Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

Proposed Federal Standard Would Require Cars To 'Prevent or Limit Operation' By Impaired Drivers (theverge.com) 185

On Sunday, a bipartisan group of Senators published draft text of a massive new bipartisan infrastructure bill, proposing more than a trillion dollars in spending and a vast array of far-reaching provisions. But a little-noticed section in the bill could have significant implications in the fight against drunk driving, eventually mandating a new in-car safety technology to actively prevent Americans from driving while impaired. The Verge reports: Introduced under the heading "Advanced Impaired Driving Technology," the provision would require the Department of Transportation to set a new standard for detecting and preventing impaired driving. The bill calls on the secretary of transportation to release a standard within three years, with the requirement taking effect for new cars three years after that. The specific provisions of the standard are vague, but it would require cars to "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired" and "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" if impairment is detected.

The specific means of creating that system are still undetermined, but advocates say much of the technology is already available. Driver monitoring systems, which track a driver's face or eyelids to ensure they are alert and actively piloting the vehicle, are already offered in some models by Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes Benz. Systems like lane detection could also be used to detect impairment, creating an alert if the driver is consistently veering outside their lane. "Twenty years ago, this technology didn't exist," says Jason Levine of the Center for Auto Safety. "[But] we have the technology available now. We can install tech in vehicles that helps to monitor whether someone is impaired and stops that person from hurting themselves or others."

Crucially, the new standard wouldn't be limited to drunk drivers. Because the systems measure impairment directly, they would be just as effective at detecting impairment from prescription drugs, emotional distress, or simple distraction. A longer-term effort would also seek to mandate passive alcohol monitoring systems, like those currently being developed by Volvo. While the provisions are aimed at creating a new mandatory requirement for automakers, such a requirement is still a long way off. Negotiations around the infrastructure bill are still in flux, and the provision could still be removed or altered by lawmakers. Even if it passes into law, the Department of Transportation will have wide leeway in how and when to implement the requirement and could easily delay it beyond the schedule set by Congress.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed Federal Standard Would Require Cars To 'Prevent or Limit Operation' By Impaired Drivers

Comments Filter:
  • Can't afford it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by strikethree ( 811449 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:25PM (#61652581) Journal

    While systems like these are nice in theory, this is going to add a significant cost to the price of a vehicle. ABS, Air Bags, Seat belts, they all add to the price of a car. A car is already unaffordable... which is fine if you did not build your entire society around driving a vehicle to get anywhere. The underclass will be VERY underclass soon.

    • ABS, Air Bags, Seat belts, they all add to the price of a car. A car is already unaffordable...

      Prices are high cos people are paying them. General bellyaching over the cost of safety features is just a way to get you to accept that price and pay it, you likely heard about it from a PR agency hired by the Big Three.

      The prices of cars follow ability to pay, not cost to manufacture.

      • Re:Can't afford it (Score:5, Informative)

        by BoB235423424 ( 6928344 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @05:10PM (#61652759)

        Profit margins are not that high. All these requirements do in fact raise the price. People are paying the prices because every make/model is going up in cost to account for these things. There isn't cheaper competition beyond older cars staying on the road longer (which statistics show is the case). Car loans have also increased from 3-4 years to 6-7 years to keep monthly costs lower. The other unmentioned impact is the cost of insurance. While all these safety features should make the cars safer and thus lower insurance costs, the costs to repair cars has gone up dramatically and rates have gone up to account for such.

        Heavy handed regulation and mandates tend to lead to two classes and purge the middle class. Every time government makes things more expensive, more people move down the economic ladder and more things become only affordable to the wealthy.

        • Cars have a massive amount of profit in them because of all the "standard" features you're forced to pay for.

          I really don't want to hear that no-margin excuse when we blatantly see car manufacturers desperate to make sales, discount thousands off the price. 20 years ago when I wanted the bare-bones stripped down model, they literally couldn't negotiate much on price because there were no features to haggle margins with. Today, that is obviously not the case.

      • "The prices of cars follow ability to pay, not cost to manufacture."

        That would be true if there was a monopoly on cars, which of course, there is not. Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, Fiat-Chrysler, Daimler and more. None of them can sell for a large margin over manufacturing cost because they'd get undercut by the others.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      Well, the poors should be riding a bus anyway, doncha know. Never mind whether or not there are busses from where they live to where they work for subsistence wages, or that you need to carry a towel to wipe the urine (you hope) off the seat from the homeless guy who sat there last, that's what they should be doing.

      • Well, the poors should be riding a bus anyway, doncha know. Never mind whether or not there are busses from where they live to where they work for subsistence wages, or that you need to carry a towel to wipe the urine (you hope) off the seat from the homeless guy who sat there last, that's what they should be doing.

        It must be awful to live in a place like that.

        When I take public transport it's usually full of teenage girls in beachwear.

        (actually true...I'm not making this up)

        • "When I take public transport it's usually full of teenage girls in beachwear."

          It must be awful to love in a place line that.

          I live in a place where a variety of people live, young, old, working, homeless, students, well-dressed, merely fashionable, dressed somewhat raggedly, you know. something like a real world. But I miss out on public transit a lot, and when I do, I'm entertained, educated, and reminded that life in America is not nearly as hard as it could be for pretty much all of us who live here. An

    • by fermion ( 181285 )
      A 1960s Ford Falcon, my favorite car which my family drove through most of the 1970s was $202000 dollars in todayâ(TM)s money. The 1970s Dodge Dart was around $20,000 in todayâ(TM)s dollars. The 1980 Ford Pinto, unsafe at any speed, was $15,000 in todayâ(TM)s dollars The 1989 Honda Civic was around $13,000, again in todayâ(TM)s dollars. These are all base.

      Kia, Nissan, an Subaru all make highly rated very safe cars for $15-18,0000, base. You can get a used Mercedes for around $20,000

    • Expensive? Not at all.

      The Comma 2 driver assist system costs $1,000. It's essentially a smartphone and two cameras.

      You can get a dash cam with dual cameras for about $99 today so most of the hardware is clearly about $50 except for the GPU powerful enough to run a driver assist system. In 6 years when this would go into effect a $1,000 smartphone level of Neural net inference will be easily less than $100. Especially once ARM starts including neural net dedicated silicon in their full lineup and you don't

    • A car is already unaffordable...

      Is it though? The percentage of people in the USA below the poverty line (11%) is higher than the percentage of people without access (voluntarily or otherwise) to a car (8%).

      Food insecurity is higher in the USA than lack of access to transportation. I think you're very much focused on the completely wrong thing. Maybe instead of making the underclass' lives less safe you should consider paying them a livable wage.

  • by hambone142 ( 2551854 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:31PM (#61652611)

    How about limiting crazy drivers? Those who do "zipper lane changing" and cut people off. Those who drive 30 MPH in a 55, the ones on cellphones that can't keep an even speed and can't keep in their lanes. Just a few ideas.

    • Self driving cars are the ultimate solution for these sorts of problems. I hope for a future where cars not only can self drive, but eventually such systems are advanced enough manual driving is not only unnecessary, but disappears over time, at first becoming an optional add-on for new cars before being omitted entirely, or even being made illegal in the name of saving lives. I want to see manual driving turn into something like a sport, recreation done on designated tracks off open roads. It'll take a whi
      • but eventually such systems are advanced enough manual driving is not only unnecessary, but disappears over time

        You understand nothing about human nature if you think this will ever happen. Yeah, there will absolutely be people who will never drive in their lives. Just like there are people today who never get a drivers license....hell my grandmother went 96 years without one. But there will also be people like myself who enjoy driving and will fight back against any restrictions on it. So those future autonomous systems better know how to deal with human drivers

        • But there will also be people like myself who enjoy driving and will fight back against any restrictions on it. So those future autonomous systems better know how to deal with human drivers

          You're in the minority and the car manufacturers and politicians are going to follow the money.

          Get over it.

          • But there will also be people like myself who enjoy driving and will fight back against any restrictions on it. So those future autonomous systems better know how to deal with human drivers

            You're in the minority and the car manufacturers and politicians are going to follow the money.

            I have a hard time believing that.

            Do you have any stats/survey's to that effect?

          • It's amazing how wrong you are. It's almost as if you're in some bubble that's detached from reality, as are most people pushing autonomous driving.

            Just a quick google search.

            https://saferoads.org/wp-conte... [saferoads.org]

            https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]

            https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]

    • How about limiting crazy drivers? Those who do "zipper lane changing" and cut people off. Those who drive 30 MPH in a 55, the ones on cellphones that can't keep an even speed and can't keep in their lanes. Just a few ideas.

      Yeah, but most of them are high on narcotics that are Gov-subsidized cheaper than your average McBurger, provided by Big Pharma.

      So naturally, they get a pass. After all, we can't have Donor Class revenue streams impacted, no matter the cost.

    • by dargaud ( 518470 )
      Yup, after moving to the US I had to retake my driver's license (because passports are not a valid form of ID and driver's licenses are... go figure) and I was horrified at how easy the exam was: you can even come with somebody else to help you !!! WTF.
      • What the written? The rules of the road are pretty simple. If you didn't already have a license you have to actually take a driven. Nobody is going to 'help' you when actually driving with the DMV assessor in the car.
    • Same way we already deal with them and the intoxicated, right? Cops.
  • We will have infotainment systems showering us with dashboard based ads and entertainment while this technology shuts down the car because weâ(TM)re distracted by that content. The war on the independence granted by the car continues!

    A better way to handle this is to massively increase penalties for driving while impaired. First offense - permanent ban on alcohol consumption, mandatory rehab, 5 years of probation, and a $5k suspended fine. Second offense? 2 years in prison and a 10k fine plus 5 years o

    • A better way to handle this is to massively increase penalties for driving while impaired. First offense - permanent ban on alcohol consumption, mandatory rehab, 5 years of probation, and a $5k suspended fine. Second offense? 2 years in prison and a 10k fine plus 5 years of drivers license revocation with no hardship exemption. And so on.

      The hell do you mean "and so on"?!? Just how many lawmakers do you plan on putting behind bars? Keep that up, and there won't be anyone left to vote on the bill.

      Not to mention the Ted Kennedy Congressional Rehab Wing...goverment buildings ain't cheap ya know.

    • as long as it's an blood test that the state pays for or breathalyzer with full source code and full calibration logs are in court.

  • But how?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:42PM (#61652637)

    They say, "we didn't used to have computers and now we got 'em" which is true but it still doesn't address the central idea of how in the hell they are supposed to detect an impaired driver. This sounds like a bunch of people who don't understand how computers actually work and want a magic answer.

  • by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:46PM (#61652659)
    All cars will be blow to go?
  • ... does that mean that you shouldn't get a ticket for impaired driving if your alchohol level is over what might otherwise be the legal limit but you were still driving safely?
    • by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:58PM (#61652715)

      Actually it would be a good idea to use the technology to help you drive when somehow impaired. It would allow all those elderly to still move around where they would be forbidden to do so if there was a test for their ability.

      And the same could apply to drinking really. 'with this system we allow you to drive when slightly drunk.'

      • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        No, blended liability is a nightmare.

        But I think it would be fine for the car to say "You're drunk. I'll drive."

        • Yeah well I'd try a bit harder instead of stopping instantly because legal doesn't like it. You could introduce a rule that legally 'drunk' is treated as 'buzzed' when the driving aids are on, but intoxicated is treated the same as before. Or 'impaired' is treated as 'sober' , whatever the terminology.
          Of course there is little interest in that, but there could be interest for elderly: lower standards you need to satisfy if you have the driving aids.

  • No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @04:57PM (#61652711)
    What if it malfunctions when someone is trying to go vote? To help their aged parents? To urgently get to the hospital? And it will ABSOLUTELY malfunction at some point. There's a place for this type of technology, but you don't start deploying it to the masses using the assumption that everyone is guilty.
    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      Given the current political climate in the US, one of the very first things that will be classified as impaired driving will be not expressing the correct political ideology.

    • I actually had a patent years ago that covered some of this. It was more for authorized driver than impaired. If you were unable to get the system let you in then you bypassed it. When bypassed speed was limited, headlights and flashers were on.

      This was a thing years ago when someone thought it a bright idea to have cars fail to start if the seatbelt wasn't latched. Sounds good until the seatbelt switch fails and kills the car.

      If there is test for impaired driving then I'd hope it actually does som
      • An AI that can determine someone's state of mind will be sufficiently advanced that it can also drive a car. Then there is no need to limit impaired driving at that point because the car will drive your drunken arse home.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by geekmux ( 1040042 )

      ...There's a place for this type of technology, but you don't start deploying it to the masses using the assumption that everyone is guilty.

      Sure you do! Just take a look at anti-gun laws being proposed. Every legal gun owner with a semi-auto capacity or more than 10 rounds is now a potential domestic terrorist. 300 million guns in America, but the dozen used in mass shootings are plenty of justification to label anyone who wishes to legally arm and defend themselves, a criminal.

      • by gTsiros ( 205624 )

        EVERYONE is a "potential" domestic terrorist, whether they on a watergun, a main battle tank or an ar-15 is irrelevant.

        • EVERYONE is a "potential" domestic terrorist, whether they on a watergun, a main battle tank or an ar-15 is irrelevant.

          It really is sad that the words "domestic terrorist", were not part of the everyday vernacular until recently, incited by a click-happy MSM with a business objective of go-viral-at-all-costs. And now it appears you are defending the use of it. You intend to eviscerate the 4th and 5th Amendment too?

          And I'd love to see the legal argument when you're "attacked" by someone "armed" with a watergun. The fuck is a car wash to you, a potential weapon of mass destruction? Should we start putting armed guards aro

    • by piojo ( 995934 )

      Yeah, this system seems like it will be great for driving someone to the hospital on empty roads at night. Or being followed by a harasser. The car will pull over to the shoulder, and someone may die because of it.

      • Yeah, this system seems like it will be great for driving someone to the hospital on empty roads at night. Or being followed by a harasser. The car will pull over to the shoulder, and someone may die because of it.

        These kinds of objections always strike me as rather overwrought. The type of situation you describe are rare, and better handled by the emergency services.

        And, what of the lives lost every day in car crashes? Do they not figure in your arithmetic?

        • The type of situation you describe are rare, and better handled by the emergency services.

          "Emergency Services" are generally there to just take pictures of the crime scene and start and investigation....unfortunately not to prevent the crime and potential death/damage.

          When seconds count, the police are only (many) minutes away.

    • To urgently get to the hospital?

      If you're using a car to urgently get to the hospital you deserve everything you get. Your lack of planning should not make you a risk to others. If you're suffering a medical condition then you can call a special car which makes a special noise for your urgent requirement.

      What if it malfunctions when someone is trying to go vote?

      Why not address this problem directly? The idea of having to get either a car or even public transport to go to vote is so alien to me. Do you not have legs to walk? And if your voting booths are not within a short stroll of where you liv

      • What if it malfunctions when someone is trying to go vote?

        Why not address this problem directly? The idea of having to get either a car or even public transport to go to vote is so alien to me. Do you not have legs to walk? And if your voting booths are not within a short stroll of where you live, ask the question: "why not?"

        Wow...WTF do you live where everything is just a couple of blocks walk away?

        Do yo also have perfect weather all the time? Lessee, here for past month, we get rain showers most e

    • The ultimate goal since 9/11, if not before, is safety and security at all costs. Sadly there's a large percentage of the population that clamor for it. This is pandering to the security theater fans. As are most technological "improvements" to cars.

  • But nothing to make sure a driver follows the speed limit? e.g., not more than 10 MPH over..

  • Yay, we all hate drunk drivers, but remember; adding complexity introduces failure points. Will the government be paying tow trucks and taxis to come get me when the device ( inevitably ) fails? Should they?

    I understand if you're out on probation for a drunk driving charge and you're required to get this device, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're presuming guilt of every driver and subjecting them to inappropriate risks because of it.

  • by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @05:07PM (#61652743)
    ...they're trying to push some serious tyranny. So how about "no"? I can't believe how many of you are saying "instead of this lets have vehicles prevent X other behavior"

    Transportation is an essential liberty. It's integral to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. And in modern America walking and public transportation just won't do it. All the cities and all the public infrastructure assumes everyone has a car they can use. If you don't have a car you don't really have liberty at all. It's an easy thing, once you say, "we should restrict car usage to prevent X behavior" to use it to solve social ills. Don't even get me started on the abuse against "deadbeat dads" represented by taking away drivers licenses.

    No. Let's not prevent the use of cars in the case of ANY behavior. No ignition lockouts, no driver facing cameras, no tests for impairment of any kind. Do not let the government have a say in who may drive where and DO NOT have cars check in with the government or their companies when they self drive. At the very best you're handing your car keys to an officious, self-righteous bureaucrat. At worst you're handing them to someone who wants nothing more than to socially engineer you onto the ground into a proper boot licking posture. Stop it. Stop it!
    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      All the cities and all the public infrastructure assumes everyone has a car they can use. If you don't have a car you don't really have liberty at all.

      Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. As cars became popular, cities rebuilt themselves around the car, holllowing out their urban cores [reddit.com] to build parking lots [ou.edu] and in the process increased distances between destinations and made driving the only practical way to get from A to B. (Of course the massive road subsidies [taxfoundation.org] also helped, just a little...)

      It's chicken-a

      • There isn't a problem of any sort. A superior mode of transportation was developed, everyone recognized that it was superior so they bought more and more cars, and city planners had to adapt. Livery stables, hitching posts and water troughs were replaced with parking spots, and walking across the street no longer meant losing a boot in the horseshit. You can call that "hollowing out" or "gutting" if you want, but know that it doesn't make any sense to do so. The infrastructure for keeping and caring for
    • That is what some people have said to the threat of Artificial Intelligence. It is just a computer, so just turn it off if it causes grief.

      But long before any hyper intelligent AI is created, we will be utterly controlled by computers. Your bank loan and insurance premiums already are. Where you can drive is next. You will not even be able to open your front door without a internet connected computer allowing it.

    • Transportation is an essential liberty.

      Indeed it is. Take the bus to express your liberty if you want to be an inebriated idiot. No where in any law does it say you have a right to own or drive a car. The car is not an essential liberty.

  • I hope so. Texting is intrinsically distracting and contributes to a vast number of accidents.

    How Many People Die From Texting And Driving? [simplyinsurance.com]

    About 14% of all fatal crashes involve some sort of cell phone use.

    1 out of 4 car accidents in America are caused by texting and driving.

    Car insurance premiums have increased up to almost 10,000% due to distracted driving.

    Back in 2011 the NTSB recommended there should be no cell phone use when driving, even hands free. Obviously the recomendation went nowhere. Thi

    • Texting while driving should be a primary offense and after one warning should be treated THE SAME as a DUI. It's literally a thing now where people get on the highway, go 40 MPH in the middle lane and text away, eyes 100% on the phone and keep the wheel steady with their knees. Those assholes need to off the road, either in a mandatory no-phone-while-driving re-education class, or in jail.
      • by cob666 ( 656740 )

        Texting while driving should be a primary offense and after one warning should be treated THE SAME as a DUI. It's literally a thing now where people get on the highway, go 40 MPH in the middle lane and text away, eyes 100% on the phone and keep the wheel steady with their knees. Those assholes need to off the road, either in a mandatory no-phone-while-driving re-education class, or in jail.

        The problem is that texting in and of itself isn't the problem, the problem is being distracted while behind the wheel. There are plenty of things that drivers do that are at least as distracting as texting, such as reading a newspaper, putting on makeup, eating, turning around to yell at the kids in the back seat, et al. But the media zones in on texting because it's something that the younger generations do. I'd much rather see stricter and stricter enforcement of distracted driving rules but that does

        • Makeup and reading a paper are probably as bad since they take your attention away as much and for as long. You can eat a burger with one hand, keeping your eyes on the road and other hand on the wheel. Plate of spaghetti, maybe not so much, but there aren't many fast-food pasta joints.

          I don't think it has anything to do with age.

      • The worst part is that is a problem that could be solved very quickly by any other driver, but they can't because sending a car spinning off the highway would endanger the innocent drivers around them even more. p Okay, not the worst part at all, but it's frustrating.
  • Try driving this [staticflickr.com] while you are drunk.

  • by CrappySnackPlane ( 7852536 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @05:25PM (#61652833)

    So now instead of just stagger to the car to coast four blocks and a right turn from the local watering hole to my apartment, I have to stagger to the car, put on sunglasses, and do the same.

    Jokes aside, this is typical do-gooder shit - I'm sure it sounds really wonderful to soccer moms and their henpecked husbands, but if actually implemented, will run up so many false positives (is this driver distracted, or trying to read street signs to find their cross-street? Is this driver stressed, or do they just have twitches and tics from Tourettes? Drugged out of their mind, or just the natural physical characteristics of someone on Benzos? Remember - Joel Hodgson was never actually stoned on the set of MST3K, but try telling that to a pupil tracker) that it'll be a ludicrously massive pain in the ass for everyone and end up making both Prohibition and, more on topic, "55 Saves Lives" seem like drops in the bucket.

    • I mean I don't see the downside. Maybe if more Americans get exposed to unreliable cars they will seek alternate forms of transportation rather than driving 200m to the gym just to use the treadmill.

      Maybe that will also lead to calls for competent town planners and local governments which support the ability to make a city livable without the need to sit in the shitty tin can to do every little tiny task.

      • So, you think it's good because it would hurt innocent people so badly the entire country would have to be redesigned? You know that's both stupid and tyrannical, right? Not to mention horribly dishonest. If you want to ban people from driving personal cars, say so. Don't try and slip in in the backdoor.
    • Yeah, sounds good to anyone who doesn't think it through, and to people who can't tell the truth about what they really want (to punish people for driving). People who are both decent and possessed of at least half a brain seem to see right through it. Which is good, because that's most Americans, but also bad, because it clearly isn't most members of Congress.
  • Well, that will certainly clean up the roads with lots of space available for the lucky few. :D
    good luck escaping, what's that I see, emotional distress? sorry can't drive that car to get away. :D

  • by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @05:54PM (#61652969)
    I'm keeping what I got then. Beep beep. This is the perfect video for this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • Piling on of expensive mandates at least were done for well intentioned reasons rather than primarily a means for politicians to give back to their donors. Debbie Dingell of Michigan has raked in at least $300k from the auto industry thus far.

    The inability to have a separate vote on something that to say the least is a very controversial issue such as this that affects the whole country and instead sneak it into a multi-thousand page bill speaks for itself.

    As does the lack of process and public hearings on

  • by technothrasher ( 689062 ) on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @06:42PM (#61653203)
    So the lane detection system in my car that beeps at me and thinks I'm swerving because it cannot tell the difference between the straight edges of the road surface and non-straight lines of rubberized asphalt repair is now going to shut off my car on me?
  • The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    'Problems off the top of my head: The extra initial expense, extra fuel to push that extra technology around 24/7, added repair costs, the fact that your local trusted mechanic probably won't be able to repair such systems, the systems add to the cars' failure rates, the systems will fail once in a while at dangerous times, the extra design/manufacture/disposal of these systems means more pollution plus even more energy consumed, meaning higher fuel prices and higher global temperatures for all.

    Oh, and

  • Big brother is driving.
  • We should first deploy a system to check "impaired government officer / politician" and throw them out, before ch ecking drivers

    I mean their actions always affect 1000's of
      people and in much worse ways than the tiny % of citizens who may be too "impaired" to drive on some day and who may then have an accident and that may result in a human getting hurt.

  • This is a big honking bill full of pork and pig feces. It's complex with thousands of pages. Please, STOP THIS BILL.

    I am not going to breathe into a tube to start my car. I'll either just keep an older car, or hack this crap out of this system. No, I do not drive drunk.

  • Aside from the hideous cost increase it would cause, there's no way they can create technology that will be reliable enough to do this without false positives and false negatives either stranding you somewhere or allowing accidents to happen.
    Also even if they tried to implement such things within a matter of weeks there'd be hacks to disable all of it anyway.
    It'll never get off the ground, it'll never be passed into law, it'll never see the light of day.
    • I don't understand how you can recognize that and still support the people responsible. Elected Democrats are only going to see this as a good thing, that's why they did it, do it, and will keep doing it. Why keep voting for people who refuse to see such glaring flaws? You clearly don't think the way they do. Hell, you think, period. They don't, they're guided instead by feelings and don't (won't) consider the consequences you can't help but recognize.

      I'm never one for saying that someone is voting

  • Crap like this was tried for many decades and each time it never got anywhere and was quickly forgotten about. They experimented a "simple simon" type game in cars way back in the 1970s to act as a barrier to prevent impared drivers from being able to start the engine.

    The only real success was the breathalyzer that you get to have in your car if you go and fuck up ,but no driver who has not had a DUI conviction wants this in theirs.

    Ideas like the TFA come up from time to time when a politician wants

  • What a WASTE of time and money for those of us who don't even drink.

    Better solution? Get a DUI/DWI, lose your license for a year and huge fines the first time.

    Add bigger fines and jail time for more than one. et serious about punishing the a-holes causing the problem and leave the rest of us alone.

  • I call political grandstanding on this one. At best, it's an attempt to force auto-makers to include new driver assistance technology in all new models under the guise of driver safety. At worst, it's looking to push bills that are either ineffectual but look good on paper or are effectual but possibly unconstitutional. Either way, all the politicians at least look like they've made a stand to prevent impaired driving. You are against impaired driving, aren't you? Won't someone think of the children????
    • Yup. Ill conceived, possibly unconstitutional, unnecessary, unfair, and guaranteed to make matters worse, not better. But none of that will blow back on whoever introduced it, so its great for the worst legislators.
  • Me getting in car, distracted, late for a meeting. Car: Driver, my sensors detect you are not ready to drive, please repeat the following phrase to verify attention: " She sells seashells by the seashore". Me: What?, oh, yeah, um. "She sells seashells by the seashore" Car: I'm sorry, that does not match, please try again. " She sells seashells by the seashore" Me: Crap! OK, She sells...wait, She sells seashells by the seashore. Car: I'm sorry, that does not match. Please attempt the following action: Raise
  • Is this not an artificial agent of the government you are required to pay for and house? If not, how far is it from being one?

    Which is not to say that this couldn't be a violation of the 4th and 5th as well, it's just that the 3rd has never come up in a court case.

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

Working...