Say what!? ?

[Trigganometry]

Congress approves alcohol monitors in ALL new cars to stop drunk driving in Biden's new $1.2T in infrastructure package

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hol-monitors-new-cars-stop-drunk-driving.html

Sponsored

 

[Fawnbuster]

Overstepping Big brother... and I don't drink.

 

[Sharky]

inch by inch we are losing our freedom......

 

[Langwilliams]

More gov mandates to add to the price of a new car. I thought distracted driving was a bigger problem with all the cell phone use while driving.

 

[JoeDirt]

Would that be in the Forscan BCM? I would be looking to disable that as soon as possible.

 

[slowmachine]

The UK headline is a bit misleading. We already have breath-testing interlocks for people convicted of DUI. I think this is a better look at it
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1053847935/congress-cars-drunk-driving-auto

 

[Sharky]

from the article........ Congress is requiring in its $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that automakers install monitoring systems in their cars to stop drivers from operating their vehicles while intoxicated.

I would say that headline is not misleading. apparently someone over there read through the bill
and saw this part of the bill.

 

[AdamHarris]

I'm all for small government and government leaving people alone. However, drunk driving is one of the stupidest and most fucking selfish actions that entitled self-centered assholes can do. 0 excuse for it these days. Your not "cool" or "edgy" and no you don't "drive better when you is drunk" than sober. Reference the earlier sentence as to what you are if you CHOOSE to do that crap.

 

[slowmachine]

from the article........ Congress is requiring in its $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that automakers install monitoring systems in their cars to stop drivers from operating their vehicles while intoxicated.

I would say that headline is not misleading. apparently someone over there read through the bill
and saw this part of the bill.

You can read through the bill yourself, as I have attached it to this post. The intrusiveness of this technology hinges on the legal meaning, in context, of the term "passive". An excerpt:

(1) ADVANCED DRUNK AND IMPAIRED DRIVING PREVENTION TECHNOLOGY.—The term ‘‘advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology’’ means a system that—

(A) can—
(i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected;

(B) can—
(i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and
(ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or

(C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).

If a breath tester, such as those mandated by many states for convicted drunk drivers, can be construed as a "passive" detection method, then it would be very intrusive, bordering on a presumption of probable cause for arrest, if mandated for all drivers of all vehicles. If, on the other hand, "passive" refers to analysis of driving behavior by driver-assist systems, such as those already installed in our Rangers, then the intrusiveness level could decrease to near zero, and the presumption of probable cause would be less of an issue.

 

[micl9]

Not a comment for or against the "bill"
But it just pisses me off when I hear about people with multiple DWIs finally killing someone. Its the legal system and seems to be open to both the poor and the rich. Maybe bc judges, lawyers and politicians all drink and drive and keep the penalties soft.
People in Europe do not even think of driving after ONE drink. I dont know what the laws are there, but I gotta assume the penalties are bad enough to act as a deterrent. Or its so socially unacceptable? I don't know...

 

[slowmachine]

A personal comment on the general subject:

No US citizen has a right to drive a motor vehicle on public roads. Driving is a privilege, which is granted and revoked by the elected government. Every legal driver has been tested and found qualified by their state-of-residence before receiving a time-limited license to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. They have, at least in every state where I have been licensed, stated that they understand the laws pertaining to this activity (rules of the road) and agree to comply with them at all times while driving on public roads. Several articles about the congressional bill being discussed give a statistic that 30% of all driving fatalities are cause by impaired drivers.

This is really low-hanging fruit for enforcement actions. I have lived in Southern California and Arizona, where aging "snowbirds" hide from the winter cold each year, and who cause many motor vehicle accidents (and some deaths) for no other reason than that they are, at their advanced age, no longer capable of safely operating a motor vehicle in modern traffic. I assume that states like Florida and Texas have similar problems. Nobody really knows what the final implementation of this monitoring technology will really look like, but these older people are at great risk of losing their mobility. It's a double-edged sword.

Tesla's continuing effort to produce autonomous cars is the only counterpoint that I see. To this end, they have built a supercomputer for the sole purpose of analyzing self-driving data from Tesla cars. I don't know if I will live long enough to see a car with no steering wheel, but it seems inevitable. Some cars are already "steer by wire" and the onboard systems can take control away from the driver when programmed to do so.

 

[Jason B]

Not a comment for or against the "bill"
But it just pisses me off when I hear about people with multiple DWIs finally killing someone. Its the legal system and seems to be open to both the poor and the rich. Maybe bc judges, lawyers and politicians all drink and drive and keep the penalties soft.
People in Europe do not even think of driving after ONE drink. I dont know what the laws are there, but I gotta assume the penalties are bad enough to act as a deterrent. Or its so socially unacceptable? I don't know...

Not exactly true. Here is info about DUI in other countries. US is high, but South Africa and Canada is worse. But at least a Canadian will apologize for he DUI.
Also, depending on you body size, metabolism and the type of drink you had, one drink could get you above the limit.

"How does that compare to other countries? Even though fatal accidents on Canadian roads have fallen 43 percent since 2000, the rate of death from alcohol impairment is still high for a developed nation at 34 percent of all road accidents. Across the border in the United States, 31 percent of all road deaths have been linked to alcohol consumption while in Australia, the death rate comes to 30 percent. In the United Kingdom and Germany, road deaths involving alcohol consumption are rarer at 16 and 9 percent respectively."

 

[micl9]

Not exactly true. Here is info about DUI in other countries. US is high, but South Africa and Canada is worse. But at least a Canadian will apologize for he DUI.
Also, depending on you body size, metabolism and the type of drink you had, one drink could get you above the limit.

"How does that compare to other countries? Even though fatal accidents on Canadian roads have fallen 43 percent since 2000, the rate of death from alcohol impairment is still high for a developed nation at 34 percent of all road accidents. Across the border in the United States, 31 percent of all road deaths have been linked to alcohol consumption while in Australia, the death rate comes to 30 percent. In the United Kingdom and Germany, road deaths involving alcohol consumption are rarer at 16 and 9 percent respectively."

I was specifically calling out Europe. The chart is interesting , but its % of deaths from drunk drivers. I was refering to the what would be the % of DUIs from all drivers.

 

[Jason B]

I was specifically calling out Europe. The chart is interesting , but its % of deaths from drunk drivers. I was refering to the what would be the % of DUIs from all drivers.

Understood, but Europe is too broad of a region to make that statement. Europe is a continent with 44 countries.

 

[micl9]

Understood, but Europe is too broad of a region to make that statement. Europe is a continent with 44 countries.

Valid point - most of my experience is Norway and Finland, I should have narrowed it down

Sponsored