NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

frenchyd said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

So what? I never drive after drinking.  If puffing into a tube saves lives let's puff into a tube!!! 
     You have a set of car keys so your car isn't stolen.  Is that taking your liberty away?  
   Don't get upset over what is really for our own safety. 

ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:

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

Be mad at the drunk driver, not the people that don't drive drunk. 
 

Driving drunk is not legal. It's already a crime. You want to inconvenience innocent people who will never commit that crime to try and fix those that are willing to ignore that fact. That's not logical. It's like telling someone they can't own a gun because other people use them to kill people. 
 

I am not responsible for the actions of anyone else. 

Nathan JansenvanDoorn said:

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?

Log into the car like people log into their phones or laptops, facial rec. No insurance? No start. Registration lapsed yesterday and your forgot? Better remember how to hoof it. Roll that stop sign outside the city limits at 3am? Accelerate too quickly from a light? Break a little late for a corner? You're confirmed in the car so your ticket is on your account. Cars are tech, the surveillance is only going to increase. I'm not going to argue for or against this next level of overwatch, after all if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't mind being watched. 

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Seatbelts saved lives. Helmets save lives. So you are giving up a tiny bit of freedom, wearing seatbelts, helmets, blowing into a tube.   
     With 333 million Americans life is going to be more complicated than when muskets were required to shoot bears.  Since you can grab a package of meat from the freezer  rather than have to go hunting it. You've choosen to benefit from society.  These are the costs.  

I didn't even choose to be born, let alone be saddled with laws that make people feel better while not actually solving any problems.

In reply to frenchyd :

Seatbelts and helmets save lives, 100%. I can still choose to not wear them. That's on me. I can't force you to wear them. 

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

 

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. 

Seatbelts saved lives. Helmets save lives. So you are giving up a tiny bit of freedom, wearing seatbelts, helmets, blowing into a tube.   
     With 333 million Americans life is going to be more complicated than when muskets were required to shoot bears.  Since you can grab a package of meat from the freezer  rather than have to go hunting it. You've choosen to benefit from society.  These are the costs.  

OK, Frenchy, show us exactly where to draw the line.

Racing is dangerous and wastes resources. Forbidden.

Fast cars are dangerous. Amateur drivers are dangerous. Forbidden.

Motorcycles and bicycles are dangerous.  Forbidden.

Most sports are dangerous. Forbidden.

Playing on the playground is dangerous.  Forbidden.

Going outside for a walk is dangerous. Forbidden.

BEING ALIVE is dangerous. Forbidden?

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

 

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. 

Seatbelts saved lives. Helmets save lives. So you are giving up a tiny bit of freedom, wearing seatbelts, helmets, blowing into a tube.   
     With 333 million Americans life is going to be more complicated than when muskets were required to shoot bears.  Since you can grab a package of meat from the freezer  rather than have to go hunting it. You've choosen to benefit from society.  These are the costs.  

OK, Frenchy, show us exactly where to draw the line.

Racing is dangerous and wastes resources. Forbidden.

Fast cars are dangerous. Amateur drivers are dangerous. Forbidden.

Motorcycles and bicycles are dangerous.  Forbidden.

Most sports are dangerous. Forbidden.

Playing on the playground is dangerous.  Forbidden.

Going outside for a walk is dangerous. Forbidden.

BEING ALIVE is dangerous. Forbidden?

 

You missed the most important part though, government always knows best, and certainly isn't hypocritical and choosy about how they decide what's best for who. 

In reply to Duke :

I'm surprised to see you playing this game.

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?  

that's where you're wrong. Previous stats you convienently ignored: in the last 10 years the are DOWN 51%. 

Peabody said:

In reply to Duke :

I'm surprised to see you playing this game.

Sometimes he says stuff that is so mind-bogglingly appalling that I can't stop myself.

Plus, the bit about car keys taking liberty away is the dumbest thing I've read in recent history.

My car keys don't take my liberty away.  My car keys protect my property from theft.

Oh, but if it saves just one life, isn't it worth the cost.  Whatever that cost might be!?

But seriously, I have many questions.

How will we ensure that this device cannot be defeated?

How will we prevent false-positives?

What happens if the law changes and there's a new BAC level?

What if you buy the car in Utah?  And then sell it out of state?

How much will this add to the cost of a new car?

How long will manufacturers be required to provide spare parts for this device?  Will the answer to question #1 mean that the aftermarket will be effectively shut out of the business of making replacements or parts for the device?

Will we need a second device to take a blood sample to check for opiates, cannabis, or other mind-altering substances?

The goal is certainly admirable.  Every death is a tragedy to someone and as a society we should certainly be looking at ways to reduce the amount of tragedy in the world.  But, frankly, there are things that are much worse than people dying and the thought that anything that saves lives is worth any cost is an absolute fallacy and a short trip to a dystopian near-future.  Why not limit cars to a maximum speed of 25mph?  Think of all the lives that will be saved! 

Just like any problem in the legal system - and make no mistake, this is a criminal justice problem, not a car problem - we aren't going to actually solve anything by making more rules for everyone because there are people that don't follow the rules.  This is just like the mess with trying to buy Sudafed or car insurance.  People are buying Sudafed and making meth.  So let's put everyone through a giant inconvenience and raise the cost of having sinus headaches because there are some people that will simply need to find a way around purchase limits to get their ingredients anyway.  And let's raise the cost of car insurance by having the companies report when a policy is canceled so that the registration on the car is also canceled.  That way, those people that want to just leave their toy car parked in the garage all winter can't simply turn their insurance on and off, but people who are going to drive without insurance will just drive with no registration anyway.

Let's actually address the problem here.  Who's causing these deaths?  It's the segment of our population that has had DUI convictions in the past for the most part.  Let's crack down on that first and see if that works before we burden everyone with the punishment.  How about your first DUI gets you an interlock device requirement for 2 years and 14 days locked up.  And not just 7 weekends.  Your second gets you mandatory jail time and an interlock for 5 years.  Your third, a longer jail stint and revocation of your driver's license for 5 years with another 2 years of interlock.  Your fourth, prison plus permanent revocation.  And for anyone caught driving without a license, seize the car and you go to jail.

Stop punishing me because other people do bad stuff.

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Seatbelts and helmets save lives, 100%. I can still choose to not wear them. That's on me. I can't force you to wear them. 

Oh, how I wish that were true.  And yet seatbelt laws are a primary offense in at least some states now.

I always wear a seatbelt and when I was riding, I was ATGATT 100%.  If you're not wearing your seatbelt or a helmet, I think you're just a dodd-gammed moron.  But if you don't want to use the simple safety gear that's provided to you while you're bouncing down the road, it ain't any of my business.  He may have been the villain in the movie, but Simon Phoenix was spot on when he said "look, you can't take away people's right to be shiny happy people".

Toyman! said:

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/

A lot of comments in this thread seem to be referencing an interlock system.  The NTSB is not proposing that.  Their system is "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection"

ProDarwin said:

Toyman! said:

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/

A lot of comments in this thread seem to be referencing an interlock system.  The NTSB is not proposing that.  Their system is "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection"

The interlock system is available right now to be added to any car. No new tech, no complicated integration. It takes a couple of hours to install. 

If they feel the need for an alcohol impairment detection system on everyone's vehicle they should be willing to lead by example and install the system on their own cars rather than foisting it onto other people "for the good of society."

Lead by example or be called a hypocrite. 

I prefer we install a working, low cost, public transportation system. May cost a little more.

wae said:

Oh, but if it saves just one life, isn't it worth the cost.  Whatever that cost might be!?

But seriously, I have many questions.
[...]

Stop punishing me because other people do bad stuff.

In reply to wae :

This post should be enshrined in the Museum of Common Sense.

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I prefer we install a working, low cost, public transportation system. May cost a little more.

I was gonna say something, but realized I might get patio'd

wae said:

Stop punishing me because other people do bad stuff.

I think a lot of your other questions are good points, but forgive me if I am not seeing the "punishment" of a passive system.  Taking this at face value, it would be less intrusive than TPMS.  The punishment would be a slight increase in vehicle cost & weigh - no different than the heated seats that are in my car that I have never turned on. 

wae said:

Let's actually address the problem here.  Who's causing these deaths?  It's the segment of our population that has had DUI convictions in the past for the most part.  Let's crack down on that first and see if that works before we burden everyone with the punishment.  How about your first DUI gets you an interlock device requirement for 2 years and 14 days locked up.  And not just 7 weekends.  Your second gets you mandatory jail time and an interlock for 5 years.  Your third, a longer jail stint and revocation of your driver's license for 5 years with another 2 years of interlock.  Your fourth, prison plus permanent revocation.  And for anyone caught driving without a license, seize the car and you go to jail.

 I'm all for harsh DUI punishments.  But

A) all states do it differently, and records are not shared.  Would you suggest making it a federal crime? 

B) A true alcoholic (or really, really drunk person) is not swayed whatsoever by potential consequences (obviously, because one consequence of driving drunk is death already....)

wae said:

Why not limit cars to a maximum speed of 25mph?  Think of all the lives that will be saved!

I mean in towns I think there should be a maximum speed of 25 pretty much universally especially at a time when traffic deaths for pedestrians and cyclists have been sky rocketing. I think this should be done by traffic calming measures (speed bumps, raised crosswalks, narrower lanes, etc) plus lowered speed limits not on the car though. 

Let's actually address the problem here.  Who's causing these deaths?  It's the segment of our population that has had DUI convictions in the past for the most part.  Let's crack down on that first and see if that works before we burden everyone with the punishment.  How about your first DUI gets you an interlock device requirement for 2 years and 14 days locked up.  And not just 7 weekends.  Your second gets you mandatory jail time and an interlock for 5 years.  Your third, a longer jail stint and revocation of your driver's license for 5 years with another 2 years of interlock.  Your fourth, prison plus permanent revocation.  And for anyone caught driving without a license, seize the car and you go to jail.

Stop punishing me because other people do bad stuff.

Yeah agree. It seems that many drunk drivers get off too light a punishment. 

Can we be clear though the NTSB can't actually pass any regulations. They can only make recommendations.

ProDarwin said:

Toyman! said:

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/

A lot of comments in this thread seem to be referencing an interlock system.  The NTSB is not proposing that.  Their system is "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection"

a "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection" system would cost way too much in R&D and I&T to make reliable that it would skyrocket vehicle costs (at least initially). It's immediately a non-starter.

Mr_Asa said:

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

I prefer we install a working, low cost, public transportation system. May cost a little more.

I was gonna say something, but realized I might get patio'd

Better me than you I guess! We only have a problem because we use cars so much compared to most other countries.

hunter47 said:

ProDarwin said:

Toyman! said:

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/

A lot of comments in this thread seem to be referencing an interlock system.  The NTSB is not proposing that.  Their system is "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection"

a "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection" system would cost way too much in R&D and I&T to make reliable that it would skyrocket vehicle costs (at least initially). It's immediately a non-starter.

 

Hey!  put a ceiling on costs then.   Don't require it until the cost is below $20.  

93EXCivic said:

wae said:

Why not limit cars to a maximum speed of 25mph?  Think of all the lives that will be saved!

I mean in towns I think there should be a maximum speed of 25 pretty much universally especially at a time when traffic deaths for pedestrians and cyclists have been sky rocketing. I think this should be done by traffic calming measures (speed bumps, raised crosswalks, narrower lanes, etc) plus lowered speed limits not on the car though. 

Let's actually address the problem here.  Who's causing these deaths?  It's the segment of our population that has had DUI convictions in the past for the most part.  Let's crack down on that first and see if that works before we burden everyone with the punishment.  How about your first DUI gets you an interlock device requirement for 2 years and 14 days locked up.  And not just 7 weekends.  Your second gets you mandatory jail time and an interlock for 5 years.  Your third, a longer jail stint and revocation of your driver's license for 5 years with another 2 years of interlock.  Your fourth, prison plus permanent revocation.  And for anyone caught driving without a license, seize the car and you go to jail.

Stop punishing me because other people do bad stuff.

Yeah agree. It seems that many drunk drivers get off too light a punishment. 

 

As a bus driver please let me assure you that bicyclists are not paragons of virtue. They zoom in and around traffic with seldom a glance.   Too often they are texting  with one or no hands face buried into the phone. 
  As for pedestrians.  They too walk around with the phone shoved in their ear focusing on the conversation rather than where they are walking.