International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Alcohol Detectors in Cars (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339700)

Ranb 18th October 2019 09:27 AM

Alcohol Detectors in Cars
 
Bill would require new vehicles to have alcohol detectors to fight drunken driving
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...unken-driving/

Quote:

A new push is underway for federal legislation that would require new U.S. vehicles to have alcohol-detecting devices that stop drunk drivers before they get on the road.

The measure, backed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), would require automakers to build cars and trucks with passive detection systems that prevent the vehicle from operating if the driver is impaired.

Such devices, known as ignition interlocks, are in widespread use for those charged or convicted of drunken driving; they require the driver to exhale into a Breathaylzer-like device and prevent the car from starting if a personís blood alcohol level is above the legal limit.Ē

But researchers and engineers have been working to develop newer technology that would obtain instantaneous and precise readings of every driverís blood alcohol level when the driver attempts to start the vehicle. Safety advocates hope the technology will become as standard as air bags. Limited road testing has been underway in Maryland and Virginia.
Another way to reduce accidents and injuries would be to put speed limiters on all vehicles. Limit SUV's/trucks and anything towing a trailer to 65 kph and cars to 90 kph. This will also greatly reduce fuel consumption.

Ranb

Thermal 18th October 2019 10:02 AM

Well, the world would be safer if we got rid of red meat...and guns...and cars...

These kind of measures are, of course, billed as 'for our own good'. Not crazy about all the peeking and prying that there seems to be a great new benefit for every day.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 10:12 AM

The robot cars will be around before long, solving that particular problem. I look forward to the day when my car drives itself, it'll feel like being chauffeured. I'll give all my orders in a Captain Picard voice. "Automobile! Lay in a course for the Chicken Fingery! Engage! Raise air conditioning! Can you play anything by The Prince of Rap? You can? Make it so!" As a passenger I'll be free to drink what I please but of course it'll just be tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

Ron Swanson 18th October 2019 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranb (Post 12860286)
Bill would require new vehicles to have alcohol detectors to fight drunken driving
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...unken-driving/



Another way to reduce accidents and injuries would be to put speed limiters on all vehicles. Limit SUV's/trucks and anything towing a trailer to 65 kph and cars to 90 kph. This will also greatly reduce fuel consumption.

Ranb

I read they are used in some contries ... In the UK they will be mandated on all new cars in the next three years>

I read an article once that they even have GPS so you can drive at full speed on race tracks, for people who race their street car

Ron Swanson 18th October 2019 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860342)
The robot cars will be around before long, solving that particular problem. I look forward to the day when my car drives itself, it'll feel like being chauffeured. I'll give all my orders in a Captain Picard voice. "Automobile! Lay in a course for the Chicken Fingery! Engage! Raise air conditioning! Can you play anything by The Prince of Rap? You can? Make it so!" As a passenger I'll be free to drink what I please but of course it'll just be tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

Im not as sure about that as I used to be (Im big fan)

I saw testing lately where many of the cars plowed right over "pedestrian dummy" in testing at under 15 mph or so

But at hi-ways speeds they ALL ran over the pedestrians

Ron Swanson 18th October 2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranb (Post 12860286)
Bill would require new vehicles to have alcohol detectors to fight drunken driving ...

As t this I do not care for two reasons ... I refuse to drive after even having ONE drink ... (It's just not worth the risk now)

AND I refuse to by a new vehicle, I am currently without a car (first time since i was probably 12 years old) and I plan to purchase a very OLD car when I am rich enough to afford one again.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson (Post 12860355)
Im not as sure about that as I used to be (Im big fan)

I saw testing lately where many of the cars plowed right over "pedestrian dummy" in testing at under 15 mph or so

But at hi-ways speeds they ALL ran over the pedestrians

"Everyone inside the car was fine!" --Michael Scott, addressing an objection to him driving people to the hospital to visit the woman he ran over an hour earlier.

johnny karate 18th October 2019 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12860329)
Well, the world would be safer if we got rid of red meat...and guns...and cars...

These kind of measures are, of course, billed as 'for our own good'. Not crazy about all the peeking and prying that there seems to be a great new benefit for every day.

Just to be clear: You consider implementing measures to determine if someone is intoxicated before getting behind the wheel of a car to be an invasion of privacy?

The Don 18th October 2019 10:56 AM

If the devices are accurate and they prevent the vehicle from being started then that's fine by me. If they also contact local law enforcement to have the driver charged with DUI then there may be an invasion of privacy case IMO.

Bob001 18th October 2019 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranb (Post 12860286)
Bill would require new vehicles to have alcohol detectors to fight drunken driving
https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...unken-driving/

Another way to reduce accidents and injuries would be to put speed limiters on all vehicles. Limit SUV's/trucks and anything towing a trailer to 65 kph and cars to 90 kph. This will also greatly reduce fuel consumption.

Ranb

So how reliable are the detectors? If they work, and they are already routinely used as part of drunk driving sentences, what's the problem? There is no constitutional right to drive, let alone a right to drive drunk. An alternative would be to allow drivers to start and operate their cars despite a high alcohol reading, but the reading would be recorded and could be used as evidence after an accident or a traffic stop. Or how 'bout allowing people to drive, but the gadget would send a gps message to law enforcement inviting them to stop the drunk driver?

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12860387)
Just to be clear: You consider implementing measures to determine if someone is intoxicated before getting behind the wheel of a car to be an invasion of privacy?

Child pornography is illegal. Let's have law enforcement install monitoring software on all personal computers.

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860405)
Child pornography is illegal. Let's have law enforcement install monitoring software on all personal computers.

Well put.

The Don 18th October 2019 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860405)
Child pornography is illegal. Let's have law enforcement install monitoring software on all personal computers.

If the sole purpose was to detect child pornography and it coul do so inerrantly and it stopped a person accessing it, where is the problem.

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860405)
Child pornography is illegal. Let's have law enforcement install monitoring software on all personal computers.

A better analogy would be a mechanism that blocked access to child pornography. I wouldn't have problem with that.

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12860413)
If the sole purpose was to detect child pornography and it coul do so inerrantly and it stopped a person accessing it, where is the problem.

Inerrantly, you say?

Sole purpose, you say?

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12860413)
If the sole purpose was to detect child pornography and it coul do so inerrantly and it stopped a person accessing it, where is the problem.

Oh, it's multifunctional. They can detect all sorts of things. And it will use 40% of your CPU at all times. But worth it, right?

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12860415)
A better analogy would be a mechanism that blocked access to child pornography. I wouldn't have problem with that.

They have those! You're okay with 20kps internet, right?

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12860411)
Well put.

Except that no one is suggesting that there will be some kind of ongoing monitoring of people's behavior.

It's a device that prevents an intoxicated person from operating a motor vehicle.

I'm not seeing the problem.

Babbylonian 18th October 2019 11:13 AM

Could somebody possibly make a good argument against these alcohol detectors?

Invasion of privacy is a **** argument unless the data are being sent somewhere to at least be collated and stored for potential future use.

Comparing them to performance inhibitors is a **** argument because one can at least imagine a situation where going fast might be necessary. Conversely, it's also a **** argument because capping consumer vehicle speeds might indeed be just as good an idea as preventing people from driving while intoxicated.

As long as the breathalyzers are reliable and accurate they seem like a good idea and, so far, some people here I generally find pretty intelligent are making really terrible arguments against them.

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860420)
They have those! You're okay with 20kps internet, right?

No, probably not.

Will the alcohol-detector have some similar effect on my car?

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12860415)
A better analogy would be a mechanism that blocked access to child pornography. I wouldn't have problem with that.

The problem is the actual mechanics of it. It would effectively be a monitor on your usage, each and every page. In a perfect world, fine. Its not a perfect world. By a long shot

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12860427)
No, probably not.

Will the alcohol-detector have some similar effect on my car?

There's no way to tell until the extra machinery is compulsorily added to every car so you can pay for equipment that assumes you are a drunkard and criminal.

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860420)
They have those! You're okay with 20kps internet, right?

It's a step at a time. 20 years ago, I would have not believed how much personal info can be accessed by anyone with a phone. One innocent step at a time is how this slippery slope works, but with your consent each step.

Bob001 18th October 2019 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860405)
Child pornography is illegal. Let's have law enforcement install monitoring software on all personal computers.

A key difference -- one of them -- is that what you do in your own home has limited immediate impact on others. A drunk driver is operating on the public roadways posing an imminent threat to everyone else. And unlike using a PC, operating a motor vehicle requires a valid license, and the vehicle must be registered. A condition of holding the license is that you don't drive drunk. Proving that you're sober before you drive is not much of a stretch.

And child pornography is mostly distributed via the dark web. If you could get it on Ebay or Google, I suspect law enforcement would find you.
https://www.techspot.com/news/82382-...rnography.html

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860429)
There's no way to tell until the extra machinery is compulsorily added to every car so you can pay for equipment that assumes you are a drunkard and criminal.

Don't we all really like to have to prove our innocence at random, though? I sure do. The cavity searches before entering a school can be refreshing

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12860428)
The problem is the actual mechanics of it. It would effectively be a monitor on your usage, each and every page. In a perfect world, fine. Its not a perfect world. By a long shot

Cool. I still don’t see what this has to do with having an alcohol-detecting device on a car.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:27 AM

As an American I have a constitutional (in every sense) objection to a system that requires the entire public to be subjected to unwarranted search in order to prove their innocence of a crime for which there has been no reason to suspect them. It's one of the things that prompted the Revolution in the first place. People died for that principle. They killed for it. And some of you are bleating sheepily about the social good it would be to undo it? I think some of you need alcohol-detecting lockouts on your keyboards!

Bob001 18th October 2019 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12860434)
Don't we all really like to have to prove our innocence at random, though? I sure do. The cavity searches before entering a school can be refreshing

Drunk-driver checkpoints, where drivers do have to "prove their innocence" at random, have been ruled legal by numerous courts. Think of an ignition lock as your friend that keeps you from going to jail.

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860429)
There's no way to tell until the extra machinery is compulsorily added to every car so you can pay for equipment that assumes you are a drunkard and criminal.

There might be a way to tell.

For instance, we could look at the devices like this that already exist and are in use and see if they are secretly monitoring behavior or negatively affecting gas mileage.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12860442)
Drunk-driver checkpoints, where drivers do have to "prove their innocence" at random, have been ruled legal by numerous courts. Think of an ignition lock as your friend that keeps you from going to jail.

More than a friend, a big brother!

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12860436)
Cool. I still donít see what this has to do with having an alcohol-detecting on a car.

Why should you have to prove you are not drunk when you are just driving?

What about pills? Weed? Maybe you're just not that bright, so we should drop an IQ battery on you too (generic)?

Even well-intentioned nannyism is no bueno.

Bob001 18th October 2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860439)
As an American I have a constitutional (in every sense) objection to a system that requires the entire public to be subjected to unwarranted search in order to prove their innocence of a crime for which there has been no reason to suspect them. It's one of the things that prompted the Revolution in the first place. People died for that principle. They killed for it. And some of you are bleating sheepily about the social good it would be to undo it? I think some of you need alcohol-detecting lockouts on your keyboards!

I repeat, there is no constitutional right to drive. It is a licensed privilege. Proving that you are fit to exercise the privilege is a legitimate condition of holding the license. Preventing you from breaking the law is more civilized than arresting you when you do.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12860449)
Why should you have to prove you are not drunk when you are just driving?

What about pills? Weed? Maybe you're just not that bright, so we should drop an IQ battery on you too (generic)?

Even well-intentioned nannyism is no bueno.

Vitamin D deficiency is common, and leads to physical fatigue and cognitive decline. I think a full blood panel is called for.

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12860439)
As an American I have a constitutional (in every sense) objection to a system that requires the entire public to be subjected to unwarranted search in order to prove their innocence of a crime for which there has been no reason to suspect them. It's one of the things that prompted the Revolution in the first place. People died for that principle. They killed for it. And some of you are bleating sheepily about the social good it would be to undo it? I think some of you need alcohol-detecting lockouts on your keyboards!

But no one is searching you or otherwise invading your privacy.

Itís nothing more than a closed-system device that prevents a car from starting.

johnny karate 18th October 2019 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12860449)
Why should you have to prove you are not drunk when you are just driving?

What about pills? Weed? Maybe you're just not that bright, so we should drop an IQ battery on you too (generic)?

Even well-intentioned nannyism is no bueno.

You and TragicMonkey keep imagining some Big Brother element to this that doesnít exist.

There is no monitoring going on. No one is watching you and judging your behavior.

Itís simply a device that prevents your car from starting.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12860450)
I repeat, there is no constitutional right to drive. It is a licensed privilege. Proving that you are fit to exercise the privilege is a legitimate condition of holding the license. Preventing you from breaking the law is more civilized than arresting you when you do.

And I repeat, there very much is a constitutional right to prevent unreasonable search. It isn't predicated on the activity interrupted by the search having to itself be constitutionally enumerated.

And if prevention of crime is the civilized thing that trumps individual liberty then it would be even more effective and therefore more civilized to attach ankle monitors with video and audio recording to everyone. It could even detect alcohol level too.

Bob001 18th October 2019 11:35 AM

Here's a business plan: If this takes effect on all new cars, dealers could sell pre-interlock used cars at a premium to drunk drivers. In time the only old cars on the road would be the drunkdrivermobiles, and cops could keep an eye on them.

Thermal 18th October 2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12860442)
Drunk-driver checkpoints, where drivers do have to "prove their innocence" at random, have been ruled legal by numerous courts. Think of an ignition lock as your friend that keeps you from going to jail.

Groovy. What other 'for my own good' treats are in store? Ones that could never be abused or repurposed, of course. Hey, even a malfunction could be fun. All to keep proving my innocence at all times.

Well intentioned. Seemingly benign. Still not good. Direct monitoring is always bad to a normal person. Leave us the **** alone.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12860459)
You and TragicMonkey keep imagining some Big Brother element to this that doesnít exist.

There is no monitoring going on. No one is watching you and judging your behavior.

Itís simply a device that prevents your car from starting.

A device that operates by searching your body for particular chemicals.

TragicMonkey 18th October 2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12860461)
Here's a business plan: If this takes effect on all new cars, dealers could sell pre-interlock used cars at a premium to drunk drivers. In time the only old cars on the road would be the drunkdrivermobiles, and cops could keep an eye on them.

Yeah, that must be it, nobody could hold a position out of principle. For your information I don't drink and drive. I barely drink at all: I have maybe three beers a year, on separate occasions, when I am not driving. Which is precisely why I shouldn't be subjected to being treated like a criminal.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.