NTSB wants alcohol detection in all new cars

ALCOHOL-BASED PERFUME

Unlike oil-based perfumes, alcohol-based perfumes do not typically contain carrier oils like Jojoba or Coconut oil. Instead, alcohol-based usually contains ethanol which allows for a stronger scent than a roll-on. The stronger scent is due to the projection of the alcohol evaporating around you, instead of absorbing into your skin. The alcohol also allows for people to experience different top, middle, and bottom notes. In other words, this allows for different scents coming from one perfume. Some people believe the fragrance in alcohol-based perfumes it too much. However, this might be due to the alcohol and not the fragrance at all! The strength also depends on how much you spritz on yourself. Due to the strong scent of alcohol-based perfume, you only should spray once or twice. 

Could be an issue? 

There is a LOT of $$$ sunk into research that is just begging for a problem to solve.  Actually had some exposure to such a project at the academic  research level. The goal was to obtain a bio-marker from the driver's contact with the steering wheel and or seat that could be cross referenced to the atmosphere inside the car. 

Abstract

An unconventional method is developed to fabricate flexible and transparent sensors for real-time, wireless sensing of alcohol vapors using hybrid nanostructures of indium oxide and Pt nanoparticles (as an active channel) with random networks of metal nanowires (as electrodes and antennas). The hybrid structures of indium oxide and Pt nanoparticles present high response and selectivity for ethanol vapor sensing with detecting the blood alcohol concentration range corresponding to the license suspension or revocation in the Road Traffic Act of many countries (blood alcohol concentration 200 ppm). The integration of a Bluetooth system or an inductive antenna enables wireless operations of the alcohol sensor using smartphones for applications as wearable and hands-free devices with flexible, transparent film geometries. Furthermore, these sensor systems exhibit outstanding thermal reliabilities for their stable operations over wide temperature ranges between −40 °C and 125 °C, which can extend their practical use for automobile electronics. Such devices can be transferable onto diverse nonplanar surfaces including steering wheels and curved glasses of phones, which suggests substantial promise for their applications in next-generation automobile or wearable electronics.

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?

Because it wouldn't correctly detect intoxication, hence the example i gave.  A system already designed to monitor drowsiness (and by extrapolation suitable for this passive detection as well) incorrectly identified competent driving as "weaving within lane/approaching the edge of a lane = drowsiness" and blanked my driver display with a warning to take a break.  It didnt prevent or detect drunk driving, though it did infuriate me for no valid reason at 2 in the  afternoon on a business trip (clarification: i had no alcohol in my system, my wording could be wrongly interpreted).   
 

I don't want such a system mandated in new cars to keep the safety police happy.  We already mandate breathalyzers in convicted dui's cars.  Stick with that.  Leave the 98.2%'s time, money, and vehicles alone.  
 

I don't have faith that OEM's can get it right/perfect with these sorts of systems (see also tesla FSD), and would prefer to have the option to remain in control as a competent driver.  Mandating systems like these removes that option.  Allowing (but not mandating) them would be fine, the buicks and camrys of the world can have them and the safety folks can cheer, and the gr86's and ct5-v's of the world can cater to a different audience.  

frenchyd said:

bobzilla said:

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. 

The last car I can remember that had a radio delete option was back in the late 60's when you ordered the ZL1 engine option.   
   I probably should have thought  back to the 30's and 40's.  Maybe even the 1950's?  

Then you, like normal, haven't been paying attention. Imports and low end domestic cars have had that through the early 2000's. 

frenchyd said:

The rule of unintended consequences .  Safety things get accepted over time because really the goal is to make people safe not to hurt them. 
    I remember  when seat belt buzzers  irritated everybody and all sorts of things were done to disable them.  Now we just fasten the seat belt as we originally should have.  
    Lately the slow toll of dead motorcyclists who weren't wearing a helmet  is almost a nightly feature.   They are using  their right to become organ donors  as a way of asserting their freedom.  
   The only problem is in too many fatal accidents the drunk survives while the innocent dies. If they would demonstrate their freedom in some other way than on public roads I'd be all in favor of supporting them.              
 

Again, more made up BS. The source you guys have been referencing said 75% of the fatalities in drunk driving crashes are the DRUNK DRIVER. 89% are the drunk driver and the PASSENGERS in the car of the drunk driver.

I literally posted that stat from the Pennsylvania source everyone has been using. 

You're love of making things up and asserting them as fact is beyond frustrating.

z31maniac said:

Again, more made up BS. The source you guys have been referencing said 75% of the fatalities in drunk driving crashes are the DRUNK DRIVER. 89% are the drunk driver and the PASSENGERS in the car of the drunk driver.

Why the all caps?  Is the thought here that drunk drivers or their passengers don't matter?  25% of DD crash fatalities are not the driver, which seems like a pretty important number.

ProDarwin said:

z31maniac said:

Again, more made up BS. The source you guys have been referencing said 75% of the fatalities in drunk driving crashes are the DRUNK DRIVER. 89% are the drunk driver and the PASSENGERS in the car of the drunk driver.

Why the all caps?  Is the thought here that drunk drivers or their passengers don't matter?  25% of DD crash fatalities are not the driver, which seems like a pretty important number.

And another 14% are people that were dumb enough to get in the car with the drunk driver. Which means it's 11% of people not the drunk driver or riding with them that are killed by the drunk driver. 

The complete opposite of what frenchy is claiming. I'm not saying those 11% aren't important, I thought it was clear my frustration is that frenchy continually makes up stuff and asserts them as fact. 

EDIT: I'm not saying they drunk drivers lives don't matter, but if you do stupid things or have a lapse in judgment, sometimes you pay for it with your life. My concern would be the people that didn't do the stupid thing.

z31maniac said:

And another 14% are people that were dumb enough to get in the car with the drunk driver. Which means it's 11% of people not the drunk driver or riding with them that are killed by the drunk driver. 

I wouldn't say that 14% made a stupid choice.  Many likely didn't comprehend the level of intoxication.  And an number of them were minors likely without a choice.

My son was in a DUI car crash as a passenger.  He was 3.  He sure as berkeley didn't choose to be there.

ProDarwin said:

z31maniac said:

And another 14% are people that were dumb enough to get in the car with the drunk driver. Which means it's 11% of people not the drunk driver or riding with them that are killed by the drunk driver. 

I wouldn't say that 14% made a stupid choice.  Many likely didn't comprehend the level of intoxication.  And an number of them were minors likely without a choice.

My son was in a DUI car crash as a passenger.  He was 3.  He sure as berkeley didn't choose to be there.

That's a good point. But again, my frustration is certain people making things up. Enough that this person has had like 20 separate posts in this thread alone down voted to the point of being hidden. 

Agreed.  Frenchy's ramblings about radio deletes and claims with no data behind them are not productive.

ProDarwin said:

Agreed.  Frenchy's ramblings ....... are not productive.

Fixed for accuracy

I'm just happy this site can take government overreach and find someone to attack instead of the actual problem.  Typical.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm just happy this site can take government overreach and find someone to attack instead of the actual problem.  Typical.

There have been many in this thread, including myself, that want nothing to do with this being in new vehicles. 

Many years ago my friend (is a cop) and I were driving to a friends place in his district and there was a car was all over the road and almost hit us head on. We trailed him, cops pulled him over and the guy was arrested. He stumbled out of the car and had a empty case of beer in his car, fairly straight forward. I am lucky and knockwood I hope this doesn't happen again, but why would they just stop at alcohol. The amount of legal and illegal drugs people ingest and jump into a car, especially now that it is legal in some states. This all seems like a rubber stamp, if it doesn't pass then politicians can point the finger and if it does pass politicains will point the finger of why it's wrong.

This thread makes me want to start drinking.

ProDarwin said:

z31maniac said:

And another 14% are people that were dumb enough to get in the car with the drunk driver. Which means it's 11% of people not the drunk driver or riding with them that are killed by the drunk driver. 

I wouldn't say that 14% made a stupid choice.  Many likely didn't comprehend the level of intoxication.  And an number of them were minors likely without a choice.

My son was in a DUI car crash as a passenger.  He was 3.  He sure as berkeley didn't choose to be there.

I was thinking about this more last night after posting, and hopefully this makes sense:

It seems like this issues hits pretty close to home for you, especially now seeing the example with your son (I am very sorry you and he had that experience).  I can certainly understand how that would give you a bias, or a filter in how you see the world/this particular topic, and make it seem like a no-question, slam dunk.  Viewing the issue through that same lens, I agree with you 100%.  If there was a way to have such a system work perfectly, with no false positives or negatives, not detract from sober enthusiast driving experiences or be particularly intrusive, who wouldn't support it?  I can't think of anyone who would say, "Driving while intoxicated and causing crashes is a good thing".  Most here seem to be arguing HOW to fix this (existing laws vs. passive systems vs. active systems), not the validity of stopping drunk drivers.
 

I also have biases that I'm not always aware of.  My alcohol consumption is 0-2 beers a week, usually at home with takeout food on a Friday or Saturday.  In my day to day world, DUI's just aren't visible/a "real" problem, because I don't see them.  So I may be unintentionally under-estimating the number of accidents/amount of damage they cause vs. the difficulties of programming/changing/upgrading ALL the cars on the road.  Through my filter, we are "punishing" (through $ and a reduced consumer experience) 98% of normal people to account for the 2% of idiots.

Also, I worked in vehicle development for an OEM R&D dept.  One of my last jobs before I left 10 years ago was evaluating all of our competitors driving assistance systems (and our own).  This was when active cruise control (ACC), lane keeping assist, and blind spot monitoring were beginning to be widespread.  I was able to fault every system from every manufacturer.  Every single one.  Meaning I could set up a scenario driving down the road where the automatic system would make the wrong call.  So I have my own bias/personal filter AGAINST these systems, particularly when someone (no one here, unless Elon Musk browses the forum occasionally) claims they can "fix" human driving.

Putting both of our biases together, if the systems fail 2% of the time, and we've swapped 2% system failure for 2% drunken shiny happy people, have we fixed/improved the situation?  Or spent a lot of time, cost, and effort to trade one set of problems for another?  I genuinely don't know the answer, but that is where the root of my skepticism and counterpoints come from.  It's a tough issue to talk about, and it must hit home for a lot of people that have experiences like yours, so I hope the added explanation helps a bit.  Please know I always find these discussions on GRM helpful and insightful to see things from a different perspective

And the $300 key from the dealer now costs $1000 when it fails or you drop it in a puddle or lose it.  

In reply to frenchyd :

I ran for office in the past and visited the capital building last year to voice my opinion. It's a full time to lobby legislation and is not as easy as some may think as voting or just talking to your local or state Rep. I don't think this is a realistic answer, when self driving cars around the corner, America needs to build infrastctures for the future.

trigun7469 said:

 . . . but why would they just stop at alcohol. The amount of legal and illegal drugs people ingest and jump into a car, especially now that it is legal in some states. 

Drugs, legal or otherwise, are part of the DUI et al laws.

z31maniac said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm just happy this site can take government overreach and find someone to attack instead of the actual problem.  Typical.

There have been many in this thread, including myself, that want nothing to do with this being in new vehicles. 

 

I agree but let's focus on that and not personal beefs with each other.  

ProDarwin said:

z31maniac said:

And another 14% are people that were dumb enough to get in the car with the drunk driver. Which means it's 11% of people not the drunk driver or riding with them that are killed by the drunk driver. 

I wouldn't say that 14% made a stupid choice.  Many likely didn't comprehend the level of intoxication.  And an number of them were minors likely without a choice.

My son was in a DUI car crash as a passenger.  He was 3.  He sure as berkeley didn't choose to be there.

It sucks that happened, but be mad at the intoxicated driver, as it's their fault, not the rest of the driving public.