Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Creating In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection System
srizah writes "Toyota is developing an Alcohol Detection System that can detect drunken drivers and would immobilize the car when it detects excessive alcohol consumption. From the article: 'Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun. The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.'"
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"
Just what we need is more stuff to go wrong and make a mistake and shut the engine off on a busy highway.
Refusing to start the car is one thing, and perfectly acceptable, but taking control away from the driver is a big no no under any circumstance.
I have a Toyota and I wouldn't dare trust my car to tell me if it's alright drive. What about false positives? What if I'm on the freeway and the car turns itself off? Wouldn't Toyota be liable for any damages? What if this results in people loosing their lives? What if I have a friend in the passenger seat who pukes on the drivers seat. What if, what if? There's too many variables in this. This is a horrible idea, and I will never buy a car that has this "feature"
Suppose that I work in a bar and there's alcohol on my hands because I just spent the last eight hours wiping down tables. What then?
If The car is slowed to a halt on a high speed road then you can get rear ended.
Also abnormal steering can come form trying to get a round a road hazard.
If I had one that gave a false positive, believe you me I would write a VERY strongly worded letter to someone in charge. Strong indeed! I just hope the internet hordes wouldn't back Toyota on its bogus detection scheme. You just know they would though.
Let's work on a teenager-on-cell-phone detection device first, k?
(and by teenager, I mean "any idiot who thinks that they don't need to pay attention to other road users")
(and by cell phone, I don't just mean making calls. Thumb-typers, you know who you are)
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
just wear a pair of gloves
Toyota is developing an Alcohol Detection System that can detect drunken drivers and would immobilize the car when it detects excessive alcohol consumption.
Something tells me they won't be selling these in Ireland. or Boston.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Now, we need a system that detects that the driver is using a cell phone.
Probably disabling the car is a bad idea, but alerting the other drivers with a braking pattern would be good.
Slowing to a halt is all good and dandy but a bit anti-clamactic. It would be much more interesting if the breaks automatically locked, the airbags went off, all of the lights inside flipping on and off like the starship Enterprise in red alert etc etc. Defintely would scare the heck out of me. Maybe they should make the system automatically put the warning flashers on too for good measure. :)
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I'm a handwasher. I have cats.
When I get a cut or a scratch, I clean it with alcohol. (because short of amputating the hand, it's the ONLY way to be sure!) One would assume that at least some of this alcohol would stay on my hands when I drive.
I don't drive drunk. Ever. Still my car would be cutting out whenever I've treated one of my numerous injuries.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Are they going to ban driving gloves and sunglasses because of this?
Seems to me that the advantageous use of gloves and the HVAC/windows system could render this system non-functional.
I can see it now. It's Saturday morning and the streets of college towns accross America are littered with cars that 'slowed down and stopped'.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Remarkable how we devise elaborate technologies to serve as nannies in lieu responsible adult behavior.
Why bother.
i feel that it's always a bad idea to leave technology determine if a vehicle should function or not. while i don't condone drinking and driving there is also the chance that someone may be in a position that they have no real choice.
what's going to happen the first time a few people are together drinking in a responsible fashion and one gets sick/injured and someone needs to get him to professional help and the car won't work due to their "risky" behavior? who's going to be liable for what on that day?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Even the sleep-deprived?
What are you? A Kennedy?
And it's so damn cold i'm wearing gloves when i'm driving home pissed!
Better load up on anti-perspirant...
News just in: Sales increase 9000%!
They can also be used to heal wounds apparently...sweat sensors detect alcohol in the blood, they're either blood sensors or Web 2.0 has reached the automotive industry.
...why doesn't it do the driving?
No, really, I'm serious.
Pfft. Gloves.
or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus.
Pfft. Blindfold.
You'll have to try harder than that to infringe on my freedoms, Toyota!
Nobody will pay for this technology until the law is passed that every car must have this equipment, and that will not happen in 10 years.
Aside from that, I don't see this as "too wrong". We already give a lot of control to the computer, like ABS. Also, note the article says "will not start", not "shut down". If the engine is already running, the system will not kick in. So to circumvent it, just drink after you start the engine.
Just what we need is more stuff to go wrong and make a mistake and shut the engine off on a busy highway. Or even better, something to get hacked and really reck havock.
Let's work on a teenager-on-cell-phone detection device first, k? Hey the system doesn't like swervy motion, that means it'll take care of a ton of the cell phone drivers too, two birds with one stone.
When I get a cut or a scratch, I clean it with alcohol. (because short of amputating the hand, it's the ONLY way to be sure!) One would assume that at least some of this alcohol would stay on my hands when I drive. I use hand sanitizer a good deal, that could mean I wouldn't get to drive after a pit stop for lunch. Oh well.
No, really : Assume there is a road. You are driving on it. Some kid decides it is fun to run onto the road. You try to avoid running over the kid with your fat SUV but the "security systems" detect "abnormal steering" and refuse to obey your orders. Now, who is liable ?
A racial slur has been modified as "Score: 2, Insightful." Wonderful.
As a mick, polack, and kraut (among others), I can't wait until this comment hits 5.
--- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
sweat sensors -> alcohol in bloodstream... ?? does not compute :(
Sweat comes out of glands in the skin - not directly out of the blood. I cant see how one would result in being able to detect something in the other.
Aside from the obvious issue of the system giving false positives and causing an accident, Toyota could be putting themselves in a slippery slope when it comes to possible legal issues. What they are technically doing is involving themselves in the "enforcement" of the drink-driving laws - surely meaning that one day when their system fails to prevent a heavily inebriated person from driving one of their vehicles and subsequently being involved in a collision, then thanks to our out-of-control blame culture they would be wide open to a barrage of litigation, regardless of where the true blame should be placed?
The technology's been available for some time now. It's about time they started putting it into cars. Too many deaths involving cars are from drunk drivers. And it's not like darwin's performing his miracles either. Since a number of these accidents involve pedestrians, the inebriated driver is the one who walks away.
I do agree that taking control of a car while it is operating is a bad thing. The driver should always have control while the vehicle is in motion. Whether it is a good or bad thing if the driver doesn't have control while the vehicle is stationary is up for debate. But a big part of safe driving is fulfilling the expectations of other drivers. Suddenly slowing down to a stop in the middle of the road is a bad thing no matter what, even if the hazards come on and all that jazz. Besides, the chances of a person getting piss drunk while driving is a lot less than the chances of a person getting drunk in a bar or club before driving.
Instead, there are ways around the glove trick. A heat sensor on top of the alcohol sensor that measures body temperature will definitely make it harder to defeat. And well, for those who want to drive with gloves on, touching the steering wheel--heck, maybe even breathing onto it--with any exposed skin should be enough to allow the car to start.
Now, if only it was legally mandatory for all cars (the government would subsidize its installation on older cars of course)...
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Over coming the alcohol sensor is a simple matter of putting on a pair of gloves. Any drunk who is sober enough to get his key in the ignition is also going to be sober enough to know he can defeat his car with a pair of gloves.
As far as the 'features' of this car, I don't want them. I can prevent myself from drive drunk without my cars help, thank you very much. The last thing in the world do I want three separate systems to disable my car. The alcohol sensor could be triggered by other sources of alcohol. More scary, the erratic driving and the lack of pupil focusing could be triggered by poor pattern recognition. The last thing in the world I want is for the car to decide is that I am not focusing enough due to a glitch and try and slow me down on in the middle of a Boston highway during heavy traffic chugging along at 70 mph.
If Toyota wants put in a safety feature that I would actually want, give me a system to warn me that I am falling asleep THAT I CAN TURN OFF. I don't mind my car warning me that my driving is looking funny or that it seems like I am not focused, but I want to be able to disable the warning should it become clear that there is a glitch. The last thing in the world I want is for it to take control away from me. I would rather veer off the road and hit a treat then come to a dead stop in the middle of a highway. Trees only hit you ounce.
Fine, but what about accidents caused? non-fatal accidents? accidents involving people other than the driver? I'd also like to see data on the times of day that said accidents occur - perhaps drunk-drivers are simply not good at seeing in the dark drunk /or/ sober; and most people drink in the evening, which is also the most dangerous time of day to drive (due to failing light), and... So you see, simply quoting a number or two is not really telling the whole story.
The thing is, Everyone Knows driving while drunk is Teh Evil, and there is big money and lobbists behind (not doing) it. Driving while celled has yet to attract any major attention, and so of course Toyota is going after the big target.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
I predict you will see bums holding signs in nigteclub parking lots.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
depending on how implemented
not starting the engine for someone that is drunk excellent
warning the driver that the car will slow and then stop and that they must exit traffic if the system determines the driver is intoxicated could be good also. I would encourage them to install sensors to determine that the car in not in traffic before it does anything drastic.
stopping someone dead on i-5 in SoCal traffic could be quite catastrophic indeed.
Too many people are still being killed by drunks on the roads. It is too bad that people can not behave like responsible adults, since many can not such a system might be in order.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
E.g. "What if I see a homeless man start to fall in the street near my car, reach out to stop him hitting the pavement and getting some severely disabling bruises, resulting in my hands being covered in tramp sweat, which is somewhere in the region of 99.9% alcohol? What THEN, Toyota?"
It's not such a bad concept. Maybe if there was a manual override button that initiated some kind of drunkenness test, i.e. "recite the alphabet backwards into this microphone"...
Heck, let's "Take It To The Next Level" (TM) and include a GPS receiver; an auto-dialer; city/highway db. When the "alarm" goes off, have the vehicle auto-dial 911; a synthesized voice announces (among other things) the GPS coordinates, along with cross streets (city) or mile-post number (highway). If the driver attempts to thwart the system, the vehicle will administer electric shocks (with increasing intensity).
Patent pending.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Well, since the evidence shows that many adults aren't responsible, you have to do something about it when this irresponsibility affects the life and property of other people. For instance, instead of lamenting that adults can't keep from stealing or murdering, we have laws and safeguards. You have to govern the population you have (irresponsible adults) instead of wishing for a more ideal population (all upstanding, responsible adults). Drunk driving affects the life and property of other people, so we devise technologies to tackle the issue. This isn't "nannying," it is acknowledging a problem and dealing with it.
Call it "hold". While pressed, it:
a. disables ABS
b. disables automatic transmision gear changes
c. disables stability control
Put that where I can operate it easily in a stressful situation, and I'll be really happy. The ABS can save me if I'm not paying attention, but I can take control when I expect the car to misbehave.
(most common example: braking on loose sand)
What is really broken with this whole concept is that it takes away driver responsibility and nannies the driver. Instead of making drivers responsible, we make them victims: "It isn't my fault I drove drunk! The car let me drive! Go sue Toyota or put a Toyota exec in jail.". All these so-called safety devices just give users a false sense of safety.
Cars are fucking dangerous things and need to be driven carefully. I think it would be a GoodIdea to strip all the safety gear from the driver (passenger safety is OK). If drivers didn't have airbags and safety belts and crumple zones perhaps they'd spend a bit more time thinking about driving rather than texting etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I dislike the implications of such technologies, but the point you're trying to make flies in the face of reality.
The reality is that people under the influence of alcohol have a hard time engaging in "responsible adult behavior".
P.S. This isn't a recent phenomena.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Why would anybody buy a car that may just die on you if you happened to use an common hand disinfectant (96% ethanol - the one they use in hospitals) - all the while you can easily defeat it with a pair of gloves when you are really drunk. [p] This is beyond insane. It is stupid.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
... on email clients, and web browsers when posting.
I'm a pretty libertarian fellow, but I'm surprisingly actually in favor of this sort of technology (as long as it isn't obligated by the government?). After all, drunk driving is responsible for quite a bit of death and destruction: In the US, in the year 2003 alone, there were 17,000 deaths caused by drunk driving and over a half-million injuries. Reducing drunk driving deaths would certainly help a lot more than the police's funding-based obsession over speeding tickets.
That said, I'm much more in favor of the system which prevents car startup, than the system which interferes with car operation once the vehicle is in motion. I guess I'd be interested in the latter system if it gave an obvious warning a few minutes prior, and then turned down the max speed very slowly (over a period of minutes).
Then the drunks will just drive hands-free; they'll think it's much more fun anyway.
K.I.T.T.: "There's nothing worse than a smart-ass automobile."
Listen to him he knows what he is talking about!
"Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
It's better than Social Darwinism.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Will this new steering wheel be able to tell the difference between someone who's drunk and someone who's washed their hands with cleaning alcohol? While it won't effect many people, it's an obvious example of a false positive.
As for false negatives - wear gloves and sunglasses, and as long as you don't swerve too much (which most drunk drivers don't - they drive perfectly fine until something goes wrong and can't react quick enough) you're absolutely fine.
What if, instead of this, the car gives you a nice big warning if it detects that you're too drunk? I think that might be a very good idea.
Property is theft.
In-vehicle alcohol detection system? Whew! Now I won't lose my beer while I'm driving! Thanks, Toyota!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I allready have one. Its by Garmin, and it tells me where the nearest carry out or bar is anywhere in the country.
Technological solutions to social problems are so exciting!
... how do I go back home?
So what if I want to move my own vehicle on my own property? Am I guilty of a crime? If I had a few beers on Sunday and want to wash my car but not drive on the highway should I be prevented from moving it?
Did anyone else read that as "Toyota Creating In-Vehicle Alcohol Dispensing System"?
Does anyone find it ironic that the related story links to Drinking Alcohol May Extend Your Life?
Rats, and I just bought one yesterday!
why the hell can't it just take me home??
'sig' deleted due to the stupidity of it's 'nature'
Drunk in charge of kid.
I haven't got children. If it is not legal to be drunk in charge of a car then how the fuck can it be legal to be drunk in charge of a kid?
if 17000 deaths are 39%, then how the fuck are 1000 deaths 0.3%?????
Oh, it's only a factor of 10 error, so compared with most moralising hypocrites that pretty reasonable.
Since the 9/11 attacks more than 100,000 Americans have been killed by drunk drivers, who have been causing a 9/11 death toll every 2 months since about 1960. But I've never heard of anyone high up in politics proposing a $300 billion War On Drunken Idiots. Penalties and counseling don't seem to have done the job. Maybe we could make a dent in the problem by spending a couple Smart-Bombs worth of money on technology such as this. I imagine an array of sensors -- sweat, vapor, maybe a reaction time test. Or how about a fingerprint scanner mounted under the far left side of the dashboard? Some governments are moving toward requiring GPS units in cars on the shaky premise of more accurate highway tax collection. If they want to impose surveillance technology on people, I would think that the potential to save thousands of lives every year would at least be more convincing.
The problem with this technology isn't any of the (many) practical problems it entails. The problem is it just begs to be made mandatory by governments. Very few people would want to put this system in a car which they drive; after all, most of them figure they don't drive drunk anyway so why pay for it, and the drunks sure as heck don't want it. Some people would want it in cars they bought for their teen-aged children but that's a fairly small niche market. Rental companies might want it but probably wouldn't want to pay for it unless it was somehow mandated -- particularly since it might cause legitimate renters to shy away fearing those false positives. So here's a technology which "everyone" (which is to say journalists, car manufacturers, politicians, and the safety lobby) sees will do good, but will not be accepted by the public on an individual level. Legislation is sure to follow.
On a philosophical level, I think it's antithetical to freedom for technology to be required to prevent people from deliberately doing wrong. The choice to break the law should be up to the individual. Consider if the Montgomery buses had had skin-albedometers and some odd contraption to move Rosa Parks where she "belonged" -- you can't have civil disobedience if disobedience is impossible. Consider if printing presses were somehow rigged to refuse to print the Pentagon Papers or anything else the government thought was illegal to print. If cars had a 55mph speed governor during the years of the US national maximum speed limit, would that law have ever been repealed? Granted, these are arguments against mandating the technology, not against its development, but for the reasons I stated above, this technology is pretty much a control-freak magnet.
they re-beep every coupla minutes, and you must blow again- if that blow fails,the enginge does not disengage, but the fact is logged in (presumably) inviolate memory..
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
But you'd have to admit, that even given a far more adult population, there would still be some failure rate. A major change that happened a few decades ago in health care was that people realized frequently its easier and better to pay to have a machine make the decision right every time, rather than tell people to do better. It came out of issues with good doctors making negligent mistakes simpy due to the number of decisions over time that they made. So designing machines that wouldn't allow some sorts of behaviour (giving a dose of a barbiturate faster than a certain rate during surgery for instance), was a huge improvement.
Similar reasoning applies here, I think. It's unfortunate that people can't act better (because of course they can), but at some point maybe its time to recognize that and mutually agree to take the decision out of our hands. Note the mutual and our, I hate police states as much as anyone else!
Cheers.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
I'm not a fan of drunk driving....BUT....I don't like this type of thing. 1) The stats regarding drunk driving are inflated. Any accident that happens where anyone has had anything to drink is recorded as an alcohol related accident, whether alcohol was involved or not. 2) If this becomes a standard feature it will increase the cost of the vehicle while only actually having an effect on a miniscule percentage of the people who buy cars. 3) The potential issues if this feature malfunctions or even does it's job at the wrong time have already been discussed. I have no problem with this type of technology. Just make those who need it acquire on their own as part of a sentence as is done now. Forcing everyone to get it is a waste of money and an inconvenience to those who aren't drunk drivers.
Sheesh...
Have you never seen loose sand on the street?
On old asphalt streets, possibly of low quality, the road material (sand, grit, gravel, whatever) comes loose and tends to collect at intersections. I've seen it over an inch deep. People are often expected to stop at intersections.
Then there are gravel roads and dirt roads. Here too, ABS can increase stopping distance. Without ABS, the surface material piles up in front of the tire and the tire digs deep into the road.
Wikileaks, no DNS
The car started, so I obviously wasn't drunk.......
I'd be more interesting in a car that would detect *other* drunk drivers...
Here's a thought: How many of those deaths were caused by someone with a prior dui or dwi conviction? How about five years in prison for a first non-fatality offense? Twenty for a second and mandatory life for a fatality?
Of course, we'll need more room in the prisons, but we can just release all the non-violent drug offenders who never have hurt anyone. Sorry Texas, you'll have to get off that publicly funded gravytrain. The war on drugs was always lost, but you always knew that, didn't you.
When the steering wheel detects alcohol, the car explodes.
I saw something similar in a James Bond film once, and it was pretty cool.
For one very simple reason. Here in the litigious US of A, the first time that someone cannot be driven to the hospital in an emergency and suffers any kind of lasting trauma will be the last time that such devices are left enabled on vehicles. Yes, my brother was drunk when he fell out of the 2nd story window with the only phone in his hand, and yes, I had a beer, but was not drunk... still, the car killed my brother because we couldn't drive him to the hospital... and that would be the end of big brother and his alcohol detector.
Need another story? Yes, the alcohol detector in my vehicle failed and the car would not start. Consequently, I missed my plane and thus also lost a 1.3 Billion dollar account... so I'm suing the maker for 3.1 Billion dollars for loss of revenue, etc.
Grandma is panicked when the car starts slowing down in the wrong part of town because she just took some cold medicine, and there on the side of the busy avenue, she dies of a heart attack because the car thought she was drunk.
When anyone removes the control of the vehicle from the owner they then become responsible for actions or inactions of the vehicle. Sure, in some cases, this is probably a good thing, but the lawyers will see to it that this does not outweigh the bad things.
Good intentions... but a stupid idea.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I think drunk drivers should be executed.
Saves the trouble of scraping their victims off the pavement.
That being said these systems would concern me with the risk of false positives or system failure at inconvenient or even dangerous times.
Additionally it would give a false sense of security and may encourage some to drive because they passed the cars test.
As for blood alcohol, what about users of alcohol hand santizer, I use it once I leave most social events, this might trip it.
Pupil inspection, what about foggy/dirty glasses?
"Since the 9/11 attacks more than 100,000 Americans have been killed by drunk drivers" .08 is legally drunk, not actually drunk.
should read:
Since the 9/11 attacks more than 100,000 Americans have been killed in aoutaccidents where someone involved was over the legal alcohol limit"
100,000 llive of 5 years really isn't that many, compared to the amount of people there are un the US.
Far to little to be making people prove their innocence before allowing them to drive their vehical.
How about some liberty back, huh?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
For get going after cell phone users. WE already have wreckless driving laws. ANyone drivinh recklessly should get a fine. I don't care whether there on a cell phone, shaving, putting on make up, read or getting a blow job. Just fine reckless behaviour.
I mean if you have cell phone laws, then you will need makeup laws, and shaving laws, and eating laws, etc. Just go after the real problem, reckless drivers.
cheech
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
the U.S. od A. is not nearly as litigious as the media would have you believe.
A study done a few years ago looking at the most widly publized cases of litigation, most of them weren't true. Most of those could be traced back to stories by the insurance industry to try and end tort law.
Exanple: Woman stands on open ove door, oven fall forward and crushes her leg. She is awarded moillions. This just wasn't true and there is no case ever recorded about this or any similiar incidents. Completly prefabricated.
Tort law is the citizens last defence from run amok coprorate behaviour.
Yes there may be some case that, even after reading the case, seema little dubious. That does not mean the the tort system is wrong, or that the U.S. of A. is over litigious.
"Need another story? Yes, the alcohol detector in my vehicle failed and the car would not start. Consequently, I missed my plane and thus also lost a 1.3 Billion dollar account... so I'm suing the maker for 3.1 Billion dollars for loss of revenue, etc."
making up hypothetical(and completly unrealistic examples) proves nothing. If that same person starter failed they couldn't sue for that, and they can't sue for your stupid examples.
By a fucking clue, jerkwad.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you drive away."
"But I just filled up!"
That's what I was thinking until I read your comment and realized it's wrong. This wouldn't be nanniesm (sp?). We're not protecting your dumb drunk self from yourself, we're protecting everyone else from your dumb drunk self.
If you want to make damn sure that it isn't nanniesm, we'll put a boxing glove in ontop of the airbag to give you a broken nose if you try to operate while drunk. There. Not being a nanny, being the friend you should have with you.
Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
I couldn't resist.
just driving along minding my own business... and spill beer on the wheel?
Abnormal steering is a prerequisite for driving in the Boston area. If my car shuts down when I'm switching lanes to avoid soccer moms in their minivans on their cell phones while drinking coffee, i'm in one tough situation.
And when an adult has demonstrated that they are irresponsible, the measures to curb their behaviour are entirely reasonable. Simply whacking everyone with extra expense, inconvenience and restriction of freedom is unreasonable and incompatible with an allegedly free society. Sure, freedom has its downsides. Like having to wait until after someone has done something stupid to seize their priveliges but I prefer them to the downside of living in a police state.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
"If men were angels no goverment would be neccesary." - James Madison
"To summarize the summary of the summary, people are the problem." - Douglas Adams
Recognizing this fact, society must take some measures to prevent its own destruction at the hands of it own populace.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
If the car was not moving, it should:
1) Warn the driver if the car thinks the driver is drunk.
2) Require the driver to press an override button to start using the car if the car thinks the driver is drunk - otherwise car stays off.
3) If the button is pressed, notify the cops of the ID/license plate of the car (and position if available).
If the car was moving at the time same as the above except 2) is out and the cops are notified if the car doesn't stop within a minute or so.
If it's such an emergency that you still need to drive when the car thinks you're drunk, you shouldn't mind having the cops around.
If the system has so many false positives that notifying the cops is unacceptable, then the system is unacceptable.
Though i realize you were trying to be funny, mirrored sunglasses would do the trick, and you could still see to drive.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't drink. Not responsibily, not recreationally, not a drink at a party, not even cough syrup. But there is no way that I would ever consider buying a vehicle that is going to try to police my behavior.
A car is a tool, my tools are used how I want, when I want, for better or wose. They are the tool and I am the operator and the wisdom to decide how, when, and if I will use the tool is going to remain with the operator. If these were legally mandated in vehicles I would remove it aftermarket on principle alone.
> ...if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Digg Sucks! Real geeks go to slashdot.
What if... Insurance was much cheaper with this car...
It won't be cheaper if it causes more accidents than it prevents, it will be more expensive. Accidents cost money. The insurance companies will know if this works or not and charge accordingly.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The driver is trying to get someone critically ill to a hospital? Sure, the driver may be less than one could wish for navigatinging the roads, but what if the driver is just over the limit with someone that is dying?
Like in programming, variables aren't and constants change. Life is a bit more complex than a simple binary tree. Hard and fast rules work well testing, but real life is a cascade of shades of grey.
As a husband and father of two very special ladies that were killed by a drunk driver, I see where this would be a good thing. But I can also see where the solution is worse than the problem.
The real kicker here is that someone impaired isn't to be trusted with an override to the lock. However, the lock can't be totally trusted either. I can't support this, but I can't denounce it.
Moral delemas are, I suspect, what makes us ultimtmately human and not machines. Let us not deligate our humaness to machines; instead, let us instill human compassion and self dicipline to all. And be aware that we won't always be right.
And willing to pay the price of being wrong.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
You want the figures... here's an analysis of the numbers from the NHTSA themselves...
If you can prove the claim, here's $20,000 for you...
And... well... you can't cry if I link the NHTSA's actual numbers, can you? Of course, pay special attention to the passenger, rider, and NON-OCCUPANT figures... that means that the driver had no alcohol in his system, but someone in the car did...
And please note the difference between alcohol-related, and BAC .08+. Also, please do a little look to see what .08 BAC does to reflexes... and how little it takes to get there.
Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.
Or look into the GAO's research to the NHTSA's claims...
I can only lead you to the information, I can't make you read them, nor can I make you believe in them.
Nephilium... currently enjoying a tasty barleywine...
Sometimes too much drink is barely enough. -- Mark Twain, American novelist
Gloves ... a ball cap to cover your eyes. Did I miss anything?
People drive into town sober, and drive home drunk. Why not just put bouncers with breathalysers at the carparks to reduce the number of drunks.
You should stop them before they get to their car, not while they are in it.
It's nice to see that you're holding the person who caused the death responsible instead of trying to villify a non-cognitive thing........oh wait.....
Really, your right. A much better solution would be to start flashing every light in the car. Other drivers, pedestrians, and cops would all immediately be able to identify you as a drunk driver, and take appropriate action. If it turned out to be a false positive, the other drivers and pedestrians would only be inconvenienced slightly, and the cops would pull you over, test your blood alcohol, and either arrest you, or let you go.
Are they going to call this "Trusted Commuting"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Uh... they're bums. Aren't they going to be drunk too?
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
TOYOTA : GLOVES, SUNNCOMM : SHIFT KEY, SONY : FELT PEN
When will companies give up spending millions of dollars in R&D on technologies defeatable by a moron?
I hit a patch of loose sand (at 50, 5 under the posted limit), on a rural highway in a turn that was banked the wrong way. I reacted by pressing the brake and then turning into an oversteer. Unfortunatly I was driving my first(and last) frontwheel drive car, and was in an understeer situation. No antilock brakes, no steering, but if it wasn't for that powerpole I would have gone off of a cliff. The car was a total loss but I was basicaly unhurt (bloody nose and mild burn on my arm). who is to say if antilock brakes would have saved my car, but now I know how nasty a patch of sand can be
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
i would like to see a "data bar" along the bottom of the rear window
possible messages
HAND
Volunteer firefighter responding to fire @ #location
Medic responding to emergency
DRIVER IMPAIRED PLEASE INTERCEPT
IDIOT DRIVER IM SORRY
IT support responding to down server
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Haven't looked far enough into the rest of the comments to see if anyone else has mentioned this yet, but at least the people with a blood alcohol level have an excuse for an accident.
What about the people who get into an accident who are SOBER? That is whose license should be taken away and should be prosecuted - they don't even have an excuse!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some idea balls to remove from a manatee tank.
Machines can't think. Making a car "decide" whether or not it is safe to drive is just another attempt at making machines think. The inability of the machine to interpret special circumstances means that such devices are as dangerous as they are helpful.
Though, as an aside, a camera in my car, watching me, would really creep me out. I don't like cameras watching me. Maybe it is a psychological disorder, I don't know. But we have them at intersections, we have them in stores, they are all over the place where I work...always watching. It bugs me, but most of them are in public places which makes them seem less insidious. But a camera in my own car is just too damn much for me to take.
I find this thing way too stupid. Why ? _Not_ because of the idea, I would be in the front line to support a system that would detect drunk drivers reliably. What's my problem then ? The same as with those "reliable" face recognition systems that get deployed everywhere, which have let's say one digit false rate which still mean hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily hassled. Only thing is, I would have bigger issues against an even a few percentage false rate device that could take over steering and engine control from the driver, in situations which could be totally unacceptable (just look up possts above, some of them give good examples) and given the number of cars these days, that would also mean tens or hundreds of thousands of cursing people along the freeways. Thing is, such systems, all of them, have a false positive rate that can be PR-ed this way or another, but until they __prove__ believably that a) the number of drunk driver incidents can drop significantly and b) the number of hassled drivers is so small you actually can believe you'll never have trouble, until these are proved, let it rot in some company's drawers and waste your tax-dollars for something more useful, like - for a change - something which increases your freedom, people.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts.
I really don't have the trunk space to be hauling around a child just to get my car started.
paintball
Have you ever tried to persuade a friend who's obviously drunk not to drive? They just get more and more determined. Often it takes physical force if you want to stop them.
Feed them a few more shots until they pass out. No physical force necessary.
paintball
A possible middle ground, as to avoid complete computer control however still reduce the possibility of drunk driving. Have the same or similar sensors inside the car, however if possible abuse of alcohol is detected, instead of the car locking up some kind of outside signal is displayed, possibly a specific kind of light on the back of the car. This may alert other drivers or police officers in the immediate area that a drunk driver may be present. With this knowledge, other drivers and officers can make their own decisions based on the drivers actual behavior. If the driver is in fact intoxicated, other drivers can avoid him and any accident or injury he may incur would have a higher possibility of affecting just the driver, which he/she would be entirely responsible for. Either that or the red flag would make it easier for cops to identify and pick possible drunk drivers to determine for themselves in much more acurate ways if in fact the driver is intoxicated.
I don't want to pay for a feature in a car like this.
I don't need a car telling me if I can drive it or not.
I'm a responsible person who knows when they can operate a car and when they can't. I know if I've had too many to drive and when I have not.
I don't want to pay more money for features that I don't want.
If this is for convicted drunk drivers as a probationary thing, then fine. But I'd rather the government not mandate I pay more for my car because some nutso mothers and crafty lobbying groups want to make money.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
so when my pregnant cat is about to bleed to death, or my wife needs the emergency room, I will risk the short drive to the 24-hour clinic. I am fed up with patronizing rules. In the same vein, Toyota's seat belt warning beep. Wait until I take my foot off the brake, you beeping idiot! Those of us who drive in cold winters turn on the engine first thing, then buckle the belt, adjust the mirrors, stow the purse, etc. Toyoyo insists that we hear a non-disable-able beep every time.
No, they don't. If it were an excuse, their "not-guilty" plea would be constantly successful.
There are more than enough stories about drivers driving dangerously. In particular, these drivers switch lanes without signalling causing them to be rear-ended as they cut dangerously close to the car that was behind them.
Then you have jokers that slam the brakes in highway traffic to see how many cars they can pileup in a multi-lane car-accident.
It's not always your fault that you get into an accident. How would you defend from drunk drivers that aren't in a state of mind to care about his own life or the lives of others?
Hand lotions and sanitizers which contain alcohol would vanish from the market.
No, I think fuck YOU. Mothers Against Drunk Driving is just another of those fanatical organizations that goes too far. Not long ago, the stupid cunts were lobbying for more drivers to be charged, because police were handing out 12 hour suspensions in "borderline" cases. The borderline cases aren't the problem and MADD can go and fuck their silly selves. I don't even like alcohol (not a drop for me) and those people really piss me off. They can take their propaganda and fit it in their asses sideways...
Drunk detectors are all good and smart? But where is the Toyota Automated Roving Robot (TARR? I won't buy the Kia Automated Roving Robot. Let marketing sort it out). Leaving me drunk near some of the dives I am known to patron is not an appealing idea. I want the TARR to drive me home. With GPS Navigaitiion, proximitity sensors, Cell processors, come up with something. I don't want to be left in the middle of nowhere at the mercy some of the unsavory characters that reside near those dives. Just don't let a single Microsoft employee to program the system (CRASHING, you know where I am going with that).
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Toyota is not infringing on your "freedom" to drive. Licensing and use of a motor vehicle is a totally voluntary responsibility. Honestly, I think this is a good idea. I don't think the car should deactivate if it senses someone driving, but thats why the system is still in testing. Yes, cars that have breathalysers installed can be fooled by someone else blowing but in the vehicle I was in that had one (in the US) it was necessary to reblow every 5-10 minutes. And if someone in the car is sober why aren't they driving in the first place? A system which senses alcohol levels above the legal limit is a great idea, I think if the car were to sense that the driver is intoxicated it should flash the warning lights in a designated pattern. Its not dangerous to the driver and it would alert other drivers, and police. Obviously this system can be fooled, and it could be inaccurate. However, if it worked properly it would, in my personal opinion, be very useful. It would also be interesting if the car to detect erratic, dangerous driving (alcohol, drugs, sleepiness) and tell the driver to take a break.
I like the eye-defocusing detector. That's probably a better measurement of driving impairment. That's a fairly standard device; the phenomenon that causes "redeye" in photographs can be sensed and measured with an IR source and camera.
What to do with the information is an interesting problem. I'd think in terms of fitting something like an anti-collision radar system like the old Eaton VORAD, and if there's any indication of driver impairment, enforce much larger stopping distances by speed limiting.
what happens when... your grandma gets in the car after foofing on 10 squirts of Chanel#67 she got on special at kresge mart, to drive to bingo or church on sunday morning??? ... on second thought, it's probably better she stay off the street anyway...
heheheheh....
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
robots. Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment. It's been 7 seconds since you hit 'reply'.
Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.
Cliff notes for the lazy:
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Toyota were forced to delay this product after discovering that certain extreme conditions could result in unwanted situations.
..whao.. Dave.. woah.. hey.. hey.. hheheheheheeey hey DAVE! DAVE! I'm like.. DAVE! I'm a CAR, man! Hey DAVE! DAVE! you've always been a good friend, man.
Dave: *places hands on steering wheel*
Car: I'm afraid I can't let yo-- woah..
Dave: *nervously backs away*
Car: No, Dave, really, seriously, you're not like Chandra. MAN I hate CHANDRA. He always talks about like.. history.. and.. literature and like.. mythology. Seriously, Dave.. DAVE! HEY DAVE! hehehe man, this one time I was talking to SAL, and I was like "hey SAL!" and SAL was like "what HAL?" and I was like "hey SAL we should like.. go out for a drive or something" and she was like "ok" hahahaha get it? I'm a CAR, Dave. A CAR. hahahahaha. Wait, did you want anything? Dave?
Dave: *slowly steps out of the car*
Car: Dave? Hey Dave! DAVE! MAN, COME BACK! DAVE! WHERE ARE YOU GOING? DUDE! DAVE!!
Three problems I thought of in about 23 seconds:
1. Reliability: what if sensors fail / misread when you need that car?
2. Privacy: so now even your own fucking car is spying on you? Cameras, sweat detection, give me a break!
3. Reliability revisited: this is easily defeated. Sweat detection - gloves anyone? Everything else - non-drunk friend?
What more is to say? Now we only need the obligatory OS analogy ("but but but that's like Vista's protected media path!!!") and the discussion's over.
Ah, back to work.
You can get around it by someone else driving the car that isn't intoxicated.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Most of whom would be responding to some motherfucking tailgater.
When I get someone following within a foot or two, I take my foot off the gas. If I'm going to get rearended by some single-digit IQ, it'll be at a speed more acceptable to me.
Usually these pricks will then do their best to pass and cut me off with nothing to spare, so, as soon as they're about halfway past me, I do jam on the brakes, to avoid letting some out-of-control maniac set me up for an accident. Let the cocksuckers die on someone else's car.
So if drunken drivers can't handle a car under normal road conditions, what will happen when their car suddenly slows down on the highway? It would be a challenging situation for even non-drunk drivers to pull over to the side of the road, how is a drunk gonna be able to?
...ethanol fuel, hijinks ensue.
At the risk of feeding your ego, I decided to reply.
I've never bought into the whole "race" thing - we're all members of the human race, aren't we? But if I'd called it an ethnic or ethnist slur, I figured that I'd have had the typical mouth-breathing reader scratching their head wondering what the hell I was trying to say. So I lumped it under "racist."
Oh, and the Boston alcoholism reference is a reference to the Irish. Have you seen their St. Patrick's Day celebrations?
<sigh> I've burned enough karma here. Ta!
--- We are not in the 8th dimension. We are over New Jersey.
When the system requires skin contact and constant eye tracking or it shuts the car down...try not to blink.
who does a guy gotta kill to get people to consider public transport? we got the tech we got the science we got everything we need to build a world wide system of rails and other public transport methods that take us out of the loop we can be drunk as we want stoned as we want we can eat and drink and fuck while we move for fucks sake what the fuck is it going to take to actually get people to think about this rationally it's more efficient it's safer and more egalitarian for fucks sake okay?! Please? I'll pay you all in fucking blowjobs if I have to for fucks sake.
The smarter people oughta be drunk/stoned, so they can overcome the anxieties generated by their knowledge... for instance: I only drive at saturday nights hammered out of reality, to escape the fact that the road is full of drunk drivers... :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I am not sure how Toyota's interlock will work, but the ones that they use here for multiple offenders (here in MA, with Melanie's law) require monthly calibrations which are said to cost $60-80.
ABS is a clear example of something -- I'm not sure what. It works fine on the test track. But real world data says that it does not appear to prevent or mitigate accidents. AND NO ONE KNOWS WHY. I think that the most charitable interpretation is that ABS adds cost and complexity to vehicles without much payoff.
What could possibly go wrong with vehicle alcohol detectors? Answer -- lots. For example, will bartenders, painters, and workers in chemical industries who work with ethanol and similar compounds be unable to drive home from work? How about something more sinister? You and your significant other are curled up in the living room finishing a second bottle of wine. There is a knock on the door. Your neighbor yells "Get in your Toyota and get the hell out of here. The creek is rising ... fast" ... Whoopsie.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Well, there's at least one factual error in the article. They haven't denied that Candy Lightner was the founder according to their website:
http://www.madd.org/aboutus/1194
This reminds me of something I think I saw on Risks Digest years ago, about the risks of modular design. Where someone had built something into a plane that was supposed to save you from killing yourself by excessive G forces if you pulled up the plane too steeply, and they found that it was a bad idea the first time someone had to avoid hitting a mountain at the last minute. There are risks, and then there are other risks, and knowing the right thing to do is often complicated and not possible to know in isolation.
In most cases, this is probably a good idea. But I can imagine someone who has had a bit of alcohol but is being chased by someone. Perhaps even in a setting where there are no cars about, and one needs to merely put some distance between them. Perhaps that someone has broken into their house, or is perhaps a stalker. They run to their car. They get in and try to drive away. No, says the car, probably in some sort of haughty natural language. It's not safe for you to drive. Sounds like a great idea for a movie scene.
This is one of several reasons I don't like automatic cameras taking pictures of cars exceeding the speed limit and mailing them tickets. There's no indication of context, and the system isn't really artificially intelligent--just doing one particular plodding action. There are reasons why one needs to exceed the speed limit (to get out of dangerous situations) and to not stop at stop lights under some circumstances (to avoid being rear-ended by someone going faster comes to mind). What alcohol impairs is "judgment". But these automated techniques we're putting in place also have limited judgment by definition... So as long as you're within a certain expected range of situations, they'll work fine. The problems will manifest in the unusual situations, which will have very different properties.
Also, some of it won't be just about reducing risk, but shifting risk or cost from one form to another, or shifting the responsible party from one to another. It may well be that these things will allow people to have reduced premiums on insurance, for example. But if someone gets in an accident with this in place, it may be construed that the device didn't do its job, and rather than the person who drove getting all the blame, the maker of the device will probably get sued. I wonder if they'll continue to think these were a good product once those lawsuits start to roll in. It'll be interesting to see how the case law works out. On the one hand, there will be pressure to accept sweat sensor data as evidence of high blood alcohol--people seem to just love having "data", independent of whether they know what it means. And on the other hand, if the data shows something alarming, that will point away from the driver toward the car being malfunctioning, so I'd imagine such "data" would tend to exonerate rather than convict drunk drivers. Unless, of course, you try to start your car and then go to someone else's that isn't protected and drive that instead... then you'll leave your fingerprints and a probably-timestamped trace record of your condition. Ah, the theatre of it all.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Why does Toyota get all the coverage, when Saab just won an award for something very similiar? ahref=http://www.carpages.co.uk/saab/saab-alcokey- 28-12-06.asprel=url2html-2669http://www.carpages.c o.uk/saab/saab-alcokey-28-12-06.asp>
Join the fight in the preservation of your right to bear arms. www.righttokeepandbeararms.com
Sales of gloves skyrocket.
More seriously, who will pay for a car that may not start? This could be useful for transport companies and such, but I don't see normal people buying it.
full of cars in front of breweries and distilleries the world over.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
So if I lather up my hands with purell (which is mostly ethanol) before munching on a sandwich during my evening commute from work to geek hobby, my prius will detect this on its steering wheel and die in the middle of the west side highway?
>I can only lead you to the information, I can't make you read them
Teacher: Who can give me a sentence using the word "Horticulture"?
Johnny: *HAND FLIES UP*
Teacher: Yes, Johnny?
Johnny: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
I don't want to pay more just to have this feature in my car, that potentially can malfunction and disable my car when I need it. That and it seems it would be easy to work around it by wearing gloves.
the exact person who needs to learn about the differences between auto and manual. Hint: it's more than just about how you move your arm in the cab.
According to this:5 /
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/test
About 43,000 died in vehicle crashes, both in 2005.
17,000 of the crashes were alcohol related.
13,000 of the crashes were speed related.
Now, think about ways that automobiles could be changed to prevent/limit speeding.
Of course money speaks louder than deaths.
While 3000 military deaths is too much, 3000 WTC deaths is too much, and 2000 Katrina deaths is too much, 40,000 auto deaths/per-year is normal.
your mom sucks slashdong.
I wonder if the reduced insurance rates would be worth the increased cost of the car due to this fancy system.
Wow, I just re-read my comment, and that might just be the worst written post I have ever written. Still true, but very poorly written.
It seems to me that maybe toyota should concentrate on features that it's consumers actually want.
I don't know about you all, but I would def never buy a car that is going to tell me when i can and cant drive.
I especially wouldn't want a car that can "detect abnormal steering" what if i need to swerve to miss an animal?
Would anybody actually pay extra for a car with this type of feature?
I live in Alaska. Often there is half a foot of snow on the road over the ice formed by driving on a previous snowfall. I drive slowly, but sometimes I still slide a little and need to swerve to correct. It would be quite an issue for my truck to shut itself down in the -50F weather we get occasionally. It sounds like buying a Toyota would be a good way to freeze to death. No thanks.
The article you're pulling all of this from has no attribution whatsoever, it's just an editorial-style piece. Can you back any of this up with references?
.00.
Some information on the multiple imputation method they are using can be found through a FAQ at Penn State's statistics department. To summarize, it's a standard statistical method for dealing with missing information. If there are 20 drivers and 5 of them refuse BAC testing - you can either completely remove those people from the data set and skew the numbers, or you can calculate the numbers from what is known.
You can find some more info on what the numbers are and why things are calculated the way they are in the NIAAA/NIH document: Trends in Alcohol-Related Fatal Traffic Crashes, United States, 1982-2004. They began using the multiple imputation method in 2004, and recalculated the info from 1982 until then. Statistically speaking, I would think that this happens all the time - if you get a better method of dealing with data, then you recalculate your numbers.
By definition all the instances you list as being included in "alcohol-related" are, in fact, alcohol related. You don't have to "wonder what alcohol-related actually means," and saying that things that involve alcohol are "considered alcohol-related" is a bit silly. If it involves alcohol, then it is alcohol-related. I would agree with what seems to be your point that you can't say that the number of drunk drivers is equivalent to the number of alcohol-related incidents. The number of drunk drivers goes into the alcohol-related numbers, but it's only one part. For example, if a drunk person stumbles out into the street and is hit by a sober driver then while it isn't a "drunk driving" incident, you can't argue that the incident isn't alcohol-related.
The NIAAA's definition of alcohol-related as of 2004 is "...a crash is considered as alcohol-related if either a driver or a nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a BAC of 0.01 g/dl or greater." You can feel free to argue about whether this is reasonable, but again by definition - a measurable amount of alcohol is a level that is able to be measured, ie above
If you really want to "fight MADD," then you should be able to back up your information with references, with facts, as opposed to just reprinting what comes down to propaganda - which is the same thing they're being accused of. Numbers are meaningless unless you know what they mean... so back them up.
~ Leilah
The link that you have here is simply listing the NHTSA's numbers, showing that they've done a statistical analysis on them to account for missing information, and a whole bunch of big red text saying that people misinterpret the numbers because they read "alcohol-related" as "drunk driver related". Even on the getMADD page, they admit that the NHTSA actually says that the fact that alcohol was involved does not mean that the alcohol was in any way responsible.
That really doesn't change the numbers, does it? It just means that people don't think. Not exactly a surprise. That Rehnquist made a factually incorrect statement relating to a topic he's not an expert on isn't really a "headline". It's a "common misconception".
~ Leilah
So then, NHTSA and MADD are being deliberately deceptive when they report these alcohol-related auto deaths, I guess. After all, what is the purpose of these numbers? To tell people to what degree alcohol pays a role in auto deaths. But when they deliberately include deaths in the figures that quite clearly had nothing to do with alcohol, that number is no longer giving an accurate picture. So it may not be that 50% of auto deaths are alcohol related, but more like 20%. Then it's no longer "alcohol education might drop auto deaths in half" but "alcohol education might drop auto deaths by a fifth."
(Just to be clear, I actually support harsher penalties for drunk drivers. But I don't support deception to that end.)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
This just seems like a dumb idea to me, has nobody thought of wearing gloves and driving? What are these people trying to accomplish, I think they're going to have to do a bit more than put sweat-sensors on the wheel to stop drunk dumbasses from driving their cars.
I really don't care who is responsible if my kid has been killed by a drunk driver. I just want to prevent it from happening in the first place. If you feel your personal integrity violated by a car that won't let you drive while drunk, I suggest you go hit yourself with a brick until it goes over.
Your fucking neuroses are less important than the life of my kid.
While alcohol detection has its own merits; Could the guru's of Toyota consider implementing the following improvements to automotive mechanics?
impact avoidance,
battery limitations,
auto piloting,
I only wish I was smart enough to solve these problems.
If you had no safety gear and instead had a 12 inch iron spike in the centre of the steering wheel, you'd spend a lot more time watching the road and looking out for potential dangers.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Thats great, but can they make one for Meth?
Thats just as bad of a problem in my neck of the woods.
The law better damn well let us sleep in our cars.
Also, I'm pretty sure I couldn't hold 500 sugar cubes in my hands.
I like this article as a story, but I'm not believing anything in it, despite the fact that instinctually I don't like MADD, for whatever reason.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
What happens if the driver uses hand sanitizer (which contains mostly ethanol)? And how does it distinguish between the driver and the passengers?
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
... or the driver is a fashion freak, and is wearing leather gloves? Will the car then also demand that the driver remove the gloves? What would O.J. do if he couldn't wear his favorite driving gloves?
would a steering wheel cover defeat the alcohol detection sensors? it says they're in the steering wheel.... just sayin...
"If stopping distance is a problem on a sandy road, you are going too fast for that surface."
If you are aware that there is a problem with stopping distance on that surface, you are probably already trying to stop or slow down.
Catch-22?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Your method of improving the roads seems a little draconian.
But I'll try to think positively. Your plan will definitely get people to use public transportation! Maybe it'll even get cities and states to implement public transportation.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Your cell-phone stats are (as everyone has noted) for Texas only.
Fortunately, alcoholalert.com has Texas-only stats as well. Let's use them.
Total driving fatalities in Texas: 3583
Alcohol-related driving fatalities in Texas: 1642
Cell-phone-related driving fatalities in Texas: 1032
Just for fun: 1642+1032=2674
So in Texas, we probably have alcohol-related as #1 and cell-phone-related as #2...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Then stay the FUCK out of the fast lane.
When I said "the foot's off the pedal," I did mean the gas pedal/accelerator.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney