A Breathalyzer in Every Car...

[BENZ BOY15]

Security. Freedom.

How much of each do you want, because you can't have both.

There's a middle ground and that's just the reality in 2015.

[BENZ BOY15]

I just don't understand why people feel the need to drive after drinking.  It's the same logic to me as someone stabbing themselves in the face with a large knife.  Does society really want someone like that to handle a gun, knife, or car?

So the death penalty is a bit harsh.  Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe

Well, I don't know if I agree with that.

I'm a big believer in second chances and while I don't personally know of anybody who's gotten a DUI, if I did I'd just kinda hope they would not do it again. It's a pretty PITA experience from everything I've read and seems to me that a good number of people would learn their lesson and not do it again. Or at least I'd think so.

Now, if it's multiple DUIs and they clearly haven't learned.....then yeah, revoke their license. But I think there's a process and the punishment has to fit the crime. Drunk driving and causing an injury? I can see revoking the license.

But if it's .01 above the legal limit, I just don't see how society can justify revoking somebody's license for the rest of their life.

[shp4man]

In the future, no breathalyser device will be needed.  Thanks to the invention of machine AI, the car itself will be an intelligent being, capable of driving itself home and calling the cops if you demand higher than safe speed or attempt to drive while intoxicated.
Welcome....to the future!

Muwaaaahhaaahhaahaaaaaaa!!!!!

[giant_mtb]

Yeah, why are they even bothering.  Didn't Google make a car that can hardly drive itself already?

[BENZ BOY15]

Yeah, why are they even bothering.  Didn't Google make a car that can hardly drive itself already?

I think it drove pretty well actually but the crashes were the fault of other human drivers.

Or at least that's what they claimed.

[Soup DeVille]

I think it drove pretty well actually but the crashes were the fault of other human drivers.

Or at least that's what they claimed.

That's what my mom always claims too. Congratulations Google, you drive like a retired hippy.

[GoCougs]

Of course it has to be said that this tech is super easy to defeat (duh - just have someone else blow into it) so it's worth almost nothing, even if it where a catastrophic overreach of government.

[Soup DeVille]

Of course it has to be said that this tech is super easy to defeat (duh - just have someone else blow into it) so it's worth almost nothing, even if it where a catastrophic overreach of government.

If theyre anything like the units retrofitted currently via court order, its not that easy.

[BENZ BOY15]

If theyre anything like the units retrofitted currently via court order, its not that easy.

What do you think should be the punishment for DUI on your first, second and third offense?

[BENZ BOY15]

That's what my mom always claims too. Congratulations Google, you drive like a retired hippy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/technology/personaltech/google-says-its-not-the-driverless-cars-fault-its-other-drivers.html

[giant_mtb]

I think it drove pretty well actually but the crashes were the fault of other human drivers.

Or at least that's what they claimed.

They drive fine, but they're still not nearly adequate for inclement weather. 

[BENZ BOY15]

They drive fine, but they're still not nearly adequate for inclement weather. 

Well, that doesn't seem like anything that can't be incorporated by the smart folk at Google. Maybe not at the moment, but I'm sure somebody....somewhere....can create an algorithm or whatever that takes into account weather conditions. Whether that's a sensor in the car and/or a combination of real time weather reports....that isn't for me to say. But I'm sure it can be done.

Sounds a bit farfetched but then again, most technology today would seem farfetched not that long ago.

[BENZ BOY15]

I just don't understand why people feel the need to drive after drinking.  It's the same logic to me as someone stabbing themselves in the face with a large knife.  Does society really want someone like that to handle a gun, knife, or car?

So the death penalty is a bit harsh.  Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe

It also seems like it'd almost create more problems for society than it'd solve. The individual would have a hard, if not impossible, time getting to work which means they'd go on some sort of public assistance at some point. They wouldn't be paying taxes and I don't see a good reason why they shouldn't be given a second chance.

There's also different levels of drunk driving and having an arbitrary number neglects to incorporate the reality that different people have different reactions to alcohol. Some people like me have a low tolerance for alcohol but others have a high tolerance, yet the law doesn't really look at the state of impairment, they look at the BAC. Seems like there could be a better way to determine what's intoxicated driving and what isn't.

Why .08? It seems rather arbitrary....to me anyway.

[giant_mtb]

Well, that doesn't seem like anything that can't be incorporated by the smart folk at Google. Maybe not at the moment, but I'm sure somebody....somewhere....can create an algorithm or whatever that takes into account weather conditions. Whether that's a sensor in the car and/or a combination of real time weather reports....that isn't for me to say. But I'm sure it can be done.

Sounds a bit farfetched but then again, most technology today would seem farfetched not that long ago.

It's not about the weather itself, it's about how the car reacts.  Basically what I'm saying is they're useless in the snow.  Especially when they can't see the lines.  I'd love to see a RWD (or FWD, for that matter) self-driving car go up a slippery snowy hill at highway speed without spinning out or losing its shit. 

Lots of people deal with inclement weather...self-driving cars can't do it yet.  What am I gonna do?  Not drive to work for 3 months' worth of work a year because it was snowing and my SmartCar couldn't brain itself over the ice?  Useless.

[giant_mtb]

It also seems like it'd almost create more problems for society than it'd solve. The individual would have a hard, if not impossible, time getting to work which means they'd go on some sort of public assistance at some point. They wouldn't be paying taxes and I don't see a good reason why they shouldn't be given a second chance.

There's also different levels of drunk driving and having an arbitrary number neglects to incorporate the reality that different people have different reactions to alcohol. Some people like me have a low tolerance for alcohol but others have a high tolerance, yet the law doesn't really look at the state of impairment, they look at the BAC. Seems like there could be a better way to determine what's intoxicated driving and what isn't.

Why .08? It seems rather arbitrary....to me anyway.

Tolerance and impairment aren't wholly interchangeable.  A higher tolerance means someone can drink more without feeling or consciously acting impaired, but the more subconscious stuff like motor skills and reaction time are still just as affected. 

[BENZ BOY15]

It's not about the weather itself, it's about how the car reacts.  Basically what I'm saying is they're useless in the snow.  Especially when they can't see the lines.  I'd love to see a RWD (or FWD, for that matter) self-driving car go up a slippery snowy hill at highway speed without spinning out or losing its shit. 

Lots of people deal with inclement weather...self-driving cars can't do it yet.  What am I gonna do?  Not drive to work for 3 months' worth of work a year because it was snowing and my SmartCar couldn't brain itself over the ice?  Useless.

Yeah but that's today; I'm sure some smart geek somewhere could compensate for that. How? I dunno. I'm a realtor, not an engineer but it doesn't seem like an insurmountable obstacle given what's already been created. To me anyway.

It also seems kinda dumb to create a product that can't be used in a large swath of the country during the colder months. At some point they'll figure out a solution, me thinks, but you do have a good point. It's useless buying a self-driving car that can't be used during a substantial portion of the year and I certainly wouldn't. Provided I could afford one, which I most certainly can't.

One area where the driverless cars have the potential to really be a revolution is with seniors and others that have disabilities or whatnot that prevent them from going around. It'd get a lot of people out of the house and interacting in society....that otherwise wouldn't. That'd be a great thing.

[Soup DeVille]

What do you think should be the punishment for DUI on your first, second and third offense?

It would depend on the case, wouldn't it? That's why they're called sentencing guidelines in most cases.

As far as this topic goes, I see no problem with court ordered breathalyzer interlocks; but putting them on every car would be ludicrous.

[BENZ BOY15]

Tolerance and impairment aren't wholly interchangeable.  A higher tolerance means someone can drink more without feeling or consciously acting impaired, but the more subconscious stuff like motor skills and reaction time are still just as affected. 

Hmm. Doesn't really seem that way but perhaps you're right; it's just whenever I've heavily drank with people, I notice I get a lot more drunk and more impaired more quickly. And others don't seem to slur their words, are unstable when walking or anything whereas I'll be all of those things....despite having consumed less alcohol.

It depends on the type of drink, but more than two drinks I won't drive. Tequila is the absolute worst and maybe it's just me, but that shit gets me more trashed more quickly than any other type of alcohol.

[BENZ BOY15]

It would depend on the case, wouldn't it? That's why they're called sentencing guidelines in most cases.

As far as this topic goes, I see no problem with court ordered breathalyzer interlocks; but putting them on every car would be ludicrous.

For a repeat offender, I agree.

But to have them standard on cars right off the lot? I don't really know about that, nor do I think car companies would go along with it. They'd be accused of big brother behavior and then there'd be the conspiracy that the results would be sent to the government and/or tracked by the company.

[Soup DeVille]

For a repeat offender, I agree.

But to have them standard on cars right off the lot? I don't really know about that, nor do I think car companies would go along with it. They'd be accused of big brother behavior and then there'd be the conspiracy that the results would be sent to the government and/or tracked by the company.

People, for the most part have already consented to be tracked; although most don't think about it much. And car companies wouldn't really have a choice once it was legislated into necessity. I just don't think they'll try to use it as a selling point ( the way they do with mandatory backup cameras).

[Klackamas]

It's a punish all for the sins of a few knuckleheads.

I'm sure a lot of accidents and near misses occur today for texting and playing around with a smartphone while driving.

[giant_mtb]

It's a punish all for the sins of a few knuckleheads.

I'm sure a lot of accidents and near misses occur today for texting and playing around with a smartphone while driving.

I propose non-invasive signal jammers in all vehicles to prevent smartphoning and driving.

[BENZ BOY15]

I propose non-invasive signal jammers in all vehicles to prevent smartphoning and driving.

Yeah. I'm sure that'd fly with the courts.

[Soup DeVille]

I propose non-invasive signal jammers in all vehicles to prevent smartphoning and driving.

That would be illegal.

[giant_mtb]

That would be illegal.

So the FCC won't let me be or let me be so let me see.

[giant_mtb]

Yeah. I'm sure that'd fly with the courts.

Sarcasm.

[Soup DeVille]

So the FCC won't let me be or let me be so let me see.

Technical, you can have one, but I can't buy one; and if you make one, you can't turn it on.

[BENZ BOY15]

Sarcasm.

I was 97.87% sure it was. Good.

People, for the most part have already consented to be tracked; although most don't think about it much. And car companies wouldn't really have a choice once it was legislated into necessity. I just don't think they'll try to use it as a selling point ( the way they do with mandatory backup cameras).

But the politics of it would be terrible for those promoting it.

It'd never pass, though I can definitely see an effort being made. Of course, introducing legislation is far, far cry from passing legislation and that seems like exactly the sort of big brother idea that'd backfire....spectacularly.

[280Z Turbo]

Model T has electronic ignition. The government will wire the breathalyzer into the magneto switch.

So I have to huff and puff into a hose as I'm cranking by hand?

[Cookie Monster]

So the FCC won't let me be or let me be so let me see.