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.
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?
Even if they can't steal your bike, can they steal your $300 lock?! Also, don't most cyclists have another rather obvious means of blowing (alcohol-free) air into a tube..?
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?
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
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 ]
Wouldn't a reasonably complicated combination lock basically serve the same purpose without needing any fancy electronics?
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
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.