NTSB wants all new vehicles to check drivers for alcohol use

And how is that supposed to work for people who take opioid pain pills every day for years on end? It doesn't, they take 'em and drive.
I had surgery a while back and they gave me some synthetic opiods, which clearly said do not drive. I am sure the people you mention do in fact drive with them, but technically I would presume there legally intoxicated.

I hated them - gave me nightmares. After a few days I switched to Tylenol and toughed it out.
 
If such a person (legally prescribed) crashes their car, they are driving under the influence. Really no different from a DUI unless their defense team can argue it didn't contribute to the crash.

Typically someone on a prescribed pain regiment takes a steady dose and their body adapts / builds tolerance and you don't really get high. But therein lies the problem with opiates-- they're readily available and once tolerance builds, people seek more.
Same could be said for those with severe alcoholism, I once worked with a guy that drank ALL DAY everyday, He never injured himself or damaged a customers vehicle.....In fact he was a really good mechanic.
 
If autonomous driving vehicle like a Tesla has an inebriated driver/owner in the car but not in control and it is involved in an accident, will the car or the person get arrested?
If a vehicle is truly autonomous, then my beleif is it's the programmer that's liable...but obviously companies, and TPTB don't want that...
 
I found the following article contained some relevant stats:


The focus of the article is mandatory alcohol screening by peace officers, but the nature of the data ties into the subject of the OP. Table 3 (last one in the article for anyone looking for a quick scroll) shows that mandatory roadside screening resulted in enforcement actions (Impaired Arrests, Immediate Roadside Suspensions, and Graduated Driver Licence Suspensions) against the drivers of 4.41% of vehicles checked. That means 4.41 out of 100 vehicles were driven by someone who was doing so illegally based on their BAC. Granted, checkstops are generally run at times when impaired driving is more likely to occur, so that number probably isn't as high at 10am on a Wednesday as it is at 02:00 on Saturday or Sunday, but it doesn't go down to zero.

Issues like this really boil down to the balance between security and liberty. Some would opt to be 100% free and 0% protected by government/society/whatever, while others would swing the pendulum to the other extreme. Most would draw their line somewhere between the two.
 
How about they mandate technology to block all cell phone & wireless signals instead? Seems to be worse than alcohol these days, along with heroin (fentanyl) opioid ODs.
That’s great in theory, until you break down/have an accident and you can’t call out for help because whatever black box blocking the signal refuses to shutdown or has some other glitch. Also the FCC will never allow it.


 
They have been talking about this since the 80's. Some states have a breathalyzer lockout for returning DUI drivers.
And those units require calibration regularly, some of them monthly, at an authorized installer and it's not inexpensive. There's zero chance that anybody would get on board with this once they find out their new car also requires a monthly $2-300 calibration appointment and replacment of the equipment if it doesn't pass the calibration tests.
 
That’s great in theory, until you break down/have an accident and you can’t call out for help because whatever black box blocking the signal refuses to shutdown or has some other glitch. Also the FCC will never allow it.


This could be worked the other way around. The vehicle could be equipped with a device that does not allow it to start if a cell phone signal is detected inside of the vehicle. The way around this, of course, would be to turn-on the cell phone after the vehicle is started, and that is exactly what people would do. Heaven forbid that drivers should be "inconvenienced" by being out of touch for a few minutes while commuting to work.
 
^ Needs to be some kind of camera recognition of how the cell phone is being used. My cell phone is always on, linked to vehicle for hands free calling and has never caused any safety issues. I don't text (which is probably the most common problem) or handle the phone otherwise while moving.

IMO, the touch-screens in vehicles present far more of a safety issue. Maybe they should be set up so they don't respond to touches while the vehicle is moving.

I don't want ANY nanny-mandated features except ABS and airbags. I don't back over people, leave infants in the back seat unattended, drive sleepy and get out of my lane, or fail to learn to parallel park. Since I'm looking at the road, I don't need automatic emergency braking either.

At the same time, I'm not opposed to these being optional features as long as those who don't need them, can opt out without settling for an otherwise stripped down base/fleet model.

Regarding alcohol, if (and only IF) you get a DUI it is a good idea to have a breathalyzer feature, and maybe to ease up on calibration issues, the court orders no drinking at all while driving for the probation period, not the former legal limit, so the breathalyzer only has to detect any alcohol, not be as precise. Then again IIRC there are certain medical conditions where the person's body produces alcohol but that would be taken on a case by case basis.
 
If autonomous driving vehicle like a Tesla has an inebriated driver/owner in the car but not in control and it is involved in an accident, will the car or the person get arrested?
The person because by law the person is ultimately responsible for the operation of the vehicle. Now that person could perhaps sue Tesla but I'm sure the driver would have knowingly or unknowingly waived liability for Tesla.
 
This is going a bit too far IMO. Personally, I would never purchase a new vehicle that makes me take a breath test before allowing me to drive it. I understand the need for this to be installed on a vehicle whose driver has been convicted of a DUI. What do you think?
Seems a bit to far, too expensive to implement, and too easy to defeat.
 
Add to your thinking: Nameless officials will always float "balloons" to gauge public reaction. Like the local representative who wanted GPS coordinated anti-speeding hardware in cars. I'd bet a pedestrian or two was hit by a vehicle and now he can crow that he "did something".

Maybe it's time to contact your representatives and tell them what you think.

Also, people frequently add color commentary to all posts....possibly not directly addressing the original question. I know I do it. But if opioids and weed are DWI problems too, then "we need" a system which can detect all intoxicants, no?

How 'bout cranking up the penalties for DWI convictions? I like the idea of DWI convicts having a built in breathalizer.
 
And those units require calibration regularly, some of them monthly, at an authorized installer and it's not inexpensive.
The private companies that do that are in position to charge a lot of money for it. If an alcohol detector is already part of the car a court could still impose an additional requirement on DUI convicted drivers to prove that the system in their car is intact and functioning.
 
This could be worked the other way around. The vehicle could be equipped with a device that does not allow it to start if a cell phone signal is detected inside of the vehicle. The way around this, of course, would be to turn-on the cell phone after the vehicle is started, and that is exactly what people would do. Heaven forbid that drivers should be "inconvenienced" by being out of touch for a few minutes while commuting to work.
That wouldn’t work either. If you have a system looking for Bluetooth anything within ~200ft or more (Bluetooth 5.0 can push 800ft or more) will immobilize your vehicle, while looking for a cell connection will prevent you from moving just about anywhere. And it would still be a massive safety issue.
 
That wouldn’t work either. If you have a system looking for Bluetooth anything within ~200ft or more (Bluetooth 5.0 can push 800ft or more) will immobilize your vehicle, while looking for a cell connection will prevent you from moving just about anywhere. And it would still be a massive safety issue.
You totally missed a couple of my points.
First, I didn't say anything about a bluetooth signal, I said a cell phone signal. A very low sensitivity receiver could be installed inside the driver's seat to detect a cell phone signal within a couple of feet. Second, it would prevent the vehicle from starting, not running, not a safety issue in any way. Regardless, I know that this would never happen so it is just wishful thinking on my part.
I just hate when people text or talk on the phone while driving. I know when I am following someone who is doing this, they drive like they are drunk or high, totally oblivious to everyone else around them, and they cause accidents just as if they were drunk or high.
 
Nameless officials will always float "balloons"
This was someone who works for the NTSB. What do those letters stand for anyway, particularly the "S"?
possibly not directly addressing the original question
OK, go on...
But if opioids and weed are DWI problems too, then "we need" a system which can detect all intoxicants, no?
Yes, unless and until we can fix every other problem, it is advisable to do nothing. There isn't a simple non-invasive test for those drugs equivalent to the breathalyzer for alcohol.
 
Back
Top