NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

frenchyd said:

In reply to mtn :

 Remember  this is only the comment phase. So now is the time to make your feelings known.   It's not exactly voting yet but if enough people support your feelings. Are articulate and precise what corrections  should be they will make changes to make it acceptable.  

"Thank you for your input."

Europe has been reducing dui's through limits thst are half of ours, aggressive prosecution for offenders and rehab for repeat offenders.  
 

why don't we just do that instead of this silliness

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

That doesn't make enough money and actually fixes the problem. 

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to mtn :

Hopefully issues like that can be sorted before it's mandated.   
 Remember  this is only the comment phase. So now is the time to make your feelings known.   It's not exactly voting yet but if enough people support your feelings. Are articulate and precise what corrections  should be they will make changes to make it acceptable.  

"Thank you for your input."

 

I recently learned the true meaning of "bless your heart" and feel it applies here. 

mtn said:

Sounds like this would have a disparate impact on diabetics. 

Having been in a car with a breathalyzer, they're too annoying to make this feasible. Putting on your seatbelt is fine. It takes 1 second. The breathalyzer takes about 30 seconds in my recollection. Not gonna fly. 

 

 

Again, this discussion was supposed to be about "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection systems, advanced driver monitoring systems or a combination of the two that would be capable of preventing or limiting vehicle operation if it detects driver impairment by alcohol.  In other words, 0 seconds.

I don't think "the current clunky technology for this sucks, so I'm discounting any possible future system for the same reasons" is a fair position to hold.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

 Because we don't have the political will to.  When 121 million people self reported driving impaired  in a year and only 1.3 million DUI tickets were issued.  
 That kind of highlights the problem.  
     Arresting even 1/2 of that will have some group complaining how their freedoms are taken away.  ( not sure where in the constitution they find that but••••• ) 
   America already has 2 million people in jail or on probation. Which per capita is the highest in the world.    Since it costs  around $50,000 a year per person to Jail people. Times the 2 million we've got already.  Can you imagine what jailing only 12 million people ( that's 10% of the self reported drunk drivers ) would cost you the tax payer?  
     Maybe  we should all be buying self driving cars?   I mean if we're killing 10,000+ a year now don't you think computers could do better?   
   I don't know!   There are no easy answers.  Just say no didn't solve the drug problem.  What's it going to take to solve the drunk driving problem?   

As usual, going to need a source for your claim. According to the number of licensed drivers in the US, your claim is that more than 50% self-reported driving impaired. Reported to who? 

Number of licensed drivers in the US

Seriously, if you aren't going to provide sources for your claims, stop making them. 

In reply to z31maniac :

The source was posted last page by RevRico

https://www.davidmckenzielawfirm.com/blog/dui-facts-statistics/

Meanwhile, approximately 1.3 million motorists are arrested annually for driving under the influence in the United States – this compares with 121 million self-reports of driving intoxicated during the same timeframe. In other words, the number of impaired drivers actually arrested is a very small portion of the total. 

Its unclear what their source is for this data, but frenchy's posts have been referencing this. 

ProDarwin said:

In reply to z31maniac :

The source was posted last page by RevRico

https://www.davidmckenzielawfirm.com/blog/dui-facts-statistics/

Meanwhile, approximately 1.3 million motorists are arrested annually for driving under the influence in the United States – this compares with 121 million self-reports of driving intoxicated during the same timeframe. In other words, the number of impaired drivers actually arrested is a very small portion of the total. 

Its unclear what their source is for this data, but frenchy's posts have been referencing this. 

That also implies the 121 million is unique drivers, which i doubt.  Also, these surveys usually work in a, "we surveyed 1000 people and extrapolated the data to cover the entire nation", so i am always suspicious of bias.

For the record, i hate the thought of additional technology in new cars that will cost more and not fix the problem.  I had a rental car suggest to me recently that i "needed a break" for weaving within my lane and approaching (but not crossing) the yellow lined edge of the road.  I was apexing correctly a windy backroad with no traffic around.  :(

ProDarwin said:

In reply to z31maniac :

The source was posted last page by RevRico

https://www.davidmckenzielawfirm.com/blog/dui-facts-statistics/

Meanwhile, approximately 1.3 million motorists are arrested annually for driving under the influence in the United States – this compares with 121 million self-reports of driving intoxicated during the same timeframe. In other words, the number of impaired drivers actually arrested is a very small portion of the total. 

Its unclear what their source is for this data, but frenchy's posts have been referencing this. 

If there isn't a source for the 121 million self-reported and to whom it was reported, I don't consider it valid information (although the next paragraph seems to indicate maybe these numbers came form the CDC), especially considering the following paragraph:

"According to a 2018 survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1.8 percent of participants from Pennsylvania had driven drunk in the past 30 days. This statistic was slightly above the U.S. average at that time, which was 1.7 percent."

Now granted, I know that says 30 vs 365 days and it's only those who chose to participate. What's the margin for error? But 1.3 million DUI's out of 230 million licensed drivers seems to jive more with the self-reported intoxicated driving numbers. 

I hope this doesn't come off as defending drunk driving, because it isn't. If we know we are going out for that kind of night, we take an Uber there and an Uber home. 

I thought this was interesting regarding the link referenced. 

- Drunk drivers and their passengers combined made up 89 percent of deaths.
- Drunk drivers alone made up 75 percent of deaths.

Flynlow (FS) said:

For the record, i hate the thought of additional technology in new cars that will cost more and not fix the problem.  I had a rental car suggest to me recently that i "needed a break" for weaving within my lane and approaching (but not crossing) the yellow lined edge of the road.  I was apexing correctly a windy backroad with no traffic around.  :(

Im curious why you don't think this would fix (or greatly reduce) the problem?  Because people would bypass it somehow?  Because it wouldn't correctly detect intoxication?

Assuming the technology performs correctly, do you think it would have an impact on drunk driving?

ProDarwin said:

mtn said:

Sounds like this would have a disparate impact on diabetics. 

Having been in a car with a breathalyzer, they're too annoying to make this feasible. Putting on your seatbelt is fine. It takes 1 second. The breathalyzer takes about 30 seconds in my recollection. Not gonna fly. 

 

 

Again, this discussion was supposed to be about "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection systems, advanced driver monitoring systems or a combination of the two that would be capable of preventing or limiting vehicle operation if it detects driver impairment by alcohol.  In other words, 0 seconds.

I don't think "the current clunky technology for this sucks, so I'm discounting any possible future system for the same reasons" is a fair position to hold.

Good point. I agree with you. 

I might have one beer a year.  Tell me why I need this on any car I might ever own.  I certainly don't need to finance the $2,000 at whatever percent for five or six years it will no doubt add on to the price.  Or the inconvenience and cost to me should it fail to work properly.

racerfink said:

I might have one beer a year.  Tell me why I need this on any car I might ever own.  I certainly don't need to finance the $2,000 at whatever percent for five or six years it will no doubt add on to the price.  Or the inconvenience and cost to me should it fail to work properly.

+1 except I don't drink at all, same for my wife.  Why should I pay an additional cost for technology that I will literally never need?  What happens when the sensors or tech inevitably fail?  Does it default to no-start?  I can see the concept of it as being a system that can be "activated" when necessary but I still don't like it. 

racerfink said:

I might have one beer a year.  Tell me why I need this on any car I might ever own.  I certainly don't need to finance the $2,000 at whatever percent for five or six years it will no doubt add on to the price.  Or the inconvenience and cost to me should it fail to work properly.

According to frenchy they will mandate that it costs less than $20.

In reply to jmabarone :

I don't necessarily disagree with you but that's a pretty tenuous argument. If you buy any new car you're going to be paying for tech you might not ever use.

iansane said:

In reply to jmabarone :

I don't necessarily disagree with you but that's a pretty tenuous argument. If you buy any new car you're going to be paying for tech you might not ever use.

Hahah, like I can afford a new car.  But really, I know and I also don't like paying for that tech but how much of that tech could prevent my vehicle from operating?  I'm not trying to be a luddite but the more crap we put on, the more we have to pay to fix it.  

I haven't researched this in detail but my understanding is that we've been able to remotely detect alcohol levels in vehicles for decades.

Here's a 2010 article on the subject

WARNING - HIGHLY CYNICAL COMMENT APPROACHING:  Cops need lawbreakers to justify their existence...if we make the cost / benefit ratio of crime too high, the police won't have any "customers".

See also, if almost nobody won in Los Vegas, there wouldn't be a Los Vegas.  

ProDarwin said:

Flynlow (FS) said:

For the record, i hate the thought of additional technology in new cars that will cost more and not fix the problem.  I had a rental car suggest to me recently that i "needed a break" for weaving within my lane and approaching (but not crossing) the yellow lined edge of the road.  I was apexing correctly a windy backroad with no traffic around.  :(

Im curious why you don't think this would fix (or greatly reduce) the problem?  Because people would bypass it somehow?  Because it wouldn't correctly detect intoxication?

Assuming the technology performs correctly, do you think it would have an impact on drunk driving?

allow me to answer this: Are we retrofitting this onto all vehicles? If not, the only ones getting impacted are new car buyers that typically have clean records and don't DD. How many repeat DUI repeat offenders have the income to purchase a new car? That's a $48k average purchase price now. If you're a repeat offender, that means your a convicted felon. Those people don't typically make 6 figure salaries (in fact their average salary is $36k per year). There will always be the exception to the rule, as that rule has no exception. But the large percentage are buying used cars which aren't equipped with this. Or are we going to give convicted DUI offenders new cars when they get out of prison?

frenchyd said:

In reply to iansane :

In the manufacturing process there is a point where it's actually cheaper to put things on than leave them off.  
 Radio delete plates for example can cost more than the actual radio, due to low volume and special handling. When you're building 25, ooo of something and 6 people want to delete the radio.  Where do you keep those 6 plates? How do you train the line worker who's mindlessly putting in the radio  that he has to go to the supervisor  to get one of those plates. Or have someone stand by to get the plate for him?  
 That's why packages are assembled.  

 

 

 

       

Once again your reasoning is flawed. Back when vehicles could be purchased without a radio, all the dashes had the blanking plates that were removed to install the radio. Please stop pulling bs out of your ass. 

bobzilla said:

allow me to answer this: Are we retrofitting this onto all vehicles? If not, the only ones getting impacted are new car buyers that typically have clean records and don't DD. How many repeat DUI repeat offenders have the income to purchase a new car? That's a $48k average purchase price now. If you're a repeat offender, that means your a convicted felon. Those people don't typically make 6 figure salaries (in fact their average salary is $36k per year). There will always be the exception to the rule, as that rule has no exception. But the large percentage are buying used cars which aren't equipped with this. Or are we going to give convicted DUI offenders new cars when they get out of prison?

I guess firstly, the majority of people who DD are not convicted offenders, because the majority of them are never caught.  Admittedly its hard to produce data on this.  I would estimate that a significant percentage of new car buyers will DD in the near future.  Its really common.  This is the point frenchy made earlier, but sadly data on this is nearly impossible to get.  (FWIW, I know several exceptions to your rule above.  I dont think rule is as rigid as you think)

TPMS became standard in 2007.  Prior to that it was extremely uncommon.  But now the majority of cars on the road have it.  In another 10 years it will be very odd to see cars without it.  A system like this would become the norm in the same way.

See also: airbags, abs, seatbelts, etc.

ProDarwin said:

bobzilla said:

allow me to answer this: Are we retrofitting this onto all vehicles? If not, the only ones getting impacted are new car buyers that typically have clean records and don't DD. How many repeat DUI repeat offenders have the income to purchase a new car? That's a $48k average purchase price now. If you're a repeat offender, that means your a convicted felon. Those people don't typically make 6 figure salaries (in fact their average salary is $36k per year). There will always be the exception to the rule, as that rule has no exception. But the large percentage are buying used cars which aren't equipped with this. Or are we going to give convicted DUI offenders new cars when they get out of prison?

I guess firstly, the majority of people who DD are not convicted offenders, because the majority of them are never caught.  Admittedly its hard to produce data on this.  I would estimate that a significant percentage of new car buyers will DD in the near future.  Its really common.  This is the point frenchy made earlier, but sadly data on this is nearly impossible to get.  (FWIW, I know several exceptions to your rule above.  I dont think rule is as rigid as you think)

TPMS became standard in 2007.  Prior to that it was extremely uncommon.  But now the majority of cars on the road have it.  In another 10 years it will be very odd to see cars without it.  A system like this would become the norm in the same way.

See also: airbags, abs, seatbelts, etc.

To Bob:  Yes, this would be on new cars "soon" but those become used cars pretty quickly.  

Airbags are mandated, aren't they?  What about ABS?  Seatbelts?  Backup cameras?  Automatic braking systems?  Again that tech makes things safer (unless your automatic braking system sees a potato chip bag) which we all support.  Again though, those systems won't prevent the car from operating if they fail.  Yeah, not ideal to drive with your ABS light on but I'm sure 90% of the people in this thread have done it or would do it.