• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Mandatory Anti-Drunk-Driving Tech is coming

don't they already have this tech in cars? i think it must be court ordered. i'm sure that by the time it is actually installed, those kind of flase positives will be worked out. it did mention that they can rely on other tech like drowsy awareness being among them.

my guess it will be a while before these things are included in new cars.
 
I think what they have now for people arrested for drunken driving requires them to blow into a device. I could be wrong

I would think the newer devices just has a sensor that sniffs the air. I'm thinking a false positive could come from after shave, perfume, maybe even a scent from the things people hang in their car to make it smell like new leather.

One time in my trailer I was at a camp site where their water had so much Hydrogen sulfide gas (sulfur smell) it set off two different CO2 detectors in my trailer

We'll just have to see what happens.
 
Mom's 2024 Hyundai Santa Fe already has a built-in breathylizer, as well as some ability to know how 'awake' you are at the wheel.

Today's vehicles are even more complicated than the famous K.I.T.T. That blasted thing can even park and unpark by itself (with no one at the wheel, something called 'smart park assist'.)
 
I say, bring it! Far too many accidents and subsequent deaths result from drunk driving. There is zero room for driving under the influence. I hope they can develop a system that is impossible to disable and has no false positives.
 
olbriar said:
I say, bring it! Far too many accidents and subsequent deaths result from drunk driving. There is zero room for driving under the influence. I hope they can develop a system that is impossible to disable and has no false positives.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you! The city I live in use to set up a lot of Police safety stop stations, then I read something about the Police getting sued and I haven't seen another safety stop stations since. I'm pretty sure I read the Illinois State Police still do safety stop stations.
 
There wouldn't be nearly as many DUIs if they just took your license away forever after the first offense. There is zero excuse for people to have had their nineteenth DUI.

That would pretty much solve the problem. Stop going easy on the morons. Tech can fail, it doesn't last forever. Capacitors degrade over time. If you drink and drive, lose your license and walk (or take public transport) FOREVER. Don't do the crime, or you do the time.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Or have we forgotten that?
 
The more tech they pack onto vehicles, the shorter their lifespan as well. Not too long ago, a few weeks in fact, I visited our junkyard (I am friends with many there and it's sort of a hangout) and it astounded me how new and modern so many vehicles there were. I'm talking 2016 Chevy Equinox, 2012 Ford Focuses, and a 2011 Lincoln MKX.

I am betting a lot of the 'fancy tech' started to fail, and with software becoming obsolete even faster today, that ultimately things such as infotainment systems, backup cameras, safety equipment such as automatic braking, radar, blind spot monitoring and the like that people grew accustomed to also failed; many of those vehicles had accident damage, some looked brand new still. Capacitors fail often, anyone who's familiar with mid-2000s PCs and tech can tell you stories of the infamous 'capacitor plague'.

With this kind of tech, it's another thing to ultimately fail, and not be 'supported' by software or the diagnostic tools at mechanics (which are largely like massive PC repair labs than the greasy oily shops of yesteryear) and once that happens, people just get rid of the vehicle, and 'buy another one'.

People say to me all the time that a modern vehicle lasts far, far longer than a 1970s counterpart. But I always respond to them with this fact: "You can come across a 1972 Ford LTD that was sitting in someone's backyard for decades, and with little effort, can get it running and driving fairly easily. You won't find a 2024 Hyundai Santa Fe in similar shape and be able to coax it to start in the same time frame, because the technology would be long rotted, electrolytics long dried up or leaked, and no diagnostic equipment necessary to scan and troubleshoot will even exist"

With so many in junkyards that are not even 5 or 10 years old, I find it hard to believe that vehicles today last nearly as long, and upgrade culture also impacts this. People also drive farther than they did in the 1970s as well, and this alone will also impact anyone's desire to own an EV in the future.

Just saying that don't trust the tech to always get you out of a situation. We're only one more Check Engine light away from tech such as this to not detect anything and let DUI continue. The solution isn't these band-aids, it's to make the punishment for such a crime harsher than it is lately. Not only is DUI not a permenant loss of your privilege to drive, but even crimes such as first-degree murder are getting lenient sentences, and prisons becoming closer to a high school (prisoners even get TV, internet, and can attend church for crying out loud) than the iron bars of the past. With such lenient punishment, there's even less reason for anyone to be deterred from committing a crime. When folks get plea bargains that allow them to spend 20 years and be parolled for first-degree murder, we got a huge problem.

Either driving suddenly became a right one day, or we aren't taking crimes such as Driving Under the Influence seriously enough to deter it properly. Technology being tossed at the problem never fully fixes anything. Just ask Boeing about the 737 MAX MCAS incidents. Another band-aid designed to prevent human-error contributing to plane crashes resulted in planes literally flying themselves into the ground.

One of my favorite quotes is from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock where Scotty disables the U.S.S. Excelsior by removing a few chips, and is quoted "the more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain"
 
Last edited:
nickdalzell said:
The more tech they pack onto vehicles, the shorter their lifespan as well.
Click to expand...
That's why vehicles should not be dependent on those extras for core functionality! Graceful degradation is a thing, and I which car manufactures would educate themselves about it.

From Wikipedia:
Fault tolerance is the resilient property that enables a system to continue operating properly in the event of failure or major dysfunction in one or more of its components. If its operating quality decreases at all, the decrease is proportional to the severity of the failure, as compared to a naively designed system, in which even a small failure can lead to total breakdown. Fault tolerance is particularly sought after in high-availability, mission-critical, or even life-critical systems. The ability of maintaining functionality when portions of a system break down is referred to as graceful degradation.
Click to expand...

In other words: A failure of the computer which handles (for example) the backup camera should not render the car inoperable. Even a total failure of all of a car's computers should not render the car unusable. Cars can have the benefits of functionality provided by computers, without the risk of a computer breakdown breaking the whole car. All it requires is intelligent design.
 
There are a few at the same junkyard that had the unfortunate issue of having their infotainment and climate controls in the same display, and the display was dead. Another 2013 Chevrolet Equinox had issues where the odometer on the cluster got stuck in metric, and the attempt to replace it ended up having it dash out so there was no more odometer. That meant it couldn't be sold outside Indiana given it had an Indiana title and courts in other states require the odometer reading to pass inspection.

The first car on the market to sport an infotainment system (and yes, integrated the climate controls into it as well) was the 1988 Buick Reatta. Guess which part failed first?

reatta-dash.jpg


We already see cars enter junkyards because the key fob got lost and apparently you can't get a replacement easily, which they found out with two Cadillac XLRs, no key fob, no engine start.

If the anti-drunk driving tech fails, what then? it allows DUI to continue (which is why a band-aid solution isn't the way) or does it render it inoperable because it cannot guarantee safety, or be similar to the missing fob thing?

The capacitor plague is already affecting mid-90s vehicles' EFI systems already, and those weren't that complex to begin with. The problem has to be much, much worse now. What happens when the software updates no longer get made for older vehicles like the MyFordTouch system on a 2012 Focus? No more map updates? That's the reason many are junked nowadays. Not for actual problems but by being left behind due to the warp speed of technology.
 
Last edited:
ocnbrze said:
don't they already have this tech in cars? i think it must be court ordered. i'm sure that by the time it is actually installed, those kind of flase positives will be worked out. it did mention that they can rely on other tech like drowsy awareness being among them.

my guess it will be a while before these things are included in new cars.
Click to expand...
The EU has made fitting the interface for these things mandatory, but I think not the device itself. That would make it simple for a court to order someone with a previous conviction to fit the device itself to their car. The devices are generally things you blow into.

Volvo are offering the devices on new cars in the UK, mainly targeting company car fleets (so the company could choose to ensure their cars can't be driven under the influence).

Personally I've no problem with both cars requiring a clean sample to start the engine and, as Nick says, a "one strike and you are out" policy. I'd also set the blood alcohol level in the UK lowered by about a factor of 4 (so that there would be no ambiguity about whether you could have a drink and still drive).

I never had any tolerance for drink driving, but two of my family members are paramedics so I've heard far too much about the consequences.
 
My one strike and you're out idea had nothing to do with tech, but the law itself. There is absolutely zero excuse to allow more than one DUI conviction. I watched an episode of COPS a few years back and someone had gotten their 19th DUI. 19TH!!!

Has driving become a right suddenly? I thought it was a privilege and could be taken away? I say one DUI, walk or take public transport FOR LIFE.

I'm also full support of death penalty for first-degree murder which also has become taboo, I'm watching true crime and many first-degree murder convictions have 20 year 'life' sentences, or worse, they get paroled. For the few which are 'rot in prison for your lifetime' prison isn't prison anymore. It's a glorified hotel these days, and with the ability to surf the 'net and watch TV (prison tech being all-clear looking). No more harsh iron bars and forced labor. But life sentences require resources to feed and clothe the prisoners, and you end up building more and more prisons ultimately, which requires more limited resources, while homeless go hungry. Then you have to factor in the escapees that go on to kill more and more.
 
I don't think church should be in prisons. It's a separation of church and state since prisons are part of the government.

Same reason you don't find the Ten Commandments on school classrooms anymore.

I don't think any prisoner especially murder convicts deserve any 'nice things' like a television or tablet, either. They're supposed to be punished, not living in the Hilton. Unfortunately, there is some truth in the phrase "I'd rather go back to prison--It was better than being out on the street" that I hear some ex-cons say.

I had to spend one night in jail for doing something in my past I ain't proud of (nothing felony I assure you). It was not jail as I had expected it to be. It looked more closer to a high school than a jail. No bars anywhere in sight. Brightly lit areas, even a snack/food court with TVs that you could play anything you wanted on. Free food. Church. Schooling even. It was more like a fancy military base, and I could join the army and get similar 'quarters'. Where was the 'jail?'
 
nickdalzell said:
I don't think church should be in prisons. It's a separation of church and state since prisons are part of the government.

Same reason you don't find the Ten Commandments on school classrooms anymore.
Click to expand...

Then are you willing to let them out of prison every Sunday so that they can attend church? The First Amendment to the US Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Prohibiting them from atending religious services sounds like breaking the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bit. Unless you're willing to let them out of jail to attend religious services, the servies would have to be on prison grounds. That is not the same thing as the government establishing or endorsing any particular religion or denomination!

And I know, the world is not America. But the principle applies for any country with separation of church and state: It's one thing to not have an established religion, it's quite another to prohibit people (even prisoners) from attending religious services!
 
Prison is supposed to be punishment though. You give up all your rights the instant they say 'we the jury have found the defendent guilty of all charges'

At best, you got your miranda rights, but not much else. Otherwise you could argue that imprisonment is a violation of one's constitutional rights as well. For example, no one in the 'system' has their rights to privacy, as all their internet activity is monitored.

In prison, you have no right to free speech, freedom of movement, right to own property, or live the life you choose. It's prison folks!
 
nickdalzell said:
Prison is supposed to be punishment though. You give up all your rights the instant they say 'we the jury have found the defendent guilty of all charges'
Click to expand...
I think you're jumping from one extreme to the other. That is: You think prisons are too soft, so you want to strip prisoners of all rights. And I remind you, you're the one who said "all your rights".

That is an extreme statement! If prisoners are striped of all of their rights: That means that I could legally shoot a random guy in prison, and it'd be okay because he has no right to life. Is that really what you meant to imply?
 
No, but it would allow capital punishment, which I am ok with. I don't think it's right to have our taxpayer dollars and such given to feed people who are non-rehabilitable, like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmler, while people starve in the streets. I don't think building more and more prisons to house the many more who end up there is a good use of resources either, and I sure don't like taking the chances of them escaping to murder more and more people.

I do indeed think we have become too soft. We give murderers parole these days or lighter sentences. I watch a lot of true crime and am disturbed by a lot of the outcomes I see. If anything these people should be hung in public or rot forever in Gitmo-style places. Not living it up, with free room and board, with TV, internet, PHONES, and amenities like they're simply visiting a military base, on your dime. It's not a myth that many think they 'have it better in prison than they did in life'.

But we are going off topic here. I do still firmly believe driving is a privilege not a right, and a severe enough crime, such as DUI, should be automatic loss of your license to drive, for life, once convicted. Nobody should be able to get multiple DUIs. It would be a more effective deterrent. Tech can and does fail. It's a band-aid solution.
 
My take on this is that if the government puts something on your vehicle to control it's operation it can simply turn it off at will.
I don't trust the government enough to believe that the technology wouldn't be abused.

I think that the criminal justice system needs to be strengthened. I'm not talking out of turn here, I worked inside of the prison system for nearly 20 years.
No convict ever thought they'd ever be caught. Nowadays they're being released back into society to prey on innocent folks with no thoughts of being locked up.
 
PitCarver said:
My take on this is that if the government puts something on your vehicle to control it's operation it can simply turn it off at will.
I don't trust the government enough to believe that the technology wouldn't be abused.
Click to expand...
Tesla already has this ability. There are already stories of them artificially limiting the range and speed of a 'modded' Tesla, or one that the owner decided to deny a software update. Pretty much guarantees I'll never own a modern car, EV or otherwise. There is literally zero reason to have cellular connectivity in a vehicle. Some vehicle makes have ToS's that say they can literally spy on anyone in the vehicle, which is both a violation of privacy and your rights.


I never trust anything the government does 'for our own good'. They've shown far too often that it isn't worth it. Sure, the whole COVID thing had merit, but once we allow them to have the power, you really think they will give it back? See Patriot Act for one example, that was 'temporary' was it not?

That's how they get ya. They introduce it on grounds that society will gladly accept (i.e., mitigating a pandemic) but they will always use it again for far more nefarious means, such as silencing dissent or protest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom