DailyTech - Toyota Developing Alcohol Detection System For Cars

Submit News

Gadgets Toyota Developing Alcohol Detection System For Cars
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - January 3, 2007 2:57 PM

74 comment(s) - last by rykerabel.. on Jan 8 at 5:45 PM

Toyota is developing a car system that is aimed at keeping the roads safe from drunken drivers

Toyota is in the process of developing a system designed so that cars would be able to detect drunken drivers and automatically shut down. According to reports, the world's current No. 2 automaker plans on fitting some cars with the system by the end of 2009.

The detection system will be released as an optional extra. Toyota hopes that it can be installed on all car models once manufacturing prices have dropped.

New cars equipped in the system will not start if driving wheel sweat sensors pick up a high level of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream. The Toyota system will also be able to detect if a driver is driving abnormally, along with a camera that is used to determine whether or not the driver has pupils that are dilated -- a sign that the driver may have had too much to drink. If the system picks up any of the signals, the car will slow down and come to a complete stop.

Other car manufacturers have also been experimenting with systems that aim at detecting whether or not a driver is sober enough to drive safely. In the United States, for example, alcohol ignition-interlocks are being used for drunk drivers with prior offenses.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

I like the idea but..

By Axbattler on 1/3/2007 4:47:37 PM , Rating: 2

I can see some potential pitfalls too:

Given it is an optional extra, would people who have a tendency to drink drive bother paying for such system? And would people who do not drink drive really benefit from such systems? I guess the only people who may benefit from the system are those who have been drinking but are still within the legal limit. But then, would the system be able to detect the driver's condition accurately? If it fails to detect, or if there are too many false negatives, this will end up being an expensive failure.

I must say though, I personally would like to see the system succeed and become a standard in future cars.

RE: I like the idea but..

By Orpheus333 on 1/3/2007 5:47:28 PM , Rating: 2

"To keep honest people honest"

I think it could be a useful fail safe for when you think you are sober and yet, still shouldn't be driving. I don't think any one really thinks drunk driving is okay and wants to do it... it just happens sometimes, even to good intentioned people.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By Christopher1 on 1/3/2007 5:59:42 PM , Rating: 2

Exactly right. Most drunk drivers don't even REALIZE that they are drunk. They know that they have had a few drinks, but don't think that they are impaired at all, until they get into an accident and kill someone.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By hubajube on 1/3/2007 7:10:49 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Exactly right. Most drunk drivers don't even REALIZE that they are drunk.

Can't say I've ever though that! I KNOW when I'm drunk.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By ajdavis on 1/3/2007 8:55:37 PM , Rating: 1

Congratulations.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 2:21:36 AM , Rating: 3

That's the mentality that will kill someone. If you had more then a couple, you may not be 'drunk', but you may very well be impaired or legally intoxicated.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By iNGEN on 1/4/2007 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 2

If you have a commercial license in Ohio, having just one drink means you are legally drunk for about 2 hours. I wonder if there is a sensitivity adjustment in this system.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By hubajube on 1/4/2007 3:55:24 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
That's the mentality that will kill someone

Not all of us are unaware of how our bodies react to drinks (or other things for that matter). I KNOW quite well when I'm impaired. And I don't need to be falling over drunk to realize it.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By Axbattler on 1/3/2007 9:10:50 PM , Rating: 2

To be honest, I wouldn't drive if I had even a single drink till the next day (or about 8 hours). Call be overly cautious, but I consider that the right thing to do.

Perhaps I am overlooking the possibility of being impaired 8 hours down the line after heavier drinking, but it wouldn't really come across my mind to pay extra just in case here.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By doctor sam adams on 1/3/07, Rating: -1

RE: I like the idea but..

By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 2:28:02 AM , Rating: 3

Wow, thats pretty sad. Yes, inattention is very unsafe and probably the cause of most accidents, but there is no excuse for driving drunk.

I realize this is the internet and people are all arrogant asses on the internet but please stop and think about how selfish and stupid what your suggesting is.

And finally, if this is a sad play at sarcasm, well it's not funny. I mean c'mon, couldn't you come up with something better then goody two shoes?

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By TheLiberal on 1/4/2007 3:56:27 AM , Rating: 3

Wow, your ignorant statement makes me very glad that the penalties for a DUI are so very steep. Perhaps they should be worse.
I know I take driving seriously, I often walk home. For the New Year, I walked almost a mile in the cold rain rather than risk the lives of myself, my fiance, or even some poor, innocent stranger. Also, you wouldn't even have to walk if you're lazy (on top of being an ignorant, thoughtless jerk). You could take a cab.
Hopefully, when you wreck, you kill yourself, and no one else.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By rykerabel on 1/8/2007 5:45:46 PM , Rating: 2

Please don't downrate the post. I think everyone needs to be reminded that some people do think this way.

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By isaacmacdonald on 1/4/2007 2:00:04 PM , Rating: 2

I agree, it would be handy for those times in which it's not obvious that you're yet impaired. Still, I wonder how much stigma would be attached to it as an option--after all, isn't this the sort of device that is mandated after one or two DUI's?

Parent

RE: I like the idea but..

By iNGEN on 1/4/2007 2:33:57 PM , Rating: 2

Keep in mind the number of cars sold to parents of teenage children, parents of college students, or to otherwise responsible people who believe themselves to have a drinking problem.

I suspect this kind of option will never become standard equipment unless mandated by government. I suspect, however, there is a solid market for this product.

Parent

A Better Idea

By TwistyKat on 1/3/2007 4:42:05 PM , Rating: 2

Why don't they make a car that is safe FOR drunk drivers. A car that can drive itself home while the driver is passed out or completely impaired would be a win-win for everyone. :-)

RE: A Better Idea

By Axbattler on 1/3/2007 4:58:11 PM , Rating: 2

Eh, such cars would benefit from more than the drunk drivers ;)
That said, it would cost cab drivers job.

Parent

RE: A Better Idea

By Fenixgoon on 1/3/2007 5:47:25 PM , Rating: 2

hooray.. so now i can't drive my car, a computer does it for me? no thanks.

make the penalties for drunk driving harsher and hand out real justice. suspend, or even ban licenses permanently, if need be. this isn't a safety feature we need. what we need are fewer idiots who swear they can drive safely.

Parent

RE: A Better Idea

By Christopher1 on 1/3/07, Rating: -1

RE: A Better Idea

By Vertigo101 on 1/3/2007 6:05:04 PM , Rating: 2

I'd say that people who are driving while intoxicated pretty well fall into the category of idiots.

You disagree that driving drunk is notably stupid or foolish?

Main Entry: id·i·o·cy
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
1 usually offensive : extreme mental retardation
2 : something notably stupid or foolish

Parent

RE: A Better Idea

By Lakku on 1/4/2007 1:40:59 AM , Rating: 2

People who try to force their morality onto me are also idiots. I don't believe in drunk driving and think it should be cracked down upon, but people like you have made it a joke. Harsher penelties? What can be harsher then possibly going to jail and 10,000+ in fines? At least that's what people tend to get around here. It's also people like you who made the legal limit .08. .08 . Some people can get to that after one or two beers, or a shot, or one and a half mixed drinks. Have you ever known anyone who gets drunk after a beer or two? I sure haven't, but I would be about legally drunk if I drank a couple, seeing as I weigh 165lbs. So something notably stupid or foolish are the ridiculous limits in place today and the already harsh penelties for someone who may just be at .08 or .09. Now, if they are, say, at .15 or something, then yes, they should get into a lot of trouble. But don't pretend forcing people to wear seat belts or to keep lowering the legal limit will help anything, because I still see auto deaths as the #1 killer of younger people in the US even after all of this forced morality/forced safety has been put into place.

Parent

RE: A Better Idea

By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 2:51:10 AM , Rating: 2

There is not ONE logical thought in your post.

Even though arrogant, invincible people (read 20 somethings and most likely yourself) think they can drive perfectly fine after a couple of drinks, chances are they can't. Haven't you watched Dateline or any other in-depth news show more then once? Did you fall asleep in drivers ed?

.08 .08 !! OH THE HORROR. .08 appears HIGHER then most first world countries from a casual glance. The median seems to be .05. Australia is particularly nice. Licensed regular drivers get .05. Professionals, unlicensed drivers, probationary drivers and permits get mostly a 0% limit. No detectable alcohol. A large number of countries have a 0% limit all together. I say kudos to them!

And finally you talk about the numbers killed. You obviously didn't even take a cursory glance at the available data since not only have traffic fatalties fallen since 1980, the percent related to alcohol had fallen from 60% to 39%. Thats progress, yet still not nearly enough.

Just be glad this isn't a monarchy. If I were king your license would be revoked just for posting this.

Parent

RE: A Better Idea

By isaacmacdonald on 1/4/2007 3:12:38 PM , Rating: 2

You're right, no will disagree that drunk driving is idiotic. Nonetheless, as others have noted, plenty of responsible people have lapses of judgment. Draconian laws is one way to destroy the lives of such people (a list to which I think we can ad GWB)--and this is not much of an exaggeration, as the inability to get any license for the rest of one's life could easily remove 4/5ths of all opportunities for employment and advancement. Of course the other option is the introduction of rather more humane methods (like the technology this article mentions) of dealing with the problem.

I'd vote for the later method, and suspect the majority of americans would as well. This doesn't in any way contradict popular support for lowering of the legal limit, as that has nothing at all to do with instituting draconian punishments, and everything to do with reducing unsafe behavior in an effective and humane way.

Parent

RE: A Better Idea

By hubajube on 1/3/2007 6:51:12 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
They aren't all idiots. Would you call Ronald Reagan an idiot (was caught at 40 for a DUI)? Would you call Bill Clinton an idiot (was caught for a DUI at 35)?

If they can breathe, they can be idiots. And yes, driving drunk puts you in the idiot category.

Parent

welcome to fascism

By freeside on 1/4/2007 9:14:14 AM , Rating: 4

What the hell? Is everyone posting on here some kind of neo-prohibitionist? Do you really think having this technology in cars is going to eliminate drunk driving? *Banning alcohol* didn't accomplish the end of drunkenness, all it did was increase America's social problems (and made the Kennedys rich).

Look, I'm tired of MADD and their angst-ridden agenda. I have never driven drunk and there is absolutely NO REASON why I should be inconvenienced by my car or by being stopped at checkpoints or whatever the new idea is just because a few people drink and drive. The roads will not be safer because 99% of drivers are NOT DRUNK when they are driving, it is that simple.

I'm so sick to death of this America where everyone is under supsicion at all times and must prove that they are responsible. It is exactly 180 degrees opposed to how it should be here, which is, you should not have to prove you are doing nothing wrong. The few irresponsible bad apples/least common denominator should be derided, but their behavior should never be allowed to reduce everyone's freedom for any reason.

All this bullshit is just a new angle on making everyone a suspect at all times in order to control them and make them pay money for things they don't need or want. It must stop or we will end up with embedded tracking chips in our bodies and have to swipe a card every day in order to obtain permission to leave our homes (with a stated purpose, of course).

RE: welcome to fascism

By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 1

Driving is not a right. This is not fascism. You drive on miles of road that you yourself contributed very, very little towards making and we all have to share. You are NOT free to do as you see fit.

This has NOTHING to do with fascism, but it's oh so hip to say fascism these days, isn't it. If you think this has anything to do with the US, I suggest you look at other countries laws, they are more strict.

MADD is justified in their position, alcohol related fatalities have dropped dramatically since 1980, even as driving increased dramatically. The roads are also getting safer, but 39% of fatalities still come from drunk drivers. 16,000 people last year in the US alone. THAT IS UNBELIEVABLY STUPID and people like you feel justified in ignoring in, for what reason, I do not understand. I can only imagine that your a spoiled brat.

Parent

RE: welcome to fascism

By hubajube on 1/4/2007 4:44:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
HAT IS UNBELIEVABLY STUPID and people like you feel justified in ignoring in, for what reason, I do not understand. I can only imagine that your a spoiled brat.

Did you have a friend or loved one that died as a result of drunk driving? You seem a bit emotionally connected to this.

Parent

RE: welcome to fascism

By glennpratt on 1/5/2007 1:39:12 PM , Rating: 2

Nope. If I were arguing passionately about Iraq, would you ask if I had a friend die there?

Parent

RE: welcome to fascism

By glennpratt on 1/5/2007 1:45:13 PM , Rating: 2

I'm sorry, I had to reply again. Must be my emotional connection ;|

There is very little emotion in that post. Just confusion. If you don't think 16,000 deaths in one year because of something so trivial isn't 'UNBELIEVABLY STUPID' then I question your sanity.

Parent

Already cracked

By hubajube on 1/3/2007 7:00:16 PM , Rating: 2

All you need is a steering wheel cover, driving gloves, sunglasses, and a can of air. Hic! Where's the next bar!?

RE: Already cracked

By klingon on 1/4/2007 4:00:50 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
All you need is a steering wheel cover, driving gloves, sunglasses, and a can of air. Hic! Where's the next bar!?

Yeah...and we'll be seein a totalled car.

Parent

RE: Already cracked

By gsellis on 1/4/2007 8:24:53 AM , Rating: 2

Exactly. I already have a steering wheel cover (wheels are too thin) and that was my first thought. Try again Toyota.

Parent

RE: Already cracked

By oneils on 1/4/2007 3:48:00 PM , Rating: 2

Of course they thought of this.

You can't start the car, without it taking a reading. So if you are wearing gloves, or have a wheel cover - you cannot start the car.

Parent

RE: Already cracked

By hubajube on 1/4/2007 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
You can't start the car, without it taking a reading. So if you are wearing gloves, or have a wheel cover - you cannot start the car.

Then I'll be forced use the sweat from my wife/gf's hands to start the car. I wonder what the car would think if you wiped your dogs ass over the steering wheel? Hmmmm.

Parent

Dumb

By GetSome681 on 1/4/2007 9:29:33 AM , Rating: 2

Might as well cap the speed limit of the cars at 70 (or whatever the speed limit in your area is). Maybe speeding isn't as bad as drunk driving, but it kills a lot of lives as well. I bet a lot of you would change your tune if they were to cap you at 70mph. The whole point of this country is freedom, which includes the freedom to break the law and face the consequences. Even if you take away privileges in hopes of saving lives, sometimes it's going just a little too far...

RE: Dumb

By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 11:11:22 AM , Rating: 2

This isn't a law bud, it's a technology.

16,000+ lives is not some bullshit number to shrug off. THATS 39% of traffic fatalities in 2004. That is a huge amount of unjustifiable stupidity.

Every statistic that comes out shows a reduction in drunk driving and increased safety belt use has saved thousands of lives since 1980. Every year the number of deaths decline, but it's still unacceptable.

Parent

RE: Dumb

By GetSome681 on 1/4/2007 1:03:15 PM , Rating: 2

I must be confused, because the last time I checked both speeding and drunk driving were both against the law. Toyota wouldn't be providing this technology if the law didn't exist for it to cater to. I'm not disagreeing with you that drunk driving is a serious problem, but speeding kills lives as well, so why not just cap cars at 70mph? Oh, then you wouldn't be able to fly down the highway at the 85+mph many do...

Parent

RE: Dumb

By SmokeRngs on 1/4/2007 2:19:07 PM , Rating: 2

I need to see your source for your statistics. This must include the criteria for how they came about the statistics and the breakdown of every result used in the statistics.

I'd bet money that your statistic includes any accident that had alcohol within 100 feet of the car. This would include numbers where the driver had had one drink two hours previous and the BAC caught just a trace. Sure, it's not enough to actually affect anything, but it looks good in the statistics since it drives the numbers up. I'd also bet the statistics don't take into account other factors that caused the accident. For example, the driver of the vehicle that didn't cause the accident and had no fault at all did happen to have some alcohol in the system. The accident was actually caused by someone with no alcohol. However, since the other person involved but not at fault for the accident had alcohol in the system, it's written up as alcohol related.

Basically, you can take your statistics and flush them down the toilet. They mean absolutely nothing without the proper backup and reference. I can use the same statistics you have and turn them completely around to mean the opposite.

As far as this device is concerned, I have no plans to ever see one in my car. I have a 2003 model car and it doesn't even have ABS brakes. I don't want them and I don't need them. If I could do it cheaply and easily, I would remove the power steering and power brakes. I don't need them either. I drive just fine without them. My '68 Mustang has an automatic transmission and that's about all. When it's restored, I plan on ripping that out and putting in a manual. I need control of my car, it does not need control of me. I know how to drive well in different conditions and circumstances.

This device is nothing more than an attempt to take more responsibility away from people. It will also fail to do what it's supposed to do. It's not hard to wear gloves or something and in the winter, I will wear gloves if it's cold. I see no need to freeze my hands.

If local governments want to have this installed on a convicted criminal's vehicle, then fine. Put it in my car when I have not been convicted of anything, not a chance.

Also, what does happen if the system malfunctions? What happens if someone has never had a drink in their life but this thing screws up and won't let them drive their car? I would see this as a bit more than an inconvenience.

You can take your "babysitting technology" and put it on your own vehicles. It's not going into mine.

Parent

RE: Dumb

By hubajube on 1/4/2007 5:08:49 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Might as well cap the speed limit of the cars at 70 (or whatever the speed limit in your area is).

I honestly don't understand why this hasn't been done. Cap all cars at the highest speed limit in the country and let it be that. Since driving is a privilege and NOT a right, this could be done legally and would cut out high speed driving totally. A more expensive route would be to install a wireless speed governors on all roads to electronically limit cars top speeds to that speed limit on that road. No more speeders!

Parent

good idea... if it works

By robharvil on 1/3/2007 5:46:43 PM , Rating: 2

Good idea, but if it malfunctions your car isn't going anywhere. Just another thing to break. Also can you imagine the liability issues if someone does manage to drive drunk and hurts/kills somebody? They could be sued for millions.

RE: good idea... if it works

By Davelo on 1/3/2007 5:51:29 PM , Rating: 3

Don't use listerene mouthwash or take cough syrup. One bad exhale and the damn thing shuts off and you coast to a stop on the bay bridge.

Parent

RE: good idea... if it works

By oneils on 1/4/2007 3:52:25 PM , Rating: 2

From what I read, these sensors do not trip on the alcohol found in mouthwash. It's designed to actually differentiate between the two (i.e., liquor and mouthwash).

Parent

RE: good idea... if it works

By lewisc on 1/4/2007 5:04:37 PM , Rating: 2

Besides the fact that it senses the alcohol in your sweat, not breath.

Parent

Inovation NOT

By aceadoni on 1/3/2007 7:55:26 PM , Rating: 1

So basically a car that will refuse to work if it detects you are intoxicated. How exactly is this suppose to protect people. I guess toyota is assuming that they will have full market dominance in the US and as such every car will eventually have this feature. Makes some sense when you look at it that way. If PEOPLE don't obey the law a car that does it for them is not solving the problem. The last thing I want is a computer that is a P.O.S to begin with telling me I can't drive. What is next the car won't start because I decided not to change the tires and mile 1 over the tire change requirement as set by toyota. If toyota built cars that people can survive more accidents with that would be great. Or ABS that didn't cause accidents would even be better. Better yet spend the money and develop a biodiesel car engine. The savings to the enviroment alone will reap more rewards than this device that will if anything increase insurance premiums for everyone cause your car doesn't have it and be another useless feature.

RE: Inovation NOT

By InTheNameOfMyself on 1/3/2007 10:49:09 PM , Rating: 2

What the fuck are you saying?

Parent

RE: Inovation NOT

By glennpratt on 1/4/2007 11:19:57 AM , Rating: 2

ABS causes accidents? 99.99% of people have NO IDEA how to properly break in slippery situations. ABS has certainly saved more live then it cost. Remember traffic fatalities have declined annually for most of the last 26 years, even as many more people drive.

No one needs to develop a bio-deisal engine, it's just a diesel engine. In Texas I can go buy BioWillie (Willie Nelson) and run it in any diesel, but there isn't enough out there for everyone to do it. The infrastructure isn't there.

And if you don't think Toyota and everyone else aren't building safer cars, your crazy.

Parent

RE: Inovation NOT

By hubajube on 1/4/2007 3:53:14 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
break in slippery situations

Do you have a PDF or Word doc on how to do this?

Parent

RE: Inovation NOT

By rcc on 1/4/2007 6:56:54 PM , Rating: 2

Interestingly enough, ABS can cause accidents. The problem is one of training though, not of the technology. A car braking under ABS makes a lot of interesting noises and grinding sounds, many people who have never experienced it immediately release the pedal. No, I'm sorry, I don't have a reference; it was in an article that I read many years ago.

Parent

-It's a good idea

By giantpandaman2 on 1/3/2007 10:27:15 PM , Rating: 2

Any company that has its own car fleet will be able to lower both the car insurance and health insurance costs.

It would be perfect for rental cars.

And-if it's foolproof-it will be very nice to require this of repeat offenders. Most everyone here has talked about "casual" offenders-but there's a small number of alcoholics who drive drunk and have been caught numerous times over the course of decades. This system won't solve the problem of drunk driving by itself-but I think it's going to be a very nice tool to lower drunk driving fatalities.

Anyone else wonder about the ability of cars to do wi-fi, have gps, and detect high alcohol? Car "telling on you" anyone? (Poor teenagers!) For long term offenders, though, or company cars...might just be a good idea.

RE: -It's a good idea

By Xenoid on 1/3/2007 11:40:10 PM , Rating: 2

With my luck it'd probably break. I have ABS and that's all that I like on my car. It has a system to tell you if fluids are low or bulbs are burnt out but it malfunctions anyways. Before you ask, BMW too. Can't even begin to think what would break on a cheap Toyota or GM (ie cars under $30,000).

Parent

RE: -It's a good idea

By giantpandaman2 on 1/4/2007 1:13:56 PM , Rating: 2

You do realize that Toyota has a far better repair/defect rate than BMW right? The only European carmaker who comes close to it in JD Powers studies is Porsche.

PS-You might want to try to sound less snobby in the future.

Parent

RE: -It's a good idea

By Lonearchon on 1/4/2007 3:36:11 PM , Rating: 2

Many cars that cost under 30,000 are more reliable than BMWs. Many Luxury cars use the same base, motor, frame, etc as lower priced cars one from one their companys makes(ie Toyota/Lexus Ford/Jaguar Chrysler/Mercedes, etc) . For the most part you are paying for the name and the little extras that put the car over the top. the mechanics of the $50,000 car could be the same as the $20,000.

Parent

By bl4ck54bb4th on 1/3/2007 4:38:51 PM , Rating: 2

I don't like it. It seems like the sort of thing that won't stay optional.

RE: Hm

By itlnstln on 1/3/2007 4:47:32 PM , Rating: 1

Drive drunk much? ;)

Parent

RE: Hm

By GhandiInstinct on 1/3/2007 5:34:17 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
The detection system will be released as an optional extra

Just like seatbelts used to be optional, honestly corporations care less about our safety, this should be STANDARD.

And btw, I hope its not a "you cant turn the key without breathing in" type device otherwise someone else sober can just do it for you and you're on your way.

Parent

RE: Hm

By Tupolev22m on 1/3/2007 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2

Me neither, what if there is an emergency and the only person available to drive someone to the hospital or something is over the legal limit?

Machines don't have discretion, thats why we have humans administer the laws...

Parent

By AznAnarchy99 on 1/3/2007 4:32:14 PM , Rating: 4

lol this reminds me of that scene from the 40 year old virgin

RE: .

By Brandon Hill

(blog) on 1/3/2007 4:46:54 PM , Rating: 2

"I'm starvin... let's get some ****'n French toast!" ;-)

Parent

Good idea, but...

By Bruce 1337 on 1/3/2007 5:53:07 PM , Rating: 2

Why not just have the car call the police on you too? ;P The only people I could see paying for this equipment would be overbearing parents and multiple DUI offenders with a court order. I would prefer an integrated breathalyzer so I could make my own decision if I should be driving, rather than having the car do what it wants. Of course, that would be useless given the common sense of the average consumer (and probably cause lawsuits the first time someone blew a .06 but got into an accident anyway...)

RE: Good idea, but...

By hubajube on 1/3/2007 6:49:26 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Why not just have the car call the police on you too?

I agree! Cut out the middle man! Or better yet, just have the car drive you to the nearest police station.

Parent

Hey people

By jo73 on 1/4/2007 12:51:15 PM , Rating: 2

How about this. It takes a person about an hour to get rid of 1 drink (kidney to filter alcohol from blood). (12oz beer) If you drink way more than this, you aren't going to get a good night's sleep anyway, just use a pillow and rest in your car. Speaking of sleep, driving while tired is as bad as driving drunk. Driving while talking on a cell phone is (possibly) worse than driving drunk. (It causes "situational blindness" and slow reflexes).

The other thing, Toyota is just doing this, not for your benefit-Americans just think about how this can help them-so selfish-but as a real world technology test for them. If this stuff works well after a few generations and they start bringing the cost down, then they offer it to politicians and police as a solution to drunk driving, who benefits? Society and Toyota. Who is inconvenienced? Drunks.

For those who say it won't work with marginal drunks, if you're really drunk, the car shuts down, if you are somewhat drunk, it gives you a little reflex test on the video touch screen on the dash.

RE: Hey people

By Lonearchon on 1/4/2007 3:26:43 PM , Rating: 2

The liver is the one that filters the alcohol from your blood. Driving while on the cell has been proven a bigger hazard due to people not realizing how much the are being distracted. That is why law makers are pushing to band the use of cellphones without hands free devices

Parent

Meh.

By Ralph The Magician on 1/3/2007 4:52:37 PM , Rating: 3

Just make it law that if you are caught driving under the influence, you lose your liscense for 4 years. Not the crap we hav no where people get caught, end up fighting it somehow, and end up back on the road again a week later after taking some class, do it again, and get back on the road 2 weeks later.

Parents will love this

By shabby on 1/3/2007 5:55:15 PM , Rating: 2

Every parent will buy a toyota for their kids if they know they cant drive drunk. I mean... wouldnt you?

RE: Parents will love this

By Christopher1 on 1/3/07, Rating: -1

RE: Parents will love this

By wien on 1/3/2007 8:05:42 PM , Rating: 2

You you take my beer away, I am going to get cranky!

Parent

A solution?

By christianspoer on 1/3/2007 5:09:45 PM , Rating: 2

{
If car wailing from side to side == true
Brake and shut down engine
}

Bad code, I know it, but it captures the essence ;)

Toyota officially sucks dog balls.

By middlehead on 1/3/2007 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 2

Hello GM!

Still soused the next day

By Guigsy on 1/4/2007 8:04:24 AM , Rating: 2

Here in the UK we drink. Lots. The problem isn't drink-driving after a night out, very few people are stupid enough to try it. The biggest problem is that after a heavy binge and a night's sleep, people assume they are OK to drive when they can still have more than enough in their system to take them over the limit.

DUI

By ThisSpaceForRent on 1/4/2007 8:07:07 AM , Rating: 2

One thing people forget is that you do not have to blow over a .08 to get a DUI for alcohol. If an officer feels that your driving is impaired they can arrest you regardless of what you blow. This is at least the way it works in Illinois, and driving over the legal limit and DUI are two seperate tickets when you are arrested.

The idea behind this system is probably to catch those persons who are fubar. That still leaves that grey area where you aren't completed bombed, but you are impaired.

I think this system, as an option on a car, is pointless. The people who hardly ever drink will think it's a great idea and buy it. The people who go out and drink alot will not buy it, because they know what they are doing.

The best way to reduce drunk driving is through education imo. Harsher penalties aren't effective, DUI is one of those crimes that everyone thinks will never happen to them.

A new standard?

By ryedizzel on 1/3/2007 4:49:10 PM , Rating: 1

I can see a law passing that makes this standard on all cars in the future.

Personally I think it's a great idea. I have a lot of college friends that like to drink at clubs/bars and then swear they are good enough to drive home. Maybe this will finally prevent them from doing so.

People just need to learn...

By encryptkeeper on 1/3/07, Rating: -1

RE: People just need to learn...

By animedude on 1/3/2007 6:43:41 PM , Rating: 2

Hope you don't kill anyone or yourself by taking chances. Why the hell you think drink driving is cool and people should do it? You are stupid, period.

Parent