"In response to concerns about limited progress in
reducing alcohol-impaired driving in the United
States during the last decade, attention is
focusing on technological approaches to the
problem. One strategy includes efforts to
increase the application of current breath alcohol
ignition interlocks on the vehicles of Driving
While Intoxicated (DWI) offenders. However,
in recognition that many alcohol-impaired
drivers have not been convicted of DWI, an
effort is underway to develop advanced in-
vehicle technologies that could be fitted in
vehicles of all drivers to measure driver blood
alcohol concentration non-invasively....."
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/ESV/esv21/09-0464.pdf (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/ESV/esv21/09-0464.pdf)
I will move the fuck to Canada, I fucking swear.
Hahahahaha okay.
Lately, the numbers have been going down...
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/by_the_numbers/drunk_driving/index.html)
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 21, 2015, 06:59:37 PM
I will move the fuck to Canada, I fucking swear.
I'll ride a damned horse.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 21, 2015, 07:41:42 PM
I'll ride a damned horse.
Fuck horses. I will build a car that has no electronics, and therefore cannot be governed by this stupid ass breath interlock bull shit. Steam powered car.
Understandable really. Americans and their addictions ruin it for the rest of us. The problem is the drop in alcohol DUI has been well more than offset by weed and 'script DUI.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 21, 2015, 07:45:09 PM
Fuck horses. I will build a car that has no electronics, and therefore cannot be governed by this stupid ass breath interlock bull shit. Steam powered car.
I'll stick with a Model T
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 21, 2015, 08:33:35 PM
I'll stick with a Model T
Model T has electronic ignition. The government will wire the breathalyzer into the magneto switch.
So you all are upset that you won't be able to drive intoxicated?
Yep, sure sucks to live in a nanny state, but fuck you for wanting people to be able to drive intoxicated.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 21, 2015, 10:39:21 PM
So you all are upset that you won't be able to drive intoxicated?
Yep, sure sucks to live in a nanny state, but fuck you for wanting people to be able to drive intoxicated.
I'm sorry, but my 61 year old mother shouldn't have to blow a breathalyzer to go buy suet for the birds.
But as far as that drunk guy goes who then hits my mother cause he crossed the center line...he shouldve had one!
Shit. Double sword edged.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 21, 2015, 10:39:21 PM
So you all are upset that you won't be able to drive intoxicated?
Yep, sure sucks to live in a nanny state, but fuck you for wanting people to be able to drive intoxicated.
No, not even.
This line of reasoning is right up there with "if you're no hiding anything, why won't you let us search you?"
100% Bullshit.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 21, 2015, 10:57:26 PM
But as far as that drunk guy goes who then hits my mother cause he crossed the center line...he shouldve had one!
Shit. Double sword edged.
Security. Freedom.
How much of each do you want, because you can't have both.
I prefer freedom. Much much preferred.
I'd prefer the death penalty for first time DUI offences rather than this, but I know the death penalty wouldn't fly.
In the same vein, I'd like a "crazy meter" that can sense if a person is mentally prepared for fire a weapon, rather than take guns away.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 21, 2015, 11:59:49 PM
I prefer freedom. Much much preferred.
Not always and you know it.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2015, 12:13:02 AM
I'd prefer the death penalty for first time DUI offences rather than this, but I know the death penalty wouldn't fly.
In the same vein, I'd like a "crazy meter" that can sense if a person is mentally prepared for fire a weapon, rather than take guns away.
I'm pretty sure desiring to kill first time DUI offenders should be one of those things that triggers alarms on the crazy meter.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2015, 12:33:50 AM
I'm pretty sure desiring to kill first time DUI offenders should be one of those things that triggers alarms on the crazy meter.
:lol:
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 :hmm:
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2015, 12:46:30 AM
Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe :hmm:
I'd go for that.
People don't intend to drive drunk, they just don't make good plans. They also suffer from bad decisions making and lack of self-control.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2015, 12:46:30 AM
Crushing the car and revoking the license maybe :hmm:
Why punish the car. How about they sell the car and use the proceeds to purchase bus or taxi transportation for the convicted. That might help allow them to get to and from a job so they have a chance at being a productive member of society without being like the other drunk drivers who just keep driving without a license.
I would rather have extremely severe penalties for violations, and much stronger driver education. Lifetime driver suspension for first violation. Life in prison/death if a collision results in any personal injury.
And the mass incarceration of America continues.
I seriously doubt this will happen, at least in the US, because it is a pretty big invasion of privacy. They may start on it but I'm fairly certain lawsuits of all kinds would come raining down like a ton of bricks. It's like saying we're going to set up illegal drug sensors (don't think it exists, but for the same of the argument let's assume) in homes that are built new. Sure, you may catch illegal activity but it also wouldn't be right.
"be fitted in vehicles of all drivers to measure driver blood
alcohol concentration non-invasively."
"a non-regulatory approach"
:facepalm:
What a load of crap.
Non invasively, to me, means some sort of sensor in the vehicle that catches ambient breath near the driver. So what would happen when I'm totally sober trying to drive three drunk friends home and their loud drunk breath keeps shutting my damn car off. It's not like they'll rig up an override because that would defeat the whole purpose. Nope, sorry, gotta walk for being responsible.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 01:37:38 PM
Non invasively, to me, means some sort of sensor in the vehicle that catches ambient breath near the driver. So what would happen when I'm totally sober trying to drive three drunk friends home and their loud drunk breath keeps shutting my damn car off. It's not like they'll rig up an override because that would defeat the whole purpose. Nope, sorry, gotta walk for being responsible.
I disagree. By definition it's invasive, even if it's a passive system like that versus a normal breathalyzer during a traffic stop. As far as sober driver driving drunk friends scenario, I'd imagine there are ways to get around that and focus just on the driver. If that wasn't the case, then the whole thing would fall apart because designated drivers help prevent drunk driving in the first place.
Putting that aside, the whole built-in-breathalyzer proposal is similar to putting a camera in somebody's car to see if they'll catch any illegal activity. The paper says that, well, this new system is needed because there are a lot of people who get away with drunk driving. Just because people do illegal activity in cars doesn't mean that every car needs to have systems to prevent that. You're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and this, to me anyway, strikes me as big-brother ish.
Maybe I missed it, but the study doesn't talk about the legal challenges that would almost surely arise from this. Maybe in other countries they can get away with it but in the US, I just can't imagine they would get past privacy laws, search and seizure and all that. If the car detects a drunk driver, is that automatically reported to the government? Which part of government? Is that in-car breathalyzer evidence that can be used in a court of law or does there have to be another test done by a cop?
It just doesn't seem that well thought through.
No, it would simply not let the car turn on. No way it would ever be allowed to automatically report to the government. If it detected alcohol, let you drive anyway, and told the cops where you were...that's just entrapment. Or sleaze.
By non invasive, they mean something that isn't a device with a straw clamped to your dashboard you have to blow .00 in to start your car, as in the devices installed in vehicles of repeat DUI offenders.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 02:01:55 PM
No, it would simply not let the car turn on. No way it would ever be allowed to automatically report to the government. If it detected alcohol, let you drive anyway, and told the cops where you were...that's just entrapment. Or sleaze.
By non invasive, they mean something that isn't a device with a straw clamped to your dashboard you have to blow .00 in to start your car, as in the devices installed in vehicles of repeat DUI offenders.
Yeah the reporting to the authorities would never fly.
Even still, what do you do about all the cars on the road that don't have them? Seems like it'll only be effective if every car has one or at least a substantial portion. Even if they equip every car starting this year with one, it's going to be a long....long time before it becomes widespread. I'm sure their intentions are good but I doubt it'll amount to anything. Then there's the issue of whether car companies would want to do this because it's voluntary.
Maybe in 20 years we'll come back to this thread and see what it amounted to. :lol:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 21, 2015, 11:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2015, 12:46:30 AM
:lol:
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 :hmm:
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.
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!!!!! :heated: :lockedup: :evildude: :rage:
:lol:
Yeah, why are they even bothering. Didn't Google make a car that can hardly drive itself already?
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 02:40:48 PM
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. :lol:
Or at least that's what they claimed.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 22, 2015, 02:46:48 PM
I think it drove pretty well actually but the crashes were the fault of other human drivers. :lol:
Or at least that's what they claimed.
That's what my mom always claims too. Congratulations Google, you drive like a retired hippy.
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 22, 2015, 03:45:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2015, 03:54:17 PM
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?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2015, 02:55:19 PM
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/technology/personaltech/google-says-its-not-the-driverless-cars-fault-its-other-drivers.html)
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 22, 2015, 02:46:48 PM
I think it drove pretty well actually but the crashes were the fault of other human drivers. :lol:
Or at least that's what they claimed.
They drive fine, but they're still not nearly adequate for inclement weather.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 04:29:08 PM
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.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2015, 12:46:30 AM
:lol:
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 :hmm:
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.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 22, 2015, 04:36:14 PM
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.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 22, 2015, 04:40:05 PM
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.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 04:50:41 PM
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.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 22, 2015, 04:19:42 PM
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.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 04:53:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2015, 05:01:25 PM
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.
Quote from: BENZ BOY15 on September 22, 2015, 05:07:35 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: Klackamas on September 22, 2015, 05:19:06 PM
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.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 06:33:03 PM
I propose non-invasive signal jammers in all vehicles to prevent smartphoning and driving.
Yeah. I'm sure that'd fly with the courts.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 06:33:03 PM
I propose non-invasive signal jammers in all vehicles to prevent smartphoning and driving.
That would be illegal.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2015, 06:46:43 PM
That would be illegal.
So the FCC won't let me be or let me be so let me see.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 06:52:08 PM
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.
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 06:52:32 PM
Sarcasm.
I was 97.87% sure it was. Good.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 22, 2015, 05:13:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 21, 2015, 08:38:02 PM
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?
Quote from: giant_mtb on September 22, 2015, 06:52:08 PM
So the FCC won't let me be or let me be so let me see.
:lol: :clap:
(http://i.imgur.com/ow4vTS9.jpg)
That's. hilariously resourceful.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on September 22, 2015, 12:13:02 AM
I'd prefer the death penalty for first time DUI offences rather than this, but I know the death penalty wouldn't fly.
When the MADD Nazis get their .02 BAC limit passed, you'll probably reduce the population by 75% pretty quickly.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 22, 2015, 03:45:18 PM
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.
I agree on the overreach, but also question the logic of the "have someone else blow into it" argument. A) If there is a sober person around, why don't they just drive to begin with. B) Generally drinking is either done out with friends, or home alone (in the case of legit alcoholics). Where are all these sober people coming from?