New technology could prevent drink driving.

  • 145 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#101 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

I don't think people realize how dangerous cars are. They need to issue lifetime bans, that might sober people up.

Leejjohno

They do issue lifetime bans depending on the circumstances.

Avatar image for Capitan_Kid
#102 Posted by Capitan_Kid (6700 posts) -
Someone should make it so that the wheel can sense how much alcohol is in your system. If its too much, then the car wont move.
Avatar image for Leejjohno
#103 Posted by Leejjohno (14090 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

I don't think people realize how dangerous cars are. They need to issue lifetime bans, that might sober people up.

Pirate700

They do issue lifetime bans depending on the circumstances.

If thats the case then people need to be banned from drinking.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#104 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

Someone should make it so that the wheel can sense how much alcohol is in your system. If its too much, then the car wont move.Capitan_Kid
I think that's what this is.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#105 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

I don't think people realize how dangerous cars are. They need to issue lifetime bans, that might sober people up.

Leejjohno

I agree, cars continue to ride smoother and you have full climate controls so it's easy to develop a false since of security. People just need to stay sober, slow down, and just good choices. It's not that hard to drive safely.

Avatar image for The_Gaming_Baby
#106 Posted by The_Gaming_Baby (6402 posts) -

Install abreathalyzer that enables or disables the car in every single vehicle. It would be annoying but they only take a few seconds to operate

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#107 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]Right, just like flying cars and teleportation. Its existance doesn't mean anything.

Pirate700

The difference is that there are actual self-driving cars roaming the streets of America as we speak.

I could see it one day finding its place in the commercial industry (trucking) some day in the future but I can't ever see them in a serious role in the consumer market.

Why not? I see a huge potential market for them, especially as the population ages and people become less capable of actually driving. There's already a market for things like chauffeuring and air chartering - I see no reason why the essence of these services can't be offered to the plebs.
Avatar image for Pirate700
#108 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The difference is that there are actual self-driving cars roaming the streets of America as we speak. -Sun_Tzu-

I could see it one day finding its place in the commercial industry (trucking) some day in the future but I can't ever see them in a serious role in the consumer market.

Why not? I see a huge potential market for them, especially as the population ages and people become less capable of actually driving. There's already a market for things like chauffeuring and air chartering - I see no reason why the essence of these services can't be offered to the plebs.

I wouldn't mind seeing them for the disabled and elderly. I'd be all for it. A computer has to control their Buick better than some of them can.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#109 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]I could see it one day finding its place in the commercial industry (trucking) some day in the future but I can't ever see them in a serious role in the consumer market.

Pirate700

Why not? I see a huge potential market for them, especially as the population ages and people become less capable of actually driving. There's already a market for things like chauffeuring and air chartering - I see no reason why the essence of these services can't be offered to the plebs.

I wouldn't mind seeing them for the disabled and elderly. I'd be all for it. A computer has to control their Buick better than some of them can.

Well the thing is these cars are already looking to be safer than any human-controlled car. According to google they've gone 300,000 driver-less miles accident free. The only accident one of their cars caused was when it was being controlled manually by a human, and there was another accident where one of their cars was rear-ended by another driver.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
#110 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

I don't think people realize how dangerous cars are. They need to issue lifetime bans, that might sober people up.

Yusuke420

I agree, cars continue to ride smoother and you have full climate controls so it's easy to develop a false since of security. People just need to stay sober, slow down, and just good choices. It's not that hard to drive safely.

With today's safety crash test ratings you REALLY have to drive to kill yourself in a brand new car.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#111 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

I don't think people realize how dangerous cars are. They need to issue lifetime bans, that might sober people up.

Fightingfan

I agree, cars continue to ride smoother and you have full climate controls so it's easy to develop a false since of security. People just need to stay sober, slow down, and just good choices. It's not that hard to drive safely.

With today's safety crash test ratings you REALLY have to drive to kill yourself in a brand new car.

Safety crash test ratings really do a poor job of gauging how safe a car is, because they fail to take into account the human element. One of the paradoxes of automobile safety is that the safer you make a car, people tend to drive more recklessly with said car.

Avatar image for sonicare
#112 Posted by sonicare (55175 posts) -

They already have that thing where you have to blow into some sensor before the car starts. But they only use that for past convicts.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
#113 Posted by MrGeezer (59059 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well the thing is these cars are already looking to be safer than any human-controlled car. According to google they've gone 300,000 driver-less miles accident free. The only accident one of their cars caused was when it was being controlled manually by a human, and there was another accident where one of their cars was rear-ended by another driver.

Still, there's no way that those kinds of cars will be mandatory. At least for the near future, those automated cars are simply going to be optional. And regardless of how safe they are, there's still the question of how many people will want them. Oh, I'm sure there'll be a market for them, but it's not exactly like they're going to be taking over the roads. Not any time soon, at least.
Avatar image for CreasianDevaili
#114 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4362 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well the thing is these cars are already looking to be safer than any human-controlled car. According to google they've gone 300,000 driver-less miles accident free. The only accident one of their cars caused was when it was being controlled manually by a human, and there was another accident where one of their cars was rear-ended by another driver. MrGeezer
Still, there's no way that those kinds of cars will be mandatory. At least for the near future, those automated cars are simply going to be optional. And regardless of how safe they are, there's still the question of how many people will want them. Oh, I'm sure there'll be a market for them, but it's not exactly like they're going to be taking over the roads. Not any time soon, at least.

I coulda used one when I drove up route 15 from orange county in cali, to 70, and then all the way to Indiana in one sitting.

TBH I could see a day when the highways around major cities requires automated car handling. Imagine how smooth traffic would be!
Avatar image for MrGeezer
#115 Posted by MrGeezer (59059 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] TBH I could see a day when the highways around major cities requires automated car handling. Imagine how smooth traffic would be!

I could see that happening eventually, but not for decades. It's not gonna be required until most people have already switched over to fully automatic cars, and it's gonna take quite a while for that to happen.
Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#116 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24592 posts) -
dont put hand sanitizer on it
Avatar image for chaoscougar1
#117 Posted by chaoscougar1 (37597 posts) -

[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.

They were fvcking terrible analogies

Avatar image for GOGOGOGURT
#118 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

For a person who person who has a passion for driving sports cars this is stupid.

Avatar image for Crunchy_Nuts
#119 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

As a car guy I'd hate to see this happen, and for a number of reasons I don't think it will happen.

1. Basic cars are relatvely simple to make, I've never made a car but I understand the theory and principles of how a lot of the parts work and I imagine that given the right tools and equipment I'd be able to make one. Even if the big manufacturers stop selling manual control cars smaller manufcaturers will probably still find customers.

2. People like driving too much (including me), to a lot of people cars are not just tools, they are a part of our culture and the love of them is in our blood. They will be around well past our life time.

3. It doesn't make any logistial sense. Unless the government plans to ban all manual controled cars overnight and make everyone purchase an autonomous car it just wont workout. This'll probably mean that cars don't actively 'talk' to each other but use sensory information instead to judge distance, road position etc.

4. The best driving roads usually have the least people. Most autonomous cars will probably be for commuters and therefore will rarely run into drivers' cars.

Avatar image for GOGOGOGURT
#120 Posted by GOGOGOGURT (4470 posts) -

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]It's a preventative measure, nothing more to it.chaoscougar1

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.

They were fvcking terrible analogies

Actually they were good analagies. You are just a sheep following alarmist government who makes too many "rules".

It shows what the state could do if people kept freaking out.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
#121 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"] I agree, cars continue to ride smoother and you have full climate controls so it's easy to develop a false since of security. People just need to stay sober, slow down, and just good choices. It's not that hard to drive safely.

-Sun_Tzu-

With today's safety crash test ratings you REALLY have to drive to kill yourself in a brand new car.

Safety crash test ratings really do a poor job of gauging how safe a car is, because they fail to take into account the human element. One of the paradoxes of automobile safety is that the safer you make a car, people tend to drive more recklessly with said car.

True. Can't idiot proof everything, and I mean't "try" not "Drive" that typo bothered me :P
Avatar image for Crunchy_Nuts
#122 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

I could see it one day finding its place in the commercial industry (trucking) in the future but I can't ever see them in a serious role in the consumer market.

Pirate700

I'd probably have an autonomous car as a daily driver. Most journeys are incredibly boring and I'd rather have the option of doing something interesting (eg. read a book, watch a movie, eat etc.) rather that stare out of the wind shield. Then I'd have my driving car for when I want to enjoy the drive.

nstall abreathalyzer that enables or disables the car in every single vehicle. It would be annoying but they only take a few seconds to operateThe_Gaming_Baby

What happens if you have a car full of drunk passengers but a sober driver?

For a person who person who has a passion for driving sports cars this is stupid.

GOGOGOGURT


I think autonomous cars would be good for car people. It means bad drivers wont ruin your drive for you any more.

Avatar image for Yusuke420
#124 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

Jeez, can't stop using guns, can't stop driving cars, can't stop smoking tobacco. It's like you people want people to die just so some can enjoy dangerous hobbies. What if we get to a point where we all have avatars that do these things and we just have our brains stimulated to think we are actually experiencing them? You can have all of the thrill and none of the risk!

Avatar image for Crunchy_Nuts
#126 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

Jeez, can't stop using guns, can't stop driving cars, can't stop smoking tobacco. It's like you people want people to die just so some can enjoy dangerous hobbies. What if we get to a point where we all have avatars that do these things and we just have our brains stimulated to think we are actually experiencing them? You can have all of the thrill and none of the risk!

Yusuke420
I think you're just a wimp who's scared to do anything that involves any risk. You sound like you'd love the British government, they keep us safe and do our thinking for us so we don't have to.
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#127 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Jeez, can't stop using guns, can't stop driving cars, can't stop smoking tobacco. It's like you people want people to die just so some can enjoy dangerous hobbies. What if we get to a point where we all have avatars that do these things and we just have our brains stimulated to think we are actually experiencing them? You can have all of the thrill and none of the risk!

Crunchy_Nuts

I think you're just a wimp who's scared to do anything that involves any risk. You sound like you'd love the British government, they keep us safe and do our thinking for us so we don't have to.

Why would I want to risk my life for a cheap thril, there's plenty of low risk things to do and I like that the british government is proactive in mitigating dangerous activities. I'm sorry the fact that I want to live more then smoke a ton of cigs or drive at 100 MPH offends your sensibilities some much.

Avatar image for Crunchy_Nuts
#128 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Jeez, can't stop using guns, can't stop driving cars, can't stop smoking tobacco. It's like you people want people to die just so some can enjoy dangerous hobbies. What if we get to a point where we all have avatars that do these things and we just have our brains stimulated to think we are actually experiencing them? You can have all of the thrill and none of the risk!

Yusuke420

I think you're just a wimp who's scared to do anything that involves any risk. You sound like you'd love the British government, they keep us safe and do our thinking for us so we don't have to.

Why would I want to risk my life for a cheap thril, there's plenty of low risk things to do and I like that the british government is proactive in mitigating dangerous activities. I'm sorry the fact that I want to live more then smoke a ton of cigs or drive at 100 MPH offends your sensibilities some much.

The world would be a worse place if everyone tried to avoid risk and always took the safe option.
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#129 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

Why? boredom? I know plenty of fun things to do that don't involve guns, alcohol, or tobacco. I'm not some straight edge person or anything, but I like to live and doing things that are inherently against that in my mind sounds silly. Please though fill me in on what I am missing by not going over the top with risk everyday of my life?

We all take risk, but I'm smart enough to not take risk that puts me at a serious disadvantage.

Avatar image for Crunchy_Nuts
#130 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

Why? boredom? I know plenty of fun things to do that don't involve guns, alcohol, or tobacco. I'm not some straight edge person or anything, but I like to live and doing things that are inherently against that in my mind sounds silly. Please though fill me in on what I am missing by not going over the top with risk everyday of my life?

We all take risk, but I'm smart enough to not take risk that puts me at a serious disadvantage.

Yusuke420
Most risk can be mitigated with common sense. Why get government involved in something which all reasonable people should be able to handle by themselves?
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#131 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Why? boredom? I know plenty of fun things to do that don't involve guns, alcohol, or tobacco. I'm not some straight edge person or anything, but I like to live and doing things that are inherently against that in my mind sounds silly. Please though fill me in on what I am missing by not going over the top with risk everyday of my life?

We all take risk, but I'm smart enough to not take risk that puts me at a serious disadvantage.

Crunchy_Nuts

Most risk can be mitigated with common sense. Why get government involved in something which all reasonable people should be able to handle by themselves?

People have consistantly proven that they can't mitigate the risk though. The government tells people they shouldn't do stuff like smoking and driving over the speed limit and they do it anyway. It's like they need someone to lord over them so they don't hurt themselves or those around them. If your assumption was correct, the amount of Tobacco related deaths, traffic fatalities, and DWI manslaughter case would be zero.

Simply put, government exists because most people aren't smart enough or physically able to take care of themselves. Government isn't a bad thing, in most cases it's a force for good in this world and only has the best intentions at heart. We can debate the inactment of those policies all day, but I'd think you'd agree that governments structured like the US and GB genuninely want to make their populace healthy, happy, safe, and productive.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#132 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Jeez, can't stop using guns, can't stop driving cars, can't stop smoking tobacco. It's like you people want people to die just so some can enjoy dangerous hobbies. What if we get to a point where we all have avatars that do these things and we just have our brains stimulated to think we are actually experiencing them? You can have all of the thrill and none of the risk!Yusuke420
The moral of this story: Some humans like making the choices about how to live their lives, and find the idea of a government saving them from themselves anathema to what it means to be human. Life isn't about surviving until you die. Life is about living life to it's fullest. How old are you btw?
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#133 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]Jeez, can't stop using guns, can't stop driving cars, can't stop smoking tobacco. It's like you people want people to die just so some can enjoy dangerous hobbies. What if we get to a point where we all have avatars that do these things and we just have our brains stimulated to think we are actually experiencing them? You can have all of the thrill and none of the risk!Zeviander
The moral of this story: Some humans like making the choices about how to live their lives, and find the idea of a government saving them from themselves anathema to what it means to be human. Life isn't about surviving until you die. Life is about living life to it's fullest. How old are you btw?

I'm 25, so I have drove fast and partied hard for 5 years. Now I just want to make it to retirement without being blind sided by a drunk or getting lung cancer from tobacco users.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#134 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Simply put, government exists because most people aren't smart enough or physically able to take care of themselves. Yusuke420
Then why not just let nature take it's course and relieve ourselves of their burden upon us? If people are not fit to survive upon their own ability, or those close relations willing to support them, then why take from the able and give to the not-able?
Avatar image for Zeviander
#135 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
I'm 25, so I have drove fast and partied hard for 5 years. Now I just want to make it to retirement without being blind sided by a drunk or getting lung cancer from tobacco users.Yusuke420
Then you may as well move to a remote hermitage, because life is not going to be predictable, nor will it be fair.
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#136 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]Simply put, government exists because most people aren't smart enough or physically able to take care of themselves. Zeviander
Then why not just let nature take it's course and relieve ourselves of their burden upon us? If people are not fit to survive upon their own ability, or those close relations willing to support them, then why take from the able and give to the not-able?

That's an increibly short sighted view of things. If you allow something like that to take place, you could very easily prevent the human race from continuing to exist. At least at the population level we do now. If you believe that everyone has a right to life, then surely you can see why it is imperitive that we try to preserve that life by any means we have at our disposal.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#137 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
If you believe that everyone has a right to life, then surely you can see why it is imperitive that we try to preserve that life by any means we have at our disposal.Yusuke420
Why is it my responsibility to maintain the life of another? Why am I not only responsible for my life and mine alone?
Avatar image for Yusuke420
#138 Posted by Yusuke420 (2770 posts) -

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]If you believe that everyone has a right to life, then surely you can see why it is imperitive that we try to preserve that life by any means we have at our disposal.Zeviander
Why is it my responsibility to maintain the life of another? Why am I not only responsible for my life and mine alone?

We are a social species. Each person has the potential to be your relative in either the immediate or long term future. Certainly you'd want to worry about your current relatives well being? So why not apply those concepts to the entire human race so we can all survive and thrive? The collective can accomplish much more then the individual so it's important to have a healthy, happy collective. It's on your best interest to help those around you because if they're on your level, they wouldn't desire what you have.

Avatar image for chaoscougar1
#139 Posted by chaoscougar1 (37597 posts) -
[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

Why? boredom? I know plenty of fun things to do that don't involve guns, alcohol, or tobacco. I'm not some straight edge person or anything, but I like to live and doing things that are inherently against that in my mind sounds silly. Please though fill me in on what I am missing by not going over the top with risk everyday of my life?

We all take risk, but I'm smart enough to not take risk that puts me at a serious disadvantage.

Crunchy_Nuts
Most risk can be mitigated with common sense. Why get government involved in something which all reasonable people should be able to handle by themselves?

Are you new to the world?
Avatar image for Lockedge
#140 Posted by Lockedge (16765 posts) -
Eh, the tech isn't ready for being put into cars, and it's too expensive anyway. And because driving drunk is a cultural hobby, in some areas at least, using jail and.or fines to try and rehabilitate such offenders is wasteful and ineffective. I just figure that the government should increase how harshly they treat such incidents. Sure, it could lead to some more people in jail, but a 3 strike rule would work to at least contain the re-offenders. Strike 1, lose your license for 4 months, fined $5000 minimum. Strike 2, lose license for a year, fined minimum of $10,000 , 6 months jail time minimum. Strike 3, lose license permanently, added to a federal driving ban list. Minimum jail time of 5 years, $10,000 min. fine. Any further offense = life in jail. Treating deaths caused by someone driving under the influence as 2nd degree murder (as well as instituting a lifetime ban like in step 3 above) would also be helpful.
Avatar image for GrayF0X786
#141 Posted by GrayF0X786 (4185 posts) -

there is already a solution, and it was found 1400 years ago.....lol at the silly 1st world problems.

Avatar image for Zeviander
#142 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
We are a social species. Each person has the potential to be your relative in either the immediate or long term future. Certainly you'd want to worry about your current relatives well being? So why not apply those concepts to the entire human race so we can all survive and thrive? The collective can accomplish much more then the individual so it's important to have a healthy, happy collective. It's on your best interest to help those around you because if they're on your level, they wouldn't desire what you have.Yusuke420
You said a lot and explained nothing. A collective cannot accomplish more than every individual. Many individuals are held back by collectives. Why is it anyone's responsibility to live for the sake of anyone else?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#143 Posted by LJS9502_basic (160414 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]You drink your mouth wash?

Pirate700

Mouth wash shows up as alcohol.....you don't have to drink it.

Right, but this scanner works off the sweat/oil on your finger tip. You would have to injest it to actually get a reading.

Anti bacterial soap then....
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#144 Posted by LJS9502_basic (160414 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well the thing is these cars are already looking to be safer than any human-controlled car. According to google they've gone 300,000 driver-less miles accident free. The only accident one of their cars caused was when it was being controlled manually by a human, and there was another accident where one of their cars was rear-ended by another driver.

Still, there's no way that those kinds of cars will be mandatory. At least for the near future, those automated cars are simply going to be optional. And regardless of how safe they are, there's still the question of how many people will want them. Oh, I'm sure there'll be a market for them, but it's not exactly like they're going to be taking over the roads. Not any time soon, at least.

And there will be instances of malfunctioning systems......I'd rather not rely on a machine.
Avatar image for Wolf-Man2006
#145 Posted by Wolf-Man2006 (4187 posts) -

Not entirely a bad solution, but what concerns me is this sounds like another one of those "regulate everything you do" ideas, plus there is always a probability for technology like this to horribly backfire