NTSB calls for all new vehicles to leverage tech to prevent drunk driving and speeding

godrilla

Posts: 583   +316
Trusting tech in a world where companies like meta exist, where governments and corporations use tech to track people, and where technological breakdowns are frequent, is rather dim witted.
Also tech companies make a killing today in mining your data to the highest bidder. Caught speeding or drinking will potentially have a negative social score like a social credit system, having a higher insurance premiums etc etc.
 
Last edited:

passwordistaco

Posts: 413   +951
"We have too many drunk drivers! Let's change the limit to 0.05% and create more 'drunk drivers'!"

I've read or heard that each DUI accounts for something like $9000 coming into the court/law enforcement system. I'm sure this has nothing to do with NTSB's wish list.

I'll take an unpopular opinion here that 0.08% is already too low. To paraphrase Doug Stanhope, give me a driver's test when I'm at 0.08%. If I pass I should get a license that says I'm legal to drive at 0.08%.
 

waclark

Posts: 707   +451
This "tech" they talk about already exists. It is expensive as all hell. As in, $8-10k all said and done to have installed and verified. These systems are sensitive, and must be maintained and calibrated by a certified technician rather frequently, as in one a month or more. Even then, they are also infamous for being unreliable, prone to malfunction and false readings, and causing all sorts of long term electrical issues in cars they are installed in.

Implementing these systems in all new cars would pass even more cost onto the already constrained consumer, and most certainly would be abused by the government for tracking purposes.

A shockingly high number of DUI fatalities occur from drivers that already have previous DUIs. STOP GIVING THESE PEOPLE THEIR LICENSES BACK FFS!


Keep Poking that strawman, I'm sure it'll give you a hug sooner or later.
If you are willing to give up freedom to earn safety, you deserve neither. It's tragic your friend died, but that does not justify pushing elevated cost and government tracking on hundreds of millions of people. Require those with DUIs on record to have these systems installed, sure, but not everyone, doing it to everyone makes as much sense as making everyone wear SWAT battle armor because somebody may have a gun somewhere in your city.
I mostly agree with you, though I would say you're not really giving up any freedom here as you are not free to drink and drive while drunk.
That said, this should not be forced upon everyone. It should be mandatory for anyone that has a DUI on their record. I would also add that maybe, if you get a DUI, you should be restricted from drinking in a bar/restaurant for 1 or more years. Maybe have bars check "ID" to see if you're allowed to drink. We do it for firearms purchases, why not firewater purchases?

And you're right about recidivism when it comes to drunk driving. It usually goes like this, Your Honor, I'm a working man with a family. I stopped to have a drink after work with my co-workers and didn't realize how much I had to drink. I need to work so you can't take my license. And the judge usually reduces the sentence, levies a fine and maybe an alcohol abuse class. The problem is when they show up a second or third time and the judge still doesn't throw the book at them.
 

brucek

Posts: 1,296   +1,924
[Attempt to] Treat the symptoms but not the cause, sounds like a good plan... /s
What are you suggesting here? We tried Prohibition and it didn't work out. Our economy could not function without cars, at least today. We are working on eliminating human drivers but that is generation(s) away. We spend money on police, we jail drunk drivers, and we revoke their licenses, but the serious drunks keep driving anyway (sometimes with someone else's car.)
 

brucek

Posts: 1,296   +1,924
I've read or heard that each DUI accounts for something like $9000 coming into the court/law enforcement system. I'm sure this has nothing to do with NTSB's wish list.
I doubt it does, because if this system actually worked, there would be no more DUIs and all that revenue would be gone from the court/law enforcement system. There'd also be less reason to pay police overtime to man checkpoints.

I'm sure there are some technology vendors who are very interested in picking up this revenue though, and it wouldn't shock me if they had lobbyists.
 

waclark

Posts: 707   +451
I doubt it does, because if this system actually worked, there would be no more DUIs and all that revenue would be gone from the court/law enforcement system. There'd also be less reason to pay police overtime to man checkpoints.

I'm sure there are some technology vendors who are very interested in picking up this revenue though, and it wouldn't shock me if they had lobbyists.
When's the last time you saw an actual DUI checkpoint? I'm sure they still happen in some areas, but honestly, I haven't been stopped by one ever. I used to travel a lot for business so I've been in many large US cities. I've lived in several states over the years and while I have occasionally seen a checkpoint, it's a rarity.

Maybe we could solve this issue by putting "key" lockers in bars and forcing patrons to blow when they leave to get their car keys. Seems like that would be a lot less expensive and more likely to catch people than a universal, BAC tester in a car.
 

Dunkerton

Posts: 64   +142
How DARE the COMMUNIST Democrat party take away my GOD GIVEN FREEDOM to recklessly operate a motorized vehicle and put lives at risk!
Democrats? This is more of an authoritarian vs libertarian issue, not democrat vs republican. Not sure why you would force political parties into this in the way you did.
 

Uncle Al

Posts: 9,354   +8,553
Well, their approach appears to be misidentified. As they keep adding these gadgets to cars and drive the price up out of sight, most people won't be able to afford a car .... thus, drunk driving will end. Of course drunk walking and jogging will increase significantly. Wonder how many people have been killed by a drunk walker?
 

Adhmuz

Posts: 2,275   +1,097
Soo question, how do you fit legally 8 people in a pickup truck?
My thoughts exactly when I read that, what were 7 children doing in a pickup truck in the first place, according to the orrignal report "They also found that there were only five seatbelt restraints in the car which had been carrying eight people, the LA Times reported."

So really, Alcohol, Speed and plain stupidity are all to blame for the death toll.
 

waclark

Posts: 707   +451
Well, their approach appears to be misidentified. As they keep adding these gadgets to cars and drive the price up out of sight, most people won't be able to afford a car .... thus, drunk driving will end. Of course drunk walking and jogging will increase significantly. Wonder how many people have been killed by a drunk walker?
Probably more than zero. Drunk walker stumbles into the street, you swerve to avoid the body, get in a crash and boom, dead.

It's really more of an issue for the walker, as they go into the street and get run over. Then someone has to come clean up the mess.
 

waclark

Posts: 707   +451
Soo question, how do you fit legally 8 people in a pickup truck?

Although speed limiting is a pretty easy thing todo, the alcohol one is another story. You would think that since uber and others have appeared and all of the bars closing due to covid these numbers would have come down
I'm thinking some were in the bed of the truck. It's fairly common to see people in the back of the truck.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,781   +6,623
I mostly agree with you, though I would say you're not really giving up any freedom here as you are not free to drink and drive while drunk.
I disagree, I'm giving up the freedom of being able to start my car without an expensive invasive nanny state technology being shoved down my throat because someone ELSE is an arsehole. I'm really not of fan of being punished because of other people's stupidity.

That said, this should not be forced upon everyone. It should be mandatory for anyone that has a DUI on their record. I would also add that maybe, if you get a DUI, you should be restricted from drinking in a bar/restaurant for 1 or more years. Maybe have bars check "ID" to see if you're allowed to drink. We do it for firearms purchases, why not firewater purchases?

And you're right about recidivism when it comes to drunk driving. It usually goes like this, Your Honor, I'm a working man with a family. I stopped to have a drink after work with my co-workers and didn't realize how much I had to drink. I need to work so you can't take my license. And the judge usually reduces the sentence, levies a fine and maybe an alcohol abuse class. The problem is when they show up a second or third time and the judge still doesn't throw the book at them.
All of that sounds perfectly reasonable. Hence the government will NEVER do it, I've worked in industry long enough to know that sensible ideas never pass.
 

brucek

Posts: 1,296   +1,924
When's the last time you saw an actual DUI checkpoint? I'm sure they still happen in some areas, but honestly, I haven't been stopped by one ever. I used to travel a lot for business so I've been in many large US cities. I've lived in several states over the years and while I have occasionally seen a checkpoint, it's a rarity.

Maybe we could solve this issue by putting "key" lockers in bars and forcing patrons to blow when they leave to get their car keys. Seems like that would be a lot less expensive and more likely to catch people than a universal, BAC tester in a car.
The police on my island like them. They do it a handful of times a year.

Philosophically, I also am inclined towards not wanting to pay for a problem I'm not causing.

That said, all of us probably paid for door locks on our car. It's not because we want to use a lock ourselves, it's because we hope to keep the relative handful of crooks and crazies out. It's not perfect, it can be inconvenient, it's annoying we live in a world where it's even an issue, but at the end of the day it's more sensible to pay a small cost and move on with our day.

Now I'm in no position to promise the net cost of an anti-drunk system could reach the same low point. The up front cost would have to go from thousands to hundreds, and it would have to get more convenient to use. But drunk driving is already affecting everyone's car and health insurance bills, and their local taxes for police. And for the least fortunate, it is killing them or their family. So a big picture thinker has room to dream here that, at scale (I.e., in every car manufactured), and in the long run, there's a solution that comes out very much positive for all involved.

I don't see any hope for a smaller picture solution. You won't reach the economies of scale for the equipment, you won't have the offsetting benefits on insurance, nor on enforcement.
 

waclark

Posts: 707   +451
I disagree, I'm giving up the freedom of being able to start my car without an expensive invasive nanny state technology being shoved down my throat because someone ELSE is an arsehole. I'm really not of fan of being punished because of other people's stupidity.
I'm not saying it's not a hassle. It is. But as we all know driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. We already require you to buckle up or be driven insane from the constant beeping.

Funny side story, the original seat belt notification requirements included continuous alerts and ignition interlocks. People were so pissed that Congress revised that to limited duration notifications. I've heard stories this was because some Congressman got so annoyed that he moved to have ti change.
All of that sounds perfectly reasonable. Hence the government will NEVER do it, I've worked in industry long enough to know that sensible ideas never pass.
Well there is that. Congressional motto: Never let a chance to pass a useless and annoying law go by.
 

letsgoiowa

Posts: 101   +187
In a theoretical world where this technology cost $10 and was *never* wrong, entirely non-intrusive and had no obvious problems, this wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, reality is much worse: from what I understand, these are multi-thousand dollar systems that fail frequently and cause tons of problems. Forcing that on the 99% that never cause a problem is not feasible.
Drunk driving is a HUGE problem we should be taking steps to address. It's not a constitutionally protected right--it's a crime. Handling it by punishing everyone else, though? Nope.
You could have stores and bars legally required to run the license against a database of drunk drivers, but of course they'll do straw purchases. You could try total prohibition like an authoritarian tyrant, but that didn't work. You could kneecap drunk drivers and throw them in a labor camp, but that may not even make a difference.
The problem is much bigger than the tech can currently solve.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 1,393   +2,961
If you are willing to give up freedom to earn safety, you deserve neither.
Didnt say I wanted to do that, hence the first part of my post, simply said that in my case due to my experience, it is something that does makes you think in proposal like the one mentioned in the article.
 

Reallyhow

Posts: 100   +208
This "tech" they talk about already exists. It is expensive as all hell. As in, $8-10k all said and done to have installed and verified. These systems are sensitive, and must be maintained and calibrated by a certified technician rather frequently, as in one a month or more. Even then, they are also infamous for being unreliable, prone to malfunction and false readings, and causing all sorts of long term electrical issues in cars they are installed in.

Implementing these systems in all new cars would pass even more cost onto the already constrained consumer, and most certainly would be abused by the government for tracking purposes.

A shockingly high number of DUI fatalities occur from drivers that already have previous DUIs. STOP GIVING THESE PEOPLE THEIR LICENSES BACK FFS!


Keep Poking that strawman, I'm sure it'll give you a hug sooner or later.
If you are willing to give up freedom to earn safety, you deserve neither. It's tragic your friend died, but that does not justify pushing elevated cost and government tracking on hundreds of millions of people. Require those with DUIs on record to have these systems installed, sure, but not everyone, doing it to everyone makes as much sense as making everyone wear SWAT battle armor because somebody may have a gun somewhere in your city.

God, I love poking the fish in this barrel. They're so inbred that they can barely swim.
 

quadibloc

Posts: 375   +250
Obviously, it won't be possible to put systems in cars that detect drunk drivers if the cost can't be brought down, and their intrusiveness can't be reduced compared to the existing ones currently mandated for some people with drunk driving convictions. But I think that the NTSB is envisioning a different kind of system for that. Of course, mandating this would still be an interference with freedom, in that some expense would be added to every car for the misdeeds of a few; but being killed by a drunk driver is another way in which we pay for drunk driving. Modifying cars to prevent drunk driving is a far cheaper price. Don't believe me? Fine, let's require drivers to have enough insurance to drive a car so that if they kill someone, the insurance company can pay the money it takes to raise that person from the dead.
We should stop privileging motor vehicle driving by allowing it to have unpaid-for externalities, except that we can't without stopping it altogether.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 703   +584
Obviously, it won't be possible to put systems in cars that detect drunk drivers if the cost can't be brought down, and their intrusiveness can't be reduced compared to the existing ones currently mandated for some people with drunk driving convictions. But I think that the NTSB is envisioning a different kind of system for that. Of course, mandating this would still be an interference with freedom, in that some expense would be added to every car for the misdeeds of a few; but being killed by a drunk driver is another way in which we pay for drunk driving. Modifying cars to prevent drunk driving is a far cheaper price. Don't believe me? Fine, let's require drivers to have enough insurance to drive a car so that if they kill someone, the insurance company can pay the money it takes to raise that person from the dead.
We should stop privileging motor vehicle driving by allowing it to have unpaid-for externalities, except that we can't without stopping it altogether.
How about we shoot anyone caught texting while driving. Let's start there.
 

Underdog

Posts: 278   +173
Too many people in the US wouldn't dream of accepting restrictive gun legislation to save lives so how on earth are they going to feel about a drug or alcohol test before their car will start.
I don't know whether this is a sick joke or terribly funny.
 

Hodor

Posts: 251   +182
NOWADAYS... when young people are on all kinds of drugs other than alcohol, NOW they are introducing this? Will it also detect marijuana, meth, cocaine, prescription drugs, heroin, LSD, morphine, fentanyl, and tons of new synthetic drugs that appear every week? No. Then it's useless.

Okay, it's not useless. It will force drivers to start taking other drugs instead of alcohol. Is this campaign sponsored by narcos?