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.'"
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.
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.
False positives? What about false negatives?
What would the liability be when the drunk kills another because "if I was too drunk to drive, why did my car start?"
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
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.
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
"I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me."
n g_madd.htm
So what you are saying is that you are entirely ignorant of the topic. You are likely the only person on the forum that has no context to place any of their reasoning on because you have no experience to give you that context. A single drink of alcohol is not a substantial enough amount to make an average adult male feel any effect. As any adult male who has experienced a drink could tell you. I am not talking bout being 'buzzed' or 'drunk', a single drink is not enough to be able to even tell that you have drank any without the aftertaste. A single drink would put an average male over the legal limit. If at a business meeting I had a single drink to avoid offending my boss by refusing his offer, would my car stop operating? I would have a serious problem with that.
"Add up all of those what ifs, and you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers."
There aren't 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers. There aren't even 17,000 people who died to make up that figure. At least 15% of that 17,000 were added to make up for the ones that the stats missed. As someone else already pointed out, you can find plenty of information about other nonsense that goes into those figures here:
http://www.drunkard.com/issues/08_02/08_02_fighti
Personally I doubt drunk drivers are responsible for nearly as many accidents as senior citizens. Here in Florida we have the gray panthers lobbying and stopping legislation go in place that would require grandma to show quick response times to keep her license. Don't get me wrong, grandma is almost never in an accident. She will blissfully drive through an intersection and go on her way without seeing the collision that resulted from her action. Traffic accidents are usually caused by someone careless, that doesn't mean the careless one is the one who had the accident.
I am against anyone modifying my car, computer, stereo, TV, clock, lights, or any other tool I own or purchase in a way that removes control from me. If this something is taking control from me because that will allow the tool to perform its function in some improved way, I might be willing to give on this point with little grumbling. But we are talking about something that removes control from the drivers of the car and does so for reasons that have NOTHING to do with improving the operation of the vehicle.
P.S. Choosing not to be drunk is something to be proud of. Willfully choosing ignorance is the definition of stupidity.
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.