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.
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
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.
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.
And it's so damn cold i'm wearing gloves when i'm driving home pissed!
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
Then the drunks will just drive hands-free; they'll think it's much more fun anyway.
Have you ever tried to ask a drunk where they're going ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
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.
Wikileaks, no DNS
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!"
If that many people are really driving drunk, good.
http://outcampaign.org/
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
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?
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"
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.