NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

Turn signals are mandatory, folks don't care. Idk. I'm not the smartest guy out there but I bet any system implemented would be defeated in about 6 minutes. Drugs are illegal, doesn't stop people from ODing. Doesn't stop the people getting rich off of destroying lives and families. 
 

Personally I'd be worried more about what other nonsense is just spontaneously included in some fancy new safety bill. 
 

I don't think anything will likely ever come of it. As mentioned above, self driving cars will fix the issue before people decide to stop being stupid. 

In reply to barefootcyborg5000 :

You can still get into a collision with a self driving car.  The laws are already on the books that in the event of a collision, the automaker/software engineer is not at fault, the driver is.

Airliners can be 100% self flown but we still have meatbags up front to handle the situations where the computers are outside their ability.  Cars will be the same way.

"You can't do anything but you still have to pay attention like you are" is even worse than just driving as far as attention loss is concerned.

RevRico said:

L5wolvesf said:

RevRico said:

States make way too much money from DUIs to give it up. 

Would love to see the stats you have for that.

Just going off 2018 numbers, in my state alone, AND assuming all first offenses, which they are not, 49,730 DUI arrests, at $10k per (first offense fine, legal fees, etc) is $500 million. 

Before factoring in increased penalties for multiple offenses, and associated charges.

For this discussion I will presume those numbers are close. However, you failed to include something - the direct costs of DUIs.

Law enforcement – facilities, vehicles, employees (training, payroll etc)

Emergency workers - vehicles, employees (training, payroll etc)

Hospital costs not covered by insurance - facilities, employees (training, payroll etc)

Court costs - facilities, employees (training, payroll etc)

Incarceration costs - facilities, vehicles, employees (training, payroll etc)

Costs of increased insurance premiums

And

The cost of lives lost. But as mentioned above

“People with a DUI and no license still drive cars. They just don't care.” 

It seems like the supporters of drunk drivers may not care either.

Do their rights and freedom matter?

frenchyd said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I know you are right.  But I'm in favor of anything that will  stop DUI's   Nothing is perfect ( especially not me)  but doing nothing means no improvement. 
   So I puff in a tube?  Perhaps it can detect my DNA and not allow anyone but me to drive?  ( instead of a key or fob) trade a little inconvenience for a better security system?  

So you give up these things, cool.

I'm not into it, so why should I have to do so?

There's also another aspect, certainly with breathalyzer devices, possibly with the skin reading thing. Food.

When you get current interlocks installed, you are given a handy list of foods to avoid eating immediately before or while driving. Wait, rinse your mouth with water, etc.

Pizza, fresh beads, soy sauce, very sugary foods, spicy foods. More detailed list.

You can't fix all false positives. If the newly suggested systems act like current court mandated systems and require random testing on long trips, you'd have potential for widespread problems. 

frenchyd said:

Mr_Asa said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I know you are right.  But I'm in favor of anything that will  stop DUI's   Nothing is perfect ( especially not me)  but doing nothing means no improvement. 
   So I puff in a tube?  Perhaps it can detect my DNA and not allow anyone but me to drive?  ( instead of a key or fob) trade a little inconvenience for a better security system?  

So you give up these things, cool.

I'm not into it, so why should I have to do so?

That's the cost of living in society.  Rules are set up to benefit all.  If you want to get indignant,  do about something that matters.  Not about how we start our cars. 
     Well I suppose you can leave your key in the ignition, that way anyone can use your car.   

You don't get it.  I am getting indignant about something that matters.

As I mentioned earlier, this plan leaves 600+ lives unaccounted for.  What happens when they decide to go after saving those lives?  What plan and limitations are they going to subject us to in order to get those lives safe?

Also, I do live in a society.  What I'd prefer (again, something that has already been mentioned, but you likely didn't read) is that they do something about drunk drivers having their licenses and missing jail.  A cousin was arrested for DUI, she claims it was a medication thing but I honestly don't know.  The cop pulled her over, spoke to her and gave her a warning, then followed her for a mile and a half (this is in the county records) before he had enough evidence to cite her for DUI and arrest her.  Why did my cousin have to pay for her crime and the cop was fine because he let her out on the road after having a face to face interaction with her?

I want our society to function properly, but the current DUI laws and how they are enforced is the first place to change it, not making new legislation that blankets the country.

Punishing the many for the transgressions of the few was bullE36 M3 back in kindergarten, it doesn't suddenly become ok when the people involved are all adults.

L5wolvesf said:

RevRico said:

States make way too much money from DUIs to give it up. 

Would love to see the stats you have for that.

One stat for you.  PA grossed about $18,000 from my DUI.  Fine, court costs, mandatory classes, monthly probation fees, ARD fees, driver's license renewal fees. No idea what they netted from it after they paid the employees, but it was the most expensive thing I've ever done.

As a DUI "survivor," I would 100% back alcohol detection in cars.  I never want to drive intoxicated and I thought I was safely under the limit that night (I was 0.015% over the limit).  If I had something in my car that said "just wait a bit so you don't risk hitting a pedestrian and spending the rest of your life in jail," I'd be $18,000 richer right now and wouldn't have spent 3 hours in lockup with an emo tweaker who wanted to talk to the spirits he saw in my head.  I would also sleep a berkeleyload better knowing that my SWMBO, mother, father, sister, nephews, and everyone I love isn't sharing the road with a drunken douchewad like I was that night.

Obvious caveats apply.  I would need to know that it isn't capturing and selling strange data about my fingerprint, or secretly monitoring my speed, or recording that I didn't use my turn signal.  If it is just monitoring my BAC, I'm ready.  Can I retrofit it in my current cars?

Mr_Asa said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to GTwannaB :

OK.  Fine by me.  By the way if you do it and have an accident that's prima facia evidence of your guilt. You know those things keep perfect records. 

  You and your family will be making payments for a very long time.  

Are you suggesting that people never get out of guilty verdicts?  Cause man, I got news for you.

In PA, there is next to zero burden of proof for DUI.  I was pulled over for having high beams on (which they weren't... nor is it illegal since there was no one else on the road) and I was arrested in my driveway.  If you refuse the breathalyzer, you immediately go to jail and lose your license for 18 months. Refuse the blood test, same thing.  In PA, it's hard to find specific numbers on how many are dismissed since our ARD program lets you expunge your record after the probation, but it's next to zero.  If you blow in that tube (and the subsequent blood test that is mandatory) the BAC number is recorded and it's black and white.  Primary hearing gets waived and you are assigned a probation officer.  Period.

Mr_Asa said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I know you are right.  But I'm in favor of anything that will  stop DUI's   Nothing is perfect ( especially not me)  but doing nothing means no improvement. 
   So I puff in a tube?  Perhaps it can detect my DNA and not allow anyone but me to drive?  ( instead of a key or fob) trade a little inconvenience for a better security system?  

So you give up these things, cool.

I'm not into it, so why should I have to do so?

I can dig this Mr_Asa.  Maybe start it as an option, or all new cars must have it starting in 2030 or something.  Guys like us tend to favor older used cars anyway.

I'm one of those people who doesn't care if you wear your seatbelt because it's only your body that is in danger.  Being unbelted doesn't cause accidents.  Being intoxicated does impair your ability to pilot a vehicle, so that's what I think will be helped by this.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

You sir are smart. You learned the lesson and saw the bigger picture where others refuse to. You also know the lesson which could have been much more costly. This is why I pay attention to what you write here.

The people who are proposing this clearly don't have alcoholic family members; alcoholics will find a way around this.

L5wolvesf said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

You sir are smart. You learned the lesson and saw the bigger picture where others refuse to. You also know the lesson which could have been much more costly. This is why I pay attention to what you write here.

Getting a DUI was one of the best things to happen to me in a way, other than being $18k poorer.  It showed me that there might have been many times in the past when I wasn't safe to drive.  It's done, I paid my dues, and it's expunged from my record.  Simultaneous good riddance and great appreciation.

I don't drink, but i would disable a device like this if it came on a car that I purchased.  Laws like this have nothing to do with safety, or saving lives. 

Might as well get rid of cars with over 100hp.  Speed kills, don't you know.

 

Punishing the many for the transgressions of the few was bullE36 M3 back in kindergarten, it doesn't suddenly become ok when the people involved are all adults.

Kind of an ironic thought for this group.  This place is full of ideas just to do this very thing.  Heck some even demand it depending on the topic.  But suddenly, have to prove you aren't drunk to drive your car is finally one step too far.  I reminded of that slippery slope thing that gets called a conspiracy theory all the time.

Once you start asking for unlimited control and oversight from any group, they start doing it!  And they just can't stop!  This is the reason I challenge the common thought.  I'd love for people to start applying their critical thinking skills to all things, not just how to make their car handle better on that one pesky corner at your local racetrack. 

Even better!  Ban ALL cars.  Can't have ANY drunk drivers that way.

In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :

Accidents will still happen, no doubt. 
Something like 50% of commercial airline crashes are human error. Get rid of the humans and we cut crashes in half.  But I'm not getting in that plane. 
I could be wrong, too. Maybe we're farther from self driving cars than I think. Maybe they don't lessen the number of road fatalities. I don't know. 
I don't think this ever happens anyway. And if it does, I suppose I'll breathe in a tube. Hell, I just paid road tax on the 5 again. And I paid road tax for every gallon of fuel. The roads aren't any better though. The point is, It'll just be another useless law on the books, doing little to fix the stated issue. 

So, how do you guys feel about speed limiters on cars controlled by geofences? Say, set a limited for 35mph in the city, 65mph on the freeway?

The same rationale applies. 
What about remote kill switches that only the police can access on all cars to save lives that could otherwise  be lost in high speed car chases?

Some of you have obviously never lost a friend or family member to a drunk driver. 

In reply to frenchyd :

That's not how it works. We don't need to come up with solutions, because we pay taxes to a group of people that are supposed to represent our needs and interests. The best thing we can do is say "NO" loud, and often.

I fully expect everyone that is a proponent of this to have one installed on their car in the next month or two. No one is stopping you. If you don't then you are a hypocrite spewing nonsense for the sake of argument. 

Here is the website for one of the many companies that sell them just to save you the effort of doing a Google search. https://www.intoxalock.com/ignition-interlock-devices/what-is-an-ignition-interlock-device/

L5wolvesf said:

RevRico said:

States make way too much money from DUIs to give it up. 

Would love to see the stats you have for that.

Yeah, I was just thinking that. It's just like the "They make more money keeping us sick than they do curing us" line. The first person who genuinely cures cancer or diabetes will be able to hire Bezos to mow their lawn if they want to.