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%.
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.
>"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.
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?
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.
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.
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..
..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