Slashdot Mirror
Breathalyzer Bike Lock Stops Drunken Cyclists In Their Tracks
Zothecula writes: Driving while drunk is a bad idea even on a bike. Slowed reflexes and decreased awareness of the world around them can make a drunk cyclist a danger on the road. Working in much the same way as breath-test locks for your car, the Alcoho-Lock aims to prevent cyclists from hopping in the seat when they've had one too many. The device even comes with a smartphone app that connects with the lock over Bluetooth and lets a loved one know that you are trying to bike drunk.
Seriously, where does this happen so frequently that an invention had to be made because of it?
Sure, there's bike-share in big cities these days, but is drunken cycling a really big problem in these places?
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Leuven, Belgium (where AB InBev comes from) is a student city. So a lot of beer and a lot of students that drink more than average and certainly more than allowed.
There are also a lot of people on a bike, however this machine would not be an issue. They would just steal another bike.
The next day they will pick up their old bike, if they can remember where it was. Otherwise it stays till the next cleanup.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Horrible idea. This problem should not be solved with technology.
Or does this lock also feature a combination or key so that some random bike thief (who probably hasn't been drinking any alcohol) can't just come up, blow into it and steal your bike?
A drunk biker is safer then a drunk driver.
1. They are exercising so blood is pumping and creating energy that a downer like alcohol to prevent. Cars on the other hand you can be very relaxed and amplify the sedative effect.
2. Bikers do get some leeway, they can drive on the sidewalk away from traffic without mush hassle, although you suppose to ride in the road, it isn't inforced. They can also drive in the breakdown lane.
3. Exponential less damage when they hit something. Sure you can get hurt but your collateral damage is much less.
The issue with drunk driving isn't about the safety of the drunk, but the safety of others. A biked drunk will cause less damage.
This device only removed an other transportation method for people who may had a bit too much to drink. While offering little actual safety advantage.
If you are dangerious to bike, you probably wouldn't get too far anyways.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
No self-respecting cyclist drunk will ever voluntarily purchase one of these, and they can't serve a purpose sitting on a store shelf, so what's the point? Will the manufacturer now secretly draft boilerplate for new state legislation that will require the use of breathalyzer locks by all cyclists and make it a criminal offense to refuse, thus guaranteeing themselves a captive market?
(Don't laugh; how do you think California wound up with laws mandating bicycle helmets, car insurance, and smog checks, among other things? Assemblymen had little faeries with deep pocketses whispering in their ears. Captive markets created by and for corporate interests.)
If a person is willing to drive a bike under influence why would they then go and deliberately prevent themselves from doing that? It's not really much different from alco-locks in cars: the people who are most against it are most likely the ones most in need of it. All of this just begs the question: who is the lock for, who is it that is going to buy and install those locks on stuff for the people who most likely should have them and then maintain the locks?
The app to let your 'friends'/loved ones know that you are up to doing something that has a reasonable chance of ending out badly.
Build infrastructure where cyclists are not a mere afterthought, instead - and drunk cyclists become a non-issue.
The only thing that surprises me about this useless gadget is that it actually exists as a thing on sale right now instead of being yet another harebrained kickstarter project.
>"Driving while drunk is a bad idea even on a bike"
Doing most anything that requires movement or thinking is a bad idea while drug intoxicated.
Because MADD. After largely accomplishing their original objectives, they needed a new raison d'être.
Umm, what gives you the idea that drunk driving is no longer a problem? Roughly 1/3 of all accidents in the US involve alcohol according to eh CDC. That was about 10,000 people in the US in 2013.
You weren't by any chance involved with George Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner were you?
On the always secure internet, where law enforcement pretty much has access to everything on your phone, a person is going to put this device on their bicycle, and the app is going to report that they are out in public drunk?
Golly gosh - who else is going to get that information? Officer Friendly might just happen along to visit you at the bike rack.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
> Driving while drunk is a bad idea even on a bike
Depends on the point of view. For those on a waiting list for organ transplants a dead cyclist is a good cyclist. Usually they die of head injuries (*), leaving the torso up for grabs. Up to six people can be saved by carving out the organs. Furthermore muscle-powered cyclists, even hobby riders, have better shape than the average couch potatoid, so they yield healthy hearts, lungs, kidneys.
(*) Please don't wear a helmet, it's bad for your hairstyle! You don't want to survive anyhow, just to become a paraplegic from a broken neck spine. Please don't wear a helmet!
Disclaimer: where I live, hungarian authorities recently made it legal to ride a bicycle in a drunken state even on lesser highways (but not the autobahn). There is no set limit in blood thousandths, so one can be drunken enough to be confined to all-four and yet legal to ride a recumbent. I think they are after organs for transplant.
what's to stop another drunk peeing on my 'alcolock'? peeing on the bit where I put my mouth? this would be enough for me to never buy this stupid, unneeded product you're trying to push
sag
we'll pay our fair share. Don't bikes cause something like 1/10.000 of the damage to a road that a car does? looks like it's the cars that are subsidised anyway according to: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/9...
sag
What a stupid idea. Anybody who buys one needs to come see me about buying this bridge I have for sale.
They already do via taxation.
The driver shares in the cost of the cycling path, just as the cyclist shares in the cost of whatever the drivers require.
Cycling infrastructure is pretty cheap compared to car roads. Bicycles are much lighter, don't require the same depth of road bedding to absorb vibration, the lanes are much narrower, and they cause much less wear on the road.
Cyclists pay taxes like anyone else.
For people under court order?
It doesn't really go far if at all, if owner is drunk.
Start charging cyclist for said infrastructure too?
So cyclist don't pay taxes? and do the exact same damage to roads as every other vehicle?
I am an ex cycle messenger i do not need a bike lane.
Btw this lock is garbage it must be invented buy someone who does not ride.
you cannot lock the bike to anything solid it is a pointless lock i will stay with my under 100$ German made lock.
The 2000lbs steel cages are the problem.
If you bike while surrounded by these steel caches, yes biking while drunk is going to be a serious danger. Your lack of reflexes and attention might end you up painting red the front bumper of some gaz guzzler.
If you live in Europe, there's a high chance that you bike on separate bike lanes, where you mostly only encounter other bikes (with drunken or sober bikers on them). At worst, you'll get some scratches and bruises if you managed to collide into another biker as drunk as you are.
Biking while drunk is a lot safer than driving while drunk, and provides a safer way of transportation when you want to have a few drings before going home.
- A breathalyzer bike lock would just discourage people using this "safer-while-drunk" transportation device when drunk.
- Building separate bike lanes would let drunks drive only among other bikers, no car arround, and thus give a safer solution to drive home while drunk. (compared to use a car while drunk, for example).
(Of course, eventually, self-driving cars will render the whole point moot, eventually...)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think we already do.
Paying taxes on everything just like the rest of the population, check.
Owned and registered car (that sits most of the time) check.
Oh you want me to pay taxes for not using gas?
and they can certainly cause a car accident.
...which requires the presence of cars.
Maybe in the US, it's normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other (that happened in my limited experience there).
Here in Europe, most cities are building bike lanes networks. So the drunk bikers will mostly meet other bikes (sober and drunk alike), and in worst case (when both are way too drunk) it can end in scratch and bruises.
You need to separate the heavy vehicles (cars, truck) from the light (bikes).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
About 33 percent of the number of people killed by guns in the US - depending on your metrics.
Which has precisely nothing whatsoever to do with drunk driving.
Don't see too many people giving a shit about that number.
You think nobody is against guns in the US and that nobody gives a shit? Wow, you have no clue do you? Just because there is a powerful gun lobby (read the NRA) in the US doesn't mean there isn't anyone on the other side of that issue.
Respectfully, 10,000 people a year is a barely a blip on the radar when dealing with causes of death.
10,000 deaths a year is a fucking catastrophe and if you think otherwise you have no sense of humanity or compassion.
Hell, how much damage does a drunk cyclist do when it gets into an accident compared to a drunk driver?
In the US where the cyclist need to share the lane with cars:
a big risk to collide with a car which can end up deadly. This might even happen if the cyclist was sober.
Here around in Europe (specially northern europe):
on bike lanes, a drunken nothern european cyclist is most likely to encounter other cyclists (sober or drunk).
in worst case (both cyclist way too drunk) you can expect scratches, bruises... but no deadly or life-long (paralysis) consequences.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
2. Bikers do get some leeway, they can drive on the sidewalk away from traffic without mush hassle
Or, you know, drive on bike lanes, those things away from traffic of which we have a lot here around in northern Europe.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
My real life experiments showed otherwise.
...which requires the presence of cars.
Yeah funny how cars tend to be on roads. Same roads that bikes have to use.
Maybe in the US, it's normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other (that happened in my limited experience there).
In the VAST majority of the world it is normal for bikes and cars to drive next to each other because dedicated bike lanes are not available.
Here in Europe, most cities are building bike lanes networks
Many cities I've seen in Europe barely have roads wide enough for the cars much less cars plus bike lanes. Those ancient cities Europeans are so (rightly) proud of weren't often designed with the automobile in mind. Those that were are those that were rebuilt after WWII. And in case you weren't aware, not everyone lives in a city and not every city has bike lanes and even those that do don't have bike lanes everywhere. Even in Europe. Sooner or later bikes and cars have to share space.
You need to separate the heavy vehicles (cars, truck) from the light (bikes).
Never going to happen. Certainly not in most of the US and I'm fairly confident it won't happen in most of Europe either. Hell in China where they have wide avenues for bikes even those are getting intruded on by cars. I've been there and seen it myself. Oh there are efforts to retrofit bike lanes but the city planning was done without that in mind in most cases so it's borderline impossible or prohibitively expensive outside of a few lucky areas.
Here in Florida you can be arrested for DUI while mowing your yard on a tractor mower. And it has happened.
Bikes and tractor mowers are considered vehicles (motorized or not), and you're responsible for the safe operation of any of those vehicles.
-> I dislike sigs...
Can't wait for this device to be hacked, such that a hacker can turn on the lock whenever even a sober person is riding along... crash.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
People in this country hate bicyclists because some bicyclists are gigantic fucking morons.
Funny I could say EXACTLY the same thing about a lot of automobile drivers. Furthermore as someone whose ridden for most of his life that VAST majority of drivers flipping out has precisely zero to do with anything the rider did. I've had people throw soft drinks on me while riding when there was no possible way I was causing them any problems or danger. I've had people maliciously try to drive me off the road. I've had morons moon me, scream obscenities, flip me the bird, clip me with their car and more. NONE of this is due to any any actions of mine. It is 100% them being assholes without any cause in as far as I can tell every single case. You are correct that a small minority of bike riders behave like complete idiots but that doesn't excuse people in cars from acting like assholes towards those who ride responsibly and safely.
Not all of them, but a large enough percentage to where you know you have a good chance that a cyclist will do something staggeringly stupid just as you drive past them which is dangerous for everyone involved, but especially them.
Yeah still can say the exact same thing about people in cars. Both me and my father have literal scars on our faces from motorists doing profoundly stupid and irresponsible things around us. In my father's case he even got a settlement from the moron. The difference is that motorists are insulated from their routine stupidity by a few thousand pounds of metal so they think they somehow have more right to the road than someone on a bicycle even though legally they don't.
Wouldn't a reasonably complicated combination lock basically serve the same purpose without needing any fancy electronics?
I'll toss my beer in your face and ask you if you still want to mind MY business.
Seriously, take this nanny state bullshit and shove it up your ass, Dice. Of course you'll most
likely have to remove the cock that's already there in order to make room.
A while back I read about a push in the US to make breathalyser locks mandatory in all motor vehicles. Isn't that presumptuous? I don't drink alcohol or do drugs, but still I would never agree with such a law that presumes you are guilty until proven innocent.
It's called lane splitting, bitch.
If it's OK for asshole motorcyclists, it's OK for anyone in a legitimate vehicle.
And if you're impeding the free flow of traffic, that's a ticket, no matter how many wheels you have.
Considerably less than that, particularly in the USA where the average "car" is an exceptionally heavy behemoth. The amount of wear caused is basically proportional to about the fourth power of the axle weight. On all roads which have any appreciably large truck traffic at all, practically all of the wear is caused by truck traffic.
Not really, it is surprisingly easy to ride around while totally shitfaced. Casually bicycling around doesn't require the kind of fine motor control and fast reflexes that driving does.
It's frustrating, but it's not personal. It's just that a lot of people are really bad drivers.
Sometimes it is just bad driving but I can verify from first hand experience that very often it is VERY personal. I've had drivers intentionally try to drive me off the road. It wasn't bad driving and it wasn't them not knowing I was there. It was intentional vehicular assault. There are quite a few cases of drivers pulling in front of bicycle riders and brake checking them. I've had drivers throw soft drinks on me and spit at me. There was nothing accidental about that.
There are more than a handful of people who honestly and earnestly believe that bicycles do not belong on public roads.
Why not put one on the door to keep out a drunk spouse? Probly better as an enrty lock of course. Which would be useful for "sober housing" buildings...
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
I don't know if this is an actual product intended to be sold to the public, or just a gimmick product design intended as part of a PSA campaign.
auto locks mandated by courts for repeat drunk drivers doesn't stop friends, neighbors, strangers, children, spouses from blowing into the little device that prevents drunk usage. so if it doesn't work for cars then it isn't going to work for bikes. i bet one could even teach a dog how to blow into the breathalyzer.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Sense of perspective. PLEASE GET ONE.
Sense of humanity. PLEASE GET ONE. 10,000 people dying in accidents is a tragedy. If you can't see that then I weep for you.
Just because people die from other reasons too doesn't in any way make this less of a tragedy. Just because people die from heart disease doesn't make cancer research unimportant. Just because people die from gunshots doesn't make preventing drunk driving unimportant. By your logic we shouldn't spend any time worrying about anything but the most common cause of death because anything else "lacks perspective".
But it has 100 percent everything to do with someone whining about 10,000 people getting killed by drunk driving.
You're going on and on with a bunch of strawman baloney about more common and largely unrelated causes of death. Let me make this very simple for you since you can't seem to wrap your brain around it.
Just because something else is a more common cause of death IN NO WAY makes these deaths from drunk driving less of a tragedy or less worthy of efforts to prevent those deaths.
Clear enough? If you cannot understand that then I pity you. You are acting like we cannot do anything further about drunk driving and that any further investments in prevention of it are a waste of money. I could not disagree more. That is a false dilemma and I reject your premise outright.
But anyone who isn't looking at it in emotion only mode has to know that you could throw all the money in the world at it, and it will not reduuce the number of DUI deaths to zero.
Who said anything about reducing it to zero? Of course that unrealistic. But how about reducing it to 5000 a year? 1000? 500? The notion that because we can't achieve perfection we shouldn't do anything is absurd reductionism and stupid public policy.
But it isn't about a lack of humanity and/or compassion. It's about unealistic expectations - the idea that if we can only get tougher on it, we can eliminate it. We can't.
Grow up. It has nothing to do with unrealistic expectations. By your logic we shouldn't waste any money or effort on anything but the biggest problems. Got a rare disease? Fuck off and die according to you because you have "unrealistic expectations".
10,000 deaths a year from drunk driving is a tragedy by any measure. If you cannot see that then you are blind.
I'm thinking this will go down in history as a less-than-revolutionary invention, like a "smart" bottle that tells you how much you just drank out of it.
Any crime that does not involve anybody else is bullshit. Drunk driving is stupid but should not be a crime until you damage something that is not yours or somehow impact another.
That's like saying wearing a seat belt is a dumb idea because you haven't crashed yet. You pretty much missed the entire point.
The problem with your logic is that by the time the drunken person's behavior does damage someone else it is too late. Driving drunk is A) unnecessary and B) substantially and demonstrably more likely to result in tangible harm to other people or property. So it makes sense to prohibit behavior with no societal value that causes significant burdens on society. You want to get drunk and do something stupid on your own property where no one else it at risk? Knock yourself out. But if you want to be a part of civilized society in public there are going to be some rules you'll have to live with.
If you go after people on a bike you deserve to have them kill your family in a car.
A 82kg (179 pound) typical weight male on a bike is traveling at a typical biking speed of 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph) and, due to being drunk, fails to stop before riding head on into an oncoming bicyclist in the bike lanes.
How much damage does this do to the innocent party?
Answer: a lot less than a drunken typical-weight in a car colliding head on into an oncoming car in the car lane.
The general formula for kinetic energy is:
Ecin =1/2 m v^2
The kinetic energy scales linearly with the weight ( ~100 kg person+bike vs. 2'000 kg car : 20x less energy)
and it scales squared with regards to speed ( 15 km/h bike vs. 60 km/h car: 4x ^ 2 = 16x less energy)
so that's about ~300x less energy in bike to bike vs car to car collision. (and that's a a conservative estimate. Cars can easily be heavier, often drunkards are driving recklessly above limit, etc.)
And that's assuming that:
- the oncoming bike actually collide. Bicycles are lighter (so less inertia) and smaller (harder to hit target) and are slower (less braking distance, more time to anticipate, etc.), so its much more easy for a bicycle to avoid another bicycle, than a faster, bigger and heavier car to avoid another car.
- the drunken biker is on the bike in the first place. As mentioned by others in this thread, you can also use the bike as a walking frame if you're that much fucked up.
End result: there are still big number of statistics of death by drunken drivers here around.
Whereas death by drunken cyclist are so seldom here around (Europe) that they aren't considered a real problem.
I literally haven't heard of dead drunken cyclist around where I live (okay, it's a small city, but still). Either there's a huge conspiracy to hush any news reporting about all those dead cyclist. Or you'll have to admit that indeed, as proven by the laws of physics, bicycle accident tend to be a lot less deadly, as long as generally only bicycles as involved (which is the case in North European cities with a decent network of bike lanes).
If you're drunk get a fucking taxi and if you can't afford the taxi then don't get drunk.
In some country, the taxi isn't really an option.
- taxi can cost a lot,
- whereas using the bike as a walking frame is free
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Sidewalks are better and wider.
And its how it goes, in Scandinavia.
Well at least you have the excuse that you need to dig through 1m layer of snow if you wanted to see the lane markings on the street, so you might as well ignore them and bike wherever you want. ;-)
And all the vodka you've drank doubles probably as anti-freeze in case you get lost in the winter snow storm.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]