HAL 9000 With Wheels: A Car That Senses Drunk Drivers
"You're stinko, Dave..."
From the LA Times' editorial page, a new electronic device may be able to "smell" a driver's breath and block the ignition if it determines she is drunk.
Naturally, there's unquestioned government spending behind this -- and talk that we all may be forced to pay for this in our cars.
I don't drive drunk. Why should my car be more expensive because some people do?
And then, I believe there are already ignition locks for drunks. Do we really need to increase the Federal deficit by $24 million dollars to replicate (and maybe even improve) something that already works?
An excerpt from the piece:
The Senate version of the federal transportation bill calls for $24 million in additional funding over two years -- on top of the $10 million over five years already devoted to the program -- for research on alcohol-sensing technology in vehicles. The idea is to find out whether it would be feasible to demand that automakers include this technology as standard equipment in future cars. That's a big departure from the way so-called interlock devices currently work.Some states require people convicted of drunk driving to have interlocks installed in their vehicles; they have to breathe into a tube, and if the device senses that their blood-alcohol level is over the legal limit (0.08% nationwide), their cars won't start. California's four largest counties, including Los Angeles, currently impose this penalty. But that applies only to known drunk drivers: The federal program might someday apply to everybody.
This does not please the restaurant industry. The American Beverage Institute, a restaurant trade association, objects that the devices will be set to detect alcohol at well below the legal limit, meaning a motorist who downs a glass or two of wine at a local eatery might have to call a cab to get home. Moreover, it says the devices will sometimes fail, blocking ignition even for sober people. Those are legitimate points, and if the predictions are borne out, they might be reason enough to urge future leaders not to approve universal interlocks. But that shouldn't stop the government from researching the idea.
One point of the federal program is to find a technology that is unobtrusive. The two most promising technologies under study are tissue spectrometry, which would use a touchpad and lasers to detect alcohol in human tissue, and distant spectrometry, in which sensors installed throughout the cabin could sniff a driver's breath automatically (apparently, the sensors can be placed in such as way as to ensure it's the driver's breath they're sniffing, not passengers').
...There are other reasons to object. The devices would detect only alcohol use, meaning one could still smoke pot, drop acid or snort cocaine and get behind the wheel. That one's pretty easy to dismiss: Drunk drivers kill roughly five times more people than drivers impaired by other drugs. Meanwhile, statistics show that the incidence of drunk driving is declining, so why take this step now? Also easy to dismiss: Because drunk drivers are implicated in nearly one-third of traffic deaths in the United States, killing roughly 11,000 people a year.
I cannot see how this would work effectively.
What if your passenger is drunk? You try to do the right think by picking a buddy up from the bar and now your car won't start. What about beer spilled on you?
Could someone else start the car and then the drunk drive it?
The Former Banker at April 8, 2012 11:50 PM
"Meanwhile, statistics show that the incidence of drunk driving is declining, so why take this step now?"
Money.
At one time, the DOT under Joan Claybrook spent ridiculous money on a motorcycle that steered with the back wheel, under the rationale that the front had too much to do, both steering and braking. Colossal failure. But, money!
Radwaste at April 9, 2012 2:03 AM
Good idea, horrible way to finance and implement. Let the free market do the work. Given the time, this will be done and more effectively. Because technology will grow better organically then directed by government mandate.
As to getting it used rather the by dictate through law is by choice. How will people decide to put these devices in their cars. The incentive of saving money. Insurance companies offer deductibles to those that install this technology. So regular drinkers can avoid being set at a hirer rate with accepting this tech.
A big problem is like with any technology is the growing pains and hiccups. There will be false positives
If government wants to help. What it needs to do is get of blockages the will make people want to avoid the technology. For example, drunk can not start car, good. Two of his many options are walk home or stay close to car till safe to drive. But these two can still result in a legal hassles. Whoops found drunk person sleeping in front seat, charge with drunk driving never mind the fact the tech prevented it. Or walk home drunk, police charge with being drunk in public. So add commonsense exceptions or take laws of the books.
I forget what entity I am talking about. Commonsense and government - ha. Easier to get lap dance from a nun.
John Paulson at April 9, 2012 6:14 AM
JP has the right idea.
"Let the free market do the work."
"Insurance companies offer deductibles to those that install this technology."
Even though I don't drink alcohol, if my insurance was reduced enough that I could recoup the cost in four or five years, I would take this option if I bought a new car.
In the unlikely event that my wife would try to drive after a couple of drinks, I would rather the device prevent that than have her take a chance on getting in an accident or getting a DUI.
Steamer at April 9, 2012 8:58 AM
It'll start out as a good idea for some people.
Then, when the regulations have limited the production of the devices to a few companies who have donated heavily to the right Party, it will become mandatory for everyone. To protect the children, of course. Especially since automobile accidents cost the health care system so much money and the Government is paying for that.
The result will be that automobiles become more expensive and more of society's riff raff poor folks will be forced to ride the bus and thus save the planet. Once the progressive elites find a way to make a lot of money off it for their selected corporations they will always make the lower class suffer.
(The Californian version of this device will have to be calibrated to ignore any sign of THC inebriation.)
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at April 9, 2012 10:51 AM
I'm buying a convertible.
"The result will be that automobiles become more expensive and more of society's riff raff poor folks will be forced to ride the bus and thus save the planet."
We'll cut that option off by replacing the buses with light rail that they cannot afford to live close enough to. They won't get away that easily.
smurfy at April 9, 2012 12:53 PM
$24 million dollars? Do they know how many Las Vegas parties that is?
Savant-Idiot at April 9, 2012 1:35 PM
Something else to go wrong. Like if one of the locks on my car is frozen with snow and ice, NONE of the doors will open.
I carry swabs to clean up if I have to change a tire or whatever - they hace alcohol.
Drop a bag of groceries, break that bottle of vanilla - car won't start for days.
John A at April 9, 2012 1:59 PM
Let's take the nanny-state argument from the ridiculous to the sublime, shall we?
Of the approximately 11,000 deaths, 67% were the drivers, removing the imbeciles from the gene pool by way of a self-imposed death penalty. The remaining 3,630 people are the innocent victims of the imbeciles. While tragic, is this group of victims any more deserving of legislation protecting them than victims of other horrible and unfortunate accidents? Are the 4,000 drowning victims per year unworthy of "protection"? How about the 3,300 who choke to death? Can we get a law passed that mandates a rubber soled shoe must be worn to climb ladders? After all it may save a life somewhere... Is the expenditure ($34 million in tax dollars plus a countless amount added to the cost of development, implementation and maintenance added to the cost of vehicles) justified? Where does the "It's worth it if it saves just one life..." argument hit the wall of fiscal reality?
When will the Socialists and Apparatchiks that pull this shit "run out of other peoples money"?
Savant-Idiot at April 9, 2012 3:36 PM
Then the cases of the hypoglycemic diabetic who took his insulin and can't get to the local McDonald's to get hi Egg McMuffin will also happen.
Jim P. at April 9, 2012 7:10 PM
Leave a comment