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%.
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.
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.
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.
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