Would you buy this car?

[breadman]

Would you buy this type of car that could lock its ignition if it detected alcohol in the driver?

I don't want to state the obvious about having a few beers but not being 'drunk'...but what about a situation where a guys buddy throws beer on the car seat so his car won't start. Or someone else throwing beer in a car to keep it from starting...

 

[korbel]

Yeah right.

Would you buy this type of car that could lock its ignition if it detected alcohol in the driver?

I don't want to state the obvious about having a few beers but not being 'drunk'...but what about a situation where a guys buddy throws beer on the car seat so his car won't start. Or someone else throwing beer in a car to keep it from starting...

Hello Breadman,

I saw reports of this device on CNN not too long ago. I think it should be mandatory on every car on the road. Plus, a hefty fine and long term license loss should be imposed if the device is discovered disabled or removed while driving drunk. As for what someones stupid friends may do, get new friends. Better pranks than killing somebody. That's a no brainer.

Use sense,

Korbel

 

[Techman]

I would never purchase anything, whether a car or any other kind of product, that had some kind of 'Big Brother' monitor controlling what I could or could not do with it. No thanks.

When it comes to drunk driving, it's a stupid and irresponsible thing to do. But I see many drivers who are just as dangerous as drunk drivers, if not more so, on the road every day just due to the fact that they are lousy drivers. Maybe we should have a device that keeps them off of our roads also. Or maybe we should just have real world testing procedures for drivers that keeps these people from being behind the wheel in the first place and realistic punishments for those who drive drunk. Maybe something like 6 months house arrest for a first offense above a certain level of intoxication. People might just think twice if they knew that getting caught would cost them their job and their freedom of movement for 6 months.

Techman

 

[naughtylady]

Last year I did a documentary type film on homelessness in youth (well 18 to 28: too complicated to include the under 18 crowd), drugs and the link with AIDS. Several of the people I met supported themselves by begging car to car or by cleaning car windows.

The number of drivers they approach with alcool on their breath is VERY high. Obviously this is anectodotal evidence but, I am willing to bet a lot of those lousy drivers you are talking about are in fact drinking and driving.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[korbel]

Not Big Brother.

Hello Techman,

I don't know the exact stats, but I am sure most motorists are not driving drunk at any one time even at night. Yet there seems to be a hgihly disproportionate number of drunks involved in accidents of all sorts. The problem with heavier penalties is the fact that most people figure they won't get caught. That is a fact of any age. With the alcohol detection device the average person would KNOW they would get caught (by the car) and think wiser. For the determined habituals who care little about law, risks, or lives, they would have no chance to risk themselves as well as others. If the device is effective, why put the solution into punishing or trying to deter offenders who may kill someone when you can stop them cold from the start. Remember, it could be someone you know. For me, a terrific guy would be alive if not for two highly drunk teenage girls who ran him down, dragged his body 700 feet, and never knew they killed anyone until the cuffs were on. When it comes to drinking too many people use thier freedom of choice to choose badly and indulge themselves thinking...IT WON'T HAPPEN TO ME!!!

No brainer,

Korbel

 

[EagerBeaver]

I saw reports of this device on CNN not too long ago. I think it should be mandatory on every car on the road. Plus, a hefty fine and long term license loss should be imposed if the device is discovered disabled or removed while driving drunk. As for what someones stupid friends may do, get new friends. Better pranks than killing somebody. That's a no brainer.

I agree with Korbel. I work in the legal system and the problem we have in the USA with DWI or DUI is epidemic. As I mentioned elsewhere, I recently sat in a Courtroom with a rather crowded criminal court docket and I was shocked at the number of DWI cases that were called before my case got called. Even more shocking was the cross section of humanity I observed pathetically grovelling through their attorneys for admission into the alcohol education program - old, young, white, black, all ages and races. It appeared to me totally out of control. The only factor seemingly considered in denying or granting AEP to first time offenders was the % alcohol content in the system and whether there was a claim of personal injury or property damage.

I come from a family of alcoholics, but somehow the gene seems to have missed me. Nevertheless, I had 2 close relatives die of cirhossis of the liver and another one drowned in an alcohol related incident. I personally drink very occasionally and never when I drive. Somehow people are not getting the memo on the dangers of drinking and driving and while I can understand Techman's "big brother" objection as applied to many new things that have been borne of modern technology, this concept vehicle is not one of them. Indeed, I believe at a minimum that a 2 time DUI offender should be required to drive one of these vehicles for the protection of the public.

 

[Techman]

How many times do you hear of a serious accident or hit and run situation where the person was at .08 or .10? These people are usually found to be at .20 or higher, many times much higher. There is nothing that would stop these people from driving drunk. Most of them are repeat offenders and have already had their licenses suspended or revoked. These people will not put any kind of anti-drunk driving system in their car. They will drive an old clunker if they have to. Those who are involved in a death usually get a soft sentence. Hit them where it hurts...in the wallet, cost them their job and means to make a living or throw them in jail for a long time. But our justice system just seriously sucks sewer water. Put serious penalties in place, with a sliding system based on level of intoxication and number of times caught and you might just see a change in habits. Having the same penalty for someone who has one beer or glass of wine too many that puts him barely over the limit as for someone who is falling down drunk is just stupid.

You want to help prevent drunk driving? How about a having a metro system that runs 24 hours a day from thursday night to sunday morning? Or maybe allowing stores to sell beer and wine until 3 am so that those people who are partying at home and run out of beer don't end up driving downtown to continue their party when they run out?

Ronnie, the type of lousy driver I'm talking about are those who sit with the steering wheel in their face and never look in their mirrors before changing lanes. Those who drive in the fast lane of the highway at 60kmh, and kids who drive hopped up, beat up civics who think they are F1 drivers. Others who are so nervous driving that they stare straight ahead and hold the wheel in a death grip. I drive about 30 to 50,000 km a year and I see 'em all. I figure about 10-15% of people with a driver's licence, maybe more, shouldn't be on the road.

Techman

 

[korbel]

Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't want anyone or anything prying into my personal life either. There are many things I worry about when it comes to "Big Brother". This isn't one of them. Are you telling me and the board that if you get into a car drunk and decide to drive, you don't want that decision interfered with by a computer that can only detect whether you are drunk or not??? Are you saying you have the right to choose to drive drunk if you want, put your life at risk, put my life at risk, put the lives of everyone on the road with you at risk and possibly destroy people's lives??? This is not about controlling your political, religious, or social views. This is not about prying into your private life, your interests, or stopping you from going wherever you want. It is about whether or not we should use a device that can stop anyone from committing the crime of drunk driving and endangering lives including that of the driver. And don't tell me I am putting words in anyone's mouth. The subject is clear here, and when one says "I wouldn't want my life to be dictated by a mere computer" one is saying he/she should not be stopped by a computer from driving drunk. That is a dangerous crime. This device is not spying on anyone. It is detecting the presence of alcohol on the driver's breath. If it does that then someone is drunk in a car and he/she is committing a criminal act. Where in the entire conception of human rights anywhere does it say anyone has the right to endanger innocent lives?

There is nothing this device does to interfere with driving, make the car less efficient, or in any way interfere with the rightful choice of anyone. It has one purpose and that is to detect a crime in progress. So, to say in regard to this matter of whether the device should be used or not, that you don't want it dictating to you, is to say you don't want it to stop you from choosing to commit a crime and possibly destroy lives, yours or that of others. Big Brother is a concept that refers to underhanded or direct attempts to control people living out their lives freely under lawful conditions and within their natural rights as human beings. This device stops a criminal act that has no relation to any human rights whatsoever to any degree anywhere, so it cannot be "Big Brother". If it is Big Brother then disband all the police, unlicense all the prosecutors, abandon the courts, turn off all security cameras, take away every gun for self-defense, bulldoze the jails and prisons, and erase all restrictive laws and safety regulations because all of these are trying to prevent crimes or give you the chance to live freely and safely too. Big Brother is when your rights or choices are prescribed by others. But, again, drunk driving is a crime. Prevention of a crime is not Big Brother. DAMN! Human rights and free choice were never meant to empower anyone to endanger others. The device is not dictating to anyone, it is giving us freedom to drive with fewer threats to everyone and less tragedy.

Think about it,

Korbel

 

[korbel]

Not really personal

The post is not meant to be personal to anyone. But the concept you generally alluded to got my emotions going. I have lost a few "loved ones due to drunk driving and homicide, but that is not why I feel this way, though it surely has some effect on my position. My position comes out of the fact, as I understand it, that the device simply detects a crime that has maimed or killed hundreds of thousands and destroyed the lives of many more. How can something that works so specifically and could spare us so much of these tragedies due to criminal behavior be some tool of "Big Brother"???

Sorry for the emotionalism,

Korbel

 

[mark_sab]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

 

[mark_sab]

smart cars...

i have issues with dui laws. perhaps advancements in technology will improve our exsistance with drink and drive?

if there were cars that read alchohol levels instantly,then there is no reason to think the levels should not change according to the situation.

i feel that drinking durring happy hour and driving is worse than driving drunk at 3am. the laws should reflect this.

drunk
driving by a school as school is letting out is worse than driving drunk when there is no one else on the roads but other drinkers.

hopefully the laws can be changed so that these cars can keep changing the legal limits allowed.

 

[nacho]

What if they had these cars in New Orleans, and the driver went through a drive through daquri stand? Would the car sniff it and stop? Man would that cause a traffic jam on a Friday after work. You wouldn't believe how many people stop for a road cup driving around town.

It's a good politically correct thing for a manufacturer to put alcohol detectors on their cars, but it won't be a big seller. Beav, as for requiring one on a guy with more than two DUI... I say just take his license and make him ride the bus. You can't monitor those guys anyway, until they get into another wreck or get pulled over for a 3d time. Too many of them and not enough cops.

 

[Ben Dover]

I heard that parents in the US are also thinking about installing breathalizer devices on their teenage daughters' vaginas. That way, they won't have to worry about boys drinking too much at parties and trying to take advantage. That's right... the kids will have to be stone cold sober to get a piece of that. This will avoid a lot of unwanted pregnancies for sure....

So -- ten years from now, if you are a kid and you drink too much at a party you will get no car ride AND no pussy...

Meanwhile whatever happened to the proposal to institute mandatory helmets for pedestrians... I mean seriously, a lot fewer pedestrians would die in car accidents if they were all wearing helmets.

And, don't forget, we also need to build a laser force field to protect us from the massive metors that hit the earth every 25,000 years or so...

I think forcing people to buy cars like this is laughable. But, I do agree that it should be mandated for repeat offenders. These are the people that already burned their own rights. They are a danger to society. Frankly I don't understand why "chronic" drunk drivers are allowed to drive at all, breathalizer or not.

The future is bleak...

BD

 

[breadman]

change of subject from dui to...

Another senario: What about the rapist who knows that this type of car can easily be disabled if you throw alcohol inside the car? He see's a women leave her sunroof cracked and knows by pouring some spirits into the car she won't be able to start it...

All of a sudden this feature that's meant to keep a drunk from driving is used for another purpose. All those who voted 'yes'...what's your opinion now?

 

[Ben Dover]

right -- or if you ask a young lady to dance at a club and she pours her drink on you (never happened to me, but it seems to be a popular scene in movies)... Then you get no dance, and you have to walk home because your "smart" car is too dumb to let you drive.

OR what happens to one of those redneck guys who likes to get drunk "while" driving... You know -- hop in the pick-up truck sober with a 12 pack on the passenger seat ready to go. I'm not joking... people actually do this as a passtime in some areas (mostly the south). Then, after 40 minutes when he's zipping along does the car just seize up and freeze? Maybe there should be an ejector seat... that would be cooler.

BD

 

[korbel]

I think forcing people to buy cars like this is laughable. But, I do agree that it should be mandated for repeat offenders. These are the people that already burned their own rights. They are a danger to society. Frankly I don't understand why "chronic" drunk drivers are allowed to drive at all, breathalizer or not.

The future is bleak...

BD

Hello all,

I really like you guys. You are so funny. Hey let me dream up another "likely scenario" that makes no sense. I have one: what if a dog knocked over some beer and lapped it up without the owners knowing it. Then the dog got in the car with a guy and his pregnant wife as he was about to take her to the hospital to have the baby. The friendly dog breaths on the monitor and the car won't start. The wife then suffers through delivery without professional medical assistance while a rapist, seeing the woman is indisposed, decides to backdoor the husband instead. The rapist's thug buddies break into the house and steal everything in sight, and then kidnap the newborn baby for ransom. There, wasn't that another reasonable scenario. In view of such an obvious COMMON hazzard, I want to change my vote...bwahahahahahahaha. Here's another: Aliens looking for humans to kidnap for their hideous experiments know about the anti-alcohol device in cars. They look for people driving along on lonely roads and shoot the vehicle with a concentrated spray of Jack Daniels, straight up of course, to stop the car. Unable to get away, the people in the car are taken back to the alien spacecraft for dissection or head transplants with cockroaches. Okay, your turn. Who has the next likely to happen to everyone scenario?

Fun huh,

Korbel

 

[metoo4]

Anybody actually tought of checking the method used for testing? It's not only one thing the system will look for, it's a combination.

And it it's a breath test, just alchool odor won't trigger it so, even if somebody pours a bottle of tekila in the driver's seat, they better aim at the detector itself and use only water instead of wasting tekila because, destruction of the sensor will be the only thing possible to render the car useless because of this system. Eyes movements also have a dectable pattern for drunk drivers so, adding this will minimize false alerts.

Could there still be "false positives"? Of course!

Would I buy this car? No problems there, but only if I don't have to pay a single penny extra for it.

Should convicted DUI be forced to use such car? Absolutely, and they should pay a premium for it!

Would this car reduce the numbers of DUI drivers? Probably not because those assholes would just drive a different car while leaving the "safe" one at home...

House arrest with a "bracelet" sound good... Minimal extra costs to society and it keeps them off the road!

 

[korbel]

Prevention is critical.

Anybody actually tought of checking the method used for testing? It's not only one thing the system will look for, it's a combination.

And it it's a breath test, just alchool odor won't trigger it so, even if somebody pours a bottle of tekila in the driver's seat, they better aim at the detector itself and use only water instead of wasting tekila because, destruction of the sensor will be the only thing possible to render the car useless because of this system. Eyes movements also have a dectable pattern for drunk drivers so, adding this will minimize false alerts.

Could there still be "false positives"? Of course!

Would I buy this car? No problems there, but only if I don't have to pay a single penny extra for it.

Should convicted DUI be forced to use such car? Absolutely, and they should pay a premium for it!

Would this car reduce the numbers of DUI drivers? Probably not because those assholes would just drive a different car while leaving the "safe" one at home...

House arrest with a "bracelet" sound good... Minimal extra costs to society and it keeps them off the road!

Hello Metoo4,

The idea of using this device as a punishment after an incident is giving up on lives. Theoretically, the law is then in a position of waiting for a crash or a death to happen before someone is punished if we use a punishment process. What is the cost in property, cost of living due to ever rising insurance rates, and the totality of destrcution in lives in every way for the dead and the living loved ones by waiting to arrest someone after a tragedy.

Prevention is the only thing that really makes sense. Yes there are repeat offenders in these statistics too, but certainly the vast majority are only involved in one fatal crash. So does forcing offenders who have already been responsible for serious damage or death a rational solution when the incident could have been completely prevented. What do say to the dead who were hit by all those who were never involved in a DUI or fatal crash before. How do we justify telling grieving loved ones, "well, we have a device that will stop him/her from ever doing that again.

Comforting...isn't it,

Korbel

http://www.luhs.org/depts/injprev/Transprt/tran1-06.htm#Alcohol%20and%20Non-Alcohol%20Fatalities%20by%20Ethnic%20Group

Alcohol Crash Facts

Using the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) criteria for Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), it is estimated that an alcohol crash occurs every 32 minutes. NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatal crash as one that was reported by a law enforcement agency and involved a vehicle operator or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (0.01 g/dl) or greater. In 1997, 16,189 alcohol-related fatalities occurred, 38.6% of the total fatalities for the year.
In other NHTSA statistics, alcohol-related fatalities for large truck operators declined by almost 60%, the largest such decline noted. Nearly one-third of the pedestrians 16 years or older who were killed by automobiles were intoxicated, i.e., had a BAC of 0.01 g/dl. In 1997, 29% of all fatal crashes that took place on weekdays involved alcohol. This percentage increased to 52% on weekends. For all crashes, the alcohol involvement on weekends was 12% and on weekdays, 5%. Alaska had the highest rate of fatal alcohol-related crashes using the FARS criteria and comparing total traffic fatalities to any alcohol involvement. (See Table 1.) Utah had the lowest rate. (See Table 2.)
In 1996 and 1997, approximately 1.5 million individuals were arrested for drunk or drugged driving. This is a ratio of one out of every 122 licensed vehicle operators.
For further information on alcohol involvement in traffic fatalities, contact the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NRD-31, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590; (800) 934-8517; fax (202) 366-7078 (ask for publication number DOT HS 808 764). General information on highway traffic safety can be accessed at www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa.


Traffic Deaths Tied to Alcohol at Record Low

According to preliminary data compiled by NHTSA, alcohol-related traffic deaths dropped to a record low in 1998. Alcohol was involved in 15,936 traffic deaths last year, while in 1997 the number was 16,189, or 38.5 % of all traffic deaths. Last year’s number was the lowest since the federal government began keeping records in 1975.
Overall, 41,480 people were killed on the nation’s roads in 1998, down from 42,103 in 1997. The 1997 figure is a slight increase from 1996 when 42,085 people were killed. Of those killed last year, 62% were not wearing seat belts. The number of people killed in truck-related crashes fell to 5,302 last year from 5,398 in 1997.
NHTSA’s numbers are based on fatal analysis reports completed in all 50 state4s and the District of Columbia. These numbers will be adjusted before NHTSA releases the final report this fall.

 

[Techman]

NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatal crash as one that was reported by a law enforcement agency and involved a vehicle operator or a non-occupant (e.g., pedestrian) with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (0.01 g/dl) or greater.

Hang on a minute here..."non-occupant or pedestrian"? 0.01? Isn't the legal limit 0.08? I'd say that these stats are just a little skewed towards the anti-alcohol side of the street wouldn't you?

Alcohol was involved in 15,936 traffic deaths last year, while in 1997 the number was 16,189, or 38.5 % of all traffic deaths

Of those killed last year, 62% were not wearing seat belts.

So if we actually enact or enforce seatbelt laws, more lives would be saved than from stopping drinking and driving? Remember seat belt interlock systems and how long they lasted in cars? Does anyone think that this system would be any different?

What I would like to see are the stats of drivers involved in fatal accidents and what their level of intoxication actually is. I doubt you will find too many of them at 0.01. And while we're at it...lets remove all the stats that do not involve an intoxicated driver and see where we stand.

One last thing...you cannot punish someone before he does something. If someone wants to live in an alcohol and drunk driver free society they can always move to Saudi Arabia. They execute drunk drivers there.

Techman.

 

[korbel]

So if we actually enact or enforce seatbelt laws, more lives would be saved than from stopping drinking and driving? Remember seat belt interlock systems and how long they lasted in cars? Does anyone think that this system would be any different?

One last thing...you cannot punish someone before he does something. If someone wants to live in an alcohol and drunk driver free society they can always move to Saudi Arabia. They execute drunk drivers there.

Techman.

Hello Techman,

I am sure you can conceive that a large percentage of those who were not wearing seat belts were without them because they were drunk. It wasn't just a coincidence in many cases. You are playing "the chicken or the egg" here. Did they get into a fatal accident because a driver was drunk or because a driver wasn't wearing seat belts? Which act was the culprit, which offense do we arrest someone for first? Answer, you do all you can to prevent both from happening.

Why is having an alcohol detector in the car a system of "punishment". This is deceptive misdirection again. It is the same kind of viewpoint that many used to justify opposition to seats belt laws because they infringed on freedom of choice and personal liberty. You may as well say that traffic lights, speed limits, stop signs and other tools that bring order to the road system and save lives are impinging on your right to drive your car as you choose to. In the same reasoning you should say that having to drive on the right side of double yellow lines limits choice or that giving the right of way to pedestrians interferes with your right to drive without interference.
All these things make the road safer for all. The alcohol detector is a SAFETY TOOL...NOT PUNISHMENT. Again the only thing it does is stop someone from proceeding with a crime and endangering lives, including that of the driver. How can a tool that helps spare human beings from danger and tragedy be punishment. If it is designed to do as intended, stop drunks from driving, then only a drunk can be affected...and he or she should be stopped. Calling the device "punishment" is like saying the car brakes are punishment because they stop the car and help avoid accidents and/or tragedy. It's a safety device...nothing esle.

I am disappointed in the Saudi Arabia analogy. It's just another misdirection and demagoguery "appealing to popular prejudice" and fear. Where did anyone imply society should be without alcohol at all. Your choice of phrasing also implies there might be something wrong with a society free of drunk driving. Please Techman, you know this is way over the top. Do you know about the laws in Germany for driving on the autoban? People drive at extreme speeds but don't drink because the laws and safety measures are also quite extreme...though the death penalty doesn't seem to be an option yet...lol. So freedom to drive and strict safety are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Sense first,

Korbel

.