Technology Could End Drunk Driving

[RussUK]

voted yes, but the technology would have to be viable, reliable and cost effective. I't doesn't matter how many people are killed through drink driving it will always be too many simply because drink driving is easily avoidable. If you want to drink dont use your car, get a taxi, a bus or walk home, it's not rocket science.

Maybe punishments should be harsher and the blood alcohol limits stricter. I know guys who can drink for England and not get affected and others who have one drink, be legally under the limit, and cant walk straight. Personally, i'm all for zero tolerance on drink driving.

If you go to the pub for a beer and want to drive then drink alcohol free beer. Most pubs sell it and its actually not bad these days.

I'll step down of my soap box now guys

[iacas]

9 hours 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

Yep.

9 hours 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.

I don't admit that, because I don't think that's accurate. Laws exist to protect the common welfare. @Pretzel already said it better, though.

8 hours ago, 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?

You're at least two orders off magnitude off from what it would have to be. 99%? Do you realize how many times per year I would have a bricked car that wouldn't go anywhere, despite me not having any alcohol in the previous few weeks, if it failed 1% of the time? That's a bricked car roughly 15 times per year for me. Fifteen times PER YEAR. 99.9% gets us to 1.5 times per year. 99.99% and it's bricking at least once in the lifetime of the car, which is still unacceptable. So, 99.999% and we might be able to talk. And only then if the technology was both a) cheap, and b) worked so quickly I didn't even notice it. Good luck with that.

TouchID was pretty great, and yet if your finger was a little wet, it wouldn't work. FaceID is nice, but it fails sometimes too. I sure as hell am not blowing into a tube to start my car. It would have to be integrated, fast, and failproof. Essentially, it would have to be visible 100% of the time, and nearly free. That's not gonna happen.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're at least two orders off magnitude off from what it would have to be. 99%? Do you realize how many times per year I would have a bricked car that wouldn't go anywhere, despite me not having any alcohol in the previous few weeks, if it failed 1% of the time? That's a bricked car roughly 15 times per year for me. Fifteen times PER YEAR. 99.9% gets us to 1.5 times per year. 99.99% and it's bricking at least once in the lifetime of the car, which is still unacceptable. So, 99.999% and we might be able to talk. And only then if the technology was both a) cheap, and b) worked so quickly I didn't even notice it. Good luck with that.

I've owned three cars, and only had one electronic issue. That was a recall on a radio. The impact of that is substantially less than having a car not start. I agree, it would need to happen less than once in a lifetime. Like, once in a lifetime for 1 person out of 1,000,000 people. 

Yea, I don't think the technology will be there.

My friend brought up a good point, there are other medical conditions that could mimic the symptoms of being drunk. Maybe there is one that will dilated the capillaries like being drunk. Maybe they are taking some medication that mimics that. 

 

[Wally Fairway]

This is interesting discussion - I have several comments and questions based on what I've read so far. 

We already have accepted seat belts in cars, and the legal requirement to wear them. And that law is designed to save your own life. Do you wear them?

Even if you don't drink, would you be willing to support this legislation and the potential inconvenience if you realized it would save lives, lives of people who are hit by drunk drivers (what if you've lost someone in your life to drunk drivers)? 
IMO it is similar to driverless vehicles, they should be safer, but not "perfect" 

My answer would be yes to the theoretical question - because I envision that the life to be saved as a child and because my son-in law (who drives a semi) was hit by a drunk driver and luckily he was only unable to drive for 6 months. 
But my vote is no, because the flaw in this question at this point in time is to believe that the technology is at a point to be reliable 

 

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

We already have accepted seat belts in cars, and the legal requirement to wear them. And that law is designed to save your own life. Do you wear them?

That is different. A seat belt doesn't stop your car from starting.

14 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Even if you don't drink, would you be willing to support this legislation and the potential inconvenience if you realized it would save lives, lives of people who are hit by drunk drivers (what if you've lost someone in your life to drunk drivers)? 
IMO it is similar to driverless vehicles, they should be safer, but not "perfect" 

By that logic, then we should ban people from driving all together. Accidents happen. People drive when they are sleeping. People speed. People just have lapses of concentration that cause an accident. In the end, people can die from it. 

[chspeed]

14 hours ago, Pretzel said:

It's no more effective than ridiculous gun control proposals, and for the exact same reason - there are so many cars out there not subject to the law already that it would be pointless.

 

IMO, that's not an argument against this or any law. Laws can be grandfathered in, you can have buy-backs (guns), etc. These are problems that can be solved.

14 hours ago, Pretzel said:

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

You define the right to start your car without some kind of alcohol monitor as an essential liberty  (by which I assume you mean some constitutionally protected right). Fine - but please realize that this is just your opinion. Getting a driver's license, registering your car, putting on a seatbelt, are all inconvenient. Do you reject those too? I personally don't think driving a car is a constitutional right, but a privilege that can be legislated. Originalists/textualists point to the second amendment as written to decry gun control laws, yet switch positions (non-originalists) when defending the constitutionality of driving a car without regulation, which is, from an originalists point-of-view, is not covered in the constitution. They point to right to privacy laws, but reject those same arguments from abortion rights advocates.

People interpret their "liberties" however they say fit, mostly in ways that align with their preexisting cultural, religious, and ethical positions . That's why these discussions inevitably fail to convince anyone to change anyone's mind.

 

[dennyjones]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

I don’t drink and drive. It’s ridiculous to ask me to prove it with a fallible system EVERY time I want to drive my car somewhere.

This.   I voted no.   I don't want additional tech in my car to raise the price, I don't want to worry if it fails and I can't drive.   If people were more worried about the issue the penalty for drunk driving would be more severe.   I read in the local paper where a guy was finally put away after 7 drunk driving convictions.    

[David in FL]

More steps along the road towards ending personal responsibility...

”But the car told me I was sober, so it’s not my fault!”

[Wally Fairway]

36 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is different. A seat belt doesn't stop your car from starting.

I never said they did, my question was more do you feel this law is an infringement of your rights? 
I'm just curious, because it took legislation to require seat belts and laws to enforce them for some people to start wearing them.

36 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

By that logic, then we should ban people from driving all together. Accidents happen. People drive when they are sleeping. People speed. People just have lapses of concentration that cause an accident. In the end, people can die from it. 

Nice false flag comment - and it is why I compared it to driverless cars, they won't be perfect and cannot avoid all accidents, but they won't be drunk, distracted by their phone, or radio, or other influences but it is an improvement. 
Do you not think the roads would be safer if drunk driving could be significantly reduced, and if so what cost are you willing to accept?

Again, I think these are theoretical questions as the technology is nowhere near where it would have to be to become practial (as Erik has pointed out)

[David in FL]

1 minute ago, Wally Fairway said:

I never said they did, my question was more do you feel this law is an infringement of your rights? 
I'm just curious, because it took legislation to require seat belts and laws to enforce them for some people to start wearing them.

 

There are laws against drunk driving.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

We already have accepted seat belts in cars, and the legal requirement to wear them. And that law is designed to save your own life. Do you wear them?

Unrelated. Seat belts don't really fail, the mechanism isn't technological, your car still starts whether your seat belt is buckled or not, etc. The list goes on.

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

Even if you don't drink, would you be willing to support this legislation and the potential inconvenience if you realized it would save lives, lives of people who are hit by drunk drivers (what if you've lost someone in your life to drunk drivers)?

No. Not at all. I support practical means of curbing drunk driving.

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

But my vote is no, because the flaw in this question at this point in time is to believe that the technology is at a point to be reliable.

That's one of many reasons to vote no.

44 minutes ago, chspeed said:

IMO, that's not an argument against this or any law. Laws can be grandfathered in, you can have buy-backs (guns), etc. These are problems that can be solved.

Sure it is. How are you going to get EVERY car without this system off the roads, or require installation of such a device? Is the government (i.e. the taxpayer) going to pay for it? It's a huge problem. Sure, with unlimited funds and time you could "solve" it. But this is the real world.

44 minutes ago, chspeed said:

You define the right to start your car without some kind of alcohol monitor as an essential liberty (by which I assume you mean some constitutionally protected right).

It says liberty, not right. So your point about the constitution is incorrect. The constitution doesn't even handle the concept of automobiles, for obvious reasons. But there is a liberty in being able to drive operate your property to legally travel somewhere, breaking no laws in doing so.

44 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Getting a driver's license, registering your car, putting on a seatbelt, are all inconvenient. Do you reject those too?

Straw men, for various reasons. Getting a license and mandatory installation of a device which can brick your car if it fails are NOT the same thing at all.

12 minutes ago, David in FL said:

More steps along the road towards ending personal responsibility...

”But the car told me I was sober, so it’s not my fault!”

Also true. If the car is tricked into a false negative, the "drunk" person who plows over a family will say "The bartender didn't think I was impaired, I did not think I was impaired, and the technology I paid for in my car confirmed that I was not impaired."

12 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Do you not think the roads would be safer if drunk driving could be significantly reduced, and if so what cost are you willing to accept?

I do not think they would be that much safer. As @Pretzel pointed out, drinking-related deaths are a pretty small number. They get headlines, like many other things do, because of the emotions involved.

[Braivo]

15 hours ago, Pretzel said:

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 must point out that using statistics in this manner is an absolute disgrace. Auto crashes are the leading cause of death for many age groups, particularly young people in their late teens and early 20s. Most of these deaths are far more tragic than heart disease and diabetes at older ages. Auto crashes are the biggest threat to the lives of my children and driving is by far the most dangerous thing each of us does each and every day. 

Also, someone drinking themselves to death with soda doesn't kill other innocent people. Everything about your logic is wrong. 

FWIW we submit ourselves to security checks at airports to avoid something (terrorism) that has caused a total of 3k-4k deaths total, ever. Yet we are concerned about giving up some freedom that could save that many lives per year, or more!

Anything that has a chance to reduce this risk should be explored imo. I generally do not like to give up "freedom" for security, but am willing to make some compromises to mitigate the risk of auto crashes. 

 

[chspeed]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Unrelated. Seat belts don't really fail, the mechanism isn't technological, your car still starts whether your seat belt is buckled or not, etc. The list goes on.

I thought the premise here is that this was available and would work as expected. If this is a technical feasibility thread, that's something else.

If it's a discussion about rights (or liberty, or whatever term we chose) of an individual vs. society, then the comparison of seat belts to this technology is apt. Both are considered inconvenient (were more so when they first came out), both "invade" your privacy, both are sometimes considered by critics as harbingers of totalitarian regimes. (all were talking points against seatbelts).

3 hours ago, iacas said:

I do not think they would be that much safer. As @Pretzel pointed out, drinking-related deaths are a pretty small number. They get headlines, like many other things do, because of the emotions involved.

Sure, if you use safer as an absolute term. We all know that everyone cherry-picks the statistics they care about. I can tell you that 61% of motor vehicle deaths involve alcohol (real number). People fight for stuff they care about. I'm not sure what headlines you're reading, but I haven't seen an article about drunk driving in national news in many years.

[mcanadiens]

I generally dislike any sort of government-required interference in my life. Adding another component to my car that can malfunction sounds obnoxious.

My vote is no for all new cars, but I would support the installation of these devices for anyone who is a repeat DUI offender.

 

[mcanadiens]

11 minutes ago, chspeed said:

If it's a discussion about rights (or liberty, or whatever term we chose) of an individual vs. society, then the comparison of seat belts to this technology is apt.

Weird one that. I'm old enough to remember when "click-it or ticket" wasn't a law.

I wear my seat belt all the time because I believe they keep me safe. I resent the heck out of being legally required to wear one. It's the sort of thing I don't think about until I see the PSAs. 

 

[Double Mocha Man]

Just some further info regarding Ignition Interlock Devices, which, in part will supply some of the technology for this new, pre-installed device:

1.  The device only affects the car starter.

2.  There is no documented information claiming it ever shut down or bricked a car while it was driving.

3.  The device has a random re-test mode that asks you to stop at the next safe area to retest your breath.  ('Cause I suppose you could be sipping from that bottle next to you while driving?) It will not stop the car on its own.  But if you fail to retest that info is forwarded to the company that installed the device via internet and they are obligated to report it to the state and your term of probation will be extended and you may be fined.

As an aside I am sure you can wear gloves to keep your hands warm... just needing to remove them for the brief moment of testing.

And again, personally, I will accept the inconvenience and related costs to keep the road safer than it is now... for me, my loved ones and everyone on this forum. 

Oh, and it is something, like other safety devices, that will be phased in over the years.  So if you have an older car you'll be exempt.  But over 15 years a very high percentage of cars need to be replaced.  Like seat belts, eventually they showed up on most cars, except classics.

[Patch]

I voted "yes". Didn't even give that vote a second thought. 

I am one of the very few on this forum that has first hand knowledge of the pain, and misery a drunk, or other wise impaired driver can cause. 

[iacas]

Just now, Patch said:

I voted "yes". Didn't even give that vote a second thought. 

I am one of the very few on this forum that has first hand knowledge of the pain, and misery a drunk, or other wise impaired driver can cause. 

And I know a guy who lost sight in his eye when someone shanked a ball into him. Doesn’t mean I support laws requiring face masks for all golfers.