to be? Not when I can still hop on my road bike and knock off fifty miles, even in hills, i under three hours. My pump’s workin just fine.

      • Hi T,

        Medicine seems to have grown mercenary – as well as DMV-like. I cant abide either thing. I am very creeped out by the prospect of going in for a physical, being told I have high BP – and then being cataloged as a refusenik for declining to take the proffered pills. More ominous, being Hut! Hut! Hutted! on the grounds of “mental illness” for declining to obey the doctor.

        So I don’t go.

        Luckily, I’m no one’s husband or father – so if I check out due to uncontrolled BP or some other thing, no harm done.

        • 3-4 years ago I got in line to pick up a load at a pit that start(not loading, just fueling, checking, etc.)at 7am. I got loaded and weighed out and then it was over 60 miles to the doc app. I had at 8 am.

          The doc said “Wow, your BP is really high this morning”. I said, “Probably because I’ve got on an overload and I’ve been hustling that thing around tight curves trying not to be too late”.

          She gets this frown on her face. Well, shit, it is what it is. That ain’t a damned time machine. I thought I made fantastic time considering the load and roads. I did add “I don’t drive like that every load….while I’m thinking, only every other load since it’s always one of those oilfield “hurry up…..and wait” kinda things.

          I got into it with my last employer one morning because I refused to haul ass maybe 15 miles on nearly flat tires. I got there and got shuffled off to a remote location and sat there for 2-3 hours before getting unloaded. Next load was some faster but you had to wait for each truck to unload, have the load spread so you could drive over it, then go to a remote location to turn around, come back, wait for another truck to do the same at a pre-arranged wide spot so you could get by each other. I didn’t get in a hurry again that day and it would have made 0 difference if I had. As always in the patch “Hurry up!!……and wait.”

          First thing as a kid in the patch I learned from a seasoned driver was “You need to haul ass, get to a location and then sit all day and wait to be unloaded”.

  15. The top photo with this piece has the obligatory mother (with a red top) standing there with what appears to be a photo of her dead child.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass about her dead child. Not one follicle of my being cares a whit. I’ll not fall for the guilt trip she’s trying to put on me.

  16. Look at those f*cking dead eyes Eric. Do you see any life in them?
    I see this in people daily, in fact, for my own safety I check people’s eyes to determine intelligence or friend/foe. It isn’t hard and is easy to see. People with wheels spinning in reverse upstairs have the deer in the headlights look. People on point and cognizant have more alert but human looking eyes.

    All part of the plan to get you out of your vehicle and into an uber lyft taxi etc or some autonomous vehicle.

    • I’ve noticed that as well. AND, I have seen some where their pupils actually dilate if your talking something they have been told is conspiracy theory by corpgov or media…. Kind of funny actually.

    • I am noticing this more and more myself…dead, souless, lifeless, shell shocked…some of the more religious folks say they are demon possessed…I’m starting to not dismiss this idea, when I look at Zuckerberg’s ugly ass mug for instance, or Crazy Eyes Cortez.

      Modern society and the Safety Cult has sucked the very life out of people and living: no sex, no fun, no adventure, no challenges, no ownership, no liberty…just a crushing, never ending rat wheel of debt, consumerism, mindless “work”, and “connectivity” enabled by the endless finger fucking of cel phones and gadgets, with the side benefit of total surveillance.

      • Often, I wonder how many of us who have been befuddled as to how the Victorian era — an aberrant metastasis of prudery and condemnation — was ever allowed to come to pass, recognize the very same strictures being erected to choke our own society?

  17. Does this new “law” apply to boozed up politicians who try to crawl into the back of their taxpayer funded limos??? Oh …. silly me, what the hell am I thinking? Laws passed by congress do NOT apply to congress. My Bad!

    • Michael Jackson (no, not the pedophile) basically was chauffeured around all the time because he was basically drunk all the time. OK if you’re the world’s expert on beer and malt whiskey, but most of us would have a hard time always paying for a limo.

      Although one of the allures of living in the city would be that I could take advantage of public transport and ride sharing services if I wanted to out on the town. Then again, the last time I drank I woke up the next day at 12:30 in the afternoon and “somebody” vomited in the bathtub. Reminded me of the “good times” of my brief college career…

      • Which talking head’s discreditable testimony did you buy hook, line, and sinker about Michael Jackson’s supposed but unproven pedophilia?
        Maybe you’ll get lucky and they’ll be on your jury should you ever be falsely accused.

        • Having sat on the jury for a child molestation case (a sheriff deputy no less), we couldn’t convict the AGW on pedophilia either, but only because he had a better lawyer than the DA. We did get him for destroying evidence, so at least he’s no longer able to be a cop.

          Just because someone isn’t found guilty in court doesn’t mean they’re innocent.

          • Hi RK,

            “Just because someone isn’t found guilty in court doesn’t mean they’re innocent”.

            Of course, the opposite is also true.


          • The competence of the defense attorney versus the state’s notwithstanding, the state failed to overcome the presumption that the defendant is innocent. If they had, you’d have convicted the AGW; his status as an LEO wouldn’t have made a difference. That’s why the court doesn’t FIND someone “innocent”, they ALREADY are until the evidence presented proves otherwise.
            This is also why someone, like OJ Simpson, might prevail in a criminal proceeding but lose a civil proceeding, and that’s not considered “double jeopardy”. In a civil proceeding, the standard of proof, instead of being “beyond reasonable doubt”, is “preponderance of evidence” (e.g., it’s is more likely the defendant is liable than not?), hence why the families of the decease successfully sued OJ for their deaths – that and an outcry, upon his acquittal in 1995, which might have been more a case of jury nullification than decided on facts, by various “womyn’s” groups et al. re: domestic violence meant that the civil trial was meant to “get it right”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here