backtop


Print 114 comment(s) - last by Manch.. on Aug 23 at 7:22 AM

Convincing consumers to embrace a device which could raise prices and have false positives is challenging

Alcohol, humanity's favorite social lubricant, is an ever controversial research topic with some calling it the deadliest drug, and others pointing to studies that suggest moderate alcohol consumption enhances learning (perhaps the real-life version of the "Ballmer curve").  But one thing that most can agree on is that intoxication and cars are a dangerous mixture.

I. NHTSA: Five Years to Commercializing Driver Intoxication Detection

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) -- an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) -- has been working a coalition of manufacturers (the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS)) to produce an advanced in-car sensor that would refuse to start the vehicle if it detects the driver is intoxicated.  

The system they're developing is dubbed "Driver Alcohol Detection System for safety" (DADSS) -- perhaps a well intentioned play on the nation's largest anti-drunk driving activist organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

Drunk driver
The government and activist groups want to make sure a drunk driver can never get in a car and drive in the first place. [Image Source: CNN]

After nearly $40 USD in federal funding ($5.8M USD in 2008, $2M USD/yr. in 2009-2010, and ~$10M USD in 2011-2013) and five years of progress, that project is approaching the end of its first phase, and a technology demonstration has been promised.

In a letter to the CEO of top automotive manufacturers, NHTSA Chief David Strickland said that significant progress had been made on the private-public collaboration.  With two "very, very effective" prototypes from separate OEM partners produced, he believes a commercial product is within reach.  On how soon we will see such a device, he comments, "We probably have another five years of work to go.  It will be available as an option by manufacturers, and I think it’s a real way forward."

II. Motivations

Why build such a device?  The motivation is actually surprisingly straightforward.

Government statistics from 2010 reveal that drunk driving is the number one crime in the country, with 1.4 million driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests a year.  Of fatal car crashes approximately half of the drivers involved were under the influence of alcohol or other psychoactive substances.  

To try to curb drunk driving, the government by 2009 had instituted nearly 150,000 in-car interlock systems [source] to habitual DUI offenders.  An interlock system won't allow a vehicle to start without having the user perform a breathalyzer test.

Drunk Driving
Drunk driving remains the nation's most common crime and a key factor in roughly half of car crashes. [Image Source: DWI Blog]

While functional, interlock systems are far from perfect.  First, if a non-drunk passenger (or even companion riding separately) blows into them, they can start the car, even if the driver is drunk.  Second, they are too expensive and invasive to deploy to all vehicles. 

One solution would be to have a more general alcohol detector that scanned the entire air content of the car, but again this would be problematic as drunk passengers could trigger a false positive.  And such a solution would be more expensive, likely, as it would require the detection of smaller quantities of airborne alcohol versus a system that isolates a driver's breath (e.g. the interlock).

From a big picture perspective, the number of people in the U.S. still choosing to drive drunk and being able to do so clearly illustrates that the deterrents to date -- DUI fines, prison time, and in-car prevention systems -- aren't stopping drunk drivers often enough.

II. Show Me The Prototype

The NHTSA/industry program launched in 2008, with $5.8M USD in federal funding.  It has focused on two different emerging technologies -- near-infrared (NIR) tissue spectroscopy and distant breath spectroscopy.  The former technique would require the driver to press their finger against a location.  Eventually this could perhaps be embedded into the steering wheel.  The latter method would be remote, requiring no direct contact as it measures the amount of alcohol in the exhaled breath from a distance.  Differentiating between driver and passenger intoxication, though, requires strategic sensor placement, multiple sensors, and filtering algorithms.

After five years Congress is still funding the program, but desires some sort of results.  Mr. Strickland has promised a working prototype will be demonstrated by the end of the year.  He comments, "A tangible result of that work will be demonstrated later this year, when a research vehicle including both touch-based and breath-based detection technologies is available for further evaluation.  I have referred to it as a ‘moonshot’ for traffic safety with initially long odds but the potential for dramatically powerful results if we are successful."

Drunk driving TruTouchWorking prototypes are expensive, bulky, intrusive, and can yield false positives.  (The DADSS "TruTouch" tisue NIR spectroscopy system is shown.)

If the NHTSA and ACTS can pull of a successful demo, they next have to plan out and agree to a path for Phase II -- the path to commercialization.  MADD National President Jan Withers praised the progress thus far, stating, "Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, DADSS for short, is our hope for the future to ELIMINATE drunk driving."

That said, figuring out a route to commercialization requires many parties -- automakers, insurers, consumers, civil liberties groups, activist groups (e.g. MADD), and the government -- to all agree to a route they can all live with.  Balancing often competing interests (e.g. the desire to reduce auto fatalities versus the consumer demand to not have a device that produces false positives or raises vehicle prices) makes this project a "moonshot" indeed.  But it'll be interesting to watch what the coalition brings to the table as Phase I concludes.

Sources: The Detroit News, DADSS [homepage], [white paper]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The big brother/nanny state
By retrospooty on 8/21/2013 5:45:10 PM , Rating: 5
is entering a scary new phase.




RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:54:23 PM , Rating: 4
Really! I mean is this the point where even the most apathetic person might think "okay that's going too far."? I really hope so.

To make something like this mandatory standard equipment in all vehicles...it's just so overboard it hurts my brain. I would totally be okay with forcing this on people with a record of DUI's, they've broken the law. But in EVERY CAR!!??


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By ritualm on 8/21/2013 6:00:08 PM , Rating: 4
It feels like the movie Idiocracy, except we're all paying to see it unfold in real time.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By sixteenornumber on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By wookie1 on 8/22/2013 12:16:05 PM , Rating: 4
You may recall there was a constitutional amendment to restrict alcohol, followed by another amendment to repeal that after it was completely ineffective. Since you don't see a problem, please install a breathalyzer in your car so you can't start it without blowing in it first. Then report back on how you feel about it.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By gamerk2 on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By ritualm on 8/22/2013 2:37:48 PM , Rating: 4
A few hundred million per year of economic activity lost is peanuts when you consider that the current federal education budget is over $100- Billion , most of it wasted and corrupted in poor-performing schools. Yet we have lots of people chime in and claim the USG isn't spending enough money at it.

You want to fix DUI once and for all? Then get rid of humans in the entire process of driving vehicles! These BACs won't do anything but make some politicians and their donor companies very rich. I'm calling it now.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By ritualm on 8/22/2013 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 2
Because we tried it during the Roaring Twenties and it didn't work.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By jimbojimbo on 8/22/2013 3:50:58 PM , Rating: 3
So you got hit by a drunk driver so EVERYBODY has to pay? Why not just have a law so if you get a DUI you lose your driving privileges FOREVER and they confiscate your car. Be caught again they confiscate the car and throw the person into a chain gang.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Cheesew1z69 on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By tayb on 8/21/2013 6:34:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It will be available as an option by manufacturers, and I think it’s a real way forward.


Do you know how to read?


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 6:46:37 PM , Rating: 5
Use your freaking brain! If the NHTSA is involved, you can forget that "optional" bit as soon as there's reliable working devices, they'll mandate them to all vehicles. Like EVERY OTHER thing up to and including black boxes and tire pressure sensors.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By toffty on 8/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By tayb on 8/21/2013 6:57:11 PM , Rating: 3
Do you know how the NHTSA works?


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By retrospooty on 8/21/2013 8:42:08 PM , Rating: 4
Let me put up a guess. Some Ass clown senator funds a study that "manages to show" (via skewed data) that cars with this have 10% less fatalities than cars without and then it becomes a new mandate that all new cars must have this.

Yes, that is exactly how things go down.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 9:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. That pretty much sums it up.

Problem is that this is invasive to the point where it will not allow your car to start unless you are deemed worthy.

Does nobody else see the massive point of failure here? I sure do.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Adonlude on 8/22/2013 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
I would think that mass government mandated analysis of the contents of ones body without court order or due process would clearly be a violation of the 4th amendment.

I believe the supreme court would have to make another unconstitutional decission, like they did when they allowed DUI checkpoints, for this system to be implemented.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 9:32:32 PM , Rating: 5
You left out the part where the makers of this device lobby the ass clown senator to fund the study to pass the bill to get their big ass Government contract paid for by you and I.

All in the name of "public safety", of course.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By retrospooty on 8/21/2013 11:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that went without saying. But yes you are correct. LOL


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By superflex on 8/22/2013 12:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
for the kids


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 11:21:00 PM , Rating: 4
You mean like tire pressure sensors were an option? And airbags? And seatbelts?


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By jimbojimbo on 8/22/2013 3:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
Rear cameras is another that's already been approved and is right around the corner.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By shmmy on 8/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By ClownPuncher on 8/21/2013 7:19:40 PM , Rating: 5
Why not just educate people about the dangers of alcohol instead of punishing everyone? That you, admittedly, drink and sometimes drive is not my burden to bear.

What's so difficult about the idea of personal accountability? I don't ever drink and drive, why bother people like me with this mess? The whole idea of the burden of society was invented to subvert individual rights in a republic.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Jeffk464 on 8/21/2013 7:56:28 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, but you can get hit by somebody that does.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 9:47:12 PM , Rating: 4
You can get hit by somebody that falls asleep at the wheel, gets too involved in sexting on their phone or is a habitual Ambien user (anti-insomnia drug that can cause sleep driving) too.

Alcohol may be the #1 cause of lethal crashes that can be proven but other forms of impaired driving are just as, or even more dangerous to everyone caught up in it. And it is a LOT more common! Ask the truck driver that has been driving his rig for the past 24 hours without sleep that jackknifes his rig and takes out every car within 50 feet of him. He's not drunk, but he is just as impaired as a drunk. Ask the guy sexting with his girlfriend while barreling down the passing lane of the freeway at 80mph.

Cars are big, dangerous machines. When they get out of control, for whatever reason, they are worse than a loaded gun to anyone around them.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Mint on 8/22/2013 1:28:58 AM , Rating: 3
Sleeping may well be something we address. A few manufacturers have put sleep sensors in cars, and given how smartphones have made cameras and SoCs so cheap, it could become a standard soon.

But sleeping at the wheel or ambien or sexting while driving isn't as prevalent as drunk driving, and it's silly to say we shouldn't bother with the latter simply because there are other ways that crashes happen.

If we can make an accurate, convenient, and cheap alcohol detector, then making it standard will be a good initiative. Many people die from others being drunk.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 11:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you know we need to design the world so that people can't possibly hurt themselves or others?


By ClownPuncher on 8/22/2013 11:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
Shoot, I forgot.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Spuke on 8/21/2013 7:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We started two wars and killed thousands of innocent people over terrorism.
Jesus Christ! Really? Why does the Iraq war have to be brought up in every single fucking discussion no matter what it is. What does that have to do with this? I'm really tired of the extremist viewpoints here. This not TECH this is politics. This site really should split and form another site for political discussion and the other for tech. I'm interested in tech not BS politics or social activism. I'm tired of this shit and going on a sabbatical. I'll try back in a few months to see if anything has changed. If it hasn't I'm requesting my username to be removed. This is just plain BS.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 7:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
Awww man. Leaving me alone with these nutjobs? :(


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 9:00:47 PM , Rating: 1
I got your back.

Sounds to me like Mr "drunk drivers killed more people than terrorists" is the kind of person that needs crap like this in their car since he as all but confessed to doing it.

I for one don't frigging need that junk in my car and I sure as shit ain't gonna pay a car maker to put it in.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 9:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks!

I love how I'm getting more grief for my stance here, than him who flat out admitted he drinks and drives!!!

quote:
Sounds to me like Mr "drunk drivers killed more people than terrorists" is the kind of person that needs crap like this in their car since he as all but confessed to doing it.


LOL yeah you seem to be the only other person here who's picked up on that...


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Manch on 8/22/2013 6:25:06 PM , Rating: 1
Its sad that you get more grief than an admitted drunk driver does. I was hit by a drunk driver in 08 while walking home. Fractured my skull lost a bit of eye socket, peeled the skin off the side of my face, wrecked my shoulder, took chunks out of my arms and legs and destroyed my knees. I just had knee surgery because of it last October(avoided it as long as I could). It's caused a lot of ongoing issues that i have to deal with until I kick the bucket.

Even after that I dont want this as a mandatory device in vehicles. Does anybody think this crap will stop them? Of course it wont! Extreme fines, loss of driving privileges, jail, ad all the other shit hasnt stopped them.

The only person responsible for my injuries was the drunk asshole speeding thru my neighborhood that hit me.

Why do people think that when some asshole does somthing we have to encroach on law abiding citizens rights with intrusive laws, regulations etc. Its ridiculous. The concept of personal responsibility seems to be lost on people.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By retrospooty on 8/22/2013 8:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm interested in tech not BS politics or social activism. I'm tired of this shit and going on a sabbatical. I'll try back in a few months to see if anything has changed.

No man, if you quit because some people are stupid then you have to quit the entire world, because they are everywhere. The more voices of reason the better.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 11:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
So your friends are idiots so that means we all need to be punished.

And we don't give billions to oil companies. They have tax breaks like other companies.

But good to see those college professors did their job.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Manch on 8/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Jeffk464 on 8/21/2013 7:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
How does this hurt you? It will actually prevent people from getting DUI's.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By gamerk2 on 8/22/2013 1:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
Its more a protest against "big government", even if such a system will reduce costs (DUI's are expensive) and reduce fatalities. No different then mandating seatbelts and airbags.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 8:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I haven't had a single alcoholic drink in over 10 years. My wife in about 5. Why should we need to pay for the expense of these sensors in our cars?

Will these sensors stop impaired driving with people who...

... drive tired
... have taken prescription sedatives
... have taken mind-altering street drugs
... who are blitzed on pot?
... who are distracted with texting while driving 60 mi/hr down a highway in the fast lane?

Hell no. Yet there are just as many or more accidents caused by the conditions I just described.

No thanks. If you are convicted of drunk driving, then sure - put one in their car, but for those of us that don't frigging well drink - leave us out of it!!


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Labotomizer on 8/22/2013 11:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
This is such a terrible argument against it. And I'm not saying I'm for the installation of these devices but your argument is flat out terrible.

By your logic, making theft illegal doesn't stop people from stealing cars, so why bother? Making smoking crack illegal doesn't stop crack from being smoked, so why bother? Seriously, awful argument.

And do you have any idea how many of the people who die in crashes involving drunk drivers are NOT THE ONES DRIVING? I'm all for personal responsibility. But when you're driving drunk it's likely you will significantly impact other people's lives.

There are valid concerns with invasion of privacy. And concerns about malfunctions preventing you from driving your car, of course sometimes the ignition malfunctions but that doesn't mean we do away with ignitions... But making up silly arguments about why it shouldn't happen isn't the way to go about it.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By wookie1 on 8/22/2013 12:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
I would disagree and say his point is very valid. Why should he have to pay to have a device in his car that 1) takes away his liberty and 2) will not legitimately stop him from doing something dangerous since he wouldn't have done it anyway. Drinking and driving is already illegal, so the rest of your arguments don't make sense. There are even DUI checkpoints! There are no stolen car checkpoints (that would be unconstitutional).

Ignition malfunction is one thing, but having to prove to your car that you haven't been drinking is ridiculous. Especially since it's so much more dangerous to drive when tired.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Manch on 8/23/2013 7:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
well you need the ignition to start the car so bad example...

I think the reason why most people are against this is because they dont feel they should have to be burden by intrusive systems for crimes they have not commited.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Manch on 8/23/2013 7:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
If you get busted then sure by all means, put one in their car at their expense! Virginia does this with those breathalyzer machines. They still dont work since someone can blow for you. People will find away around these too. Making everyone have one of these is just mind boggling retarded.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Samus on 8/22/2013 5:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for it! I look forward to giving my car a blowjob every time I want it to start.

/sarc


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By MindParadox on 8/22/2013 8:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really! I mean is this the point where even the most apathetic person might think "okay that's going too far."? I really hope so. To make something like this mandatory standard equipment in all vehicles...it's just so overboard it hurts my brain. I would totally be okay with forcing this on people with a record of DUI's, they've broken the law. But in EVERY CAR!!??


First, driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. Secondly, did you know that in some countries, the first offense for a DUI is death?

Personally, I like that one, but here in America, we are pansies, and everyone would piss and moan, cause you know, EVERYONE and their mother right now feels it's just fine to drink "after a few". Seriously, the amount of people who drive home from bars alone every night trashed who INSIST they are just "Buzzed" is crazy to start with, because there is no set standard for what is drunk(there really can't be, due to alcohol tolerance and such being different for everyone).

Go to a bar/club one night a week for say, three weeks, and on that night, don't drink, and watch the people driving off at the end of the night. BE SOBER WHEN YOU DO THIS, NOT ONE SINGLE DRINK ALL NIGHT. Then, if you can honestly say that something like this wouldn't be a good idea, get your head examined.

On a side note, it would have stopped the moron who drove over my aunt and uncle(and like 5 other people) at noon on a busy street when I was a kid, cause he had a blood alcohol level of 1.9 when they pulled him outta the car.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 8:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.


What does that have to do with anything here? Why do you idiots think that proves they can force any equipment on our personal property they see fit?

Also this device in essence violates our 4'th Amendment rights. With no due process or warrant, it forces you to submit to a search.

So you can take your "privilege" talking point and shove it.

quote:
EVERYONE and their mother right now feels it's just fine to drink "after a few".


Well I don't, and I know lots of people who don't. So why do I need to have this device in my car again?

quote:
On a side note, it would have stopped the moron who drove over my aunt and uncle(and like 5 other people) at noon on a busy street when I was a kid


Ah, another person who wants to insult me because he had a tragedy happen in his life. You aren't the only one who's lost a loved one. That doesn't give you carte blanch to browbeat others into embracing vehicular fascism.

I'll make you a deal: YOU buy my next car for me, and you can put in any equipment you want. Okay?


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By toffty on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: The big brother/nanny state
By inighthawki on 8/21/2013 6:27:00 PM , Rating: 4
I'm glad you enjoy sacrificing your rights one at a time. Should be fun when you want to drive somewhere but you have to take a breathalyzer test and step through a metal detector to ensure you're not carrying weapons first.

Don't screw over and inconvenience everyone because a few people are too stupid to behave correctly. The solution is not in government regulation. Harsher punishments will be far more effective.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 9:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
ONLY for people like him thankyouverymuch!!

Last thing I need is my car taking my anal cherry when I drive to the milk store O.o


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By toffty on 8/21/2013 6:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Educate yourself before you show how stupid you are. Harsher penalties do nothing to curb drunk driving or crime in general. In fact what you're proposing is a police state.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By ritualm on 8/21/2013 8:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
Police state? Hardly. Installing those breathalyzers in every car, however, is a classic police state move - we are all being treated as suspected DUI drivers unless we pass the breathalyzer test. Give a few years, change some of those keywords around. It's the best idea ever if you work for the NSA. Not so much for the rest of us, doofus.

If you are found by authorities to be driving with DUI, your driver's license should be suspended for one full year, on the spot. If you get caught driving after that, it gets treated the same way as a contempt of court charge.

If you injure anyone (including passengers in your car) while you drive with DUI, your right to drive needs to be permanently revoked. No exceptions.

If you kill anyone (including passengers in your car) while you drive with DUI, it won't matter if the state kills you instead of letting you rot behind bars or do thousands of hours of community service. Heck, it would even offer the victims' families some reprieve, knowing that the person who forcibly took their loved ones away will never bother anyone else again.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By jimbojimbo on 8/22/2013 4:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
Very well put. I'd rank you up if I didn't post already. However, I'm even more extreme than that. On the very first offense it should be a permanent revocation of driver's license and confiscation of the car. If they are caught driving again it's another confiscation of the car, unless the owner wants to report it as stolen, and a hefty fine and jailtime. If the owner decides to report it stolen the driver will get charged for the theft of that vehicle on top of that.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By inighthawki on 8/21/2013 8:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
You may want to look up what a police state means, because according to the definition, your belief puts us way closer than harsher penalties.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By retrospooty on 8/21/2013 8:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly... WTF are these people thinking.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By tayb on 8/21/2013 6:43:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm glad you enjoy sacrificing your rights one at a time.


You don't have a right to drive. It's a privilege. I don't agree with forcing these into cars but if they did decide to do that it would not be violating any of your rights.

Whether or not this is even a minor inconvenience or raises the price of vehicles is completely unknown. On the surface I'm opposed to such a thing because I believe it could be easily beaten but there are too many unknowns at this point to outright reject the idea. I'm all for eliminating drunk driving and at this point this is simply a research project. If in five years they have a demonstrable product that is cumbersome to use, produces many false positives, is easily beaten, and is expensive it WILL be outright rejected. I'm not going to get my panties in a wad this early.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 6:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not going to get my panties in a wad this early.


At least you admit you're wearing them, that's the important thing :)

quote:
You don't have a right to drive. It's a privilege. I don't agree with forcing these into cars but if they did decide to do that it would not be violating any of your rights.


That a pretty tenuous argument. I know we've just accepted that the fed has the right to force any equipment into passenger vehicles they see fit, but do they really have the right to go THIS far?

I say no.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reflex on 8/21/2013 7:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
What is tenuous about it? No other rights require a person to get a license to exercise them. Driving is not enumerated in the constitution, nor were any rights to existing methods of travel enumerated in the constitution when it was written.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 7:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No other rights require a person to get a license to exercise them.


Uhhh marriage? But we call that a civil right don't we? In fact it's being called the civil rights issue of our time by most.

Anyway the issue isn't about the right to drive. This is about equipment in vehicles.

quote:
Driving is not enumerated in the constitution, nor were any rights to existing methods of travel enumerated in the constitution when it was written.


Well since YOU brought it up, we have an expressed freedom of travel in the Constitution. It doesn't have to enumerate the methods of travel, those are implied to be rights. So no, it doesn't have to say I can "drive" for me to have the right to drive.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reflex on 8/21/2013 8:43:30 PM , Rating: 2
Marriage does not require a license unless one wishes to avail oneself of enumerated benefits of marriage. Lots of communities eschew civil marriage licenses and marry as per their religious beliefs, and this is legal.

One cannot reject the requirement to procure a license before driving without committing a crime, however.

And yes, we do have a freedom to travel. But there is no method that is spelled out as an absolute right, and other rights absolutely trample on this right, such as property rights(I do not have the freedom to travel across your land, or even government land, for instance).

BTW, are you a supporter of implied rights in the constitution? I ask because that is a very progressive opinion. Most right wingers I know look only at explicit rights, not implied rights, as they feel that implied rights are a slippery slope. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" for instance imply an awful lot, such as government provided healthcare...


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 9:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure there are states that require a marriage license. Anyway this isn't really about marriage. I think it's enough to say that driving isn't the only area where the state issues permits/licenses to exercise some right.

quote:
And yes, we do have a freedom to travel. But there is no method that is spelled out as an absolute right


There is NO NEED to spell out a method! Why don't you understand that?

So let me get this right, you think I'm "implying" something by assuming the Founders didn't intent for us to walk with our two feet from state to state? That's absurd!!

Use SOME common sense here, please.

I'm just really tired of this "driving isn't a right" mantra being parroted as a justification for telling me I have to put up with anything in my car that someone in Washington thought up.

quote:
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" for instance imply an awful lot, such as government provided healthcare...


That's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution...


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By wookie1 on 8/22/2013 12:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
What's all this about "implied" and "explicit" rights in the constitution? It's purpose is to define the role of the government and limit its power. Your rights are explicitly unlimited according to the constitution.

There's quite a long road of twisted logic to get from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to "government provided healthcare". These two concepts seem to be contradictory, government is the opposite of liberty, which is why the framers placed such limits on it.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By wookie1 on 8/22/2013 12:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
You're backwards on how the constitution works. We have unlimited natural rights. The constitution does not grant us any rights. It defines and limits the power that the government is allowed to have, especially the federal government which is supposed to be limited to the powers enumerated in the constitution and anything not enumerated is left to the states. The reason that the bill of rights was added is that the framers felt that these protections were the most important and often the first things that a government would try to do with its power. The federal government actually has no right to regulate my driving. That's why they give states money for highways, so they can then attach conditions like speed limits and drinking age in order for the states to get the money.


By bill.rookard on 8/21/2013 7:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta agree with you Reclaimer, this is going a bit far. First up, for those who have broken the law, in order for them to earn the right to drive back, they must jump through the hoops. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

My problem exists in that by making these devices mandatory, and making me pay for them, you've already assumed that I am guilty of doing exactly the same thing with no proof whatsoever.

In addition, where is the line where the government is going to say (since they'll have control over this) you cannot drive. Legal limit? Now what if that changes? Update the car? How about the slippery slope (that the government would NEVER allow to happen /s) where the tolerance is dropped to having just ONE drink means you're stuck somewhere. Go to a nice restaurant, have one glass of vino, and you're stuck until some arbitrary limit is passed and your car (ne: NHTSA) allows you to go home.

I see so many problems with this, it'll just be a complete cluster....


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By shmmy on 8/21/2013 6:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
Well said sir.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By inighthawki on 8/21/2013 8:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Driving is a priviledge, but you also have a right to not be treated like a criminal within the confines of your own private property.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By pandemonium on 8/22/2013 1:45:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for more protection against people that can't control themselves, but this is only an attempted solution at part of the problem, not the cause.

Way too many people that should not be driving are. It shouldn't matter if you're drunk, high, drugged (prescription or otherwise), tired, vastly inexperienced and dangerous to others, "handicapped" (there are simply way too many of these), disrespectful, or plainly just a douche, you should not be driving.

Yeah, I'm disgruntled. This progression to catering to the lowest common denominator in society is a poor excuse for "equality".

At the very least, can we start screening more thoroughly for people that really can't drive? Then for different levels of licenses?


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Jeffk464 on 8/21/2013 7:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
eh, google is going to be driving all of are cars in 5 years so who cares.


About time!
By toffty on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: About time!
By SAN-Man on 8/21/2013 6:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you don't molest children either so you shouldn't be opposed to a device scans your brain for certain activity before being near any child, you have nothing to hide.

I bet you don't rape women either, so you shouldn't be opposed to having the same scan before being near any woman.

Since there are so many women and children it would be logistically difficult to do individual scans, so you should be opposed to wearing the device 24/7 so it can wireless transmit the scans back to the police. You understand, you have nothing to hide after all.


RE: About time!
By toffty on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: About time!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 7:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to think everyone against this is a drunk driver. I don't drink and drive and I'm sure he doesn't either.

Also if you cannot see the massive difference between seat-belts and mandatory BAC devices, you're a bigger idiot than you accuse everyone else as being.

quote:
I love these trite arguments


Right your insulting curse-filled arguments are soooo much better.

In fact I'm quite sure you're still driving mommy and daddy's car around, so you probably don't yet understand the impact of such things. Come back when you spend your own money on things.


RE: About time!
By toffty on 8/21/2013 7:12:47 PM , Rating: 1
When a friend of yours dies due to a drunk driver you can talk to me again on this matter. As of now you're just incredibly ignorant.


RE: About time!
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 7:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
I love it when people feel a personal tragedy has empowered them to be a spokesperson for an issue, and that they've been granted a moral imperative over every other living person.

I lost a friend to a drug overdose. Does that mean the war on drugs should continue even though it's been an abject failure? Well if you think not, I guess you're "ignorant" too.

I'm not impressed by your pain or anger, child. I don't need your exactly life experience to grasp an issue.

But thanks for your honesty. Now I know you're operating from an emotional standpoint, not a rational one, and can dismiss your view altogether.


RE: About time!
By toffty on 8/21/2013 7:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I lost a friend to a drug overdose. Does that mean the war on drugs should continue even though it's been an abject failure? Well if you think not, I guess you're "ignorant" too.


Yes the war on drugs has been a failure and will continue to be in it's current form. The difference with your friend is that he did it to himself. It was his choice to take too many drugs and thus committed suicide.


RE: About time!
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 9:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference with your friend is that he did it to himself. It was his choice to take too many drugs and thus committed suicide.


And you think a drunk driver is not doing it to himself whenever he gets behind the wheel in that state? It was his choice to have a few drinks then get behind a wheel of his car. His choice.

Do you also think that if Reclaimer's friend that suicided had gotten behind the wheel of a car instead he would be in any different position than that drunk driver? The arguments are the same pal.

I'm sorry for your loss to a drunk driver. It sucks and you have my sympathy. However that sympathy does not extend to putting devices in my car that I simply do not need or want. To me it is simply just another point of failure and I am just not interested in enlisting my car as a nanny. I'm not 6 years old.


RE: About time!
By ATX22 on 8/22/2013 12:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
So a friend of yours died because of a drunk driver, it’s sad and it’s tragic.. but, it in no way makes you an authority on the matter.. Furthermore, using your friend as a soap box to stand on to further your own views on how things should be shows just what kind of friend you must be. Want to actually make a point? Let your argument stand on its own merit and not the grave of someone else. If you truly have something worth considering, you won’t have to take the emotional approach of pulling on the heart strings of others through anecdotal stories of tragedy in an attempt to sway their opinion in your favor.

It's MY choice to drive a vehicle on the road and risk an encounter with someone who is driving impaired, be it drugs, alcohol, lack of sleep, texting, or flat out inexperience at driving. EVERYONE who drives makes that choice, and sometimes this choice comes with negative consequences for people who haven’t done anything wrong.. but the choice was still THEIRS. If the risk of bodily injury or death is too great for you, you always have the option to CHOOSE to stay at home. For the rest of us, leave us alone and let us take our own risks in an unarguably dangerous world (even ignoring drunk drivers) instead of trying to force some absurd idea that you(or rather government) can save people from themselves. For crying out loud, let people live their own lives in their own pursuit of happiness and stop advocating that Uncle Sam should step in and “help” people that never asked for or required said help.


RE: About time!
By SAN-Man on 8/21/2013 7:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
So that makes your position justified? That justifies your insults and bad taste?

I suppose I can sling some insults too, since you don't want to have a discussion.

You are retarded and childish. I hope you get hit by a drunk driver.


RE: About time!
By ritualm on 8/21/2013 7:58:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When a friend of yours dies due to a drunk driver you can talk to me again on this matter. As of now you're just incredibly ignorant.

Just because one of your friends is a victim of someone else's DUI problem doesn't mean your position is sound.

What the NHTSA et al. are trying to do here is to fix stupidity. The sad thing about this mandatory breathalyzer: it just won't curb DUI like you think it would. People will find ways to brick that car component and drink-and-drive as if it's never installed in the first place.

Simple fix: if the DUI'ed driver ends up killing its victims, the driver gets killed by the state on the spot, while all of their belongings/monies get confiscated and given to the victims' families as compensation.


RE: About time!
By Chyort on 8/21/2013 6:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
And when you are sitting in sub-zero temperatures, in the middle of nowhere, trying to start your car and it has a false positive, i will laugh at your frozen corpse. Admittedly a long shot, but i can hope...

The fact remains, this is guilty until proven innocent, by a computer that WILL make mistakes. Personally i have a problem with being punished because one idiot in a thousand wants to drink and drive every night. Be the punishment in a higher car price, and/or false positives.

If this were to be installed only after market, and in the cars of repeat DUI offenders, i would have less of a problem with it.


RE: About time!
By toffty on 8/21/2013 6:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm for that last part as long as it gets applied after only ONE DUI. No second chances.


RE: About time!
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 9:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed as long as it is not there when I buy my new car from the dealer and it is removed when the DUI offender sells his car.

I am not agreed with it being there by default for everyone whether they actually drink or not.


RE: About time!
By ritualm on 8/21/2013 7:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
I neither drink nor use any type of illegal drug, and I am fully against this idea.

They're targeting DUI drivers right now. Give it a few years, and they can ban you from ever driving anything because the government sees you as an enemy.

"It will never happen! Not in our lifetimes!"

Yeah, NSA proponents said the same thing every year.


Used cars and hacking
By jmunjr on 8/22/2013 1:36:16 AM , Rating: 3
If this ridiculous idea becomes a requirement I'll surely be driving an older car and/or hacking the heck out of my car's control units...

Though states claim driving is a privilege there is an inherent right to travel in and the USA and the states. Not until the automobile did this right start becoming regulated. There are implications of limiting one's right to travel as well, including freedom of association and expression. Without the right to travel once cannot fully exercise their right to express themselves or associate with others.

In the vast majority of the USA the only means of travel to reach those places is via automobile/motorcycle. All other forms of transportation have a limited footprint. By saying driving is a right you are regulating an individual's ability to travel. Taking a bus, plane or otherwise is not a suitable replacement. And before you go there, can you take bicycle or horse on an interstate?




RE: Used cars and hacking
By gamerk2 on 8/22/2013 1:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
To answer your last question: Yes, you can. You can also walk, take a cab, carpool, hitchhike, or some form of mass transit. So this, in no way, infringes on the right of an individual to travel.

You do NOT have the right to drive a car while drunk (illegal in all US jurisdictions). And that's what this about, not "big government", not freedom of travel, not individual rights.

And to all your "why should I have to have one installed" people out there: You likely haven't had someone you know killed by a drunk driver yet. Don't worry though: Odds are you will. Wonder if you'll change your tune then...

[And if you want to be REALLY technical, for all you "small government" types: Where in the US Constitution is the right to travel explicitly protected?

Hence the flaws of a strict reading of the US Constitution, and why Federalists hated the Bill of Rights: Because a strict reading, protecting ONLY the rights that are explicitly granted, results in a gradual loss of rights as a whole. Just look at what's happening to privacy rights now: Its not explicitly protected, so the courts are gradually rolling back your right to privacy.]


RE: Used cars and hacking
By retrospooty on 8/22/2013 1:38:36 PM , Rating: 3
It's not even about rights or intentions anymore... It's about the govt. trying to monitor and mandate everything in our lives. They just wind up coming up with rules and regulations that cost too much and dont fix the issue they intend to. This WILL NOT stop drunk driving any more than background checks stopped the school massacres or the govt watching our internet/credit card activity stopped the Boston bombers. The world is full of dangerous people and they will continue to be dangerous. The world is full of stupid people and they will continue to be stupid. You cant mandate the stupid out of stupid people. It just doesn't work.


RE: Used cars and hacking
By M'n'M on 8/22/2013 3:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hence the flaws of a strict reading of the US Constitution, and why Federalists hated the Bill of Rights: Because a strict reading, protecting ONLY the rights that are explicitly granted, results in a gradual loss of rights as a whole. Just look at what's happening to privacy rights now: Its not explicitly protected, so the courts are gradually rolling back your right to privacy.

That isn't a strict reading, it's an incorrect reading. You are correct that the BoR was seen then as having the potential to be misinterpreted, as you seem to be doing. To that end they included the 9'th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I don't know how it could be made any clearer that the BoR does not spell out all our rights.

As for freedom of travel, it's implied in the 1'st Amendment;

.. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

Kind of hard to assemble if you can't travel.


RE: Used cars and hacking
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 3:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you just love when obvious Collectivists and Socialist argue on the Constitution?

It's sort of like if Rob Zombie opened a Bible study...


RE: Used cars and hacking
By jmunjr on 8/22/2013 3:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
The Ninth Amendment is what gives us these rights. The right to travel was though to be so fundamental it wasn't directly included in the Constitution. Numerous courts, cases and more more have all backed this up, though generally the details fo such were left to the states. Not until the automobile did the states start regulating this and the right suddenly became a privilege because in order to tax it they had to make it not a right...


RE: Used cars and hacking
By jmunjr on 8/22/2013 3:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and as I first wrote and MnM wrote, the 1st Amendment gives us the right. I am sure you will disagree because it doesn't jive with your agenda. Funny thing about us small government folks is our only agenda is supporting the Constitution, so if it doesn't jive with our agenda it doesn't jive with the Constitution.


Better idea
By inighthawki on 8/21/2013 6:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Harsher penalties for those who drink and drive to actually encourage them to not do so or be at high risk for harsh penalties. I bet if most people learned that drinking and driving landed you 10 years minimum (random example) in a prison cell they would think twice about trying (or have foresight ahead of time to help ensure they don't while their judgment is impaired).




RE: Better idea
By toffty on 8/21/2013 6:48:11 PM , Rating: 1
Actually making penalties harsher does nothing to curb crime especially the mentally impaired such as those who just consumed alcohol.


RE: Better idea
By ritualm on 8/21/2013 10:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
So how does installing a mandatory breathalyzer device inside the car and tie it to its interlock, curb driving with DUI?

You haven't answered that question yourself, while claiming harsher penalties won't work. How hypocritical and contradictory.


RE: Better idea
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 10:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read what you wrote there?

To start your car:
Test for alcohol (however they decide to implement that) equipment is built into the car's ignition system.

-> You Pass, ignition system activates and you can drive.

-> You Fail and ignition stays locked out. You don't drive.

While it would certainly curb DUI, it will only do so by becoming a very invasive part of everybody's use of that car whether they are a soccer mom or redneck moonshine runner.

The thing about these interlocks is this: They will be hacked/bypassed about 20 minutes after they start appearing in cars with instructions how to do it posted on the internet that same day.


RE: Better idea
By ritualm on 8/22/2013 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm fully aware what such a system does, at the same time I'm unconvinced that installing this boondoggle on every new future car sold will reduce driving with DUI.

It won't do a damned thing. We'll still get DUI incidents all over the country, except these mandatory breathalyzer systems will be involved, and oftentimes proven ineffective.

A few years down the road, a new whistleblower would tell us those are mobile NSA information "collection" systems (replete with phone-home "features" and all) masquerading as BACs...


RE: Better idea
By tayb on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Better idea
By inighthawki on 8/21/2013 11:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
While that is true, there are plenty of crimes that are committed simply because there is almost no penalty for it. Take something like j-walking. A tiny offense and even most cops won't care, but if suddenly the penalty for j-walking is a year in prison and a $10,000 fine, there may be a lot more people who are going to think twice about saving the extra 10 seconds by not waiting for the walk signal.

On the same note, in many places the penalty for drunk driving is pathetic. Some people get as little as a tiny fine and a slap on the wrist, maybe some points on their license. Oh dear. 3+ offenses until they finally actually do something about it.

And even if harsher penalties does not provide less incentive to do it, it's not only far less intrusive (especially for people who dont drink and drive!) than this proposed plan, but in all honestly the people who do drink and drive deserve a harsher punishment anyway. It's not the kind of thing you do by accident, and in doing so you put many peoples' safety at risk.


Guilty until proven innocent
By wookie1 on 8/21/2013 5:59:23 PM , Rating: 3
So now everyone is treated like a criminal until they can show their car otherwise? Awesome. What about people that drive after smoking pot or using other mind-altering drugs? Maybe the car should do a full blood test on you every time you start it.

Also, the results of the testing I'm sure will be stored in the black box that they want to put in all cars as well so they can see how many times you attempt to drive after drinking.




RE: Guilty until proven innocent
By Chyort on 8/21/2013 6:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
Careful... The next step will be some kind of implants, that can report ongoing blood-tests to your car. We wouldn't want you to start drinking after you get the car started after all!

And since we are already putting implants in you, we can add some kind of tracking to it, Just in case you have a heart attack, or other problem, so we can automatically dispatch an ambulance to you. The NSA will Never have access to these by the way. They are however subsidizing them, out of pure generosity.

And to everyone who says this sounds like science fiction, or tin foil hat conspiracies... Science fiction has a shocking habit of becoming science fact. And looking at the recent NSA scandals, do you honestly trust any government to not reach for more power eventually?


RE: Guilty until proven innocent
By boeush on 8/21/2013 9:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Science fiction has a shocking habit of becoming science fact.
Truth. But as someone's already mentioned, self-driving cars are a very plausible and likely, permanent solution to DUI and DWI (as well as many other causes of car accidents) that will go mainstream long before your particular dystopia could come to pass.

And self-driving cars are something that I'd imagine the vast majority of people wouldn't mind paying extra for -- assuming the technology shows reliability and flexibility at least on par with a really good human driver (I'd be shocked if this is not the case by, let's say 2040).

And once the vast majority adopts such tech, non-self-driving cars won't be produced any longer apart from exotic luxury toys (because due to low production volumes, non-self-driving models would become relatively expensive and thus uneconomical.) Non-self-driving cars may eventually even get banned from public roads, due to disruptive effect on otherwise computer-optimized traffic...


More reason to keep my mid-90s sedan?
By SAN-Man on 8/21/2013 6:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
Let's see, my mid 90s sedan has modern engine management electronics and fuel injection, it has ABS, traction control, front and side airbags and gets decent fuel economy (28 or so MPG highway - not bad for a V8). Parts for this car will be available for the foreseeable future and has zero rust (I live in a warm climate).

So what is my incentive to buy a "new" modern car in the next few years which has tracking and crap like this BAC tester built in?




By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 10:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely none!

But take heart. After you had paid to have the manufacturer install that trash, there will be instructions posted on the internet in how to program your car's ECU to bypass it about a day after the cars go on sale ;)


The answer to all this is self-driving cars
By flyingpants1 on 8/22/2013 2:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
Now imagine if we all drove self-driving cars.




By Disorganise on 8/22/2013 11:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
We've had them for decades. We call them taxis.

I, for one, hope robotic cars don't become mandatory. *flying* cars controlled by computer I'm fine with, but I enjoy driving and I don't want to see that option for enjoyment removed because of an idiotic few.

I'd sooner see the drink drive limit set closer to zero, and I'm sure licenses can become RFI enabled so if you're caught DUI and lose your license (physically) you can't start the car unless someone with a license is in the car with you (and hopefully they'll not ride with a drunk). In Australia you already have to carry your license with you at all time, not sure about elsewhere.

Alternatively, spend the millions that's being put into this research into creating FREE taxi's. Why would you drive drunk when you can get a free ride?


wow
By lagomorpha on 8/22/2013 8:06:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
After nearly $40 USD in federal funding


Cheapest federal program EVER




Government waste
By CZroe on 8/21/2013 11:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
"After nearly $40 USD in federal funding..."
Wow. A WHOLE $40 USD? ;)

My elected officials should be held accountable for how my tax dollars are spent and I will not stand for this!




This is why I'm a hoarder
By CList on 8/22/2013 8:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
I knew that bag of fingers I keep in my freezer would come in handy one day...




too far
By Captain Awesome on 8/22/2013 9:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
Putting this in every car would be going too far. But I support forcing it onto everyone who has ever been convicted of drinking and driving, and everyone whose last name is Kennedy.




By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
People that get behind the wheel of a car while drunk are in a very small minority. How is it then that these few can drive car makers to install alcohol detection interlocks into cars that everybody must accept?

I will put this into another light:

In the U.S. any citizens who are not felons has the RIGHT to bear arms. That means that anybody can walk into a gun shop and buy a gun + ammo by simply showing ID and waiting a mandatory period until the id is checked out. That person can then go out as soon as he gets his gun, straight to his place of work (or the nearest high school) and start shooting everybody who has ever pissed him off. Fruitcakes getting guns would be in a minority, right? And since fruitcakes are also not necessarily felons (yet), they have a perfect right to buy a gun.

Do you see the American government insisting on psychological profiles whenever a gun is purchased and denying sales to folks that fail one? Do you think the American people would stand for that?

How is putting nanny interlocks into cars any different than the Bug scenario? I don't see a real difference here.




How about we
By degobah77 on 8/22/2013 11:59:29 AM , Rating: 2
as in, the people, allow our Gov't (as elected BY the people) to grant privileged licenses to those that can demonstrate the ability to drive perfectly safe up to a certain BAC.

There's a huge difference between drunk driving and drinking and driving and it varies from person to person.

We can't save everyone and we shouldn't punish everybody while trying. Be a defensive driver, steer clear from swerving and/or erratic behaving cars and stop asking the gov't to save you from your own and others stupidity.

We need to be demanding MORE rights/privileges, not restricting the few we have left.




Voluntary/insurance rebate
By ptmmac on 8/22/2013 12:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
Would any one here support this being an option that can drop your insurance costs?




By jimbojimbo on 8/22/2013 3:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
They'll spend millions and millions of dollars developing a device and trying to push the laws through. Some kid is going to spend $5 to find out how to bypass them.




More laws
By jimbojimbo on 8/22/2013 4:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
Next they're going to have these machines attached to every gun sold from now on.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki