Did we talk about this yet? Thoughts?
Did we talk about this yet? Thoughts?
Maybe, and this is just a thought, a wild ass guess, if they actually did things to enforce the DUI laws and take away licenses from these people then they wouldn't be driving?
Make me blow into a tube cause they can't do E36 M3 right. Miss me with that bullE36 M3.
In writing the law, Congress noted that "in 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher." Congress also cited a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimating that "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually."
So there were over 10k deaths, but this technology can only prevent 9,400? What are they going to do for the other 600+? What else are they going to take away or force us into?
This is what happens if you never say no or enough.
People with a DUI and no license still drive cars. They just don't care. Won't this be a non issue when everyone has a self driving car anyway.
Alcohol sounds dangerous. It should probably be banned.
Haha.
they also want to limit speeding.
How about people that drive 5 under the limit or 20 less than the rest of traffic in the left lane
How about people who turn right into the left lane and left into the right lane (the steering wheel turns more, don't apex 2 feet into the turn, etc.)
How about all of the states who have no safety inspections on cars and drive with cars who have little/no working headlights, loose parts, clearly blown shocks, broken springs, etc.
I think the idea of buying a second hand car where somebody else has been blowing their nasty breath into a tube for 3 years sounds gross... also, i don't like the idea of having to put my lips on somebody else's tube just to take their car for a ride (insert inapproriate joke here)
It'll never pass. States make way too much money from DUIs to give it up.
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
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. I for one would appreciate fewer drunks on the road.
We don't allow drunks to race. Why allow them to drive at all?
Further down the article it links to an overview of the technologies that are in development for possible use.
Here is the link: https://www.dadss.org/program-overview
Here is the description:
- A breath system, which measures alcohol as a driver breathes normally, when in the driver’s seat. It will be designed to take instantaneous readings as the driver breathes normally and to accurately and reliably distinguish between the driver’s breath and that of any passengers.
- A touch-based system, which measures blood alcohol levels under the skin’s surface by shining an infrared-light through the fingertip of the driver. It will be integrated into current vehicle controls, such as the start button or steering wheel, and take multiple, accurate readings.
RevRico said:States make way too much money from DUIs to give it up.
Would love to see the stats you have for that.
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. I for one would appreciate fewer drunks on the road.
We don't allow drunks to race. Why allow them to drive at all?
I fully agree with this
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.
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. I for one would appreciate fewer drunks on the road.
We don't allow drunks to race. Why allow them to drive at all?
Sounds similar to the argument about govt surveillance. "If you've got nothing to hide, why don't you want :whatever-govt-surveillance-nightmare-is-being-discussed-currently:?"
Its a non-starter.
I guess my question is why now? We've had the technology for years, so what makes the problem so urgent that we need more intrusion into our private lives, more technology in our cars to add complexity, expense, and failure points? It's not like drunk driving is reaching a crisis point, in fact the opposite is true, drunk driving fatalities have been declining for many years:
Between 1991 and 2019, the rate of drunk driving fatalities per 100,000 population has decreased 51% nationally, and 70% among those under 21.
I get that one is too many, and we should be trying to drive that number to zero. But the plain fact is that living in a free society means that you put yourself in danger every day. Every day we put our lives in the hands of total strangers, especially on the road. Alcohol is one thing, but what about weed, meth, prescription pills or just plain bad judgment?
I think they'd have to come up with some sort of technology that doesn't require blowing into a tube - if numerous people have to do that, thousands and thousands of times over the lifetime of a car every time it's started, I can only imagine the cesspool of germs. Plus, however it's done it will have to be instantaneous or nearly so, no one's going to be willing to sit around waiting for a breathalyzer to calculate their BAC and then allow the car to be started. All in all it sounds like it would be prohibitively expensive, as well as over complex and prone to failure. Also, from the auto manufacturer's point of view there's probably huge liability issues.
CrustyRedXpress said:
- A breath system, which measures alcohol as a driver breathes normally, when in the driver’s seat. It will be designed to take instantaneous readings as the driver breathes normally and to accurately and reliably distinguish between the driver’s breath and that of any passengers.
- A touch-based system, which measures blood alcohol levels under the skin’s surface by shining an infrared-light through the fingertip of the driver. It will be integrated into current vehicle controls, such as the start button or steering wheel, and take multiple, accurate readings.
The first one doesn't have a hope in hell of working, not if the windows are open or convertible top is down.
The second one seems like it would be defeated by wearing gloves.
I have also heard suggestions that a computer in the car would examine driver inputs and look for signs of erratic driving that might indicate inebriation. That seems pretty much guaranteed to prevent you from ever autocrossing a car with that feature.
We have a "lookout" area on a local road. A couple years ago, I spent a little time unsuccessfully getting a low car out of the snow. I mentioned that he might want to shut the car off while he was waiting. He replied that his car had a breathalyzer and he wouldn't be able to restart it. That's about when I found a convenient excuse to stop helping. He switched to calling his dad to come pick him up, though he thought he would have to wait an hour for that.
Some of those 600 people might be in front of someone doing his trick but not bottomed out in the snow.
RevRico said:It'll never pass. States make way too much money from DUIs to give it up.
It darn sure isn't about money. The money they collect won't pay for a single dead person. Not to mention the cost of police or jails or judges or prosecutor.
They would rather you called for an Uber when you've had too much. In fact some people will pick you up, take you home free the only question they ask is where to take you.
My girls have that standing offer and 2 times one has wisely called me. She never hears anything more from me.
A nephew didn't listen to his father who made the same offer. He killed the wife and cost the husband a leg.
I forget how many years he got. But in one-moment he went from the all American boy with a fantastic future to an ex con with no future. Working in his dads hardware store to pay him back for all the legal costs. Money his dad had set aside for college.
Maybe when his dad passes he'll get to run the store in the small town.
This is a trial balloon on the "every life is important" crusade. There are 5 billion of "us" on this rock, you aren't important in the grand scheme. Same could be said with any current disease process out there. We are all going to die of something. We can't outrace it, outlive it, or last long enough to be a conscious head in a tank of solution able to be placed on a robot body. Harsh realities nobody wants to believe, live, or partake in.
Its time to E36 M3 or get off the pot.
How about something that prevents drivers from texting or checking their phone? That one worries me.
In reply to matthewmcl :
My sister had a tube but I think it has to be blown into every so often.
To keep someone from getting a sober person to start their car then they drive it? (Hey man, can you blow my tube out in my car?)
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.
Hey, look, outrage the week.
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.
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:I have also heard suggestions that a computer in the car would examine driver inputs and look for signs of erratic driving that might indicate inebriation. That seems pretty much guaranteed to prevent you from ever autocrossing a car with that feature.
You autocross with Drunken Fist? 
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
