Alcohol Detection Sensors

[spasm3]

There really is no push to curb drunk driving, money to be made on it in the court system and in insurance.

Imagine if the first conviction was a mandatory week in jail and mandatory rehab.
Second conviction, the car is forfeited, and a month in jail, no plea bargains etc, no reduced sentences.
3rd offence car forfeited no matter whose it is , unless stolen, and year in jail, mandatory, lose license for life.

4th conviction , 5-10 years in jail. Period.

There are people with multiple dui convictions still driving, but rather than protect the public from them, and punish them, we come up with some cockamamie alcohol sensor system that some company lobbied for and will make billions getting contracts.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Let's just say I have experience with drunk driving. Let's just say that if some kinda sensor were installed back in my drinking days my car woulda been bricked a lot.
Drunk driving is like shooting into a crowd with your eyes closed. You may wake up having to answer to a horrible act that you don't even remember.
Anything that protects innocent people from drunk drivers has my vote.

 

[Quantico]

I dont drink. Nice to know if someone spills a drink on me I cant get home

 

[Astro14]

Let's just say I have experience with drunk driving. Let's just say that if some kinda sensor were installed back in my drinking days my car woulda been bricked a lot.
Drunk driving is like shooting into a crowd with your eyes closed. You may wake up having to answer to a horrible act that you don't even remember.
Anything that protects innocent people from drunk drivers has my vote.

I don’t disagree with a single thing you said about driving drunk. I agree.

The problem I have with this mandate is the presumption of guilt.

You must prove that you are not guilty before you can drive your car.

Those of us who have never driven under the influence, who are innocent of the crime that you and legislators are trying to prevent, must now prove that innocence before the exercise of our privilege to drive.

Having to prove your innocence is where I object.

For a previous drunk driver? Sure. Make them prove they’re OK. They’ve lost the privilege.

But to take away the presumption of innocence from those who didn’t commit the crime is a failure, legally, ethically, and morally.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I don’t disagree with a single thing you said about driving drunk. I agree.

The problem I have with this mandate is the presumption of guilt.

You must prove that you are not guilty before you can drive your car.

Those of us who have never driven under the influence, who are innocent of the crime that you and legislators are trying to prevent, must now prove that innocence before the exercise of our privilege to drive.

Having to prove your innocence is where I object.

For a previous drunk driver? Sure. Make them prove they’re OK. They’ve lost the privilege.

But to take away the presumption of innocence from those who didn’t commit the crime is a failure, legally, ethically, and morally.

You make a fair point. There are no easy answers.
All I can tell you is impaired driving is pervasive on our roads and it is not right for people like me to put you and your family in mortal danger.

Years back there was a big story around here about a young man who ran his car up a curb into a yard running over several children and dragging one down the street. He woke up in jail and was horrified when they told him what happened. Instead of being released he said, "No. I belong in here." Everyone's lives were ruined.

I can tell you I have driven thousands of miles dead drunk. Why him and not me? The only difference between that young man and me is luck. And I know it. Alcohol scares the sh.. outta me; I am very biased on this opinion based on my own life.

Regarding "previous drunk driver"; that may be too late for the victims. Beyond that, drunks have little respect laws or rules. I drove all the time on suspended license and I can tell you so do many others.
Astro you are being logical; unfortunately alcohol does not adhere to any logic. It's poison to people like me, and all to often others.

 

[CKN]

All of the upcoming monitoring dictates were passed under the infrastructure bill. Insurance companies have offered discounts for people who would install a tracking device on their vehicle or use an app on their phone that gave their location and their acceleration/deceleration and general account of their driving function. I guess not enough people voluntarily accepted the big brother monitoring so they lobbied Congress to make it mandatory for this to be built into the vehicles.

Ford and Volvo are spearheading this initiative so know what you're buying. If you don't mind that big government is monitoring you then it's a non-issue. If you cherish your 4th amendment rights that protect your privacy from illegal search and seizure and you still believe in innocent until proven guilty, then make arrangements to avoid these devices.

Conversely-red light running here is rampant and innocent people have been killed. I still have mixed emotions on this-but maybe if you are a normal (careful) driver you have nothing to fear. It seems lately every other post on here is about insurance rates. Maybe we can actually hold drivers accountable for the way they drive-they can pay the higher rates. Kind of like a driver who gets citied for drunk driving multiple times-they pay through the nose for insurance. Then you have new car buyers on here-and the first thing they do is to turn off the tech that actually makes the car safer. I was really perplexed when someone mentioned this past week-"Now that I turned off all the tech in my wifes car" it's so much better. I imagine that-turning off things that could ultimately protect your wife. If the insurance companies could monitor who has this active and who turns it off........

 

[JeffKeryk]

Conversely-red light running here is rampant and innocent people have been killed. I still have mixed emotions on this-but maybe if you are a normal (careful) driver you have nothing to fear. It seems lately every other post on here is about insurance rates. Maybe we can actually hold drivers accountable for the way they drive-they can pay the higher rates. Kind of like a driver who gets citied for drunk driving multiple times-they pay through the nose for insurance.

Tickets already increase premiums, right? We need more responsibility (which apparantly ain't gonna happen) and more enforcement.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You make a fair point. There are no easy answers.
All I can tell you is impaired driving is pervasive on our roads and it is not right for people like me to put you and your family in mortal danger.

Years back there was a big story around here about a young man who ran his car up a curb into a yard running over several children and dragging one down the street. He woke up in jail and was horrified when they told him what happened. Instead of being released he said, "No. I belong in here." Everyone's lives were ruined.

I can tell you I have driven thousands of miles dead drunk. Why him and not me? The only difference between that young man and me is luck. And I know it. Alcohol scares the sh.. outta me; I am very biased on this opinion based on my own life.

Regarding "previous drunk driver"; that may be too late for the victims. Beyond that, drunks have little respect laws or rules. I drove all the time on suspended license and I can tell you so do many others.
Astro you are being logical; unfortunately alcohol does not adhere to any logic. It's poison to people like me, and all to often others.

So we should ban alcohol. Its the same argument right - some people abuse it so it needs to be outright banned - punish everyone?

So we put sensors in cars, which inconvenience everyone, likely violate there civil rights - they will use the BS that driving is a privilege hence your agreeing to having your civil rights violated. Everyone gets to pay the cost for them - there not free. Many people will figure out how to bypass them - they always do.

What about driving stoned. Thats a whole other issue no one cares about right?

I don't want either actually, but the argument that some people break the law hence everyone must be punished is 100% counter to the entire idea of a free society and the rule of law.

 

[JeffKeryk]

So we should ban alcohol. Its the same argument right - some people abuse it so it needs to be outright banned - punish everyone?

So we put sensors in cars, which inconvenience everyone, likely violate there civil rights - they will use the BS that driving is a privilege hence your agreeing to having your civil rights violated. Everyone gets to pay the cost for them - there not free. Many people will figure out how to bypass them - they always do.

What about driving stoned. Thats a whole other issue no one cares about right?

I don't want either actually, but the argument that some people break the law hence everyone must be punished is 100% counter to the entire idea of a free society and the rule of law.

Again, there are no easy answers. DD laws have gotten significantly more severe; they still do not deter many. Laws are for sober people; have a few and your judgement goes right out the window.
My simple point is, I do not want innocent people to be part of a horrible accident. Cars and alcohol are a deadly combination.

By the way, society is paying a pretty high price right now, right?

 

[SC Maintenance]

Again, there are no easy answers. DD laws have gotten significantly more severe; they still do not deter many. Laws are for sober people; have a few and your judgement goes right out the window.
My simple point is, I do not want innocent people to be part of a horrible accident. Cars and alcohol are a deadly combination.

By the way, society is paying a pretty high price right now, right?

I agree society is paying - but the laws are not punitive enough.

In South Carolina at least the 4th offense is 1 to 5 years in prison and permanent loss of license. If you have no other priors beyond DD you likely are getting 1 year, and your likely just going to drive without a license. That should be the punishment for first offense, along with it being a felony - kiss your employment opportunities goodbye. Maybe it would jog peoples judement.

The company I work for - impaired conviction is cause for termination. Not sure how they would know - but there perspective is it reflects poorly on your judgement and they don't want you working there. Its not that there against drinking. My boss actually bought a breathalizer and brought it to a company party. We all sat around drinking - including him - seeing how high we could get it to go. You have to drink a lot to even get to 0.08.

 

[Astro14]

In many other countries, you are presumed guilty. In these countries, when charged with a crime, you must prove your innocence, or you’re convicted. Of course, we derive our laws from many of these countries, who used to hang people, or behead them, and had a monarch. We rejected, with force, many of those legal constructs.

The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental differences between us, and those other nations.

Every time I hear someone say “we have to do something to improve safety“ and they are willing to give up what fundamentally distinguishes us from those other nations, when they’re willing to give up the fundamental liberty for which we fought, I will disagree.

It was once said that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

And yet I hear the argument to give up liberty almost every day. It doesn’t matter the topic, it is a daily plea.

I will never agree to that.

When I fly to those countries, I have to comply with their laws, and I have to submit to a breathalyzer test just to go to work. “It’s for safety”.

Frankly, if that were true, they would have a breathalyzer outside every hospital, to test every medical professional, and they would have a breathalyzer outside every court room, to test every juror, judge, and attorney.

If that were true, we would certainly have a breathalyzer outside every legislative, executive, and administrative government office, because we wouldn’t want to diminish safety through their errors.

But an entire profession, and I’m talking about Medicine, is responsible for five times the deaths that vehicular traffic causes. We don’t force them to prove their innocence when they go to work.

Further, we don’t force those who are responsible for making the decisions that guide our nation, our states, and our municipalities to prove their innocence when they go to work.

We don’t force teachers to prove their innocence when they’re charged with teaching our children.

But it’s OK to force every day citizens to prove their innocence to operate their motor vehicle?

Just because it’s in the name of ”safety”?

Old Ben Franklin was right…

 

[Dave9]

I may not like it, but I have to abide by the rules or not operate on a public road. I agreed when I got a license and registered my vehicles. Guess what? So did all of you and we are all accountable for it in a court of law.
Don't like it, you don't have to utilize public roads.
It isn't a violation of rights by restricting one from travel because there are many alternative ways to get about.
It's not protected privacy nor unreasonable search and seizure.

It is unreasonable, but let's back up a moment. I did not agree, when I got a license, to any future random invasive tests and tech that can prevent my vehicle from working. I didn't agree to anything really, but do have to accept that I am bound by the law. I do not have to agree with the law to be bound by it.

I don't drive drunk, but I also don't want to pay for all these babysitter features, not on new vehicle prices, and not repairing them later, or getting stranded when they fail to work properly.

Besides, a breathalyzer has to be calibrated and does not last forever. First search hit I got with a google search for breathalyzer lifespan states:

"In normal use most sensors last 250-300 tests and can be expected to keep their settings even if not used for at least 12 months. The following factors can decrease the above guidance. If you rely on the readings and accuracy is essential, replace the sensor every 6 months or 200 tests."

Do you really want to do any of the above, if you have not been convicted of a DUI? I don't. Didn't agree to it and if a future vehicle comes with this tech, I'll do my best to remove it. Same goes for if I happened to buy a used vehicle that still had an immobilizer installed from prior owner.

I don't want drunk drivers on the roads, but don't want the continued erosion of our privacy and freedom either. This should only be imposed on those found guilty of DUI.

 

[Dave9]

Drunk driving is like shooting into a crowd with your eyes closed...
... Anything that protects innocent people from drunk drivers has my vote.

So by that standard, we should impose on the innocent people in the crowd because of the actions of a few. Everyone in public should be required to wear body armor!

*Most* things that impose on innocent people will not get my vote.

 

[Dave9]

I dont drink. Nice to know if someone spills a drink on me I cant get home

Spilling a drink on you, won't foul a breathalyzer test, but if the equipment malfunctions or goes out of calibration, yes you could get stranded.

 

[Dave9]

There really is no push to curb drunk driving, money to be made on it in the court system and in insurance.

Imagine if the first conviction was a mandatory week in jail and mandatory rehab.
Second conviction, the car is forfeited, and a month in jail, no plea bargains etc, no reduced sentences.
3rd offence car forfeited no matter whose it is , unless stolen, and year in jail, mandatory, lose license for life.

4th conviction , 5-10 years in jail. Period.

The thing is, jails and rehabs aren't free. QUITE costly, and personally, while I'm fine with reasonable/fitting fines for offenses, I am quite against people having to pay for their own incarceration, and in some states the cost is getting way out of hand for taxpayers as well, ranging (varies by state) from around $17K to over $100K per year. Plus, I expect a large % of offenders aren't going to stop drinking and driving from only a week to month in jail. It may just cause loss of employment and then they have more time and a self-pity excuse to drink more. Remember it's a pattern and once someone gets intoxicated, their inhibitions to not repeat offend go way down.

It seems like tech can help to reduce fatality rates if not entirely solve this. Collision avoidance systems that step up their autopilot responses if they sense impaired driving. I don't think entirely self driving vehicles are safe yet, but they tend to fail during a small % of events while having that kick in during a poor driving situation - no matter the cause- could help. It could kick in due to intoxication, driver falling asleep, ill health fainting/seizure/heart-attack/etc.

I'm not all that happy about the increased vehicle cost and repair of collision avoidance systems either, but it seems the lesser of 3 evils if forced to choose.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Driving on public roads is not a right.
One must get a license which requires testing of knowledge, eyesight, and acknowledgement one will obey regulations and laws.
A vehicle must be registered. Registration requires passage of some minimal safety check for technology required to be registered to operate (Wipers, Emissions, Lights, Brakes, Tires, etc.) If a blowstick is added to the list by legislative action, you voted or didn't, but it's the law.

I may not like it, but I have to abide by the rules or not operate on a public road. I agreed when I got a license and registered my vehicles. Guess what? So did all of you and we are all accountable for it in a court of law.
Don't like it, you don't have to utilize public roads.
It isn't a violation of rights by restricting one from travel because there are many alternative ways to get about.
It's not protected privacy nor unreasonable search and seizure.

Yes, testing my eyesight and knowledge of law and driving skills, and making me pay fees, etc - are permissible - because none of those violate a specific constitutional right.

Forcing me to be innocent of drinking and driving prior to driving, after I have passed all the other state requirements, is a direct violation. The supreme court has already ruled on this sort of thing. The police can not stop me simply because I am driving down the road unless they have a reasonable reason to do so. My act of driving is not enough - ie my protected rights are intact. Even if they have probable cause to pull me over, they can't randomly search my vehicle, and the stop must be "brief".

 

[dishdude]

If it's a passive sensor, meaning I don't need to do anything I won't mind. But if you have to blow into a tube, that's a bit of a ridiculous ask especially in something like a rental vehicle. And if it is passive, what happens if the designated driver is driving around 3 drunks? Won't that prevent the car from starting?

 

[MCompact]

I predict this proposed boondoggle will prove to be as popular as the seatbelt ignition interlocks of the 1970s.

 

[Enthusiast]

The problem that I find with all this is how often do we find that electronic devices get bugs in them and cause problems? How about things like detecting the alcohol content from the mouthwash you used or you took a sip of wine at church?

My entire life has been one of sobriety as I don't particularly like alcohol but now I'm treated like I'm no different from a person who has a record of drinking and driving.

I'm getting tired of this mindset of because everybody else is bad, get line for your daily beating. Punishing the innocent isn't going to straighten out the guilty, it creates more guilty. Maybe of more parents wouldn't have been so obsessed with their kids self-esteem and would have actually parented like mine did, we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we are today.

 

[JeffKeryk]

I want everyone to be free. Free from hospital beds, funerals, wheel chairs, etc. Is there a problem with impaired driving? Yes. Do I have all the answers? No.

Some smart, well intensioned posters have brought up good points about freedom. Well said. I would only add that freedom ain't free.
I can only hope that alcohol never touches your life like it touched mine.