Toyota Creating In-Vehicle Alcohol Detection System

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.'"

Software Glitch

[Martix]

Just what we need is more stuff to go wrong and make a mistake and shut the engine off on a busy highway.

Imagine if this malnfunctioned on the freeway

[All_One_Mind]

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"

Alcohol Schmalcohol

[Si]

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)

easy cheating

[xlyz]

just wear a pair of gloves

Re:Alcohol Sweat Detection... Not so good

[rlp]

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

Evidently, we are a species of perpetual children.

[Lethyos]

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

i dunno...

[east coast]

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:Dangerous

[denbesten]

Anti-Lock brakes, Electronic Stability Control and automatic headlights are all existing examples of taking control away from the driver.

Re:Software Glitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because every drunk in the country is going to go out and buy a car that won't start.

Re:Dangerous

[flewp]

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.

How to lie with statistics 101

[Si]

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 drunk is Teh Evil, and there is big money and lobbists behind (not doing) it. Driving while celled has yet to attract any major attention, and so of course Toyota is going after the big target.

Re:i dunno...

[Manchot]

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).

Re:Imagine if this malnfunctioned on the freeway

[Mr. Slippery]

No one takes their vitamins then suddenly beats their wife and kids, pees all over the floor, then gets in the car and kills a family just driving down the road and minding their own business, and can't remember any of it in the morning.

No one has a single glass of wine with dinner and then does all those things, either.

If you believe that you would have a problem with keeping it to just a single glass, hey, great, you've made the right choice for yourself and I applaud you for it.

As far as this gizmo goes, I think breathalyzers should be standard equipment in all cars, and should also be required in all bars. (In all my years of visiting taverns I've only seen two bars that had coin-op breathalyzers.) And I wouldn't have too much of a problem with a system that refuses to start the car if it thinks you're drunk. But systems that take control away from the driver raise very serious safety issues.

Re:Evidently, we are a species of perpetual childr

[Ardeaem]

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 devise technologies to tackle the issue. This isn't "nannying," it is acknowledging a problem and dealing with it.

Driver responsibility!

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

Re:Dangerous

[Marcos Eliziario]

Personally I think that if the only car you know how to drive, is one with automatic transmission, then, no, you don't know how to drive!

Re:Ob

[ArcherB]

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.

Re:Imagine if this malnfunctioned on the freeway

[Plutonite]

You are not alone. You'd be surprised how many people don't drink out of principle, or think the current culture of booze, sex, and general hedonism is acceptable as a way of life. But you are posting on slashdot, so beware of thoughtcrime. Any hint of abstinence/moral inclination/religious value will put you in this big bag marked IGNORANCE, which many here feel is naturally associated with these things.

And they have a point, given that the outspoken "conservatives" are usually idiots, and the real ones don't feel there's a point to be made by arguing anymore.

Cheers

Re:Evidently, we are a species of perpetual childr

[Epistax]

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.

Re:Killing the car while diving can be just as bad

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Or from trying to keep the car under control in dangerous conditions. That is certainly a situation where you do not want the car to overrule the driver's intent.

Re:Evidently, we are a species of perpetual childr

[Dr Damage I]

And when an adult has demonstrated that they are irresponsible, the measures to curb their behaviour are entirely reasonable. Simply whacking everyone with extra expense, inconvenience and restriction of freedom is unreasonable and incompatible with an allegedly free society. Sure, freedom has its downsides. Like having to wait until after someone has done something stupid to seize their priveliges but I prefer them to the downside of living in a police state.

Re:Dangerous

[Galvatron]

Yeah, and everyone should run Linux, and code HTML in a text editor, and slaughter their own livestock. Fucking elitist prick.

We shall see.

[twitter]

What if... Insurance was much cheaper with this car...

It won't be cheaper if it causes more accidents than it prevents, it will be more expensive. Accidents cost money. The insurance companies will know if this works or not and charge accordingly.

Just bounce the carparks.

[dreamlax]

People drive into town sober, and drive home drunk. Why not just put bouncers with breathalysers at the carparks to reduce the number of drunks.

You should stop them before they get to their car, not while they are in it.

So

[Dunbal]

      Are they going to call this "Trusted Commuting"?

Re:YES, starts..

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

If that many people are really driving drunk, good.

Re:Dangerous

[CaptainDefragged]

How the hell is that insightful? If you have to get someone the hospital in a hurry, you call an ambulance. If you are trying to race some loved one to hospital with alcohol impaired driving skills, you are likely to kill them, yourself or probably some poor guy minding his own business.

It's simple - If you drink alcohol, you do _not_ drive. It's not hard to understand. It's the law. There is no excuse. Drunk drivers should be locked up. They should have their cars confiscated. You may think I'm overreacting. Wait until you nearly get killed by one. Being over the prescribed limit also cancels your automotive and personal liability insurance. You wear all the costs of any damage or injuries in the event of a collision.

Let me repeat-

If you have been drinking, you do not drive. At all. Ever. For any reason. There is no excuse.

Re:Ob

[pudro]

That page is full of crap (surrounding its facts). Especially the whole "0.08 BAC drivers killed people because they were drunk" crap (paraphrased). I won't cry for people who get DUIs at this level, but to insinuate that they are putting lives in danger is ridiculous. If someone gets in an accident at 0.08, they would do the same sober.

Plus the whole attributing pot and coke use to drunk driving on that page is ridiculous as well (specifically the pot use). Not only is there no test to accurately determine if someone is currently under the influence of pot, but it stays in your system for up to a month. (Coke use is a little more obvious and is only in your system for a few days.) I know people who use both, and most who use coke don't do it while drinking (it would be a waste), and maybe half that smoke pot will drink while high (and that goes down a lot when they're getting behind the wheel of a car).

Badidea

[syberdave]

It's not always your fault that you get into an accident. How would you defend from drunk drivers that aren't in a state of mind to care about his own life or the lives of others?

Re:Imagine if this malnfunctioned on the freeway

[shaitand]

"So I have to jump into a pool of lava before I can tell someone else it isn't smart to jump into a pool of lava?"

Jumping into a pool of lava is an action that is known to cause harm. Taking a drink is not.

"I am missing out on exactly zero by not drinking. I have a full and happy life."

No, your missing out on whatever can be learned about yourself and the things around you that could be experienced with an altered perception. Saying you are missing out on nothing by not doing so is the same as saying there is nothing to be learned by looking at a room through a black light, without having any clue what a black light does.

"I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just tried alcohol once"

Please save the drama. I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just read 'insert classic or great philosophical literature here'. That doesn't somehow change whether or not it is a worthwhile experience. Most experiences that are relatively safe are worth having at least once. Reaching conclusions about things and refusing to learn about them or experience them based on those conclusion is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is the literal definition of stupidity. I don't say for the sake of name calling, it is a simple statement of fact. Everyone without some sort of actual mental impairment has billions of neurons ready to be shaped by input. This means that everyone has within them the ability to choose whether they want to be intelligent or stupid. Intelligent people are the ones who utilize those neurons, they seek new information and input. Stupid people are the ones who avoid new information and input.

Aside from that, if they are dying of heart failure they might wish they had drank more. Evidence has surfaced that drinking small amounts is beneficial.

"But I know and hear about a lot of people who regret ever taking their first drink (first smoke, first hit of cocaine, first oxycontin, whatever)."

Nicotine, Cocaine, and Oxycontin all have one thing in common. They are physically addictive substances. It is true that some people carry a genetic mutation that causes alcohol to be converted into an addictive substance in the brain. Most do not, including 99% of AA meeting attendees. Most alcoholics have a psychological addiction and anyone can form a psychological addiction to literally anything. There are also no shortage of people who are predisposed to addiction, they will become addicted to something. If you help them overcome one addiction they will turn around and be addicted to something else. My point is, in order for alcohol to be more physically addictive than table sugar you would need to have a genetic defect about as common as allergy to sunlight. Alcohol also does not have any negative physical effects unless taken in very extreme quantities or heavy doses habitually.

"So to say I have no place in this discussion because I've never tried alcohol is ludicrous."

Sorry, but saying that someone without the prerequisite experience to understand a topic has no place debating on that topic is perfectly valid logic. You calling it ludicrous is not a counter point. That's like sitting on a committee that sets safety guidelines for rocket design without having ever designed a rocket.

Re:Ob

[name*censored*]

When I first read the article I thought "gloves".. but then, who carries a spare pair of sweatproof gloves with them? This would only work if the person was PLANNING to drink-drive, and most people only have the brilliant idea of drink-driving because they're too drunk to realise how stupid it is.

Could you also sabotage someone's car by throwing a bit of alcohol all over the steering wheel? There'd probably be a lot of this come April Fools..

Re:Really...

[Aladrin]

Inconvenienced slightly, or given a cause for their own accident, you mean. If people were good drivers, this would be a good idea. But they aren't. And sometimes, all it takes it some nutjob with his 4-way flashers on for no reason to make an idiot have an accident. If a car suddenly started flashing EVERY light, they'd either:

A) Have no bloody idea what's going on, and stare to find out
or
B) Know that the person is drunk and immediately start digging for the cell phone, start changing lanes to get the license plate, and probably a few other stupid things like turning down the radio at the same time.

Not everyone is this stupid, but if one of these idiots caused an accident 1% of the time the car 'alerted' others, it would be quite horrid.

No, it sounds like a great idea on paper, but when you add in human stupidity, it's not so great. Or even good.

Re:Driver responsibility!

[castrox]

Sorry, many of us are probably engineers. It is in our mind to search for problems and fix them before they become a problem. A work handicap, if you will.

Re:Dangerous

[drsquare]

How can manual transmission be elitest when most people use it? Only the old, disabled and American use automatic transmission.