Slashdot Mirror
Automakers Want Cars That Won't Start If You're Drunk (washingtonpost.com)
Since 2008, a $65 million program has been designing a sophisticated new "ignition interlock" system that would only allows cars to start if it detects that the driver is sober, the Washington Post reports:
What's different -- perhaps even revolutionary -- is that the built-in ignition interlock would make an instantaneous and precise reading of every driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) level when the driver attempts to start the vehicle. Eventually, the device could become standard equipment, just like air bags. The device would take BAC samples in one of two ways. A breath-based system would gather a whiff of a driver's ambient breath. A touch-based system would analyze the touch of a driver's finger, perhaps from a vehicle's starter button or the steering wheel....
Officials behind the public-private effort to develop the technology -- known as the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) -- say the device will be ready for commercial fleets next year. Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles became the first state agency to use it in its fleet last year, and a private company, James River Transportation, is road-testing them in its fleet of Ford Flex crossovers.... . Advocates say that if their work is successful, such a device -- which requires understanding complexities involving the science of biology, spectroscopy, electrical engineering, consumer behavior and even politics -- could save an estimated 10,000 lives a year.
"We intend to release by the end of 2020 a breath-based device for use in fleet applications and as a dealer-installed accessory," says the president of Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which represents 17 automakers.
He tells the Post that the interlock devices now available are zero-tolerance -- "if any amount of alcohol is present, they will lock you out" -- and "are very difficult to use... Even people who use them regularly and are experienced in using them typically fail to provide a sufficient breath sample about 30 percent of the time... The other problem with those mouthpieces [besides some drivers seeing them as uncomfortable or intrusive] is they're plastic and you can only use them about five times... And then, the technology has to be recalibrated roughly every year, dependent upon usage. If you use it more, you have to calibrate it more frequently."
But with the new devices, "you simply sit in driver's seat and breathe normally. That's all that's required. There is no mouthpiece... We want to make a very precise very accurate measurement within a third of a second."
Officials behind the public-private effort to develop the technology -- known as the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) -- say the device will be ready for commercial fleets next year. Virginia's Department of Motor Vehicles became the first state agency to use it in its fleet last year, and a private company, James River Transportation, is road-testing them in its fleet of Ford Flex crossovers.... . Advocates say that if their work is successful, such a device -- which requires understanding complexities involving the science of biology, spectroscopy, electrical engineering, consumer behavior and even politics -- could save an estimated 10,000 lives a year.
"We intend to release by the end of 2020 a breath-based device for use in fleet applications and as a dealer-installed accessory," says the president of Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which represents 17 automakers.
He tells the Post that the interlock devices now available are zero-tolerance -- "if any amount of alcohol is present, they will lock you out" -- and "are very difficult to use... Even people who use them regularly and are experienced in using them typically fail to provide a sufficient breath sample about 30 percent of the time... The other problem with those mouthpieces [besides some drivers seeing them as uncomfortable or intrusive] is they're plastic and you can only use them about five times... And then, the technology has to be recalibrated roughly every year, dependent upon usage. If you use it more, you have to calibrate it more frequently."
But with the new devices, "you simply sit in driver's seat and breathe normally. That's all that's required. There is no mouthpiece... We want to make a very precise very accurate measurement within a third of a second."
v2.0 won't start if your credit score is too low, or you post 'fake news' or a hate opinion online.
I have never, ever driven drunk. So this technology wouldn't directly impinge upon my personal freedom. Nevertheless I hate the idea. Why? Not because I want to drive drunk, or because I like drunk drivers, but because it places an entirely new control on us. This is the reason I hate CP laws and the banning of child-sized sex dolls despite not being a pedo. It's the reason I hate seat belt laws despite that I would wear one without them. The point isn't that we should have x. The point is that laws banning x always and inevitably expand until there's a broad, active social backlash. Two other examples are book banning in Europe and drug and alcohol laws. A recently proposed US law against child sized sex dolls would have created a whole new category of physical objects illegal to possess. Seatbelt laws created a new category of things police are expected to look at you doing inside the privacy of your car. CP laws created a new category of data the state may inspect, censor, and punish on every computer in the country. What, you won't let us look at your database? You're not a pedo are you? I digress. This technology introduces the active inspection of things inside the car and the idea that it's okay for your car not to start without someone else's permission. It's not the first thing, the first thing was anti-theft. This is the second item on the slope. I'm sure the third will be distracted driving. And on until yet another thing is put on your list of things you have to give a fuck about or lose real freedom. It's not that people should drive drunk, it's that my car belongs to me. And THAT is the real reason car manufacturers like this technology.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Diabetics sometimes have sugary, alcohol-y breath depending on their condition and whether they are having blood sugar spikes. Does this "smart" technology take that into account?
I can "have" "excessively high" alcohol on my breath if I have an orange or some other fruit directly before getting into the car. Will it not fall for that?
What about you playing designated driver for a passenger who is totally sloshed but not driving, yet breathing normally? Or breathing heavily while talking in your direction? Does this shut you out of that?
What happens if you are having a glass of wine at a meal and then your spouse / S.O. has a medical emergency and needs driven to the hospital? Is it, "sorry, no-go even for emergencies?"
So many ways this can go wrong. So many ways this can go wrong without us knowing how bad it can be until we have a personal crisis cropping up in front of us.
The instant this causes injury or death from any of the above scenarios or others we haven't imagined yet, you're going to see a veritable tsunami of lawsuits to get this junky "smart" crap out of the cars.
They also die from exhaust inhalation running the engine for hours while not moving, so the rest of your fantasy falls apart there.
Aside from the post that already points out that ICE vehicles use the engine coolant to provide heat to the passenger compartment, I challenge you to cite a single example of death by CO poisoning from a running vehicle that was outdoors and not in an enclosed space. You really don't know much about cars, do you?
Of course it will happen. But if 10 drunk idiots freeze to death and 10,000 drunk driving related deaths are eliminated, that seems a good trade doesn't it?
And that's making a lot of assumptions -- a few years out from now even if the engine won't start, he's probably got an electric, so the heater will work just fine even if the car refuses to move. He'll also probably have phone with which he can call people for help. Even old cars will run the accesories without the engine running (although many old cars don't have electric heat as they just use engine heat). But seriously... I lived in manitoba. If your driving around at 2am in -35 below in the spaces without a lot of people without some emergency thermal gear in the car, blankets, candles, emergency lights/flares, maybe a even a little camp stove/heater ... then you are asking for trouble.
Now If you are wandering around 'lit up big time' by yourself, at 2am, in that environment, *knowing* you own a car that doesn't start if you are drunk, and you don't have a backup plan and/or are too drunk to execute it... well... that's a darwin award candidate.
I mean seriously... what happens in your world when at 2am, at -35 in winter he goes to start the car and then it dies half way home because he ran out of gas, because he was too lit to notice the fuel need was on empty, and nothing was open at 2am anyway...
Only because WP reports this, this doesn't mean crap.
Moreover, the claim that such technology works is most likely BS. I am one of the most alert drivers, and yet while I drive my brand new Honda Pilot, I see a light flashing "brake! brake!, you will crash!!! or I will brake for you!", even though there is no one driving in front of me. So after getting about 5-10 of such false positives a day, I simply turned off this idiotic collision braking mitigation system BS whatever shit they call it, and I never use it any more. If someone tries to sell me a car that claims it won't start because I had a beer today, I simply won't buy me. Send these to Holland, please. This will never pass in the USA.
Come on. Are you really trying that hard to be dense? You can envision that entire scenario, but you canâ(TM)t envision a system that would allow the engine to start but not put the car into drive?
>"Eventually, the device could become standard equipment, just like air bags. "
Great- so even though I don't drink and nobody else ever drives my car, I would have to add yet another $500 or $1000 or something to the price of any car I want to buy, for yet another feature I don't want or need.
Oh, and for those who do drink- I am sure that information about your "level" histories will be kept super-duper secret and never stored, phoned-home, or be accessible by other companies or government.
Oh, and I am sure it will never fail or be inaccurate and lock me out of my own car AND create a lie record about my BAC. And I am sure it would never hold the owner responsible for something someone else did or a passenger.
Oh, and I am sure it will stop with just BAC and not be enhanced with later models to detect other legal drugs, then illegal drugs, then prescription drugs.
Non-drunk people in cold climates who are wearing gloves will have to take the gloves off to start the car? And what happens if you pickup 4 drunk people, I am sure there would be a strong smell inside the car, does the driver have a special pipe to blow in? This is a fail system.
Better scenario, woman running from potential mugger/carjacker canâ(TM)t start car fast enough because of breath test device, gets attacked and killed. Time then for surviving family to go after auto maker for liability.
yet another expense dictated by the mast overlords proving
1) Existing draconian criminal justice system is a complete failure
2) nobody can give a drunk friend a ride home
3) you can't wear too much perfume
4) you just cant kill a bad idea
rather than actually deal with emotional problems or have a public mental health system - lets remove more rights from people and force them to pay for unnecessary gadgets..
Agreed, but there are actually three failure modes here.
That last one is the big one, because the vast majority of trips are by non-drunk drivers. So a tiny false-positive failure rate can result in a large number of incidents. Typically, increasing the true-positive rate also increases the false-positive rate. That is, reducing the rate at which the system fails to stop a drunk driver also increases the rate at which it mistakenly thinks a non-drunk driver is drunk and prevents them from driving. You have to add the inconvenience and even deaths resulting from the false-positives to your tradeoff balance. Someone who is not drunk could be prevented from driving their car on a -35 F winter night, and freeze to death.
..with lots of unintended consequences
So called "smart" devices are often really, really stupid
Can a device like this work perfectly every time?
What about edge cases, like escaping from a forest fire, earthquake of volcano?
What about all of the complex failure modes I, or the programmers who create it, am not clever enough to anticipate?
What if you are hauling cargo that gives off an aroma that triggers the unit?
What if there is some scent in the air that triggers it, like a train derailment or pipeline leak?
I would argue that it's impossible to make it work perfectly, and I strongly oppose the idea
And no, I don't drive drunk or advocate drunk driving