A Push To Have Cars Say 'No' To Drunk Drivers

Discussion in 'Beer News & Releases' started by Ranbot, Oct 22, 2019.

  1. Ranbot

    Ranbot Savant (907) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania
    Society

    Here's the full NPR All Things Considered story stream and transcript:


    For obvious reasons I thought folks here might be interested in this and have thoughts.
     
    VABA, thebeers, Roguer and 4 others like this.
  2. MNAle

    MNAle Poo-Bah (1,670) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota
    Society

    DUI is a serious problem, but this is not the solution. It amounts to everyone having to prove they are NOT impaired in order to drive. It also assumes the technology never gives false positives, which could present a serious issue, depending on the circumstances where the driver is denied.
     
    jzlyo, Mikecap, chrismattlin and 18 others like this.
  3. Ranbot

    Ranbot Savant (907) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania
    Society

    I thought this from the article was interesting too:
    I'm all for saving lives, and keeping drunk drivers off roads, but if legislation gets ahead of the technology it could be 1 step forward, 2 steps back situation. I can see the story now: "Child dies in [sober] mother's arms because malfunctioning nanny-state car stopped her from driving to emergency room" Those sorts of emotional, worst-case stories get more attention than any statistical proof that thousands of other lives are saved. In general, we like to say "every life matters" until a safety precaution has a minor inconvenience to us. Starting in specific industries that already have zero-tolerance policies, like trucking companies and teen drivers mentioned above, and a good long phase-in period to make sure this technology up to 99.99% accuracy sounds like a good idea though if we're going to go down this route.
     
    Mikecap, surfcaster, KRug and 16 others like this.
  4. BayAreaJoe

    BayAreaJoe Meyvn (1,056) Nov 23, 2017 California
    Society Trader

    I'd be a bit concerned about just how invasive that kind of technology will be that is figuring out your blood alcohol level without having to do anything. Is there any level of radiation going on? I don't want to be subjected to some kind of medical exam to drive every time.
     
    chrismattlin likes this.
  5. Ranbot

    Ranbot Savant (907) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania
    Society

    There's no radiation in breathanalyzers and there are other detection methods already on the market like "...several [auto] companies have cameras that warn drivers if they appear impaired or have taken their eyes off the road."
     
  6. officerbill

    officerbill Devotee (453) Feb 9, 2019 New York
    Society Trader

    A neighboring department had special flashlights with passive alcohol sensors. They quit using them because of false-positives. The sensors simply measure alcohol in the air so a drunk passenger, spilled drink, even empty cans or bottles would register. To measure the driver, without a pinprick, you would have to have a breathing tube or vastly improve the technology to measure alcohol levels via perspiration (sensors on the steering wheel), it can be done now (https://www.wearable-technologies.c...or-uses-sweat-to-check-blood-alcohol-content/), but not with the necessary sophistication or accuracy.
     
    EMH73, JA_26 and unlikelyspiderperson like this.
  7. HouseofWortship

    HouseofWortship Crusader (754) May 3, 2016 Illinois
    Trader

    I thought the solution was self driving cars? When did we give up on that?
     
  8. HouseofWortship

    HouseofWortship Crusader (754) May 3, 2016 Illinois
    Trader

    Also, why does this seem like it will add $1,000 to the cost of a car, but be defeated by opening the window?

    Also Also, it specifies for new cars. If you are going out boozing wouldn't you just keep an older model car to get around this?
     
  9. dennis3951

    dennis3951 Savant (955) Mar 6, 2008 New Jersey

    Why don't they put a Kidney Dialysis machine in the dashboard of the car. You hook yourself up to it stay on it until it removes all the alcohol from your blood and you are safe to drive.
     
  10. Ranbot

    Ranbot Savant (907) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania
    Society

    [​IMG]
     
  11. unlikelyspiderperson

    unlikelyspiderperson Meyvn (1,170) Mar 12, 2013 California
    Society Trader

    When I was dealing with the repercussions from my own DUI some years ago, there was unanimous contempt for the breathalyze to drive systems that many people had to get installed. It's certainly possible that every single one of these people was lying and they actually were just drunk often and trying to drive, but every single person who had one had multiple stories of false positives, including mid drive tests that registered false positives and forced the driver to pull over immediately as power was cut to the car, there were claimed correlation between menthol cigarettes, gum and mints, toothpaste, and the obvious issues with mouthwash and cologne/perfume.

    I'd rather see the expansion and improvement of public transportation (and making it more affordable so it's not a high level math problem to figure out if you save any money over the gas to drive). I know it's a serious problem but this doesn't seem like a real solution at all
     
  12. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Aspirant (216) Aug 2, 2017 Pennsylvania
    Trader

    Honestly the tech is a pretty fantastic idea, will prevent way more tragedies than it will cause minor inconveniences. I mean it's not like they will install this tech without heavy testing, at some point people need to stop resisting progress and embrace technological development. People freaked out about drone deliveries too without understanding the tech, it's the same hogwash argument every single time. If the tech proves to be riddled with inaccuracies it will never make it to market, it's not that hard to understand.
     
    AlcahueteJ likes this.
  13. MNAle

    MNAle Poo-Bah (1,670) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota
    Society

    Even the highest tech lab drug tests have false positives.

    False positives can have disastrous consequences. See @Ranbot's post.

    This is a general society problem that can be (and has been) solved with laws and law enforcement.
     
    chrismattlin and Harrison8 like this.
  14. teal

    teal Initiate (92) May 3, 2012 Wisconsin

    Steering wheel sensors?

    Have you seen my mittens?
     
    jakecattleco, officerbill and EMH73 like this.
  15. NeroFiddled

    NeroFiddled Poo-Bah (11,363) Jul 8, 2002 Pennsylvania
    Society Trader

    Self driving cars? F-that, I want a self flying car!
     
    Roguer and HouseofWortship like this.
  16. HouseofWortship

    HouseofWortship Crusader (754) May 3, 2016 Illinois
    Trader

    This is going to be comical when someone has a low battery and it takes one guy to steer, one guy to blow into the device, and 3 guys to push the car to get it to turnover....
     
  17. TrojanRB

    TrojanRB Poo-Bah (1,504) Jul 27, 2013 California
    Society Trader

    No nanny state
     
    chrismattlin likes this.
  18. officerbill

    officerbill Devotee (453) Feb 9, 2019 New York
    Society Trader

    [​IMG]
     
  19. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Aspirant (216) Aug 2, 2017 Pennsylvania
    Trader

    Yes because our current legal system does a fantastic job preventing drunk driving :rolling_eyes:. Look at car accident death statistics, uber/lyft have had a greater impact than our policing related to drunk driving deaths. Tech will be the answer here once the government provides incentive to improve the already existent tech, which is exactly what this bill will do. Nitpicking and fear-mongering to prevent innovation is just stupid and a waste of time. Why not save lives when it's easily accomplishable?
     
    AlcahueteJ likes this.
  20. Beer_Stan

    Beer_Stan Initiate (142) Mar 15, 2014 California
    Trader

    I honestly think the only way to get an accurate read of BAC would be a system similar to that of a diabetes blood sugar tester that would send a signal to the car in the same way the key transponder does to bypass the security. But honestly who would want that?
     
    officerbill likes this.
  21. Ranbot

    Ranbot Savant (907) Nov 27, 2006 Pennsylvania
    Society

    I assume you mean...
    If your take-away was the "disastrous consequences" you didn't get the point. Right after that I said...
    So, let me be more direct... Over 10,000 people die every year in drunk driving related car accidents and there is technology that can reduce that number significantly. However, only a few egg-head public health staticians will know that thousands of lives were saved with technology that stopped a drunk driver from starting their car. The general public though will be aware and angry with the technology in the rare case it causes death, or more likely some far less burdensome inconvenience on their lives. (e.g. late for an event, repairs, embarrassment, etc.)

    Did you typo in this? Trying to give you the benefit of doubt, because I can't reconcile the "general society problem" with the "can be (and has been) solved with laws and law enforcement" parts.
     
  22. Scottsbeer

    Scottsbeer Devotee (498) Nov 3, 2017 Florida
    Trader

    This idea is ludicrous. My car violates my fourth amendment rights and government dictates that I prove I am not guilty of intending to break a law by forcing my car to "search" before I can operate it with no probable cause.

    Doesn't everybody see the problem with this?
     
  23. MNAle

    MNAle Poo-Bah (1,670) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota
    Society

    It's been solved in much of Europe. Here in the USA, we still don't treat drunk driving seriously. We make changes to the theater of getting serious, like reducing the legal limit from 0.1 to .08, when the real problems are the repeat offenders who clock in at .15 or greater.

    Treat drunk driving like what it is... reckless endangering of the public, rather than what poor ol' Uncle Charlie does, ain't that charming!

    Even if you did not mean your comment seriously, you should have. We don't need technology to give me permission to drive my car. We need laws that treat this problem seriously for those that actually drive drunk.
     
    StubFaceJoe, vurt and Scottsbeer like this.
  24. teal

    teal Initiate (92) May 3, 2012 Wisconsin

    I'd say it's actually attempted manslaughter and if you were looking at 5 years for DUI 1 instead of a fine, attitudes would change. Neighborhood bar/breweries would be just that - serving those in walking distance or an Uber/Lyft/Yellow Cab hot spot.
     
  25. AlcahueteJ

    AlcahueteJ Meyvn (1,171) Dec 4, 2004 Massachusetts

    We already have cars that can drive by themselves on the highway. The consequences of that tech going wrong are far worse than a false positive from your breathalyzer making you late for work.

    There was a video about a month ago of a couple asleep at the wheel of their Tesla cruising down the highway. Luckily, nothing happened.

    If this technology is in cars, then the breathalyzer will be too, even if it’s not perfect.

    If they design this well enough, it will be in cars.
     
    IPAExpert69 likes this.
  26. Crusherone

    Crusherone Initiate (33) Oct 16, 2019 New Jersey

    When it comes to the functionality of the device, we have to remember technology isn't perfect. We have automation for planes. For the most part it's good, but there obviously have been instances of it going really wrong too (and recently). Are we going to go back to manually flying (and human error) because of the possibility of technology error?

    I think that the same will eventually be for cars. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer. Until then, I'm not sure if this is the right answer, but at least we are starting the conversation in how to fix this.
     
    AlcahueteJ, Harrison8 and Ranbot like this.
  27. bbtkd

    bbtkd Poo-Bah (4,398) Sep 20, 2015 South Dakota
    Society Trader

    The second day I had my new car, I was backing out of the garage when it slammed on the brakes for no apparent reason. I thought about it and when I got home I moved the big potted plant three feet further from the door, and it hasn't happened since. Also, if someone is in front of me on the highway and I have the active cruise enabled, if they change lanes and brake for a corner my car slams on the brakes because it takes four seconds to realize they are no longer in front of me. Almost got me rear-ended.

    My point is that I trust the car nannies as far as I can throw them. I can disable most of them, but they can save you too so I tolerate them. A DUI nanny won't be defeatable, or infallible. There will be lawsuits when people need to go someplace in an emergency, aren't drunk, and the car says they are.
     
  28. rgordon

    rgordon Meyvn (1,017) Apr 26, 2012 North Carolina

    I would never drive after any two beers. I would not argue with a car that spoke to me. This shit is not really spooky but fools still drive drunk against all reason.
     
    IPAExpert69 and bbtkd like this.
  29. Zorro

    Zorro Poo-Bah (4,839) Dec 25, 2003 California
    Society

    Just one more nail in the concept of telling the government to get out of your face.

    What about, Marijuana, Cocaine and Meth detection?
     
  30. FatBoyGotSwagger

    FatBoyGotSwagger Meyvn (1,416) Apr 4, 2009 Pennsylvania

    Those 3 substances could actually improve driving.

    The marijuana driver would be driving 5 mph under the speed limit with a 200 foot distance between the and the vehicle in front of them.

    The cocaine driver would be blaring their music at max volume but very aware of what's going on in front of them.

    The meth driver would be the best of the three as long as the driver hadn't done meth for the previous week and not slept.

    I say all this half jokingly.

    Duis are no joke but neither is distracted driving. I look up at reir view mirror and half the time see the person behind me on their phone.
     
    DrumKid003 likes this.
  31. HouseofWortship

    HouseofWortship Crusader (754) May 3, 2016 Illinois
    Trader

    Good point. This is probably the easier one to fix and more people are doing it.
     
    Harrison8 and FatBoyGotSwagger like this.
  32. beertunes

    beertunes Poo-Bah (6,941) Sep 24, 2007 Liechtenstein
    Society Trader

    Good luck getting to work on time, if you gargled with mouthwash before you got in the car.

    I used to be an OTR truck driver, and our company drilled into us that "no alcohol, period, was ever allowed in the cab". Go ahead, start looking at ingredients lists of personal hygiene products.
     
    chrismattlin and officerbill like this.
  33. InVinoVeritas

    InVinoVeritas Devotee (431) Apr 16, 2012 Wisconsin

    I bet DOT requiring all vehicles on the road to have headlights with LED projector technology, or better yet matrix technology, or seat belts to be engaged to start and run vehicle would have a significantly greater impact to overall safety than alcohol sensing.
     
    unlikelyspiderperson likes this.
  34. bbtkd

    bbtkd Poo-Bah (4,398) Sep 20, 2015 South Dakota
    Society Trader

    I'd be really upset if my car were parked in the driveway when a hailstorm is reportedly coming, and I jump in the car to pull it into the garage, but it refuses to start because I had a couple of beers. My driveway, my car, my garage.

    I'd be even more upset if I had a kid with a high fever that needed to go to the emergency room, and the car refuses to start because it gets a false positive on my after shave or mouthwash.

    What would happen if you've already started the vehicle and are driving, when the car decides you are drunk. What does it do? Play quotes from "Arthur"? Turn off? Slam on the brakes? Pull over? Take you to the police station? They surely won't just detect at start because a person could have someone else start it.
     
  35. InVinoVeritas

    InVinoVeritas Devotee (431) Apr 16, 2012 Wisconsin

    I truly do not know where I stand with this topic. My belief structure mostly gravitates to laissez-faire. I do have heartache with government intervention when it has yet to be determined if a crime has or has not been committed - This is the cliche slippery slope. This is certainly a problem that needs addressing. I believe strongly argumenting inconvenience is an exception poor position when it comes to the lives and the impact the lose has to each and ever family.
     
  36. MNAle

    MNAle Poo-Bah (1,670) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota
    Society

    This was tried in the 70's and resulted in a public revolt. It evolved into today's warning lights and buzzers. People still sit on their seatbelts.
     
  37. InVinoVeritas

    InVinoVeritas Devotee (431) Apr 16, 2012 Wisconsin

    Understood. Point remains it offers greater good and it is noteworthy that it is far more simple technology, basic circuit, than any kind of blood alcohol level sensor.
     
  38. IPAExpert69

    IPAExpert69 Aspirant (216) Aug 2, 2017 Pennsylvania
    Trader

    People often look to Europe regarding this issue, but they never mention that culturally when it comes to alcohol they are just way smarter than Americans. They don't stigmatize teen drinking (which is imperative for learning your individual limits), and they don't pound sweet, hard liquor like Americans do. That combined with the heavier traffic, bigger gas guzzling trucks, a longer, more stressful work week, and lack of education in this country result in a way higher propensity to have fatal driving deaths directly related to alcohol. The tech is the answer, because fixing all that other shit takes generations and money. And Americans hate waiting and taxes more than anything.
     
  39. Dan_K

    Dan_K Zealot (518) Nov 8, 2013 Colorado
    Trader

    Drunk driving is a serious problem, but with self-driving cars on the horizon, and the rise of Uber/Lyft; is it really the time to enact this type of legislation?
     
    AlcahueteJ, AWA and FatBoyGotSwagger like this.
  40. MNAle

    MNAle Poo-Bah (1,670) Sep 6, 2011 Minnesota
    Society

    You don't have to fix "all that other shit." Getting serious with laws and law enforcement will go a long way. Jail on the second offense. Prison on the third. Lifetime loss of driving privilege on the fourth. Like that.