Technology Could End Drunk Driving

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, Pretzel said:

This is similar to how it already works. The majority of states require an ignition interlock devices after a DUI conviction (some states require 2 convictions I believe) that doesn't allow you to start the car unless a breathalyzer connected to the ECU. A lifetime punishment seems rather harsh compared to the current rules instituting several years of ignition interlock requirements, but this would be an acceptable alternative to me for the breathalyzer ignition interlock system that already exists in law. It would be faster and more convenient for those required to have the device installed while achieving the same effect.

The problem with that is that a lot of drunk drivers kill somebody before they get that first DUI/DWI.  And, in my state, the Ignition Interlock Device is only required for the first 6 months to a year.... not for a lifetime.

7 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

This is similar to how it already works. The majority of states require an ignition interlock devices after a DUI conviction (some states require 2 convictions I believe) that doesn't allow you to start the car unless a breathalyzer connected to the ECU. A lifetime punishment seems rather harsh compared to the current rules instituting several years of ignition interlock requirements, but this would be an acceptable alternative to me for the breathalyzer ignition interlock system that already exists in law. It would be faster and more convenient for those required to have the device installed while achieving the same effect.

Come on now, let's not be dishonest with one another. Your statement was quite clear about those who are young having more testosterone than wisdom. Civil discussions are only possible when both parties are honest and neither one attempts to insult or discredit the other for arbitrary reasons.

Not attempting to insult anyone.  Remember, my 21 year old son fits that description.  When you are 25/30 I bet you will agree with my "wisdom/testosterone"  statement.  But until you get there you won't understand that.  Ahh, to be young again... and to live in Colorado again.

[David in FL]

Simple question.  Simple answer...

No.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

When you are 25/30 I bet you will agree with my "wisdom/testosterone"  statement.  But until you get there you won't understand that.

I’m 41 and I don’t agree with your statement. I had more “wisdom” than “testosterone” at 18, 21, etc.

You’re really discussing this poorly, man.

[Lihu]

I design consumer goods and know sensors are prone to failure and all that, but even so, this legislation makes sense.

That and waiting for self driving cars that I’ll need in 20 years 😁

[Pretzel]

38 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Not attempting to insult anyone.  Remember, my 21 year old son fits that description.  When you are 25/30 I bet you will agree with my "wisdom/testosterone"  statement.  But until you get there you won't understand that.  Ahh, to be young again... and to live in Colorado again.

You literally did it again, right here. You told me that I couldn't possibly understand something until I am older, an entirely arbitrary judgement you're applying to me based solely on age despite the fact that my expertise in this realm (biomedical technology) is likely greater than yours. I won't make definitive claims of knowing more than you because I don't know enough about you to make sweeping generalizations about that in the same way you do about age and wisdom.

You're also not quite as as clever as you think when you bring up the whole, "living in Colorado" idea - it's a flimsy and transparent dig related to the legalization of marijuana and its popularity among younger people. There is literally no other reason to mention my home state in this kind of discussion.

Just cut the crap and discuss the points without attempting to dismiss legitimate arguments simply because of who is making those arguments.

43 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

The problem with that is that a lot of drunk drivers kill somebody before they get that first DUI/DWI.  And, in my state, the Ignition Interlock Device is only required for the first 6 months to a year.... not for a lifetime.

Yes, some drunk drivers kill somebody before they get that first DUI.

You know what also kills people? The inability to get to the hospital because their car won't start since their hands are cold or even covered in their own blood. The inability for a driver to start their car and stay warm in cold weather because there is insufficient circulation in their fingers to get a BAC reading. In the case of steering wheel sensors that would cut ignition once they sensed drinking that would be guaranteed to cause at least a few road accidents when the system inevitably fails and shuts someone's car down in the middle of a highway onramp.

More importantly, why do you feel the need to legislate the actions of everyone in the country based on something that affects very few members of the population. In 2016 10,497 people died from alcohol related crashes (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html#targetText=How big is the problem,involved an alcohol-impaired driver.) This is a tragic number to be sure, but it represents 0.003246% of the US population. To put this in perspective, in 2016 there were 80,058 deaths related to diabetes. If you believe that drunk driving is a large enough problem to subject every law abiding citizen to an unnecessary burden every day to "solve" it, do you also believe that we should all be required to check our blood sugar before being allowed to buy a soda? Heart disease killed 635,260 that same year, should we have laws restricting the maximum weight allowed by the government for a citizen?

I've shown that it won't stop people from driving drunk, because it's still very possible for drunk drivers to get onto the roads. I've also shown that this type of technology can lead to additional deaths rather than simply preventing them, so the argument of, "if even one life is saved" goes straight out the window. The only question left to ask is why should all 350+ million citizens of the US be subject to a law that could potentially risk their own lives because of what is essentially a rounding error in the more than 2,750,000 people who die each year? It sounds callous, I understand, but the truth of the matter is that drunk driving is realistically a rather infrequent problem after the large campaigns of the late 1900's to change the social culture surrounding driving while drunk.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

You're also not quite as as clever as you think when you bring up the whole, "living in Colorado" idea - it's a flimsy and transparent dig related to the legalization of marijuana and its popularity among younger people. There is literally no other reason to mention my home state in this kind of discussion.

 

Pretzel... I admire and respect your credentials.

And funny, I wasn't being "clever".  I live in Washington, which with Colorado, approved the legalization of marijuana at the same time.  I probably smoked more weed in Colorado than anywhere else. My reference was that I DID live in Colorado when I was younger, and do miss the mountains, culture and the climate.  Glenwood Springs, Denver, Fort Collins (CSU), Greeley (UNC) and Breckenridge (ski bum).  Please don't add your words to my meanings.  Please take them at face value as I stated them.  I know how to do transparent digs but have not done that in this thread.

[iacas]

None of that is really on topic. You’ve not addressed any counterpoints.

[Bonvivant]

This is simple to me. Place an unnecessary and fallible obstruction on everyone because of the poor decisions of a few (relatively). Hard no. Just more control, which isn't what we need, in my opinion

[Double Mocha Man]

5 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

This is simple to me. Place an unnecessary and fallible obstruction on everyone because of the poor decisions of a few (relatively). Hard no. Just more control, which isn't what we need, in my opinion

But you must admit, almost all laws happen because a very few don't want to use common sense and they think they can do whatever they want.  It is those few who make life more difficult for the rest of us.

[Bonvivant]

Just now, Double Mocha Man said:

But you must admit, almost all laws happen because a very few don't want to use common sense and they think they can do whatever they want.  It is those few who make life more difficult for the rest of us.

Sure, but most other laws are pretty straight forward, and don't involve tech that can be worked around/tricked.

[Pretzel]

11 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

But you must admit, almost all laws happen because a very few don't want to use common sense and they think they can do whatever they want.  It is those few who make life more difficult for the rest of us.

Not all laws affect even law-abiding citizens though. The majority of them don't do anything to inconvenience or endanger those that follow the law in any way throughout their daily lives. Laws against murder, for example, have no effect at all on the daily lives of citizens who don't have a desire to kill. 

[Bonvivant]

Just now, Pretzel said:

Not all laws affect even law-abiding citizens though. The majority of them don't do anything to inconvenience or endanger those that follow the law in any way throughout their daily lives. Laws against murder, for example, have no effect at all on the daily lives of citizens who don't have a desire to kill. 

Nailed it

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, Bonvivant said:

Sure, but most other laws are pretty straight forward, and don't involve tech that can be worked around/tricked.

But it hasn't been established that the technology can be tricked.  What if it's proven that's it's 99% foolproof?  Would you be for it then? 

And that was the basis of the original question... 1. If the technology was available and worked as expected, would you support legislation that required this in new cars?

[Bonvivant]

Just now, Double Mocha Man said:

But it hasn't been established that the technology can be tricked.  What if it's proven that's it's 99% foolproof?  Would you be for it then? 

And that was the basis of the original question... 1. If the technology was available and worked as expected, would you support legislation that required this in new cars?

Having a car made before this legislation is a trick enough. Have you ever heard of a hacker? Even if it is 99% foolproof, you still have the issue of someone not drunk, that can't start their car because the car believes they are drunk. Or if they go with the eye tracking bit, your car shuts off in the middle of the freeway because it suddenly thinks you are drunk, and you get blasted by a tractor trailer behind you because they are switching the radio station, and you die. @Pretzel made a much better point than I did. Care to respond to that?

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, Bonvivant said:

Having a car made before this legislation is a trick enough. Have you ever heard of a hacker? Even if it is 99% foolproof, you still have the issue of someone not drunk, that can't start their car because the car believes they are drunk. Or if they go with the eye tracking bit, your car shuts off in the middle of the freeway because it suddenly thinks you are drunk, and you get blasted by a tractor trailer behind you because they are switching the radio station, and you die. @Pretzel made a much better point than I did. Care to respond to that?

The odds of that happening are probably far, far far less than a drunk driver killing you.  I know with Ignition Interlock Devices there is a safety feature that won't shut off your car if you are already driving.  This device could have the same feature, checking you initially, before starting the car, and then not checking again.  

[Bonvivant]

Just now, Double Mocha Man said:

The odds of that happening are probably far, far far less than a drunk driver killing you.  I know with Ignition Interlock Devices there is a safety feature that won't shut off your car if you are already driving.  This device could have the same feature, checking you initially, before starting the car, and then not checking again.  

The article mentions something that could monitor your eyes and head movements during driving. That is what I was referring to. I see that you don't have anything about what @Pretzel said about other laws not affecting law abiding citizens where this one does. Care to elaborate?

[Double Mocha Man]

Just now, Bonvivant said:

The article mentions something that could monitor your eyes and head movements during driving. That is what I was referring to. I see that you don't have anything about what @Pretzel said about other laws not affecting law abiding citizens where this one does. Care to elaborate?

I read the article too.  This is the statement:  "Another possible solution are sensors to monitor a driver's eye movement and breath."  It said nothing about the car moving.  It was part of the paragraph that was speaking to solutions before you could even start the car.

This is what Pretzel said about laws... "The majority of them don't do anything to inconvenience or endanger those that follow the law in any way throughout their daily lives."  I agree with that.  But I do hate using my turn signal when I'm on a country road and there's no vehicle within a half-mile of me. 😊  And for the record, I am fine with laws that inconvenience me if they are going to save lives, especially mine.

[Pretzel]

24 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I agree with that.  But I do hate using my turn signal when I'm on a country road and there's no vehicle within a half-mile of me. 😊  And for the record, I am fine with laws that inconvenience me if they are going to save lives, especially mine.

This is vastly different from a turn signal.

This is a device that will do several things:

1. Increase the price of all cars manufactured with it
2. Introduce an extra critical failure point that will literally brick your car if it breaks, with guaranteed costly repairs (car electronics are never cheap)
3. Introduce the possibility that your car won't work because it thinks you're drunk when you aren't - dangerous in a number of different circumstances
4. Possibly prevent you from wearing gloves while driving if it requires contact with skin
5. Possibly cut ignition to your vehicle and cause accidents if it malfunctions while driving - dangerous in a number of different circumstances

All of those are much larger issues than having to lift your finger an inch or two off the steering wheel to press the turn signal stalk. It still wouldn't even necessarily save lives either, because drunk drivers can still drive any car that doesn't have a device installed - of which tens of millions exist in the United States alone. It would impact less than 10% of vehicles on the road and impact less than 0.33% of deaths in the US each year, but it would add major concerns and hassles to the lives of every single person who wants to purchase a new vehicle.