Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Toyota Creating In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection System

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jan 05, 2007 08:51 PM
from the car-is-smarter-than-you dept.
Technology
srizah writes "Toyota is developing an Alcohol Detection System that can detect drunken drivers and would immobilize the car when it detects excessive alcohol consumption. From the article: 'Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun. The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Science: Drinking Alcohol May Extend Your Life 548 comments
Adolytsi writes "MSNBC has an interesting article on an Italian study on alcoholism. While the obvious notion of overconsumption of alcohol being detrimental to one's health is supported, apparently drinking it in moderation can actually extend your lifespan. A study on over 1 million drinkers and 94,000 deaths yielded the results: "According to the data, drinking a moderate amount of alcohol — up to four drinks per day in men and two drinks per day in women — reduces the risk of death from any cause by roughly 18 percent, the team reports in the Archives of Internal Medicine. However, "things radically change" when consumption goes beyond these levels, study leader Dr. Augusto Di Castelnuovo, from Catholic University of Campobasso, said in a statement. Men who have more than four drinks per day and women who have more than two drinks per day not only lose the protection that alcohol affords, but they increase their risk of death, the data indicates.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Toyota Creating In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection System 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Ob (Score:5, Funny)

    by lastchance_000 (847415) on Friday January 05 2007, @08:52PM (#17483804)
    "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"
    • It can only be attributable to human error.
      The correct quote is:
      "I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen."

    • Re:Ob (Score:4, Informative)

      by flimnap (751001) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:04PM (#17483912) Homepage

      "I'm sorry, Dave, but you're drunk and I won't allow you to start operating a heavy metal object which could kill many people if you're not alert." Not quite as catchy, I suppose.

      These are already used in Australia, anyway. If you're convicted of a drink-driving offence, then your car must be fitted with an alcohol interlock [vic.gov.au] for at least six months.

      • Re:Ob (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ArcherB (796902) * on Friday January 05 2007, @10:00PM (#17484450) Journal
        These are already used in Australia, anyway. If you're convicted of a drink-driving offence, then your car must be fitted with an alcohol interlock for at least six months.

        They are used here in the states as well. Unfortunately, these can be easily defeated by having a child or friend blow into the tube so the car starts.

        Two of these new methods seem pretty easy to get around too. Wear gloves for the steering wheel, and sun glasses for the eye thingie. My biggest fear is a false positive!
        Don't get me wrong, it's great to see what Toyota is doing. However, I'm going to be pretty upset paying and extra grand for the next Toyota for a steering wheel sensor that may return a false positive, stranding my wife and daughter in a not-so-good part of town just after sunset because my wife used a alcohol based hand sanitizer.

    • Will blow for food (Score:5, Funny)

      by goombah99 (560566) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:32PM (#17484214)
      I predict you will see bums holding signs in nigteclub parking lots.

          • Re:Ob (Score:4, Informative)

            by jafiwam (310805) on Saturday January 06 2007, @09:57AM (#17487590) Homepage Journal
            Depending on the state, yes.

            In some states it's illegal to drive drunk on private property. (Like being in your driveway.) For example, that Mythbusters episode on the subject of drunk vs. cell phone, the cops wouldn't let them drive on a private lot. In WI, you can get blasted, and drive around your back 40 all you want.

            On the other hand, getting out of a bar, realizing you are too drunk, and sleeping it off in your own back seat in the bar parking lot will also get you arrested for driving drunk.

            Those fucking MADD people have lost their way, and are actively pushing all these draconian laws. They want to ban any sort of alcohol completely, not just make the roads safer. Their original founder thinks they are whack now even....

            http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/Drinkin gAndDriving/1059064892.html [potsdam.edu]

  • Software Glitch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Martix (722774) on Friday January 05 2007, @08:53PM (#17483812)
    Just what we need is more stuff to go wrong and make a mistake and shut the engine off on a busy highway.

      • Re:Software Glitch (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nephilium (684559) on Friday January 05 2007, @10:02PM (#17484462) Homepage

        Hmmm... ever wonder what the term "alcohol related accidents" actually means? Here's some of the meanings:

        1.) A measurable amount of alcohol means anything above .00 percent, up to and including a sip of beer or cough medicine.

        2.) Drivers impaired by drugs, be it aspirin, cough syrup, crack or heroin, are often counted as drunk drivers.

        3.) If a pedestrian is involved and has a measurable amount of alcohol it is considered alcohol-related.

        4.) If a passenger has alcohol in his system, it is considered alcohol related.

        5.) If the accident is a sober driver's fault (i.e. a sober driver runs a red light and crashes into a driver who had a beer after work) it is alcohol-related.

        6.) If the residual presence of alcohol is found (an empty beer can) it is considered alcohol related, even if tests prove no one has any alcohol in their systems.

        7.) The NHTSA arbitrarily adds 9% to all the alcohol-related statistics it receives from the states. Why? Because they feel like it.

        8.) To further inflate the numbers, The NHTSA just started using what they call the Multiple Imputation Method to inflate alcohol-related statistics even more. The method automatically assumes that anyone involved in an accident who was not tested for BAC (probably because they were obviously sober) could actually have been drunk, and the numbers are jacked up by a set percentage.

        Kind of changes the numbers a bit, doesn't it? Numbers are meaningless unless you know what they mean. But continue pushing for prohibition if you wish... but be honest at least...

        All material taken from the article Fighting Madd [drunkard.com].

        Nephilium

        A man who doesn't drink is not, in my opinion, fully a man. -- Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, Russian author

          • Re:FUCK YOU, spin-master. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Nephilium (684559) on Friday January 05 2007, @11:47PM (#17485198) Homepage

            You want the figures... here's an analysis of the numbers from the NHTSA themselves... [getmadd.com]

            If you can prove the claim, here's $20,000 [getmadd.com] for you...

            And... well... you can't cry if I link [dot.gov] the NHTSA's actual numbers, can you? Of course, pay special attention to the passenger, rider, and NON-OCCUPANT figures... that means that the driver had no alcohol in his system, but someone in the car did...

            And please note the difference between alcohol-related, and BAC .08+. Also, please do a little look to see what .08 BAC does to reflexes... and how little it takes to get there.

            Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.

            Or look into the GAO's research to the NHTSA's claims...

            I can only lead you to the information, I can't make you read them, nor can I make you believe in them.

            Nephilium... currently enjoying a tasty barleywine... [ratebeer.com]

            Sometimes too much drink is barely enough. -- Mark Twain, American novelist

            • Re:FUCK YOU, spin-master. (Score:5, Informative)

              by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Saturday January 06 2007, @02:46AM (#17486104)

              Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.

              Cliff notes for the lazy:

              • Candy Lightener started MADD, succeeded in her mission, and was forced out my a bunch of fanatics
              • MADD is currently working to stigmatize alcohol consumption and enact defacto prohibition

  • Dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ozric99 (162412) on Friday January 05 2007, @08:54PM (#17483824) Journal
    Refusing to start the car is one thing, and perfectly acceptable, but taking control away from the driver is a big no no under any circumstance.

    • Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by denbesten (63853) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:12PM (#17484006)
      Anti-Lock brakes, Electronic Stability Control and automatic headlights are all existing examples of taking control away from the driver.

      • Re:Dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)

        by flewp (458359) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:24PM (#17484132)
        It could be argued that ABS and stability control help the driver maintain control. Locking up the tires is rarely, if ever a good thing. And unless you're on the track, and need the car to be twitchy, stability control is usually a good thing. Again, it helps the driver stay in control. Your average driver, on average roads, is likely to be out of control in the situations where stability control would take effect. Or, on the verge of going out of control.

    • Re:Dangerous (Score:4, Interesting)

      by gsn (989808) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:15PM (#17484044)
      Refusing to start the car is one thing, and perfectly acceptable, but taking control away from the driver is a big no no under any circumstance.


      I'd agree that refusal to start the car is probably a good idea - possible false positives by the drunk idiot in shotgun throwing up notwithstanding. There are however several drivers I know (and unfortunately been driven by) who need control taken away from them when sober to begin with. Theres a lot of people out there who ought not be be given driving licenses. Pretty much every time I'm on the interstate I see some car crash - read about it the next day and chances are are its DUI. I'm fine with control being taken away because it seems we are getting much better at cars that can drive themselves.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=393401&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]

      Also there are tons of things you could do if you weren't actually driving the car and it would be brilliant for long road trips.

    • Really... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Belial6 (794905) on Friday January 05 2007, @11:58PM (#17485272) Homepage
      Really, your right. A much better solution would be to start flashing every light in the car. Other drivers, pedestrians, and cops would all immediately be able to identify you as a drunk driver, and take appropriate action. If it turned out to be a false positive, the other drivers and pedestrians would only be inconvenienced slightly, and the cops would pull you over, test your blood alcohol, and either arrest you, or let you go.
  • I have a Toyota and I wouldn't dare trust my car to tell me if it's alright drive. What about false positives? What if I'm on the freeway and the car turns itself off? Wouldn't Toyota be liable for any damages? What if this results in people loosing their lives? What if I have a friend in the passenger seat who pukes on the drivers seat. What if, what if? There's too many variables in this. This is a horrible idea, and I will never buy a car that has this "feature"

    • Re:Imagine if this malnfunctioned on the freeway (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Not_Wiggins (686627) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:19PM (#17484082) Journal
      False positives? What about false negatives?

      What would the liability be when the drunk kills another because "if I was too drunk to drive, why did my car start?"

      • Re:Imagine if this malnfunctioned on the freeway (Score:4, Funny)

        by megaditto (982598) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:14PM (#17484036)
        Perhaps they could make cars that detected a built-up sexual tension in a driver?

        I have never been horny in my life, and never will be, so I'd gladly see this boner-alert feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me.

        What the fuck, they already offer the heated massage seats... Why not put out a happy ending to boot?
      • I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me.

        KNOW YOUR DRUNKARD! YOUR LIFE MAY DEPEND ON IT! You will not be able to see his eyes because of Tea-Shades, but his knuckles will be white from inner tension... and his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can't find a rape victim... He will stagger and babble when questioned. He will not respect your badge. The Drunkard fears nothing. He will attack, for no reason, with every weapon at his command -- including yours... BEWARE. Any officer apprehending a alcohol addict should use all necessary force immediately. One stitch in time [on him] will usually save nine on you.

        Seriously though, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

      • "I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me."

        So what you are saying is that you are entirely ignorant of the topic. You are likely the only person on the forum that has no context to place any of their reasoning on because you have no experience to give you that context. A single drink of alcohol is not a substantial enough amount to make an average adult male feel any effect. As any adult male who has experienced a drink could tell you. I am not talking bout being 'buzzed' or 'drunk', a single drink is not enough to be able to even tell that you have drank any without the aftertaste. A single drink would put an average male over the legal limit. If at a business meeting I had a single drink to avoid offending my boss by refusing his offer, would my car stop operating? I would have a serious problem with that.

        "Add up all of those what ifs, and you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers."

        There aren't 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers. There aren't even 17,000 people who died to make up that figure. At least 15% of that 17,000 were added to make up for the ones that the stats missed. As someone else already pointed out, you can find plenty of information about other nonsense that goes into those figures here:

        http://www.drunkard.com/issues/08_02/08_02_fightin g_madd.htm [drunkard.com]

        Personally I doubt drunk drivers are responsible for nearly as many accidents as senior citizens. Here in Florida we have the gray panthers lobbying and stopping legislation go in place that would require grandma to show quick response times to keep her license. Don't get me wrong, grandma is almost never in an accident. She will blissfully drive through an intersection and go on her way without seeing the collision that resulted from her action. Traffic accidents are usually caused by someone careless, that doesn't mean the careless one is the one who had the accident.

        I am against anyone modifying my car, computer, stereo, TV, clock, lights, or any other tool I own or purchase in a way that removes control from me. If this something is taking control from me because that will allow the tool to perform its function in some improved way, I might be willing to give on this point with little grumbling. But we are talking about something that removes control from the drivers of the car and does so for reasons that have NOTHING to do with improving the operation of the vehicle.

        P.S. Choosing not to be drunk is something to be proud of. Willfully choosing ignorance is the definition of stupidity.
          • People also drink and get home safely, by bus, driving themselves, taxi, or otherwise. Whereas some people don't drink, go to church, and regularly beat their wife and children, pee on the floor. And hell, slow drivers cause accidents too. Lots of people can run someone over and completely blackout, all without alcohol. These things aren't related, and you relating them causes me to think you are already drunk. But that doesn't mean you are.

            There's no shame in not drinking though, but to associate them is just silly. Voting republican, IMO, causes more deaths each year than drinking. But that's my opinion, and doesn't make it right.

  • Alcohol on hands (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 05 2007, @08:56PM (#17483836)
    Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream

    Suppose that I work in a bar and there's alcohol on my hands because I just spent the last eight hours wiping down tables. What then?

    • Driver responsibility! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:36PM (#17484246)
      I'm quite shocked that all /.ers have looked at so far is a list of things that could go wrong with the technology.

      What is really broken with this whole concept is that it takes away driver responsibility and nannies the driver. Instead of making drivers responsible, we make them victims: "It isn't my fault I drove drunk! The car let me drive! Go sue Toyota or put a Toyota exec in jail.". All these so-called safety devices just give users a false sense of safety.

      Cars are fucking dangerous things and need to be driven carefully. I think it would be a GoodIdea to strip all the safety gear from the driver (passenger safety is OK). If drivers didn't have airbags and safety belts and crumple zones perhaps they'd spend a bit more time thinking about driving rather than texting etc.

  • Killing the car while diving can be just as bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Friday January 05 2007, @08:56PM (#17483838)
    If The car is slowed to a halt on a high speed road then you can get rear ended.

    Also abnormal steering can come form trying to get a round a road hazard.

  • Alcohol Schmalcohol (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Si (9816) on Friday January 05 2007, @08:57PM (#17483848) Homepage
    Let's work on a teenager-on-cell-phone detection device first, k?

    (and by teenager, I mean "any idiot who thinks that they don't need to pay attention to other road users")

    (and by cell phone, I don't just mean making calls. Thumb-typers, you know who you are)
      • Fine, but what about accidents caused? non-fatal accidents? accidents involving people other than the driver? I'd also like to see data on the times of day that said accidents occur - perhaps drunk-drivers are simply not good at seeing in the dark drunk /or/ sober; and most people drink in the evening, which is also the most dangerous time of day to drive (due to failing light), and... So you see, simply quoting a number or two is not really telling the whole story.

        The thing is, Everyone Knows driving while

  • easy cheating (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xlyz (695304) on Friday January 05 2007, @08:57PM (#17483854) Journal
    just wear a pair of gloves
  • Slowing to a halt is all good and dandy but a bit anti-clamactic. It would be much more interesting if the breaks automatically locked, the airbags went off, all of the lights inside flipping on and off like the starship Enterprise in red alert etc etc. Defintely would scare the heck out of me. Maybe they should make the system automatically put the warning flashers on too for good measure. :)

  • Evidently, we are a species of perpetual children. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lethyos (408045) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:06PM (#17483942) Journal

    Remarkable how we devise elaborate technologies to serve as nannies in lieu responsible adult behavior.

    • Well, since the evidence shows that many adults aren't responsible, you have to do something about it when this irresponsibility affects the life and property of other people. For instance, instead of lamenting that adults can't keep from stealing or murdering, we have laws and safeguards. You have to govern the population you have (irresponsible adults) instead of wishing for a more ideal population (all upstanding, responsible adults). Drunk driving affects the life and property of other people, so we dev
    • That's what I was thinking until I read your comment and realized it's wrong. This wouldn't be nanniesm (sp?). We're not protecting your dumb drunk self from yourself, we're protecting everyone else from your dumb drunk self.

      If you want to make damn sure that it isn't nanniesm, we'll put a boxing glove in ontop of the airbag to give you a broken nose if you try to operate while drunk. There. Not being a nanny, being the friend you should have with you.

  • i dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by east coast (590680) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:10PM (#17483988)
    i feel that it's always a bad idea to leave technology determine if a vehicle should function or not. while i don't condone drinking and driving there is also the chance that someone may be in a position that they have no real choice.

    what's going to happen the first time a few people are together drinking in a responsible fashion and one gets sick/injured and someone needs to get him to professional help and the car won't work due to their "risky" behavior? who's going to be liable for what on that day?

    • Re:i dunno... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Manchot (847225) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:28PM (#17484178)
      I'm all for keeping as much liberty as possible, but let's face it: when you get behind the wheel and you've been drinking, it's not a decision that affects only you. In the situation you described, if there's a real emergency, the ambulance can be called. It's one thing to trample on the Bill of Rights invoking terrorism as a reason, but it's quite another to stop "responsible" drinkers from driving (especially when drunk drivers who think that they're "responsible" kill nearly 20,000 people every year).

  • Thank god I live in Canada! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sefert (723060) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:13PM (#17484022)
    And it's so damn cold i'm wearing gloves when i'm driving home pissed!

  • Easily beatable (Score:5, Funny)

    by straponego (521991) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:15PM (#17484050)
    Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream

    Pfft. Gloves.

    or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus.

    Pfft. Blindfold.

    You'll have to try harder than that to infringe on my freedoms, Toyota!

  • Both ineffective and dumb (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shihar (153932) on Friday January 05 2007, @09:27PM (#17484162)
    Over coming the alcohol sensor is a simple matter of putting on a pair of gloves. Any drunk who is sober enough to get his key in the ignition is also going to be sober enough to know he can defeat his car with a pair of gloves.

    As far as the 'features' of this car, I don't want them. I can prevent myself from drive drunk without my cars help, thank you very much. The last thing in the world do I want three separate systems to disable my car. The alcohol sensor could be triggered by other sources of alcohol. More scary, the erratic driving and the lack of pupil focusing could be triggered by poor pattern recognition. The last thing in the world I want is for the car to decide is that I am not focusing enough due to a glitch and try and slow me down on in the middle of a Boston highway during heavy traffic chugging along at 70 mph.

    If Toyota wants put in a safety feature that I would actually want, give me a system to warn me that I am falling asleep THAT I CAN TURN OFF. I don't mind my car warning me that my driving is looking funny or that it seems like I am not focused, but I want to be able to disable the warning should it become clear that there is a glitch. The last thing in the world I want is for it to take control away from me. I would rather veer off the road and hit a treat then come to a dead stop in the middle of a highway. Trees only hit you ounce.

  • Control-freak magnet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by russotto (537200) on Friday January 05 2007, @10:10PM (#17484542) Journal
    The problem with this technology isn't any of the (many) practical problems it entails. The problem is it just begs to be made mandatory by governments. Very few people would want to put this system in a car which they drive; after all, most of them figure they don't drive drunk anyway so why pay for it, and the drunks sure as heck don't want it. Some people would want it in cars they bought for their teen-aged children but that's a fairly small niche market. Rental companies might want it but probably wouldn't want to pay for it unless it was somehow mandated -- particularly since it might cause legitimate renters to shy away fearing those false positives. So here's a technology which "everyone" (which is to say journalists, car manufacturers, politicians, and the safety lobby) sees will do good, but will not be accepted by the public on an individual level. Legislation is sure to follow.

    On a philosophical level, I think it's antithetical to freedom for technology to be required to prevent people from deliberately doing wrong. The choice to break the law should be up to the individual. Consider if the Montgomery buses had had skin-albedometers and some odd contraption to move Rosa Parks where she "belonged" -- you can't have civil disobedience if disobedience is impossible. Consider if printing presses were somehow rigged to refuse to print the Pentagon Papers or anything else the government thought was illegal to print. If cars had a 55mph speed governor during the years of the US national maximum speed limit, would that law have ever been repealed? Granted, these are arguments against mandating the technology, not against its development, but for the reasons I stated above, this technology is pretty much a control-freak magnet.

  • So (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dunbal (464142) on Saturday January 06 2007, @12:06AM (#17485314)

          Are they going to call this "Trusted Commuting"?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rlp (11898)
      Not to mention if you spill gas (with ethanol) on your hands while fueling your vehicle.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.