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.
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.
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.
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!
I predict you will see bums holding signs in nigteclub parking lots.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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"