Fight Speeding Ticket


National Motorists Association Blog


Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?

Posted on June 23rd, 2008 in , , | 94 Comments

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

Mandatory In Car Breathalyzers Coming? If you’re not a convicted drunk driver, should you still be required to have an in-car breathalyzer fitted (at your expense, ‘natch) to your next new vehicle?

Apparently, some automakers — including GM and Toyota — think so. They and a few others are working together under the auspices of something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, which is a $10 million federal “research program” that is trying to develop just such technology for mass introduction a few years from now.

At the moment, the only people who have to deal with (and pay for) in-car Breathalyzers are convicted drunks; the devices are basically ignition locks that prevent the vehicle’s engine from being started until the would-be driver blows into the tube and the system determines he’s not liquored up.

But by 2012 or so, in-car breath sniffers could be standard equipment in every new vehicle sold, force-fed to you by the tag team of Washington, Detroit and, of course, the ever-busy Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

No conviction necessary.

Advocates say the technology under development would be “less intrusive.” Instead of making the driver blow into a little tube like they make you do at those roadside “sobriety checkpoints,” a system of passive alcohol sensors would be fitted to the car that could take a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) reading via a person’s skin — as when your hand touches the shifter or steering wheel. This “quiet” approach is supposed to make us feel better about being pre-convicted and treated like known and duly processed irresponsible drunks every single time we get behind the wheel of a car.

It doesn’t work for me.

I dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (is anyone actually for drunk driving)? But I certainly do object to policies and regulations that impose cost and hassle and arguably, petit tyranny, on people who have done absolutely nothing to warrant it.

This isn’t about nannyism so much as it is about upending a few basic bedrock Western ideas about criminal justice, rights and responsibilities. Chief among these being that each of us gets treated as a specific individual.

If we do something wrong, we get specifically held accountable for it;  the guy next door who had nothing to do with it isn’t dragged along for the ride. But that’s just what is happening here — indeed, has already happened — from those so-called “sobriety checkpoints” (which mostly “check”  perfectly sober drivers) to the growing kudzu of “primary enforcement” seat belts laws that pester (and ticket) people for not wearing a seat belt, an action that may not be especially smart on an individual level but which has very little to do with the safety or well-being of others.

What’s even worse than these growing harassments, however, is how few object to them on principle.

Perhaps it’s because of the continuous dumbing-down of the populace, which knows all about Lindsay Lohan’s latest bender and who’s the latest finalist on American Idol but no longer understands that the ends don’t justify the means — and that down that road lies much worse than henpecky tickets and having to pay a few more bucks for your next new car as a result of some government mandate.

People used to get that; today, most don’t seem to. It’s the only way to explain the tsunami-like effectiveness of the word, “safety” — which doesn’t have to be specifically defined, quantified, subjected to cost-benefit analysis or throttled back by the once-superior claim of the individual’s “personal bubble of authority” — where he or she formerly reigned supreme, free of the suffocating and endless edicts of others who claim their evaluation of a perceived risk trumps your personal right to choose.

Just say “safety” (and for added emphasis, include “our children”) and no objection can be sustained.

This latest bit of ugliness burbling up from the stinkpot of government-corporate do-gooderism is merely a symptom of the underlying canker that is our ignorance — and acquiescence.

Earlier generations of Americans would have said, “Hold on a minute. I haven’t been convicted of driving drunk; hell, I’ve never even been suspected of it. Why in the world should I be required to buy an alcohol sniffer to check me out before I drive?” They would have insisted on tough punishment for the specific dimwit who got behind the wheel of a car impaired by booze. But they would have insisted, with equal toughness, that everyone else be left the hell alone to go about their business in peace.

Today, however, the siren song of saaaaaaaaafety is like a secular version of the prayer call in Muslim countries. When people hear it, they automatically fall down on their knees en masse and begin to worship.

God may be great — but “safety” is rapidly gaining ground on him.

Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com

Image Credit


Not an NMA member yet?   Join today and get these great benefits!

Leave a Comment

94 Responses to “Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming?”

  1. jim snodgras says:

    Chris Yokel says (see his comment below): "The argument made here is not a very good one. It is bred out of a big suspicion of “big government” and that we are losing control of our liberties and so forth."

    Um, you're not the brightest bulb in the Chandelier are you, Chris? What you have said is complete poppycock. We are losing our liberties to the government and others. Are you dumb enough that you just don't understand that? Or maybe you think losing our freedoms is just a joke? Well, I'm not laughing. Go look up the "Lower Marion School district + laptop + Spy" on Youtube. Go watch this video on youtube about RFID chips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g4ksdaEEpA

    Mark my words, It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. If the citizenry does not stand up and take a stand for privacy we lose everything. We will lose every shred of privacy to the government and others.

  2. chris yokel says:

    The argument made here is not a very good one. It is bred out of a big suspicion of "big government" and that we are losing control of our liberties and so forth. Of course this is infringing on people, but why so rabid opposition to it? Let's just think a little more clearly about it. We have lots of rules and regulations, and safety is important, why should we not worry about safety? Because real rugged 19th century men worked on railroads without much safety equipment? Of course- that would be cool, but the fact is that today we have hundreds of thousands of cars and also a large population of Americans that drink irresponsibly. Yes, they need to be responsible, yes it is their choice to drink and drive, but the main weakness in this article is not about responsibility, it is in assuming that it is such a huge problem to have these sensors in the steering wheel. Why? the cost? Ok, the cost, that seems to be the only logical argument. But there are mandatory airbags, seat belts, computer sensors to alert of overheating, oil leaks, gas lights, tail lights out, light on to say the doors aren't closed, powered steering. These are all in large part of safety. They are all extra in cost, but most of the stuff I think most people agree are good to have in cars in the modern world. It seems that have sensors that disallow intoxicated drivers to drive would be simply another (even though novel) part of safety to the car. It does not really matter if you have had a past of drunk driving, all this sensor will do is not let you drive if you are drunk. Therefore, nobody can be drunk and still operate their vehicle, that's all! It's very simple. It is like those cars with headlights that stay on all day. Can be annoying, but people aren't bitching about that so much. It is then only about cost, which, and I haven't looked at any numbers, but if it isn't a very large amount, or at least won't be after some time, is this really about an extra cost or do we really have to feel the government is "telling us what to do?" Oh, well, I guess they are telling us what to do, they are telling us not to drink and drive. In that case I assume people will find ways around it, black market, make their own cars, and drive drunk out in the country. Fine. That seems healthy enough, but I think the government scare thing is overblown. Driving drunk is bad. Your car won't start if you are drunk. Cool. So let's have another article where the only logical part about cost is addressed, because this article makes me want to get drunk it's so ill

  3. I think this would definitely have some Constitutional issues, but if they do require this I certainly hope they get all of the bugs out of whatever ignition interlocks they use first.

  4. Mike says:

    I grew up during the cold war when everyone was suspected of being a communist (Thank you Joe McCarthy)

    I was a young man during the drug wars and the appointment of the first “Drug Czar” (Thank you George H. W. Bush”

    I was a grown man when our country embraced Civil Commitment for sex offenders, Megan’s Law, and Jessica’s Law. ) Thank you radical right and U. S. Supreme Court)

    I was a grown man when our country embraced making it illegal to smoke in public. (Maybe it’s not surprising that Nazi Germany was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world in the 1930s and early 1940s.)

    I was a grown man when our country implemented the “Patriot Act” (Thank you George W. Bush)

    Now I am almost a senior citizen and I am not surprised that the powers to be will attack drinker. They already take pictures of us in intersections and then send us traffic tickets.

    I have had the opportunity and the privilege to travel to a country in Eastern Europe. I can tell you all that they have far more freedoms then we ever dreamed of. So when I see articles like this the following always comes to mind:

    First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for the Drug Dealers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Drug Dealer; Then they came for the Sex Offenders, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Sex Offender; Then they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Smoker; Then they came for the Terrorists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Terrorist; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    ‘Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither’ – Benjamin Franklin

  5. d says:

    two of my really good friends were in a car accident 2 days before our high school graduation. the girl buckled up in the passenger seat was killed instantly when the car hit the tree. the girl driving, not buckled, was thrown from the car and lived. she was both drunk and speeding at the time. as a friend to both girls, it was a tough situation to see. i drive by the cross of Jena everyday. it reminds me of what a terrible tragedy drunk driving causes. after some time passed was able to talk to my other friend about how she felt about the breathalyzer situation [i was doing a paper] and she even said to me that she wished they were mandatory in every car because then she couldnt have driven that night. to see her go through all the court dates and trials hurt a lot. losing a friend to drunk driving hurt even more. until you are personally effected by a drunk driving accident, it seems as though your privacy would come first. but what about that guy who just got fired and went to a bar all night, then decided to drive home, but being too drunk to drive, hit your child, parent or friend? what if it could have been prevented by a simple built-in feature in your car? would you do it then? its not an invasion of privacy anyway. if youre clean an sober, you should be proud that you are smart enough to make right choices and go ahead and drive. then you can feel safer and be glad to know that those not making the wise decisions will hopefully be a lot less likely to be on the road, a threat to you or anyone else.

  6. jazzman says:

    I would’nt expect any sort of device to ever make it to market. The states will do backdoor lobbying to block any effort to make these mandatory in cars. Especially now with the states strapped for cash. DUI’s are a cash cow for them why would they want these devices this is not a new idea this has been around since the first breathalyzers. But alcohol is an easy target. Let’s lock up all the texters like the one who totaled my car. We should just lock up everyone who does’nt drive 35 m.p.h with their hands at 10 and 2. I bet we could get accidents way down that way.

  7. Mark says:

    Most of the people posting here have had no direct experience with a DUI. There is an ever increasing trend in this country of criminalizing any action that “they” don’t like. Drinking is one of those. Breathalizers are not about safety; they are about $$$. There is a whole industry making billions of dollars each year on DUI including governments. I am not being cynical. Anyone who has first hand knowledge of the process instantly realizes this fact. There is no desire to prevent repeat offenses just assess financial and freedom penalties.

    Many states have taken due process out of the process of determining whether a person was driving under the influence. The DMV processes DUI as an administrative issue in many states whether or not the criminal courts find the defendant innocent. They revoke licenses and assess fines even if the driver is found innocent. This continual erosion of our rights granted by our forefathers is what is destroying our country. Many posters to this forum seem okay with that fact. The phrase “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about” is very dangerous. It has led to many fascist regimes.

    The truth is that many innocent people are denied due process because of these draconian DUI laws. Breathalyzers/interlock devices are prone to errors that can deny you the chance to pick up your kids when it is getting dark or prevent you from going to work or receiving emergency medical attention. These situations may seem extreme, but they are actual events that have happened. You can’t have the analyzer too hot or cold or it will not work. Watch out for medicine, mouthwash or many other substances. What happens if your battery is dead and you need a jump? It is considered a bypass and the car could be locked-out. These devices are far from perfect which is an assumption many posters are making.

    No person with any common sense advocates people driving under the influence. I certainly don’t, but there needs to be some personal responsibility here. We do not need the state telling us how to live our lives and what to do. These are not the principles that this country was founded. I have seen many hard working people that are not drunks get caught up into the system where it has significantly affected their lives. These people did not get into accidents or kill people. They were just unlucky enough to be over some predetermined limit or demand to their right to due process.

    The problem is not the occasional drinker but the impaired driver. This may be due to alcohol, drugs, cell phones, computers, lack of sleep, food, makeup, iPods, children, or even bad drivers. I see more dangerous situations that are because of non-drug/alcohol when I am driving. Alcohol makes an easy target. Adding interlock devices will not have any major impact on reducing accidents it will just create more criminals and $$$ for the government.

    I am not cynical. I am just a realist after seeing and helping people in this situation. These devices assume that we are incapable of making our own decisions. Granted that some people do not make wise choices, but do we really want this country to evolve to one that there are a few people in DC that know best for us and will decide how we should live and what we should do? We are heading that way. Remember the USSR and the Politburo?

  8. Blackie says:

    This is about a breathalyzer in the car, right? Not about guns and all …. Anyway. More “normal” people get behind the wheel of a car after 2 – 3 drinks, than not. Not a felon, not somebody that’s an alcoholic, not someone that is driving drunk readily, just a normal person going for a drink after work, before he/she goes home. That analyser will just let you wait an hour or 6 before you can turn the key. If you’re not drunk or over the legal limit, off you go. Where does it impact you as a person? It’s in the privacy of your own car for crying out loud. If you think it will impact you as a person, then sorry, you’re a very sad person to be offended with little things in life like this that can save you or someone elses life. I don’t think it’s just another way the government want to reign control, I think it is beneficial for everyone. Most people think after 2 drinks they’re fine to drive. Even if you think you can “handle your alcohol”. I think this just saves the trouble of people thinking they are okay to drive to those that really are okay. (Oh, and by the way – James Young – the people in the fast cars are usually the ones that, when they crash, (and they do) they always take a few innocent people along with them, crashing into them, I mean.

  9. Lisa says:

    I agree that it is unfair to assume that everyone is stupid enough to get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated. However, while you and I are relatively intelligent people, many others aren’t. And I think that it’s entirely worth it!

    I don’t consider it giving up a freedom. If you don’t drink and drive, you have nothing to worry about! And, like you said, the checkpoints have a habit of finding only the sober people. Do you have any idea how many slammed drivers manage to fly under the radar? I have family who likes more than their fair share of alcohol and still decide to drive at the end of the day. They’ve just never been caught!

    I don’t care about having to breath into a little tube to prove that I haven’t been drinking. Particularly if I haven’t been drinking! I just feel better on the road knowing that the poeple who aren’t quite as smart as you or I have a little extra help when trying to tell right from wrong!

  10. John says:

    “If we do something wrong, we get specifically held accountable for it; the guy next door who had nothing to do with it isn’t dragged along for the ride. But that’s just what is happening here”

    I completely disagree with you it’s not about society being “dumbed-down” like you say most people agree because they fear for their lives when they go out on the road knowing they could get killed by someone who’s drunk at any given point in time, and contrary to what you may think not all drunk drivers are “evil people who don’t care about anything and are out on suicidal missions” they might just be any person who had a bad day and this technology will prevent them from having an even worse day or life.

    sure we’ll have to pay a bit more for the new technology but hell how many lives do you think this will save?

    You need to stop and think “What if tomorrow someone in my family dies in a car accident caused by someone who was drunk?” Maybe they wouldn’t have died if this new technology had stopped that drunk from turning on the engine of the moving weapon they just got in.

  11. mary says:

    doing this would be assanine. if someone is on the border of .08 they coudln’t drive home even if they were fine. i think the problem is more dumb drivers. harder road tests would make better drivers. i consider myself to be a responsible driver, but i took 5 lessons then passed my roadtest. that scares me who could be driving next to me. there are people much more competent driving with a bac of .08 than some sober drivers will ever be!

  12. Patty Currington says:

    Mr. Peters,
    I am looking into the detection system as being a part of an intervention for a client. If it is possible for him to have this product installed in the family car, it would be the difference between the children living at home or in foster care. If available could you send information on how to obtain this product. Or send what ever information you have. I would greatly appreciate it.

    Patricia Currington, MSSA, LSW
    Child Welfare Caseworker
    Trumbull Co. Children Services Board

  13. Erick Morales-Perez says:

    “I dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. . .”
    Did you mean that you – also – dislike “Mothers Against Drunk Driving” or that you dislike drunk drivers as much as Mothers Against Drunk Driving do.

  14. Bruce Schwartz says:

    It’s cute that you quote Ben Franklin on “Essential Liberty”, but he’s not around to correct your misunderstanding of what he meant. The key word is “Essential,” as in “Fundamental,” as in, basic to the idea of what it means to live as a free person. A reading of the Bill of Rights gives an idea of the kinds of liberty the Founders held to be “essential” – such things as freedom of speech and religion, protection against the government invading your house and seizing your papers and private property for no good reason; the right not to be imprisoned without a fair trial; the right to not be tortured or killed without cause.

    I don’t think Franklin would have considered “essential” the right to get drunk and turn a 2,000 pound motor vehicle into a deadly missile. In fact, I’m pretty sure he’d think otherwise. Even in the 18th century you could be prosecuted for harboring a mad dog. More to the point of what ignition interlocks do, the constable could lawfully shoot the dog.

    Yes, before ignition interlocks are made standard equipment the technology needs to be improved so as reduce false positives and accidental vehicle disablements to a tiny minimum. I’ve no doubt that will come if the device is mandated for all cars. The same arguments were made against mandatory air bags – they’d deploy accidentally – but such incidents are rare, and the bags have saved far more lives than they’ve cost.

    You don’t like being breathalyzed without “probable cause,” even if the sensor becomes no more intrusive than the turn-signal lever? You libertarian types have such delicate sensibilities. I bet you resent taking your shoes off at the airport, too. Should we give al-Qaeda another crack at hijacking airplanes? Most people are resigned to airport security checks, and those are far more intrusive than ignition interlocks will be when the technology is perfected. And this is odd, considering that drunk drivers kill five times as many people every year as the 9/11 hijackers killed in 2001.

    In my 58 years I have lost three friends or relatives to drunk drivers, and known several more who’ve lost people who were dear to them. I’ll gladly give up a little nonessential liberty to stop that carnage.

    Oh – and your fear of being convicted because the sensor malfunctions? Easily handled by proper laws. No one should be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of a machine. But the point of the interlocks is not to prosecute drunk drivers, it’s to prevent them from driving in the first place.

    I always find it a wonder that libertarians so fear government intrusion even though the demonstrable trend in American history is that our liberties have generally expanded. State governments used to censor books; they don’t anymore. We had sodomy laws and criminal adultery laws. There were laws against black people voting, or having certain jobs, or living in white neighborhoods or marrying white people. Contraceptives and abortions were illegal. Casinos? Only in Nevada. Come to think of it, the government (with popular support) outlawed alcohol entirely for 15 years (1918-1933). By any reasonable standard we Americans enjoy a greater degree of “Essential Liberty” than at any time in history. Yet you libertarians insist on seeing every limitation on the right to do whatever the hell you want – public safety be damned! – as a step down the slippery slope on the road to serfdom. I see no evidence of a slippery slope, and ignition interlocks are a long way from serfdom. I can’t wait to see them mandated on all motor vehicles.

  15. James Young says:

    Randy writes: {James Young your idea of reasonable and my idea of reasonable is different. You believe that you should not do anything about DUI drivers until they create their first accident or are unable to stay on the road. Most here believe that the limit for DUI should be .10 or higher as a start but only a minor violation with something a lot higher where they are too drunk to walk before any true ramifications come into affect.}

    There you go again, attributing ideas to me that are not mine, that I have not espoused and that in no way reflect what I believe or why I believe it. You either misstate it deliberately, which makes you dishonest, or you just don’t understand it in the first place, which makes you ignorant. Neither choice is palatable.

    I do not believe that we should do nothing about DUI drivers until they have their first crash. I do believe that we should concentrate our resources on those drivers that we know are problems because they have a history of alcohol abuse and are more likely to cause trouble for other drivers. We know – although you probably don’t know or want to ignore it – that the drivers most often involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes have BAC well over the legal limit, often double, sometimes triple the legal limit. Therefore, if we really want to reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, we need to concentrate on these drivers – the bull’s-eye that we already know by name and address – rather than enlarging our target. We need to do this because it is more effective. You, however, do not understand this.

    We also know that alcoholism is largely genetic in nature and that alcoholics – those most likely to be involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes – do not respond to punishment. They do not alter their behavior because they fear punishment so punishment is not an effective deterrent for them and is grossly inefficient for us as a society. Why you want to put out cops to handle a medical issue is truly puzzling.

    {You also say there should be no speed limits and if there are they should be 45 mph to 55 mph in residential areas designed for 30 or 35.}

    I have said this nowhere. I do support removing speed limits on rural and Interstate-grade roadways, allowing the police to concentrate on behavior that interferes with flow or creates frustration. You keep trying to bring in “residential” streets but there is so little traffic on them as to be unworthy of our attention, and your effort is but to obfuscate. What you might mean is arterial streets, perhaps collector streets. In that case, the limits should be set at the well established 85th percentile, which is a scientific principle, not just something to confuse cops and piss you off.

    { You believe that high speeds never cause any accidents or make any worse and I totally disagree.}

    Disagree all you want. There has to be another factor because speed by itself does not cause anything.

    { If someone gets in an acccident traveling 90 mph or more, you are looking for someone else that caused accident because anyone according to you that drives fast is one of the best drivers on the road.}

    That statement makes no sense. It is not my assertion at all. What you seem to want to ignore all the time is that we have spent billions on improving our roads and our cars just so we can travel faster because higher speeds have a significant economic value. Yet, you want to excuse limits from 30 and 40 years ago.

    {Since you are getting up in age you will not be able to drive yourself because you are against anyone that is not 100% with reflexes and abilities like a 20 year old.}

    Again, you attribute thoughts to me that are not mine. I fully recognize that the average experienced driver in America can and does handle freeway speeds with little drama. It does not take the reflexes of a Senna to handle freeway speeds because 100 million of us do it every day. I should be able to drive myself for quite a few more years.

    {James Young I forgot to bring up your ideas about freedom. You are for freedom to do anything that you feel that you want to do or get by with but freedom for anything else that is not on your agenda you say that you are not for. You want to have the freedom to do anything dangerous that you want to do but you say you are not for just as dangerous of things that you do not do.}

    That makes no sense at all. However, note that I am not a thrill seeker, if that is what you have in mind.

    More to the point, this argument is more about control than freedom. Citizens should be in control of their government but it is slipping away from them because people like you want to be the macro controllers of societal behavior through rules, enforcement and punishment. People want to be the micro controllers of their own lives, making choices without the intrusive enforcement forces that deem that they know better than the people what the people want and need.

    Freedom requires responsibility but responsibility is a two-way street. Responsibility is when a driver decides to call it a day because he is fatigued but it is also the implementation of rational rules and reasonable enforcement intelligently designed to accomplish mutually acceptable goals. Right now, the economic forces of the insurance industry and their minions drive public policy and we are all worse off because of it. That is gross irresponsibility.

  16. Randy says:

    James Young I forgot to bring up your ideas about freedom. You are for freedom to do anything that you feel that you want to do or get by with but freedom for anything else that is not on your agenda you say that you are not for. You want to have the freedom to do anything dangerous that you want to do but you say you are not for just as dangerous of things that you do not do.

  17. Randy says:

    James Young your idea of reasonable and my idea of reasonable is different. You believe that you should not do anything about DUI drivers until they create their first accident or are unable to stay on the road. Most here believe that the limit for DUI should be .10 or higher as a start but only a minor violation with something a lot higher where they are too drunk to walk before any true ramifications come into affect.

    You also say there should be no speed limits and if there are they should be 45 mph to 55 mph in residential areas designed for 30 or 35. You believe that high speeds never cause any accidents or make any worse and I totally disagree. If someone gets in an acccident traveling 90 mph or more, you are looking for someone else that caused accident because anyone according to you that drives fast is one of the best drivers on the road.

    Since you are getting up in age you will not be able to drive yourself because you are against anyone that is not 100% with reflexes and abilities like a 20 year old.

  18. James Young says:

    Randy writes: {James Young why don’t you give kids loaded guns and let everyone out of jail and allow child abusers to do whatever they like because freedom should reign as you say. I do not believe in absolute freedoms like you do but so be it.
    The things above are no worse than allowing drunks to have freedom to drive if they like and reckless drivers to do whatever they like. If they kill someone it is all in the name of freedom.}

    We talk about rationally derived limits and you excuse their denial with school zones. We talk about using only valid evidence at trials and you claim that we support drunk driving. We talk about reasonable policy that works and you claim that we are giving kids loaded guns. We want reason in law and you claim we want to let child molesters out of jail.

    Bullshit.

    You continue to misconstrue, misstate and outright lie about what we say, how we say it and what we mean. Your whole argument boils down to the sad fact that you cannot stand the idea of people making their own choices in driving or in governance and it has been exacerbated by the fact that you’re probably a paid shill for the anti-destination league

  19. Randy says:

    Jeff you do not watch the news do you? You have a Giant problem.




Join National Motorists Association

© National Motorists Association