NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

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. 

 

Minnesota is even tougher than that. Yes if the officer makes a mistake and the drunk hires a good attorney  they might get away.   The average guy?  No tolerance. They lose the car on the third arrest.  
     Lately they even gone after public figures. Athletes, law Enforcement, TV persons, politicians, etc.   then they announce publicly on the radio and TV. 
 

frenchyd said:

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. 

So do a massive number of drivers.

Duke said:

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.

 

I would agree if it were an actual punishment.  An IR light in your steering wheel that instantly assesses your BAC when you turn on the key is transparent.  It's not a punishment.  It won't affect you unless you had one too many margaritas.  Not sure how it could even be called an inconvenience.

Plus, we have thousands of laws that punish law-abiding folks because other people do bad stuff.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Plus, we have thousands of laws that punish law-abiding folks because other people do bad stuff.

This statement is not helping your case at all.

The left and the right have a propensity for enacting sweeping regulations to save a few from themselves. I'm surprised how many people don't seem to have a problem with it.

It makes me wonder how many people don't trust themselves to make intelligent choices. 

frenchyd said:

   
Luckily the person on the bicycle or walking tends to pay the price for their misconduct.  So I guess there is a de facto Law? 

So you are saying lucky someone dies? I am also willing to bet that most times pedestrains and cyclists are hit they are not looking at their phone.

frenchyd said:

93EXCivic said:

frenchyd said:

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. 

So do a massive number of drivers.

You are right except texting while driving is illegal in most (all? ) states and zooming in and out of traffic can earn you a reckless driving ticket, etc.  

   there is no such rule or law for bicycling or walking. 
   
Luckily the person on the bicycle or walking tends to pay the price for their misconduct.  So I guess there is a de facto Law? 

What should be the punishment for reckless walking? Walking and texting? Distracted existence?

Pedestrians on their phone and cyclists moving at their own flow are mostly problems that exist when traffic is mixed. The answer is to separate traffic, not to punt pedestrians for a Guinness Record and pump your fist.

Toyman! said:

The left and the right have a propensity for enacting sweeping regulations to save a few from themselves. I'm surprised how many people don't seem to have a problem with it.

It makes me wonder how many people don't trust themselves to make intelligent choices. 

I think you are glossing over the fact that regulations like this and gun control for example also seek to save many from others.  If drunk drivers were incapable of hurting others with their behavior, I don't think we would ever see support for anything like this.  I'll be honest in that I do not trust others to always make intelligent choices.  I don't care 99.9999% of the time, but the times when it my result in a danger to myself, my family, or [insert innocent party here], I do care.

Additionally, using seatbelt laws for example, the regulations can result in overall savings to all taxpayers/the economy.  One such example:  https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/102

A program designed to enforce greater wearing of seat belts, estimated to cost 2 million rand in one year, could be reasonably expected to increase seat belt usage rates by 16 percentage points and reduce fatalities and injuries by 9.5%. This would result in saved social costs of 13.6 million rand in the following year or a net present value of 11.6 million rand. There would also be favorable consequences for municipal finances.

Note:  Not saying that they always have the intended effect.  We have agreed before that there is often a level of incompetence with govt. execution that is difficult to swallow.

In reply to Error404 :

That's a difficult question and I don't have a ready answer.   Nor do I have any suggestion on how to enforce it.  
99% of pedestrians at least don't walk out in traffic  and probably 95% of bicyclists pay attention.  
  Exactly what we're talking about when we talk DUI's  or any other problem area.  
    My basic nature is forgive and forget. However like every other human  on this planet some things really bother me. 
   Full disclosure?  In my youth I rode my bicycle  no handed,  weaved in and out of traffic, counting on others to stop for me or avoid running me over. 

  I've probably walked "carelessly"  too 

In reply to ProDarwin :

I would say the cost in dollars spent and more importantly the cost in freedom from government intrusion is not worth the lives saved. We have reached the point of diminishing returns. 

The fact of the matter is that while life has value, it does not have infinite value. Throughout history, we have traded lives for freedom. We have fought wars for our freedom and the freedom of others.

Somehow we have gotten to the point that society has decided that we should now trade freedom for life. That no price is too much to save even one life. I, for one, disagree. I'm willing to roll those dice and take that chance because to odds are overwhelmingly in my favor to the point of ridiculousness. 

Please reference the picture posted at the top of page 2. 

ProDarwin said:

Toyman! said:

The left and the right have a propensity for enacting sweeping regulations to save a few from themselves. I'm surprised how many people don't seem to have a problem with it.

It makes me wonder how many people don't trust themselves to make intelligent choices. 

I think you are glossing over the fact that regulations like this and gun control for example also seek to save many from others.  If drunk drivers were incapable of hurting others with their behavior, I don't think we would ever see support for anything like this.  I'll be honest in that I do not trust others to always make intelligent choices.  I don't care 99.9999% of the time, but the times when it my result in a danger to myself, my family, or [insert innocent party here], I do care.

Additionally, using seatbelt laws for example, the regulations can result in overall savings to all taxpayers/the economy.  One such example:  https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/102

A program designed to enforce greater wearing of seat belts, estimated to cost 2 million rand in one year, could be reasonably expected to increase seat belt usage rates by 16 percentage points and reduce fatalities and injuries by 9.5%. This would result in saved social costs of 13.6 million rand in the following year or a net present value of 11.6 million rand. There would also be favorable consequences for municipal finances.

Note:  Not saying that they always have the intended effect.  We have agreed before that there is often a level of incompetence with govt. execution that is difficult to swallow.

I think what you are saying is that government programs are enforced by the same group of people that  wrote them.  
Average people.  Filled with the same flaws and shortcomings we all are. ie not perfect.  Police are no better than we are. Yet they are required to determine who should and who should not get arrested. 
    On the freeway near here traffic is moving slower and faster then the minimum and maximum speed limits.   Who gets the tickets?   10 over? 15 over? More,  less? 
    The law is very absolute.  Enforcement  isn't.  
     

Toyman! said:

It makes me wonder how many people don't trust themselves to make intelligent choices. 

Excuse me sir, I have met me, and me is an idiot at times

If this were somehow limited in scope to something like a seat belt law it would likely be fine, something intended and built to only capture drunk drivers. But it's a safety plan so, like any safety plan, it will err on the side of safety if there's any doubt. Whatever method to be used will have to be quantified, whether it be IR sensor or a camera or... Then it will be adjusted for safety margin, calibration error margin, and expanded to include other types of dangerous conditions. So now you've got what amounts to a burden of proof on the operator to prove that they are in a condition to drive safely enough, every time, in perpetuity. Too much caffeine? Pay for an Uber to get to the hospital to see *person*. Ran out of coffee and you're groggy? Call an Uber to get to work only a little late. Some proposals even call for constant monitoring, to help with fatigue spotting. 

We'd be looking at drivers more closely than we look at flight crew and they already have extra restrictions. Are we equating a drivers license to a pilots license? What burden does that place on society in a country built on individual car transport? You can't walk or bike most places without dealing with 4+ lane, 45mph+ mini-highways that might have a sidewalk. Forget crossing them, that's real life Frogger. 

None of this is to excuse drunk driving or it's effects but is blacklisting every driver really the best way to go about this? I don't know but something like this could easily be a major paradigm shift for American society before you take into account scope creep or slippery slope arguments. 

Edit: If this is a problem that has to be federally legislated away then it will be done with a heavy hand and erring to safety. There will be scope creep, there always is. If it has to be legislated away, then that's a failure of society. I think that intoxicated driving, much like distracted driving, is a toxic behavior that should be addressed first on an individual level. The correction can be different but it starts with the people that know you and depends on having somewhere to turn other than criminal justice. Maybe something similar to red flag laws and a bipartisan educational campaign. (lol, right?) Public transit growth and better city design are good steps to continue taking but maybe we need to be more proactive at taking driving privileges away from people that aren't responsible. 

I see these as carrot options, testing every motor vehicle operator at a mandated interval is the stick. 

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

I would agree if it were an actual punishment.  An IR light in your steering wheel that instantly assesses your BAC when you turn on the key is transparent.  It's not a punishment.  It won't affect you unless you had one too many margaritas.  Not sure how it could even be called an inconvenience.

Except it will because the system won't be perfect.  If a simple IR light could accurately detect BAC, why would the police bother with breathalyzers or taking blood/urine samples?  Even those techniques have false positives, I'm sure the IR ones will.  So what happens if you're taking some medication that is perfectly safe to drive, but which trips the IR sensor in the car?  What happens if your genetics happen to be a bit different and it ALWAYS trips on your blood, whether you've had anything to drink or not?

Also, if these systems are to be effective at all they'll need to be very difficult to bypass, buried deep inside the electronics of the car.  That means that when they fail they're going to be VERY expensive to replace.  So not only are we requiring everyone who buys a new car to pay $100 extra to outfit it with a sensor to prove that they're not driving drunk (something which fewer than 1% of drivers will ever do), but we're probably talking about multiple thousands of dollars to fix that tech each time it (inevitably) fails.

frenchyd said:

Toyman! said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I would say the cost in dollars spent and more importantly the cost in freedom from government intrusion is not worth the lives saved. We have reached the point of diminishing returns. 

The fact of the matter is that while life has value, it does not have infinite value. Throughout history, we have traded lives for freedom. We have fought wars for our freedom and the freedom of others.

Somehow we have gotten to the point that society has decided that we should now trade freedom for life. That no price is too much to save even one life. I, for one, disagree. I'm willing to roll those dice and take that chance because to odds are overwhelmingly in my favor to the point of ridiculousness. 

Please reference the picture posted at the top of page 2. 

I believe you forget that we are the government.   At least we elect representatives to be the government for us.  
     Flawed though the process may be it's better than anything else.   Plus we are free to change it if more than 50% of those who bother to vote decide that's what we should do.   
     Yes, nothing is perfect.  Not even our government.   But without laws we are left in anarchy.  
       I hear a lot of complaints about government taking our freedoms.  Realize that more than 90% of laws that daily affect you are enacted at the local level.  
  So spend $2 or whatever it costs and run for city council. Local Mayor. School board, whatever.   Spend a few weekends convincing others to vote for you and then I'll listen to your complaints about loss of freedom.  

First of all Frenchy, I'd like you to read This Harvard professors take on the legal system and what he has found. Yes, this is the "3 felonies a day" argument. If you're familiar with it already, awesome. If not, read it. 

Then I would like you to take a step back, and follow your own suggestion. Without big 2 party money or corporate money, please, try to run for any local office. Try to fight the party or corporate chosen candidates. IF your state/locality will even allow you on the ballot in the first place without party or corporate sponsorship. Then try to get your message and platform through to a polarized set of idiots, known as the general voting public, who only know what their TV or social media tell them, regardless of inaccuracies, dishonesty, or basis in reality. 

Steve_Jones said:

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. 

And yet every day thousands of people drive drunk and don't kill people, until they do.  There are statistical probabilities involved, you never know which pull of the slot machine lever is going to be the one.  None of them set out to kill anyone that day, they just made errors in judgement as people are inclined to do.  So yes, sometimes people need to be protected from themselves and others.  People are often irrational, and the punishment for broken laws often does not fit the crime or serve as a deterrent from irrational behavior.  I'm all for Freedom (capital F), but nothing is black and white.  The device described in the OP does not impose any loss of freedom upon anyone unless they are making decisions that endanger themselves and others.

In reply to Toyman! :

The quality of a device made by a small manufacturer for a small captive market is a lot, lot, lot lower than one made by a Tier-2 for Honda or Toyota. 

ProDarwin said:

Additionally, using seatbelt laws for example, the regulations can result in overall savings to all taxpayers/the economy.  One such example:  https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/102

A program designed to enforce greater wearing of seat belts, estimated to cost 2 million rand in one year, could be reasonably expected to increase seat belt usage rates by 16 percentage points and reduce fatalities and injuries by 9.5%. This would result in saved social costs of 13.6 million rand in the following year or a net present value of 11.6 million rand. There would also be favorable consequences for municipal finances.

Expediency is not the only criteria for whether something is right or wrong.

chaparral said:

In reply to Toyman! :

The quality of a device made by a small manufacturer for a small captive market is a lot, lot, lot lower than one made by a Tier-2 for Honda or Toyota. 

Oh, you mean like Takata air bags?

Duke said:

ProDarwin said:

Additionally, using seatbelt laws for example, the regulations can result in overall savings to all taxpayers/the economy.  One such example:  https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/102

A program designed to enforce greater wearing of seat belts, estimated to cost 2 million rand in one year, could be reasonably expected to increase seat belt usage rates by 16 percentage points and reduce fatalities and injuries by 9.5%. This would result in saved social costs of 13.6 million rand in the following year or a net present value of 11.6 million rand. There would also be favorable consequences for municipal finances.

Expediency is not the only criteria for whether something is right or wrong.

 

Remember the '74s what had seatbelt interlocks?

Good idea, but they were so flawed that the mandate was taken away and dealers allowed to disable them, with shocking speed as these things go (6 months into the model year?) 

A decade later we got airbags designed to restrain an unbuckled 90th percentile male because people were still too lazy to buckle up, which was killing children and short women.  I'd rather have the interlocks.

If they really wanted people to buckle up, declare unbuckled driving to be a suicidal action and don't provide medical help to unbuckled people in a collision.

Duke said:

chaparral said:

In reply to Toyman! :

The quality of a device made by a small manufacturer for a small captive market is a lot, lot, lot lower than one made by a Tier-2 for Honda or Toyota. 

Oh, you mean like Takata air bags?

 

Zing!

Duke said:

ProDarwin said:

Additionally, using seatbelt laws for example, the regulations can result in overall savings to all taxpayers/the economy.  One such example:  https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/102

A program designed to enforce greater wearing of seat belts, estimated to cost 2 million rand in one year, could be reasonably expected to increase seat belt usage rates by 16 percentage points and reduce fatalities and injuries by 9.5%. This would result in saved social costs of 13.6 million rand in the following year or a net present value of 11.6 million rand. There would also be favorable consequences for municipal finances.

Expediency is not the only criteria for whether something is right or wrong.

 

I do not disagree.

Mr_Asa said:

Toyman! said:

It makes me wonder how many people don't trust themselves to make intelligent choices. 

Excuse me sir, I have met me, and me is an idiot at times

Duke said:

chaparral said:

In reply to Toyman! :

The quality of a device made by a small manufacturer for a small captive market is a lot, lot, lot lower than one made by a Tier-2 for Honda or Toyota. 

Oh, you mean like Takata air bags?

 

While I applaud Takata's replacing of old bags, I feel they should not have to, as the failure mode happens well outside of expected airbag service life.  Cars used to have a doorjamb sticker that had the bags' expiration date, after which they had to be replaced.