Congress will require automakers to implement anti-drunk driving tech in vehicles

yRaz

Posts: 4,336   +4,976
Somebody's projecting...
ARD programs exist for a reason and unless you don't drink at all, you've probably drank and drive before. The legal limit is 2 drinks. So if you have ever had 2 beers and drove home, you've drank and drive and should never be able to get a license again.
 

envirovore

Posts: 452   +835
TechSpot Elite
Driving drunk is the absolute most irresponsible thing you could do. I personally would never risk a $90,000+ automobile in this level of bumper to bumper Manhattan traffic. I make sure that when I go out I always stay sober by drinking soda instead of alcohol.

That your concern here is more about a car (which is just a material thing that can be replaced) than the potential loss of life says a lot.
 

BadThad

Posts: 995   +1,136
The thing I‘m wondering about is: why is this in an infrastructure bill ?

If govt feels this is important, it should have its own bill that can be properly discussed.
Just wait, we're under the Nancy system when you pass bills to find out "what's in them". INEPTOCRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER
 

okie11

Posts: 30   +86
I don't understand how this is the responsibility of the auto manufacturer. I get that drunk driving is an issue, it sucks. What about angry (rage)driving, drugged driving, distracted driving. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,489   +6,296
Driving drunk is the absolute most irresponsible thing you could do. I personally would never risk a $90,000+ automobile in this level of bumper to bumper Manhattan traffic. I make sure that when I go out I always stay sober by drinking soda instead of alcohol.
So, is the value of the car the only thing that matters? That is what this sounds like.

Why not try a thought experiment? If your car only cost 1/5 that amount and you could not afford a $90,000+ vehicle, would you still have a good reason, from your viewpoint, to not drive intoxicated?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,489   +6,296
Just wait, we're under the Nancy system when you pass bills to find out "what's in them". INEPTOCRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER
I'll take the current system as opposed to the autocracy and fealty of Trumpism any day.

EDIT: This congress delivered something promised but never delivered by the Trumpism congress.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,489   +6,296
To put such a technology in ever car is both over reach and expensive. Understandable if this is an item that would be "added" to a persons vehicle, by court order but to saddle all of us with this expense is unreasonable.
I'm pretty sure these arguments existed when seat belts were new, not to mention air bags. We might as well just make this argument about any new technology added to cars. Safety technology added to cars has saved lives, though. IMO, it is worth the cost.
 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,489   +6,296
Congress is retarded and they're probably driving drunk themselves and it's easy to blame automakers instead of actually adressing the issue.
The cars won't work for them in that case either. So your point is?

I don't think they are blaming automakers for how their cars are used by the customers. Congress does, I agree, tend to be clueless, but one thing I think they know is that entities ignore laws.
 

J Oelschl

Posts: 17   +15
To put such a technology in ever car is both over reach and expensive. Understandable if this is an item that would be "added" to a persons vehicle, by court order but to saddle all of us with this expense is unreasonable.

Exactly. I want everyone that votes YES to this to tell us what investments they have in companies making whatever technology they decide to include in the final implementation. They should just start with the "IT on South Park" because that is what it is. Car prices are already in the stratosphere and this will just add to that cost. Plus when the gizmos break, because eventually they will, your car will not work and you will be stranded.
 
Last edited:

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,320   +4,966
This bill has no intentions of actually accomplishing anything... there are 2 types of laws: those that do something and those that APPEAR to do something.

This is clearly one of the latter...

It will probably be some sort of built-in breathalyzer (you have to breathe in to it before your car starts, and it won't start if your blood-alcohol is over the legal limit). I suspect that there will be an easy work-around within days of its release, and nothing will happen...

But... the politicians can claim that they tried to do something about this serious problem...
 

terzaerian

Posts: 1,222   +1,715
They're gonna turn cars into a prison you pay for. It will eventually control you more than you control it.

Congress is retarded and they're probably driving drunk themselves and it's easy to blame automakers instead of actually adressing the issue.
Congress doesn't drunk drive themselves - they're out of touch bureacrats that pay others to drive them around.

The only time you'll catch a congressman driving their own car is when they're taking a gift-in-kind Lambo from a wealthy donor for a spin.
 

waclark

Posts: 318   +210
NO - the responsibility is on THE DRIVER.

Carmakers have nothing to do with criminal/negligent behavior.
But apparently they are now being told to ensure that criminal behavior doesn't happen in a car, ie drunk driving. So they are being made responsible.
 

waclark

Posts: 318   +210
Congress doesn't drunk drive themselves - they're out of touch bureacrats that pay others to drive them around.

The only time you'll catch a congressman driving their own car is when they're taking a gift-in-kind Lambo from a wealthy donor for a spin.

Unless you're a Kennedy and it's 2am and you have a committee meeting coming up......
 

monte

Posts: 12   +7
Think how much money everyone could save and how much tragedy could be avoided if humans would just do the right thing. You wouldn't even need keys.
 

Pwnjuice

Posts: 10   +17
Driving drunk is the absolute most irresponsible thing you could do. I personally would never risk a $90,000+ automobile in this level of bumper to bumper Manhattan traffic. I make sure that when I go out I always stay sober by drinking soda instead of alcohol.

Seems like you care more about your stupid card then a human life.
 

Rayneofpayne

Posts: 502   +415
Let's just destroy peoples life indiscriminately. I'll give you $100 right now if you can prove you've never driven over the legal limit
Legal limit of what, speed limit? I have never drank and drove on public roads, private yes, I would fully admit that, but never intoxicated past a legal limit. Lost friends and a fiance to drunk drivers it's not about indiscriminately, it's about consequences for your choices and who they effect.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,336   +4,976
Legal limit of what, speed limit? I have never drank and drove on public roads, private yes, I would fully admit that, but never intoxicated past a legal limit. Lost friends and a fiance to drunk drivers it's not about indiscriminately, it's about consequences for your choices and who they effect.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not "pro drunk driving." After a second offense it's very difficult to get your license back and after a 3rd it's almost impossible. However,I'd like you to consider something with an open mind. A person I worked with who claimed he wasn't a pot smoker(we live in PA) said he got a DUI simply because he had Marijuana in his system. Their is no "legal limit" on Marijuana because it is a federally controlled substance. Because of US "mandatory minimums," he lost his CDL. As he told me, his roommate smokes Marijuana, but he does not. After seeing the levels in in his case, I'm inclined to agree with him. But I don't think people in the US fully understand this, you can get a DUI simply for driving without enough sleep.

So where I'm going with this is, if you're driving with too little sleep, can your car stop you from driving? I have epilepsy and what I take for it are depressants. Should my car stop driving because the drugs I take to prevent seizures look to the car's AI as I'm driving under the influence?

Driving under the influence is wrong, I won't dispute that at all. What I will dispute is that cars shouldn't be the ones making the decision if your intoxicated or not.
 

woofer

Posts: 64   +13
The problem I see is that drugs, tiredness etc also cause crashes that this won’t help, however mandating more anti-collision, lane following, automatic braking tech instead should save drunk drivers and tired drivers and high drivers and all the people they could run into.
Based on my experience with lane-following in a 2020 Subaru Forester, it MUST NOT be mandated until it coordinates with blind spot detection so it moves over in a lane away from encroaching vehicles crossing the lane markers. Too many close calls due to this "feature" not working with blind spotting. Also, it drops out immediately when it encounters sections with poor, or no, markings as with many older highway sections. This also happens with heavy rain/splashing, and weird lighting effects. Also, I just had the experience for the first time of it trying to follow the offramp instead of staying with the through lane I was in.
NOT ready for prime time!