U.S., Automakers Pursue Drunk Driver Detection Systems

January 2, 2014
drunk meter

  • January 2, 2014 at 11:30 am
    ExciteBiker says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 2

    Great until the lawsuits start flying because someone couldn’t get a loved one to the hospital because they just ate a piece of bread and their car incorrectly assumed they were wasted. When you look at the source code for these machines, you might see a frankenstein monster of patched-together code.

  • January 2, 2014 at 1:20 pm
    mikey says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 1

    Let’s work on texting 1st. That is becoming more and more of an issue in my opinion. Particularly during hours when more people are on the road.

  • January 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm
    Whodathunkit? says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 1

    Many states require these for DUI convictions and they work pretty well. Never heard of bread giving a false read, I guess you’re implying that yeast might cause it. I agree about texting but that technology is way behind the beatholizer industry.

  • January 2, 2014 at 1:46 pm
    George Sigalas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 1

    This would certainly be a good thing for alcohol intoxication. It would even be a benefit for the driver that has a glass or two of wine with dinner that does not know he or she has had too much. Unfortunately, will the breathalyzer also work when a driver is high on marijuana that has become legal in many states? And how about legal and illegal drugs.

    • January 7, 2014 at 4:33 pm
      Whodathunkit? says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      No, I don’t think it will work on marijuana, but there is also no BAC, so that test will also not work and that’s what the laws speak to.

  • January 2, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    Nutzforautos says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 1

    So, we’re going to be forced to pay for these devices on all cars; the first increase is the cost of the car, then the maintenance -because inevitably there will be electrical/electronic issues as this is attached or integrated into the starting sytem of the vehicle.
    How long do you think it will take, after these devices are out there, that police will start charging people who attempt to drive or just enter their vehicle when they might be over the legal limit? Remember when the new tougher DUI laws in many states took effect 25 years ago, police officers started charging drivers who just got in their car to sleep it off and many cases were upheld by courts and state DOI’s who were getting those hefty fees paid to them.

    How long until the attempt is logged by the car’s computer and the owner receives a hefty fine for the triggering of the device? It’s out there. What about if a person is driving a drunk person home? How will the car know the drunk is behind the wheel..or not? Increased biometrics, in the car, which then lends itself to yet again, decreased privacy. How does this stand and/or compare to the “Castle Doctrine” (your car is extension of your home, which is your castle)?

    False positives, increased costs and lots of leeway for innocent to be hassled, authorities to take advantage of the situation.

    How about this instead: let’s put these devices into every elected official and/or person who is working for the public/paid with tax dollars (Fed, State, Municipal) cars, especially if the car is provided for them or they are paid for using their car, for a 24 month period. The triggered events are captured and posted publicly for all to see. There should be little argument about this and it will let elected officials, who must adhere to the law and have a higher duty of care overall, to experience those false positives, issues and problems firsthand before we just put this on everyone’s car.

    • January 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm
      Dave says:
      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 21

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • January 3, 2014 at 9:26 am
      Roland says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 3

      Well said, Nutz. These contraptions would be fine if they were being provided by manufacturers in response to consumer demand, but of course they are not. The drunkards in DC will force them on us, and the big carmakers will love it, because they will be able to crow about how concerned they are for our children’s safety, and it will make it all the more difficult for new sellers to enter the market and compete with them (existing regulations already make it nearly impossible). It will be a win for the tyrants, a win for the crony-capitalists, and a big lose for liberty.

  • January 2, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 20
    Thumb down 2

    I hate when big business gets into my personal life

  • January 2, 2014 at 2:22 pm
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 3

    Typpical government, at least a decade behind the times. What are they going to do about marijuana detection now that it is becoming legal in more and more states? Or is driving “high” just going to be OK?

    • January 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm
      txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 1

      Hopefully a cocaine detector will be installed in these high end cars. Can’t hit the club with out a little boog sug to start the night off.

    • January 9, 2014 at 9:21 am
      kev1n says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      I’m not as worried about people on weed maxing out at 7 MPH…

  • January 2, 2014 at 11:56 pm
    Los Angeles Injury Lawyer - Steven M. Sweat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 2

    While I think this technology offers some promise in reducing the number of DUI accidents, I don’t think any device will ever completely eliminate the problem. There are too many variables in detecting and preventing people from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs for any machine to be completely effective.

  • January 6, 2014 at 12:39 pm
    Water Bug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 2

    As a non-drinker who uses no drugs other than insulin I resent being spied on. I also resent the black boxes that come in newer cars-That is why my cars tend to be older. My daily driver was built in 1958. Nutz is right.

  • January 6, 2014 at 2:48 pm
    CBUnderwriter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and program the GPS to disable the car when it stops at any establishment which sells alcohol! I’m so thrilled we have the government to step in and save us from ourselves! Wouldn’t Darwin be proud?

  • January 8, 2014 at 1:05 pm
    youngin' says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Where is my gosh dang autonomous vehicle already? People shouldn’t be driving their own cars, intoxicated or not.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features