Finding effective ways to stop people driving their car while drunk could save many lives each year. The dangers of drink driving have been the subject of campaigns and legal crackdowns for years. While these measures have proven to decrease the number of alcohol related deaths on the roads, there is still much room for improvement. To tackle this, a research team lead by Bud Zaouk has been researching ways in which to prevent drivers who have had too much to drink from even being able to drive their cars at all. One potential solution would use an infrared sensor in the car's ignition to scan the driver's finger for signs of alcohol which gives off its own unique optical signature. Another idea would incorporate a breathalyser device in to the steering wheel so that it could detect the driver's alcohol levels when they sit down. In both cases, if the device detects that the driver is over the limit the car would be automatically immobilized. linky I found this to be interesting, but putting them in EVERY vehicle? I dunno....
It is certainly a good idea implementing such measures but there will be obstacles. Over time I hope they' ll be able to suprass them though because as extreme as it may sound it could save many many lives.
Don't like this at all. More police state BS. I don't drink and drive. I shouldn't have to have this crap in my truck. Save this for people who have been convicted of DUIs.
Don't like this at all. More police state BS. I don't drink and drive. I shouldn't have to have this crap in my truck. Save this for people who have been convicted of DUIs.
Pirate700
The whole point of this is to preventDUIs. Plus, if you know you're never going to drink and drive, why would you mindit would be implemented in your vehicle?
Don't like this at all. More police state BS. I don't drink and drive. I shouldn't have to have this crap in my truck. Save this for people who have been convicted of DUIs.
Pirate700
I know it comes off like a police state thing, but it's a good idea. Drunk driving is causing far too many unnecessary deaths, especially of young people.
[QUOTE="gamerguru100"][QUOTE="Lonelynight"]should also take away their cars and sell them for profit. Lonelynight
Drunk drivers can permanently lose their license with enough offenses. should lose their license at the first offense. Eh, too harsh. I think you lose driving privileges for a year after the second offense.
Don't like this at all. More police state BS. I don't drink and drive. I shouldn't have to have this crap in my truck. Save this for people who have been convicted of DUIs.
Shottayouth13-
The whole point of this is to preventDUIs. Plus, if you know you're never going to drink and drive, why would you mindit would be implemented in your vehicle?
This is America. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
I do not want the government having that degree of control over who is and isn't allowed to drive. That kind of power could easily be abused.Laihendi
The ability to drive isn't a right, it's a privilege. As for this solution, I think it's pretty stupid as it can be easily gamed. You know what would be better for drunk drivers, autonomous cars. Not only can they drink before they drive, but they can drink while they 'drive' too.
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] The ability to drive isn't a right, it's a privilege. As for this solution, I think it's pretty stupid as it can be easily gamed. You know what would be better for drunk drivers, autonomous cars. Not only can they drink before they drive, but they can drink while they 'drive' too. I don't trust an autonomous car to drive as well as I do. I also don't trust a car to only render itself inoperable when I'm actually drunk. I wouldn't even think of supporting such technology until I'm absolutely 100% sure that it does work exactly as intended. Secondly, I don't trust that it'll actually cut down on drunk drivers. If it's detecting the alcohol which is evaporating out of peoples' hands, then can this be bypassed by wearing gloves? That's a question for me. Is there an easy way to get around this system? If so, then it isn't ready anyway. If the point is to stop people from driving drunk, then it clearly wouldn't stop people from driving drunk, so keep that $*** out of the car.
Don't like this at all. More police state BS. I don't drink and drive. I shouldn't have to have this crap in my truck. Save this for people who have been convicted of DUIs.
Pirate700
The whole point of this is to preventDUIs. Plus, if you know you're never going to drink and drive, why would you mindit would be implemented in your vehicle?
This is America. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Huh what? The thing is just there to prevent drunk people from driving. Not to be judge, jury and executioner. It's a preventative measure, nothing more to it.
They have the "no blow, no go" lockout systems already. There is no way to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things. Might as well work on a three strikes rule. Or, in the case of death as a result of intoxicated driving, one strike.
Problem with automobile breathalyzer.....so I've been told.....never researched...is that they have to be taken after so much time over and over or the car shuts down. Which means they pose a danger on a highway if someone doesn't pay attention or get to it in time. If they only work at start up....well then that won't stop someone from drinking and driving and would be expensive but pointless.
It's a preventative measure, nothing more to it.Shottayouth13-
Make kevlar vests into regular clothing to "prevent" shooting deaths. Dull all knives to "prevent" accidental finger amputation. Pad all cars with rubber to "prevent" pedestrian death. A nanny state will only continue to suffocate the lives out if it's citizenry as long as they want protection from themselves.
[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]It's a preventative measure, nothing more to it.Zeviander
Make kevlar vests into regular clothing to "prevent" shooting deaths. Dull all knives to "prevent" accidental finger amputation. Pad all cars with rubber to "prevent" pedestrian death. A nanny state will only continue to suffocate the lives out if it's citizenry as long as they want protection from themselves. Yes, maybe they should :| But seriously, how would blowing into something suffocate anyone? It won't take 10 seconds to do. Why the fuss?
[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]Yes, maybe they should :| But seriously, how would blowing into something suffocate anyone? It won't take 10 seconds to do. Why the fuss? You didn't understand what I said.
[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"] Yes, maybe they should :| But seriously, how would blowing into something suffocate anyone? It won't take 10 seconds to do. Why the fuss? I can't speak for him, but I explained my concerns. I'm concerned that malfunctions or design flaws could cause this to inconvenience drivers who aren't drunk, I'm concerned that it wouldn't even stop the people who are drunk, and I'm concerned about the cost. I don't drink and drive, so why should I be forced to pay more for a car that keeps me from drinking and driving? Particularly if it doesn't even keep people from drinking and driving, and if it could potentially result in sober people being unable to operate their vehicles. Once I'm convinced that this works perfectly, once I'm convinced that implementing such technology is so cheap that it won't drive up the vehicle's price, then maybe I'd be on board with it. But I'm not convinced yet.
[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]Yes, maybe they should :| But seriously, how would blowing into something suffocate anyone? It won't take 10 seconds to do. Why the fuss? You didn't understand what I said. And I'm not seeing the fuss over this thing.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"] Yes, maybe they should :| But seriously, how would blowing into something suffocate anyone? It won't take 10 seconds to do. Why the fuss? I can't speak for him, but I explained my concerns. I'm concerned that malfunctions or design flaws could cause this to inconvenience drivers who aren't drunk, I'm concerned that it wouldn't even stop the people who are drunk, and I'm concerned about the cost. I don't drink and drive, so why should I be forced to pay more for a car that keeps me from drinking and driving? Particularly if it doesn't even keep people from drinking and driving, and if it could potentially result in sober people being unable to operate their vehicles. Once I'm convinced that this works perfectly, once I'm convinced that implementing such technology is so cheap that it won't drive up the vehicle's price, then maybe I'd be on board with it. But I'm not convinced yet. Fair enough, those are good concerns. Nobody wants a faulty system. But if it can be truly perfected, cost effective and not be an inconvenience then I don't see what the problem would be.
The whole point of this is to preventDUIs. Plus, if you know you're never going to drink and drive, why would you mindit would be implemented in your vehicle?
Shottayouth13-
This is America. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. Huh what? The thing is just there to prevent drunk people from driving. Not to be judge, jury and executioner. It's a preventative measure, nothing more to it.You souldn't have to be tested if you've done nothing wrong. This is assuming you're intoxicated until proven sober.
Log in to comment