Technology Could End Drunk Driving

[Braivo]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

Guys hit in head with golf ball per year when standing too far forward of the tee: 10?

People KILLED as a result of drunk driving: 10,000!

Not an appropriate comparison. 

[Double Mocha Man]

16 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

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.

 

Already happening in most states.

[IowaGreg]

4 hours ago, David in FL said:

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

I agree and responsible for the consequences of that decision to drive drunk.  I think it would go further to make drunk driving penalties harsher and harder to get past for repeat offenders.    

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Braivo said:

Guys hit in head with golf ball per year when standing too far forward of the tee: 10?

People KILLED as a result of drunk driving: 10,000!

Not an appropriate comparison. 

Sure it is. He was claiming special insight because he was personally affected.

And it was beside a green. Guy shanked it out of a bunker.

P.S. Many more drivers of cars than drivers of golf balls, too.

Also, 10,000/1,250,000.

[mcanadiens]

21 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Already happening in most states.

Indeed. My state included.

From what I've found it seems dear old Ohio will allow a first-time DUI case to keep their license if they have the interlock installed. Apparently it is up to the judges to decide what to do in each particular case.

Note that part of this particular system involves a camera pointed at you as you take the blower to make sure somebody else isn't just taking it for you. For a DUI convict who needs to get to work that's one thing, but I don't want that in my car.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by mcanadiens

[Double Mocha Man]

11 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Indeed. My state included.

From what I've found it seems dear old Ohio will allow a first-time DUI case to keep their license if they have the interlock installed. Apparently it is up to the judges to decide what to do in each particular case.

Note that part of this particular system involves a camera pointed at you as you take the blower to make sure somebody else isn't just taking it for you. For a DUI convict who needs to get to work that's one thing, but I don't want that in my car.

 

I think the device we are discussing will be a lot less intrusive.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I think the device we are discussing will be a lot less intrusive.

Pure speculation. You’re assuming it will work too.

And by work I mean always. Without fail.

[Double Mocha Man]

56 minutes ago, iacas said:

Pure speculation. You’re assuming it will work too.

And by work I mean always. Without fail.

The "less intrusive" has already been laid out in your article... steering wheel, stop/start button.  The IID has a hand held device with a long cable you pull from a holster on the dash.  And the camera.   And hell, our cars don't even work without fail, like our golf swings!  But as I've researched and shared info with the forum the IID will not brick the car.  And my bet would be the same with this new device.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

But as I've researched and shared info with the forum the IID will not brick the car.  And my bet would be the same with this new device.

You haven't shown that. If you fail the test, the car doesn't start.

That's unacceptable.

[Vinsk]

16 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

What if it's proven that's it's 99% foolproof? 

Like what?

[Double Mocha Man]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

You haven't shown that. If you fail the test, the car doesn't start.

That's unacceptable.

Up to this point the discussion has referred to "bricking" the car as meaning shutting it off while in the driving mode.

If you fail the test (before any tires are rolling) you are probably over the limit in terms of alcohol in your system.

With all due respect it comes down to this:  Many of you are saying you'd rather people die than you personally having to give up a small right/convenience.  I am sorry to say that but look closely at your arguments.  I do like this site and wish to continue posting on it so I hope this statement doesn't get me banned.

I think a lot of good folks in this excellent forum are reaching at straws to try to support their position.  If you don't like having someone tell you what to do just say so... don't trump up weak arguments.

[David in FL]

Along similar lines.  A simple governor will limit top speed too.  Since we know that excess speed kills, why not limit all cars to the speed limit?  Hell, with gps, it could easily be road/street specific.  Even school zones could be programmed in.  

I see little difference between the two, except the speed limitation would likely be more reliable... 

[Double Mocha Man]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

Along similar lines.  A simple governor will limit top speed too.  Since we know that excess speed kills, why not limit all cars to the speed limit?  Hell, with gps, it could easily be road/street specific.  Even school zones could be programmed in.  

I see little difference between the two, except the speed limitation would likely be more reliable... 

I'm for that.  But if I'm running late to the golf course please allow me 5 over the speed limit... 😊

Edited October 17, 2019 by Double Mocha Man

[Bonvivant]

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Along similar lines.  A simple governor will limit top speed too.  Since we know that excess speed kills, why not limit all cars to the speed limit?  Hell, with gps, it could easily be road/street specific.  Even school zones could be programmed in.  

I see little difference between the two, except the speed limitation would likely be more reliable... 

Excessive speed doesn't kill. Excessive variance in speed of cars on the road does.

[iacas]

A few quick hits.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

I must point out that using statistics in this manner is an absolute disgrace.

I disagree. You're talking about inconveniencing millions of people.

Auto deaths per year in the U.S.: ~37,000.
Auto deaths involving alcohol: ~10,000.

That's under 30%, and most of those are the driver.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

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.

Very few of them are alcohol-related.

If you want to say we should push back the driving age to 21 or 25 or something, you might be able to make a good case for it using these stats.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

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.

How often are your kids out between the hours of 10pm and 4am, when most alcohol-related accidents happen?

I agree, keeping them safe between the hours of 3pm to 6pm goes up if they're in a car (rush hour), but that's just automobile accidents. This type of device, when functioning properly, will have basically ZERO effect there. None. Except for the few bricked cars non-intoxicated people can't start. 😛 And then when they can get it to start, maybe they'll cause more accidents because they're now late.

2 hours ago, Braivo said:

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.

Here's another stat for you: ~3500 deaths are caused by drowning in pools every year. About 1/3 as many as alcohol-related automobile accidents. And far, far, far fewer swim in pools, and do so far, far, far less often than they drive or are driven around.

2 hours ago, chspeed said:

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.

It's still the real world. A device that works 99% of the time is unacceptably bad. "As expected" is not going to be 99.999% of the time with virtually no false negatives.

2 hours 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.

No, it's not. One such reason why that's a poor analogy: choosing not to wear a seat belt doesn't brick your car. It doesn't stop you from going anywhere. You don't have to click your seat belt properly in order to go somewhere, physically, in your car.

2 hours ago, chspeed said:

I can tell you that 61% of motor vehicle deaths involve alcohol (real number).

I don't think that number is at all correct. I think it's under 30%.

2 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

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.

Why should I have to? And you've done nothing to address false positives, false negatives, failure rates (again, 99% is NOWHERE near effective - there's a reason these devices are only installed in the cars of prior convicted drunk drivers - they've lost the right to have a car that is guaranteed to work all the time. I have not.)

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Up to this point the discussion has referred to "bricking" the car as meaning shutting it off while in the driving mode.

No, you're completely incorrect. It means rendering the car inoperable by failing the test. It means you cannot drive the car.

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

If you fail the test (before any tires are rolling) you are probably over the limit in terms of alcohol in your system.

No, it doesn't absolutely mean that. "Probably" had better be accurate to about 99.9999% certainty, or it's unacceptably high.

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

With all due respect it comes down to this:  Many of you are saying you'd rather people die than you personally having to give up a small right/convenience.

Uhm, no, it isn't saying that. At all.

14 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

I do like this site and wish to continue posting on it so I hope this statement doesn't get me banned.

That's one of the more ridiculous comments you've made.

---

I'll end with this, and point out that what we're doing is working pretty well, it appears, and that this is an unnecessarily HUGE step that annoys and costs EVERYONE:

Drunk Driving Fatalities

---

Though progress has been made, our commitment to eliminate drunk driving is stronger than ever. Visit us for facts and statistics on drunk driving fatalities.

Quote

Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities on our nation's roadways have decreased 48%, while total traffic fatalities have declined nearly 16%.  Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 80%.

 

[Double Mocha Man]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree. You're talking about inconveniencing millions of people.

Auto deaths per year in the U.S.: ~37,000.
Auto deaths involving alcohol: ~10,000.

That's under 30%, and most of those are the driver.

What if a device such as this reduced the alcohol related deaths to 3000, from 10,000?  Too many alcohol related driving deaths are not the driver... but an innocent person being on the road at the wrong time.  And sometimes the driver, let's say my sister Beth, a good person (not a habitual drunk driver) had one too many at her 10 year high school reunion.  This device would keep her off the road too... if she had a newer car.  And for her 30th reunion it would definitely keep her off the road, new car or old.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

What if a device such as this reduced the alcohol related deaths to 3000, from 10,000?

It does not change my vote.

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

Too many alcohol related driving deaths are not the driver... but an innocent person being on the road at the wrong time.

I didn't spend a ton of time looking into it, but it seems from a few sites that about 60-65% of the deaths in alcohol-related auto accidents are the driver. Another 20% are the passenger of the driver responsible (or irresponsible) for the crash, and another good chunk are motorcyclists. Surprisingly (to me anyway) few "other" people (innocent persons being on the road at the wrong time) are killed by drunk drivers.

And that "wrong time" is basically the middle of the night. The odds of dying - when you're not the drunk driver himself - at 10am on a Tuesday are pretty freaking slim. Or 2pm on a Thursday. Or whatever.

If you're a drunk driver that's drunk and driving between 9pm and 3am, then yeah, odds go up that you're gonna kill yourself. But you're probably not gonna kill anyone who's just standing around, because there are not actually many people just standing around between those times.

4 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

And sometimes the driver, let's say my sister Beth, a good person (not a habitual drunk driver) had one too many at her 10 year high school reunion. This device would keep her off the road too... if she had a newer car.  And for her 30th reunion it would definitely keep her off the road, new car or old.

And it might keep me off the road because it fails, or make me late for a meeting, or a wedding, or to catch a flight, and cost me a thousand bucks to have repaired, or… or… or…

I see little point in playing games with stories. They're emotional, and you can make them up just like I could make up stories about how inconvenient, costly, detrimental, etc. these could be.

Also, I notice how you gloss over the stuff that's inconvenient to you, like your complete misunderstanding of the word "bricked."

---

In short… punish those who break the law, and let the punishments of those serve as a deterrent to others. Any and all reasonable measures to curb drunk driving (or bad driving in general), I'm in favor. But this isn't, IMO, reasonable.

And that's all it boils down to, really. We disagree on whether this is reasonable or not.

[David in FL]

46 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

Excessive speed doesn't kill. Excessive variance in speed of cars on the road does.

It’s only one aspect of excessive speed which kills. Excessive speed too fast for the conditions, type of surface, visibility due to terrain, radius of curves, proximity to pedestrians, and many more, are all factors that can contribute to speed related accidents.

And no, I don’t want my car limited in that manner either...

29 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

What if a device such as this reduced the alcohol related deaths to 3000, from 10,000?  Too many alcohol related driving deaths are not the driver... but an innocent person being on the road at the wrong time.  And sometimes the driver, let's say my sister Beth, a good person (not a habitual drunk driver) had one too many at her 10 year high school reunion.  This device would keep her off the road too... if she had a newer car.  And for her 30th reunion it would definitely keep her off the road, new car or old.

You could reduce ALL alcohol related driving deaths by banning cars too.  But that  wouldn’t be a reasonable solution either...