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.
not 'automakers'.. but more like 'lobbyists', 'commercial interests', and 'investors', hyping the (currently flawed) technology to 'law enforcement', the 'insurance industry' and 'advocates'.
automakers themselves wouldn't want this. the more accidents there are, the more parts and cars they sell; and this would be an aftermarket add-on anyway, not something installed at the factory on every vehicle that they could mark up 5000%.
Nothting's stopping them from making them.
But just watch as the first one to move sales tank when nobody buys their cars with it installed..
Then all the rest won't follow.
Or they get Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety to lobby for a law that makes everyone do it.
But wait, that's not Capitalism and Free Markets. No, it isn't. Capitalism and Free Markets are supposed to be the cure for everything that ails us, right? Having it forced on us by more government regulation sounds a lot like <<<Big Government>>> Something we're told by the <<<Right>>> is bad.
Guy comes out of the bar because it closes at 2 AM, gets in his car, it won't start 'cuz he's lit up big-time, he can't run the heater, it's International Falls, Mn with a current temp of -35 degrees, there's no one around and he passes out and dies of hypothermia.
Naw, never happen, eh?
Why don't the car makers just make us those self driving cars where we can tell it to go home and then crawl in the back seat and sleep all the way into the garage, eh? Probably because they don't have a clue how to do that safely any more than they will have a clue how to do this and not kill anyone either.
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.
. . . it could happen.
I want machines that are predictable and reliable and won't override what I want - sometimes I want the car engine to start or airplane to nose-up and don't want a machine blocking that from happening
1. Drunk passenger vs drunk driver.
2. Delay to reset the system. If I canâ(TM)t drive how long do we have to wait before a passenger can be approved to drive.
3. Anorexia vs Drunk.
4. Liability due to system error. If I get fired for missing work because your breathalyzer incorrectly identified my mouthwash as alcohol will the car manufacture pay my bills until I get a new job?
How about they get you home or to a hospital ?
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.
Will auto-makers like it when they are held responsible when people inevitably find ways to cheat these systems?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
>"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.
When they "perfect" this technology, 99.9% of us responsible drivers will be forced to buy something we will never use, and drunks will still find a way to get around it.
States which have legalized marijuana have seen increases in automobile accidents since legalization. Up to 6% more accidents.
What about other drugs? Is this technology going to test for their presence as well?
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.
I do not drive drunk or after drinking... but one time I did. My dad and me was out fishing and drinking. He had a stroke and I had to drive him to the hospital even though I had drunk more than a few beers. They were able to save him because I made it in to the hospital in time. Were we live an ambulance takes at least 60min to get here. Now I got him to the hospital in under an hour.
I will never get any transportation that will decide for me whether I should drive or not.
How many lives will this new life saver cost? How many rapes, assaults and kidnappings will it cause because the car decides you should not be allowed to flee a bad situation?
More likely pot smokers are fooling with their phones or car electronics more carelessly and that is causing the accidents. Pot certainly is not making them into aggressive drivers; less stressed and worried by risks.
Disclaimer: I've never tried the stuff.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
That's just great. There's a forest fire or some other emergency, and I need to use my car, but I can't because it decides I've been drinking. Nice. Well, I had it coming.
Make love, not reality television.
Why would automakers want this? This sounds like something politicians and lawmakers want and are pressuring the auto industry to implement. From a purely financial standpoint, automakers make a lot of money off of drunk drivers. All those accidents result in lots of totaled cars that are replaced with insurance money. Looking at the DUI related stats, we're talking billions of dollars in losses each year because of this (although the majority of that would have to be medical expenses and liability type payouts - still, the fact is that cars are taken off the road because of these accidents, and they are typically replaced by insurance).
Better known as 318230.
They are worse than Cartman in his wildest dreams.
So they will hit you over the head with a sledgehammer.
Corporatism != Free Market
Instead, I think automakers should focus on producing cars that won't allow you to drive slower than traffic in the fast lane. This is much more prevalent problem.
If you don't drink, you don't want to pay for a device that stops you from drinking and driving. If you do drink, even socially (no not face-down or all day every day) you aren't going to want a car to decide you can't go home. Breath machines in a police setting are calibrated, and not portable. They are expensive and must be used in a certain way by a trained operator to be valid (the roadside handhelds are NOT enough, which is why you are dragged back to the station to blow). Lastly, a cop breath machine lives indoors, not outside in a car that will see -15F to +120F parked outside-think Montana to Florida. I know this is MADD's wet dream, and they tend to get whatever they want, including mandatory attendance at a MADD presentation (for which the offender pays MADD) as part of your Court Sentence, but this is a bit too far.
The point is to force every one too buy a buy a new car with telemetry.
However it doesn't seem like devices themselves should enforce laws because extremists in a moral panic may seek to impose certain behaviors that may interrupt lawful use based on the purported importance of their cause. you are my new best friend. Stealing this, it applies in SO many places
...if the alcohol is coming from the driver or a passenger? Can the air flow be controlled so precisely it can tell when there's a designated driver?
Woman claims her body brews alcohol, has DUI charge dismissed (2016)
[People with auto-brewery syndrime] can function at alcohol levels such as 0.30 and 0.40 when the average person would be comatose or dying.
So what if I have this? I might be able to get my own car's interlock disabled, but I doubt I'll be able to drive a rental car, drive on the job, or drive a friend's car, even though I could drive one safely today.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
All these ideas ("great" and "not-so") involve more gadgetry that can go wrong. In this case, potentially leave you stranded. Clutch interlock? Well now that's broken so I can't start the vehicle--even though I AM stomping on the clutch. Low tire-pressure? Well that's broke (or dead battery), so I've got this stupid idiot light on all the time even though the tires are fine. (And, no it's not worth $400 a pop to replace them--electrical tape is cheaper.) Now if this stupid gadget breaks or gives a bad reading, I'm stuck. Since I don't drink or loan my vehicle, it's of no use whatsoever.
I'll just leave this here, because this would be exactly what will happen QI S16E10
Autos with can get lower insurance, other preferable treatment, higher speed limits, have an indicator so cops know which cars do not have. While some clever devious few will find a way to deceive most will benefit from compliance. There could be an over ride option for emergencies in which case someone not very drunk could initiate. An over ride siren and lights. Potential drunk behind the wheel. Drunk driving is a serious problem still. We share the roads. We expect pilots and air traffic controllers among others to be sober when entrusted with our safety, same goes for sharing the roads.
10 Ridiculous Instances Of Zero Tolerance In Schools — 10 October 2015
Now you don't always know the context behind these things, but there's clearly something wrong here. Bottom line is that this kind of thing is used to bully the population, and isn't that different in spirit from the Chinese Social Credit System.
One day, someone is going to eat a vanilla-extract flavoured pancake, and then his wife is going to give birth halfway to the hospital, because his car refused to start, and then it will be on Fox News for weeks and weeks, because of how the New Left is now horning in on their traditional territory.
'Secret' Nuclear Missile Launch Code During Cold War Was '00000000' — 5 December 2013
SAC was so concerned the car wouldn't start at the worst possible time, they effectively flipped the bird to the Commander-in-Chief behind his back.
Nothing like a zero-tolerance giggle (times eight) at Kennedy's expense behind his back.
Rule Makers, Rule Breakers (2018) by Michele Gelfand.
I get making a big deal out of the seemingly insignificant (even the Pop-Tart gun). But what goes under the name "zero tolerance" typically involves horrifically disproportionate responses, while all the people paid to be in charge wander around vacuously explaining that their hands are tied. Inevitably, some ridiculous outcome arises that is not a good look for the human species.
so just focus on the kinds of politicians who won't mandate the feature and you'll be fine.
That's a little tricky though. What you've got to watch out for aren't bleeding heart liberals or puritanical right wingers, it's the corporatists. If the politicians do make these mandatory it won't be for safety, it'll be to line the auto company's pockets with extra cash from a useless "safety" feature.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They will be always instantaneously locked out from driving due to their heavy acetone breath.
Given how at least 40,000 die in the USA yearly and how we flip out over tragedies that amount to a rounding error... you'd think something would be done if any rationality was involved
1) Drunk Driving is not the #1 cause. It's DISTRACTED driving. so now lets try to solve #4 rather than address the big elephant in the room?
Require bluetooth linking that disables nearly all the phone's features. A century of cars without smart phones prove it's not necessary to use both. The brats can learn to sit in the car without it too (unfortunately the brats grew up into the largest voting block... and don't really care if a city worth of people die each year.) More punishment will not improve things so post-accident cell data won't help anymore than DWI testing has.
2) Why can't the license BE the car key?? We already have phones paired as keys. Chip the licenses. Most the car key systems seem to get hacked anyway; may as well have 1 solid standard... you can't drive without a key and you are not supposed to drive without your ID on you! Cut down on pocket clutter. Your ID is the key; maybe even put your ID as a digital ID on your phone too. How often do you hear on the news the drunk was already suspended?
3) Invest all that $$$ into helping self driving take off... better mass transit as well... car growth is out pacing road expansion. The 10 years a highway expansion plan takes to complete is undone by the 10 year growth during that period!
4) mitigation. ROUNDABOUTS! save $, reduce fatalities, and can somewhat catch drunks.. deep grooves in the road edges that tend to rip off your wheels. more side ditches and tough plants (less grass.) How about proper city design going forward? no, politics are broken in the USA. unsustainable urban sprawl continues with zero thought allowed.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
This whole spiel makes them sound like Theranos. They're just making a cash grab from M.A.D.D. and related groups.
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..
To win over consumers — and avoid the sort of outcry that occurred in the 1970s over an ill-fated ignition interlock intended to promote seat belt use — project officials say the built-in interlock has to be fast, precise and just about perfectly reliable in many different driving conditions. It also has to have safeguards against drivers who might cheat.
It also can't increase the cost of a vehicle one dime. I don't drink. Unless I'm the driver I don't ride with anyone that has been drinking. I don't need to pay to have a useless, complicated, unreliable contraption part of my vehicle. What happens when this item malfunctions? Do I get to pay to have it fixed so that I can drive my vehicle?
More and more I'm interested in buying used cars that are manufactured prior to complex systems that are useless to me.
So what happens when you spill a bit of E85 at the gas station and try to drive home? What happens if the idiot who got gas before you did and you stepped in it? Is getting fuel that may contain ethanol going to keep you from driving home?
make a ... reading of every driver's blood alcohol content (BAC) level when the driver attempts to start the vehicle.
It's called "drinking and driving" not "drinking and starting" so just remember to either (a) keep the car running before/while you drink or (b) start drinking after you start the car. Problem solved.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
There is always a work around (and what a great defence in court for drunk drivers,"The car started so I thought I wasn't drunk"). You would have to imagine that the car will work if there is a passenger that is drunk. Otherwise, how exactly am I supposed to responsibly catch a taxi?
Toyota Hilux has a system where if you have something on the passenger seat and you go over a bump it occasionally registers that there is a passenger and starts beeping as the seat belt isn't done up. The easy fix for this is to leave the passenger seatbelt plugged in around the back of the seat. Perhaps a work around for this will be as simple engaging the passenger seatbelt, or opening the window, or breathing into a bag sober so you can use it after the pub, taping the sensor, getting someone else to breath on it, placing your dog on your lap, etc...
I reserve the write to mangle english.
This is a non-starter (pun intended) until we have autonomous vehicles. Then it might be reasonable to make you pass such a test if you want to drive yourself, otherwise the car does everything for you.
Automakers don't give a shit whether such devices are deployed or not. If they are legally mandated, then there's no competitive drawback.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You can defeat a breathalyzer by hyperventilating first, and of course if you are wearing gloves then it can't detect that you are drunk by touch either.
Of course, hyperventilation does not make a person sober... it merely changes the amount of alcohol that will be detected in their breath alone... obviously a blood sample will still indicate the real blood alcohol level.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
..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
A friend of mine got convicted of drunk driving, and had to have one of these devices installed in her car for a year.
They don't work.
People who claim they do work are either idiots or paid liars who work for the companies supplying them. I spent most of that year waiting for a phone call to come and get her from wherever she happened to be when the device decided she had been drinking. On a couple of occasions, it would demand a random breath sample while she was driving (having decided minutes before she was fine to start the car and drive), and then it would knock out her ignition IN TRAFFIC! Another time, we ate a couple of pepperoni sausages at the local deli. The device decided pepperoni breath = drunk, and wouldn't let either of us start the car. On yet another occasion, it disabled the car and left her stranded on a major highway. The police arrived within minutes and gave her a breathalyzer test, which she passed with flying colours. So the cops stood there and watched while she blew into this fucking device and it said she was drunk.
If I am forced to own a car that has something like this in it, I will find a way to disable it and escape the consequences (because you can bet your bum there will be consequences). But before things go that far, I hope enough drivers rise up in righteous wrath against this nonsense and summarily vote out legislators who allow cars equipped with such devices to be sold in their jurisdiction.
And just for the record, the times I have come closest to being killed by a car involved drivers who were texting instead of paying attention to the road. I've seen drunk drivers. I've even phoned 911 on one. But statistically and anecdotally, they aren't the ones causing most of the carnage on our roads.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Why not build in accident avoidance features? Make it impossible to run a red light or blow past a stop sign. That alone and nothing else would prevent 1/3 of traffic accident deaths.
The only joke on this story? I was sort of hoping for at least one funny argument with the Hal-like car, trying to convince it that the driver is not actually drunk. "You're just overreacting to the Purel!"
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Why the hell would I want to pay an extra $$$$ for an option I will never have any need to use at all ?
( Subsidizing your drinking problem isn't on my list of things to accomplish in life )
The cheaper method is to simply deny anyone who is convicted of a DWI / DUI from driving at all until they go through treatment ( at their cost ).
Instead of adding some magical DUI sensing hardware, just put a card reader into the vehicle. Get in, insert Drivers License and the system will determine if you're allowed to drive or not based on what data is on your card. Too many points on your license or under a driving prohibition due to DWI / DUI conviction and the car simply doesn't start. ( give Uber or Lyft a ring )
Get caught using someone else's DL to bypass the restrictions and your license is permanently revoked + jail time, while their license gets a suspension.
( Don't steal your friends shit lest you not remain friends for very long )
If you want to get fancy, you can throw a fingerprint reader into the mix to ensure the prints contained within the card you have inserted match the drivers prints.
( Hell you can even lock the car to only a specific Drivers License and / or prints. )
Theoretical ideas only, I'm sure there are lots of problems with them.
or
Instead of wasting the time and money on this, why not put it into the self driving car problem ?
Over time, as the SDC replaces the traditional cars, the entire DUI / DWI, distracted driving, speeding, congestion, asshole-in-a-car problems will go away on their own. Folks will pretty much just be along for the ride.
This seems like a mega corp adding features to sell, probably because they think they can go to the government, give a few Senators some cash, and get a law passed. You do realize it's the left that would shut that kind of thing down? You do realize that the sorts of zero tolerance things you're railing against (like, say, mandatory sentencing, asset forfeiture, going to jail for years for a bit of pot or even some coke) are deeply opposed by the left.
I'm so damn sick of folks saying "The Left" when what they really mean is "People I don't like". If you directed your ire at the people actually pushing the things you hate you'd be on the left.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The damsel-in-distress is trying to get away from the axe murderer and jumps into a car with this technology. Little does she know that the aforementioned axe murderer slipped an alcohol swab through a slightly open window thus thwarting her attempts to start the car and get away.
I don't drink, nor does my wife, so paying to have one of these things in my vehicle will never help anyone. So paying to have it, and paying to maintain it are not pleasing ideas to me.
I have had a number of experiences with things that were engineered to not work (DRM generally speaking). On several occasions, they did what they were designed to do. Not work. All false positives.
Not being able to watch a movie or play a game that I paid for were merely annoying inconveniences.
A vehicle not working when you need it could range from annoying to disasterous (life threatening on rare occasions).
It may not start out that way, but what are the chances in the future of these things not reporting to police and insurance companies? Just what I need. Not only does a false positive keep me from driving, I get a fine, points off my license, and my insurance goes through the roof. No trial, just labeled guilty by a faulty machine.
Could be great fun for hackers too.
Do not want.
With this coming out I'm investing in charcoal filter masks now, I'm going to be rich!
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America