New technology could put an end to drunken driving, officials say

[Jesus Malverde]

A technological breakthrough that could virtually eliminate the drunken driving that kills 10,000 Americans each year was announced Thursday by federal officials, who said it could begin appearing in cars in five years.

The new equipment won’t require a driver to blow into a tube, like the interlock devices some states require after drunken-driving convictions. Instead, either a passive set of breath sensors or touch-sensitive contact points on a starter button or gear shift would immediately register the level of alcohol in the bloodstream.

Drivers who registered above the legal limit wouldn’t be able to start the car.

“The message today is not ‘Can we do this?’ but ‘How soon can we do this?’?” said Mark Rosekind, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). “It is a huge step forward.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/new-technology-could-put-an-end-to-drunk-driving-federal-officials-say/2015/06/04/1cd31176-0a5b-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Some might say this is an overreach....

I say its fucking awesome and it should be retrofitted on all cars tomorrow.

[GGJohn]

4. No thanks.

It would fuck up my classic 57 Chevy Nomad, no way I would ever allow this into my car.

[Hoyt]

12. You don't like similar devices for guns either. What's the deal, don't you like saving lives?

[GGJohn]

14. When a similair device is proven reliable for a weapon, then I would favor giving people the OPTION

of purchasing a firearm with that device, my objection to such a device on my 57 Chevy has nothing to do with saving lives, it has every thing to do with altering the originality of my car, which is all original, and in car shows, originality counts a long ways toward points.

[NutmegYankee]

15. Where do you draw the line Hoyt?

Should we have urine/stool analyzers in the home that detect too much sodium or saturated fat and lock down certain drawers of the fridge to stop the number 1 killer in the USA - Heart Disease?

It's one thing to have such an invasion of privacy by court order as a punishment for DUI, it's another creepy 1984ish scenario to require them in all cars. It's just absolutely immoral and plain fucking wrong! Not to mention that this wouldn't even work in the Northeast. You don't actually touch anything with skin when it's -10F.

[Hoyt]

16. Yeah, we wouldn't want any safety devices on gunz.

[NutmegYankee]

18. They already have them.

Mechanical ones. Some have two or more.

[GGJohn]

19. Christ Hoyt,

this thread isn't about firearms, it's about putting anti drunk driving devices on vehicles.

[Hoyt]

21. You have the same stance whether it's guns or your car, No.

[GGJohn]

24. Apparently you can't read.

Here. let me help you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026781550#post14

GGJohn (4,323 posts)

14. When a similair device is proven reliable for a weapon, then I would favor giving people the OPTION
of purchasing a firearm with that device, my objection to such a device on my 57 Chevy has nothing to do with saving lives, it has every thing to do with altering the originality of my car, which is all original, and in car shows, originality counts a long ways toward points.

Again, my objections to such a device on my Factory Stock Concours 1957 Chevrolet Nomad has nothing to do with safety, it has everything to do with altering the originality of the car.

[Art_from_Ark]

8. And when it falsely detects alcohol (as it invariably will),

then what do you do?

[Joe the Revelator]

10. IMO, ending drunk driving is worth a the inconvenience of a false positive nt

[NutmegYankee]

17. That false positive may cost you your life in some cases.

Getting stuck in a remote cold place does kill. There is a lot of rural country in the USA.

Never mind the creepy 1984 aspect to this.

[Hoyt]

22. Driving down the road drunk is more likely to get you or some innocent person killed.

Besides if you are toting your gun, you are doubly dangerous.

[NutmegYankee]

23. I have never once toted a gun. What the heck is your problem?

Some people actually believe in the 4th amendment and privacy. As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I'm one of them.

Never mind that liberalism generally trusts people to obey laws and be of good nature and therefore doesn't support surveillance states.

[GGJohn]

20. Sorry, but I won't allow it on my classic car. eom.

[Logical]

2. No thanks. How many false positives would cause you not to get to drive home? nt

[GGJohn]

5. +1000. eom.

[sorefeet]

3. I don't know how bad they want it

the DUI industry is a huge multi- million dollar economic dependency. Many jobs rely on drunk drivers.

[Duckhunter935]

6. guess some might

want to get in the glove business

[Travis_0004]

7. How do passive breath sensors work if my passenger is drunk?

I'm guessing it wont be like a microphone, 1 inch away from my mouth. I could see having a drunk passenger, and not working.

Or if it used touch sensitive contact points, I guess I'm not allowed to wear gloves in the winter?

[niyad]

9. and who is going to make the money off this technology? the same ones who rake it in with the inter

lock systems that fail so often?

[edhopper]

11. seems like

it could be easily fooled.

[IDemo]

13. Now adapt that to phones and PC's n/t