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.'"
Just what we need is more stuff to go wrong and make a mistake and shut the engine off on a busy highway.
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"
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
Not to mention if you spill gas (with ethanol) on your hands while fueling your vehicle.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
Anti-Lock brakes, Electronic Stability Control and automatic headlights are all existing examples of taking control away from the driver.
It could be argued that ABS and stability control help the driver maintain control. Locking up the tires is rarely, if ever a good thing. And unless you're on the track, and need the car to be twitchy, stability control is usually a good thing. Again, it helps the driver stay in control. Your average driver, on average roads, is likely to be out of control in the situations where stability control would take effect. Or, on the verge of going out of control.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
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?
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.
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.
Personally I think that if the only car you know how to drive, is one with automatic transmission, then, no, you don't know how to drive!
Your ad could be here!
These are already used in Australia, anyway. If you're convicted of a drink-driving offence, then your car must be fitted with an alcohol interlock for at least six months.
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.
Two of these new methods seem pretty easy to get around too. Wear gloves for the steering wheel, and sun glasses for the eye thingie. My biggest fear is a false positive!
Don't get me wrong, it's great to see what Toyota is doing. However, I'm going to be pretty upset paying and extra grand for the next Toyota for a steering wheel sensor that may return a false positive, stranding my wife and daughter in a not-so-good part of town just after sunset because my wife used a alcohol based hand sanitizer.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Or from trying to keep the car under control in dangerous conditions. That is certainly a situation where you do not want the car to overrule the driver's intent.
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
Yeah, and everyone should run Linux, and code HTML in a text editor, and slaughter their own livestock. Fucking elitist prick.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
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.
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.
Are they going to call this "Trusted Commuting"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
If that many people are really driving drunk, good.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's simple - If you drink alcohol, you do _not_ drive. It's not hard to understand. It's the law. There is no excuse. Drunk drivers should be locked up. They should have their cars confiscated. You may think I'm overreacting. Wait until you nearly get killed by one. Being over the prescribed limit also cancels your automotive and personal liability insurance. You wear all the costs of any damage or injuries in the event of a collision.
Let me repeat-If you have been drinking, you do not drive. At all. Ever. For any reason. There is no excuse.
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
That page is full of crap (surrounding its facts). Especially the whole "0.08 BAC drivers killed people because they were drunk" crap (paraphrased). I won't cry for people who get DUIs at this level, but to insinuate that they are putting lives in danger is ridiculous. If someone gets in an accident at 0.08, they would do the same sober.
Plus the whole attributing pot and coke use to drunk driving on that page is ridiculous as well (specifically the pot use). Not only is there no test to accurately determine if someone is currently under the influence of pot, but it stays in your system for up to a month. (Coke use is a little more obvious and is only in your system for a few days.) I know people who use both, and most who use coke don't do it while drinking (it would be a waste), and maybe half that smoke pot will drink while high (and that goes down a lot when they're getting behind the wheel of a car).
Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
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?
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Inconvenienced slightly, or given a cause for their own accident, you mean. If people were good drivers, this would be a good idea. But they aren't. And sometimes, all it takes it some nutjob with his 4-way flashers on for no reason to make an idiot have an accident. If a car suddenly started flashing EVERY light, they'd either:
A) Have no bloody idea what's going on, and stare to find out
or
B) Know that the person is drunk and immediately start digging for the cell phone, start changing lanes to get the license plate, and probably a few other stupid things like turning down the radio at the same time.
Not everyone is this stupid, but if one of these idiots caused an accident 1% of the time the car 'alerted' others, it would be quite horrid.
No, it sounds like a great idea on paper, but when you add in human stupidity, it's not so great. Or even good.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
How can manual transmission be elitest when most people use it? Only the old, disabled and American use automatic transmission.