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 / 4003 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


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

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.    

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


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

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 by mcanadiens

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

16 hours ago, Double Mocha Man said:

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

Like what?

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 

Share this post


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

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 by Double Mocha Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

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:

DD-Fatalities-Thumbnail.png

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%.

 

Share this post


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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

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...

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 think most people "think" they hit it farther than they do until some actual measurements are done. They really aren't fooling anyone but themselves. Where the ball lands won't lie to anyone. I am realistic about my distances because that is important to me in order to play a quality game. I find on average that most hit it around 25 to even on occasion 50 yds less than they realize. I would state that most are around 15-25 less.
    • He prolly thought it wasn't fair the ball was in a sandy depression so he must have thought he needed to level the playing field.. I mean literally. 
    • Today’s the 10th, hence Rule 10.  A look at two aspects of Rule 10 - Advice and Caddies (Don’t skip the Caddies portion because it’s details pertain to our partners in Four-Ball.) Rule 10 - Preparing for and Making a Stroke; Advice and Help; Caddies Purpose of Rule: Rule 10 covers how to prepare for and make a stroke, including advice and other help the player may get from others (including partners and caddies). The underlying principle is that golf is a game of skill and personal challenge. 10.1 Making a Stroke, Purpose of Rule: Rule 10.1 covers how to make a stroke and several acts that are prohibited in doing so. A stroke is made by fairly striking at a ball with the head of a club. The fundamental challenge is to direct and control the movement of the entire club by freely swinging the club without anchoring it. (And, no. Bernhard Langer is not anchoring; the R&A and USGA have confirmed it several times.) 10.2 Advice and Other Help, Purpose of Rule: A fundamental challenge for the player is deciding the strategy and tactics for his or her play. So there are limits to the advice and other help the player may get during a round. Definition of Advice: Any verbal comment or action that is intended to influence a player in choosing a club, making a stroke, or deciding how to play during a hole or round. But advice does not include public information, such as, the location of things on the course such as the hole, the putting green, the fairway, penalty areas, bunkers, or another player’s ball, the distance from one point to another, or the Rules. Two Interpretations regarding Advice: Advice/1 – Verbal Comments or Actions That Are Advice Examples of when comments or actions are considered advice and are not allowed include: A player makes a statement regarding club selection that was intended to be overheard by another player who had a similar stroke. In individual stroke play, Player A, who has just holed out on the 7th hole, demonstrates to Player B, whose ball was just off the putting green, how to make the next stroke. Because Player B has not completed the hole, Player A gets the penalty on the 7th hole. But, if both Player A and Player B had completed the 7th hole, Player A gets the penalty on the 8th hole. A player’s ball is lying badly and the player is deliberating what action to take. Another player comments, “You have no shot at all. If I were you, I would decide to take unplayable ball relief.” This comment is advice because it could have influenced the player in deciding how to play during a hole. While a player is setting up to hit his or her shot over a large penalty area filled with water, another player in the group comments, “You know the wind is in your face and it’s 250 yards to carry that water?” Advice/2 – Verbal Comments or Actions That Are Not Advice Examples of comments or actions that are not advice include: During play of the 6th hole, a player asks another player what club he or she used on the 4th hole that is a par-3 of similar length. A player makes a second stroke that lands on the putting green. Another player does likewise. The first player then asks the second player what club was used for the second stroke. After making a stroke, a player says, “I should have used a 5-iron” to another player in the group that has yet to play onto the green, but not intending to influence his or her play. A player looks into another player’s bag to determine which club he or she used for the last stroke without touching or moving anything. While lining up a putt, a player mistakenly seeks advice from another player’s caddie, believing that caddie to be the player’s caddie. The player immediately realizes the mistake and tells the other caddie not to answer. 10.3 Caddies, Purpose of Rule: The player may have a caddie to carry the player’s clubs and give advice and other help during the round, but there are limits to what the caddie is allowed to do. The player is responsible for the caddie’s actions during the round and will get a penalty if the caddie breaches the Rules. NB In forms of play such as Four-Ball involving partners, a player's partner and the partner's caddie may take the same actions (with the same limitations) as the player's caddie may take under Rules 10.2. Relevant Interpretations: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=interp&section=rule&rulenum=10  
    • This is one place I would not complain about a 5+ hour round. Selfishly, I would prefer it...😊
    • IMO no. He just didn’t think anyone was watching. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Bob Mac
      Bob Mac
      (60 years old)
    2. Bull2152
      Bull2152
      (39 years old)
    3. Hue
      Hue
      (50 years old)
    4. Larrh7
      Larrh7
      (67 years old)
    5. Nixon
      Nixon
      (30 years old)

×
×
  • 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...