backtop

Print 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


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


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...


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.


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!


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings









botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki