6 ms·

NTSB wants alcohol detection systems installed in all new cars in US

tester756 4y ago
I do wonder how it'll work with passengers drinking on the backseat meanwhile driver is 100% sober
- galleywest200 4y ago
  Having open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles is generally illegal, so those people in the backseat would likely be in violation of some law.
  - nulbyte 4y ago
    It depends on the state. There are several in which having an open container is not illegal. Passengers can drink in some. And it seems the driver can even drink in Mississippi.
    - devilbunny 4y ago
      There's no state law against drinking while driving in Mississippi, but many many municipalities have open container laws, and there are still some dry counties.
dangus 4y ago
I know that a lot of people will find this to be a little dystopian. To me, as long as it’s done in a way that’s reliably accurate with no false positives, unobtrusive to use, and doesn’t phone the police or write a guilty-until-proven-innocent-ticket, I think it’s a great idea. Alcohol-impaired crashes are responsible for 30% of all traffic fatalities. [1] That’s huge. Way too many people casually drive drunk or buzzed. [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-impaired-driving https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-...
- l72 4y ago
  I remember after market versions of this in the 90s. To start the car, you had to blow. No communication and nothing more complicated than it. It seems crazy to me that we still haven't required this. We also should have lowered the legal blood alcohol limit ages ago! I also think we should require governors to limit acceleration and top speed. Since cars have had GPS for 15+ years, this could be dynamic, so no doing 55mph down at 20mph residential street! I suppose, by the time we actually implement this, it'll be moot, as we are getting closer and closer to automated cars.
- The_SamminAter 4y ago
  I support the idea, I only worry that there’s no way the manufacturers won’t record and transmit this information, to both themselves and ad/tracking companies.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > with no false positives Not possible.
  - dangus 4y ago
    Are you sure it's not possible? A whole lot of things we didn't think were possible are now known to be possible. Alas, maybe I should rephrase to "an acceptable level of accuracy and precision."
- windows2020 4y ago
  In a rural area, you had a few beers, you're at 0.07, and your wife has a stroke. The speed limit through nowhere is 50 and on the way you plateau at 0.09. If only the speed governor or alcohol monitor understood... Or, maybe a tornado or disaster occurs and you need to evacuate. Or, maybe you're moving your own car within your own driveway. No thanks! Rather than automated enforcement, we should teach why things are important.
  - dangus 4y ago
    1. The disabling threshold could be set well above "buzzed" or "the legal limit" if that makes you feel better. Or, instead of being disabled, the car could be speed governed, hazard lights forced on, or something of that nature. Heck, if you want to teach us why things are important, implement the system without any disabling functionality and notify the driver that they're over the limit (a lot of buzzed drivers don't even know they've done something wrong in the first place). 2. Implementing a system to disable restrictions during major emergency events would be trivially complicated and inexpensive. We already have a national emergency alert system that pushes out to every cellular connection. Newly built cars very often have integrated cellular capabilities and always have some kind of software-based infotainment system. 3. It's not legal to drive drunk even on private property in a number of states, and being on private property doesn't make it any better of an idea even when it is technically legal. 4. Medical emergencies like the one you describe are more of a straw man argument than a concern with a lot of relevance to this topic. I could construct a similar argument: what if you live alone and have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving? The problem here is that rural areas have less access to fast emergency medical care in the first place, and that's just part of living in a rural area. 5. Rural areas have worse crash fatality statistics in the first place, so this system theoretically helps rural areas even more than urban ones. [1] 6. Let's say even after all this you still don't want it to be mandatory: the system could be offered as an insurance discount incentive and a lot of people would go for it. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...
skunkworker 4y ago
I'm curious how this would be implemented to only detect alcohol impairment, wouldn't it be technically easier to check for impairment of any kind, including drowsiness? And I am really interested how they would sort through false positives of a passenger being drunk but the designated driver is not, someone having open alcohol in the car, using alcohols to sanitize etc.
- suprjami 4y ago
  If you buy a top-model Subaru it comes with driver-facing cameras that detect drowsiness and advise you to pull over. The tech is already here and in cars.
bassrattle 4y ago
It's not just "a little dytopian but..." it's dytopian PERIOD. And what's next, and what's after that, is WAY worse. Stop it now.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Next thing you know they'll ask for a license and a seat belt, this is _literally_ 1984
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    False equivalence. A license and seat belt do not perform survaillence and report to a 3rd party. Additionally, sarcastic comments are rarely informative, since their primary purpose is to be demeaning. Please provide actual, clear argument next time.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      Your phone and your government already do though and last time I checked nobody cared. It's just posturing, we're already way to deep to escape these things
      - s0sa 4y ago
        Huh? What is your point? Are you saying we should do nothing at all to fight for our privacy whenever and wherever we can because “smartphones”? Seems like a silly argument to me.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        False equivalence. You are not obligated to carry a phone (or a government (?)) in your car at all times.
        BerislavLopac 4y ago
        You are not obligated to drive a car at any time.
dabbledash 4y ago
Basically, I don't want anything I own to supervise me on behalf of 3rd parties, no matter how benevolent.
- BerislavLopac 4y ago
  You literally can't avoid it. When it comes to cars, they're already collecting data and sending it to the vendors; it's still a field in development, but it's improving fastly - both in terms of sending and of using the data.
sportslife 4y ago
In the linked press-release, they call equally for "intelligent speed adaptation systems", which I think would annoy a much wider proportion of the country than alcohol detection. I remember decades ago being amazed that Japan's commercial trucks had lights on the outside of the cabs that showed how fast they were going to aid speeding enforcement. A signal of wrong-doing, rather than a lock on wrong doing. Maybe that's the trick to adoption.
stevenalowe 4y ago
Right-to-repair will “fix” this sort of overstepping
dublin 4y ago
We already live in a tyrannical "Utopia" - this particular stomping of rights is actually a scene in this short film, which was a joke when it was filmed just a few years ago - BTW, it's worth spending a few minutes to watch the whole thing... https://youtu.be/vJYaXy5mmA8 https://youtu.be/vJYaXy5mmA8 (The car scene is less than a minute and a half in...)

I do wonder how it'll work with passengers drinking on the backseat meanwhile driver is 100% sober

galleywest200 4y ago
Having open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles is generally illegal, so those people in the backseat would likely be in violation of some law.
- nulbyte 4y ago
  It depends on the state. There are several in which having an open container is not illegal. Passengers can drink in some. And it seems the driver can even drink in Mississippi.
  - devilbunny 4y ago
    There's no state law against drinking while driving in Mississippi, but many many municipalities have open container laws, and there are still some dry counties.

I know that a lot of people will find this to be a little dystopian. To me, as long as it’s done in a way that’s reliably accurate with no false positives, unobtrusive to use, and doesn’t phone the police or write a guilty-until-proven-innocent-ticket, I think it’s a great idea. Alcohol-impaired crashes are responsible for 30% of all traffic fatalities. [1] That’s huge. Way too many people casually drive drunk or buzzed. [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-impaired-driving https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-...

l72 4y ago
I remember after market versions of this in the 90s. To start the car, you had to blow. No communication and nothing more complicated than it. It seems crazy to me that we still haven't required this. We also should have lowered the legal blood alcohol limit ages ago! I also think we should require governors to limit acceleration and top speed. Since cars have had GPS for 15+ years, this could be dynamic, so no doing 55mph down at 20mph residential street! I suppose, by the time we actually implement this, it'll be moot, as we are getting closer and closer to automated cars.
The_SamminAter 4y ago
I support the idea, I only worry that there’s no way the manufacturers won’t record and transmit this information, to both themselves and ad/tracking companies.
JohnFen 4y ago
> with no false positives Not possible.
- dangus 4y ago
  Are you sure it's not possible? A whole lot of things we didn't think were possible are now known to be possible. Alas, maybe I should rephrase to "an acceptable level of accuracy and precision."
windows2020 4y ago
In a rural area, you had a few beers, you're at 0.07, and your wife has a stroke. The speed limit through nowhere is 50 and on the way you plateau at 0.09. If only the speed governor or alcohol monitor understood... Or, maybe a tornado or disaster occurs and you need to evacuate. Or, maybe you're moving your own car within your own driveway. No thanks! Rather than automated enforcement, we should teach why things are important.
- dangus 4y ago
  1. The disabling threshold could be set well above "buzzed" or "the legal limit" if that makes you feel better. Or, instead of being disabled, the car could be speed governed, hazard lights forced on, or something of that nature. Heck, if you want to teach us why things are important, implement the system without any disabling functionality and notify the driver that they're over the limit (a lot of buzzed drivers don't even know they've done something wrong in the first place). 2. Implementing a system to disable restrictions during major emergency events would be trivially complicated and inexpensive. We already have a national emergency alert system that pushes out to every cellular connection. Newly built cars very often have integrated cellular capabilities and always have some kind of software-based infotainment system. 3. It's not legal to drive drunk even on private property in a number of states, and being on private property doesn't make it any better of an idea even when it is technically legal. 4. Medical emergencies like the one you describe are more of a straw man argument than a concern with a lot of relevance to this topic. I could construct a similar argument: what if you live alone and have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving? The problem here is that rural areas have less access to fast emergency medical care in the first place, and that's just part of living in a rural area. 5. Rural areas have worse crash fatality statistics in the first place, so this system theoretically helps rural areas even more than urban ones. [1] 6. Let's say even after all this you still don't want it to be mandatory: the system could be offered as an insurance discount incentive and a lot of people would go for it. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...

skunkworker 4y ago

I'm curious how this would be implemented to only detect alcohol impairment, wouldn't it be technically easier to check for impairment of any kind, including drowsiness? And I am really interested how they would sort through false positives of a passenger being drunk but the designated driver is not, someone having open alcohol in the car, using alcohols to sanitize etc.

suprjami 4y ago
If you buy a top-model Subaru it comes with driver-facing cameras that detect drowsiness and advise you to pull over. The tech is already here and in cars.

bassrattle 4y ago

It's not just "a little dytopian but..." it's dytopian PERIOD. And what's next, and what's after that, is WAY worse. Stop it now.

lm28469 4y ago
Next thing you know they'll ask for a license and a seat belt, this is _literally_ 1984
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  False equivalence. A license and seat belt do not perform survaillence and report to a 3rd party. Additionally, sarcastic comments are rarely informative, since their primary purpose is to be demeaning. Please provide actual, clear argument next time.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Your phone and your government already do though and last time I checked nobody cared. It's just posturing, we're already way to deep to escape these things
    - s0sa 4y ago
      Huh? What is your point? Are you saying we should do nothing at all to fight for our privacy whenever and wherever we can because “smartphones”? Seems like a silly argument to me.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      False equivalence. You are not obligated to carry a phone (or a government (?)) in your car at all times.
      - BerislavLopac 4y ago
        You are not obligated to drive a car at any time.

dabbledash 4y ago

Basically, I don't want anything I own to supervise me on behalf of 3rd parties, no matter how benevolent.

BerislavLopac 4y ago
You literally can't avoid it. When it comes to cars, they're already collecting data and sending it to the vendors; it's still a field in development, but it's improving fastly - both in terms of sending and of using the data.

sportslife 4y ago

In the linked press-release, they call equally for "intelligent speed adaptation systems", which I think would annoy a much wider proportion of the country than alcohol detection. I remember decades ago being amazed that Japan's commercial trucks had lights on the outside of the cabs that showed how fast they were going to aid speeding enforcement. A signal of wrong-doing, rather than a lock on wrong doing. Maybe that's the trick to adoption.

stevenalowe 4y ago

Right-to-repair will “fix” this sort of overstepping

dublin 4y ago

We already live in a tyrannical "Utopia" - this particular stomping of rights is actually a scene in this short film, which was a joke when it was filmed just a few years ago - BTW, it's worth spending a few minutes to watch the whole thing... https://youtu.be/vJYaXy5mmA8 https://youtu.be/vJYaXy5mmA8 (The car scene is less than a minute and a half in...)