Jump to content
iacas

Technology Could End Drunk Driving

Drunk Driving Technology  

33 members have voted

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



109 posts / 3986 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for free today and you won't see this ad spot again!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • I haven't played Miami Shores in years. It's simply very far from my house and none of my usual playing partners are interested in the long drive. It's generally in good shape, but not known to be any kind of big challenge. Same with the 2 courses at CC of Miami. They were nice way back when, but it's way too far to drive on a weekday when i get to play. Some of the  public courses around Miami are Palmetto, in the SW area near me. It can stretch to play quite a bit longer than many other courses around here. Crandon, on Key Biscayne, is pricey, but well worth it. The natural beauty is a challenge to your concentration. The senior tour used to play an event there. Bayshore and Normandy are on Miami Beach and both are always in good shape. The Biltmore in Coral Gables is nice, but it's been redesigned since it's glory days when icons of the game played tournaments there. One of my favorite courses is Miami Springs, owned by the City of Miami. It's a very old course that's pretty much the same since the 30s through 50s when it hosted the Miami Open. In the clubhouse are a bunch of the trophies with the names of the winners over the years. Personally, I can't walk those fairways, (when I'm infrequently in a fairway), and wonder if Snead or Hogan stepped right where I am at that moment.
    • Going out on a limb but I think this happens when you don't have much 2ndary tilt. Right hand rolls over left much easier slamming the door close faster through impact. IDK, take this with a grain of salt but guys who start the DS with a mini squat get better secondary axis tilt, lead a bit longer with their right elbow and rotate better through impact. For me, if I try to rotate chest open through impact it actually stalls my hips. Not sure why it works the way it does but that's the exact opposite of what I intend to do (square shoulders and open hips through impact).   
    • Guys, it is not like I am opposed to a challenge.  In fact, it does make the game more interesting.  My concern is that badly maintained anything (bunkers, fairways, greens) make for unpredictable results.  I agree that rub of the green will happen even on good courses, but having any bounce or shot be unpredictable is stretching whether it is golf or roulette.  The difference is that on a good well maintained course, the percentage of funny bounces/results from a well struck shot are less
    • Won the handicap section of the Coffee Cup I played in my home course on Sunday
    • While I think Phil should not be playing because of all the reasons stated.  He is endorsing by his mere presence a government that has numerous instances of human rights violations.  As an elder statesman, so to speak, and future a HOF member of the PGA his presence does provide validation to the tournament. But he could have handled it so much better to avoid some of the flack he is getting. He could have used the same turning 50 logic and that he doesn't expect to have an opportunity to play the tournament again, (whether a true statement of not).  But the real response to put things into perspective would be to say... "Unlike the military weapons that have been sold to Saudi Arabia for decades, the products I use can't be used to kill Americans." I spent 30 years in the defense industry and it is pretty amazing what products are sold to foreign countries.  The products are not the latest products, or upgraded version, and lack sensitive USG capability, but they none-the-less they represent some of the best that America has made.  Unfortunately, allies can become enemies is short order.  None of this is directed to a specific administration, party, or to be interpreted as political in nature.  It has been done for years. What is the most amazing part of a Foreign Military Sale is that a branch of the service, say the Air Force, will negotiate a contract with a defense contractor using DOD acquisition regulations to the benefit of the foreign entity.  I was never able to get my head around hearing an Air Force officer tell Americans working for an American company that his job was looking out for the interests of the country of (insert name of country).  It was utterly mind boggling. So, while I agree Phil should not play, hitting a golf ball seems to pale in comparison. John
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...