National Transportation Safety Board wants all new vehicles to check drivers for alcohol use

[joec]

There's a part of me that wants to support this idea, in theory. Fewer drunk drivers on the road would obviously be a good thing.

But knowing how software tends to be wonky in cars, I can't help but worry I'd be driving down the highway at 80, my car suddenly "decides" I'm drunk, and the whole thing just shuts down immediately.

They aren't talking about breathalyzers, which at least are known to be somewhat accurate. Passive breath sensors, or fingerprint sensors that pick up signs of alcohol in the blood? Feels like it'll be a while before we can rely on that. And worse yet, they aren't proposing any sort of standard. Auto manufacturers would be responsible for implementing their own solutions.

Just look at how many people on this forum have complained about the distracted driver warnings when you aren't looking at the road on the Air. Imagine if a) you couldn't turn that off, and 2) the whole car would turn off whenever that warning went off.

National Transportation Safety Board wants all new vehicles to check drivers for alcohol use

The recommendation, if enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, could reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, one of the biggest causes of highway deaths in the U.S.

www.pbs.org

 

[hydbob]

There's a part of me that wants to support this idea, in theory. Fewer drunk drivers on the road would obviously be a good thing.

But knowing how software tends to be wonky in cars, I can't help but worry I'd be driving down the highway at 80, my car suddenly "decides" I'm drunk, and the whole thing just shuts down immediately.

They aren't talking about breathalyzers, which at least are known to be somewhat accurate. Passive breath sensors, or fingerprint sensors that pick up signs of alcohol in the blood? Feels like it'll be a while before we can rely on that. And worse yet, they aren't proposing any sort of standard. Auto manufacturers would be responsible for implementing their own solutions.

Just look at how many people on this forum have complained about the distracted driver warnings when you aren't looking at the road on the Air. Imagine if a) you couldn't turn that off, and 2) the whole car would turn off whenever that warning went off.

National Transportation Safety Board wants all new vehicles to check drivers for alcohol use

The recommendation, if enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, could reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, one of the biggest causes of highway deaths in the U.S.

www.pbs.org

With the amount of sanitizer I use on myself and my kids in the car, I would never be able to drive...

 

[BradSholl]

Time to buy driving gloves!

 

[HC_79]

What NHSTA wants vs what NHSTA gets are two different things. Lol!

CA couldn't even implement speed cameras due to people claiming it was an infringement of rights or something so good luck with this.........

 

[Ksa23]

I have no problem with this idea to save lives, I’m just concerned about enforcement and legal challenges.

 

[borski]

There’s no way this survives a challenge on the basis of the 4th amendment.

(But also, passive breath analyzers won’t work because driving drunk people home still has to be okay)

 

[borski]

“Under last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress required NHTSA to make automakers install alcohol monitoring systems within three years. The agency can seek an extension. In the past it has been slow to enact such requirements.

The legislation doesn’t specify the technology, only that it must “passively monitor” a driver to determine if they are impaired.”

Okay so sounds like this is likely to happen, but will for sure get challenged. I have no idea how one could argue this doesn’t fly in the face of the 4th, but IANAL.

 

[joec]

“Under last year’s bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress required NHTSA to make automakers install alcohol monitoring systems within three years. The agency can seek an extension. In the past it has been slow to enact such requirements.

The legislation doesn’t specify the technology, only that it must “passively monitor” a driver to determine if they are impaired.”

Okay so sounds like this is likely to happen, but will for sure get challenged. I have no idea how one could argue this doesn’t fly in the face of the 4th, but IANAL.

We still have a 4th amendment? Seems like our courts gave up on that notion many years ago. jk.

 

[Rominian]

The first time I was exposed to lane keeping technology was in a rented Toyota Corolla. I messed around with it, letting it stay between the lines by itself and it actually did a pretty good job. After a while though, it determined that I was fatigued and a coffee cup symbol popped up on the screen and the car told me I should pull over and rest. I had a laugh at that and disconnected and kept driving. The car could have, at that time, simply shut off based on my apparent lack of attention. In a way I am for something that would prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, but also see that it could cause problems for all the rest of us. They already have breathalyzers that some convicted drunk drivers have to use to start their cars. I guess it goes back to if 10% of people poop their pants we all have to wear diapers.

 

[borski]

The first time I was exposed to lane keeping technology was in a rented Toyota Corolla. I messed around with it, letting it stay between the lines by itself and it actually did a pretty good job. After a while though, it determined that I was fatigued and a coffee cup symbol popped up on the screen and the car told me I should pull over and rest. I had a laugh at that and disconnected and kept driving. The car could have, at that time, simply shut off based on my apparent lack of attention. In a way I am for something that would prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel, but also see that it could cause problems for all the rest of us. They already have breathalyzers that some convicted drunk drivers have to use to start their cars. I guess it goes back to if 10% of people poop their pants we all have to wear diapers.

Lucid did this to my wife! She was, to be fair, exhausted! But it popped up the coffee cup and suggested she pull over haha. She was surprised and laughed because *it was right*, so she stopped at Starbucks, played Pokémon Go for a bit, grabbed a coffee, and then finished the drive home haha.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

One factor but an important one. Had this conversation with the grandparents when med pot was legalized in PA.
They were against it because driving. I explained that a drunk driver will blast through a red light oblivious. A pot head will wait for a stop sign to turn green. They did not get it. That said, the last thing I want to do when I'm pot high is get in a car, let alone drive.
One might observe that people like my wife, who loves to get in the far left (passing only) lane of the Jersey pike and stay there, at the speed limit, blasting past the white signs: "MOVE TO THE RIGHT, IDIOT!" (or something like that). I've given up explaining how dangerous that is, she doubles down. She thinks she is a safe driver. I call her "today's Jersey Turnpike pace car". She complains that I too stay in the far left... that is true, but at twice the speed. Whom of us is the good driver?

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

Part of my rationalization for this car is the future I want to see: When I have to take the turnpike somewhere it would be a cool future where all the cars are "talking" to one another and keeping their distance...none of this lane-changing bs that is shown slows every one, including the switcher. None of this tailgating... can you imagine? It's going to be so cool...if we can just keep humans out of the cars altogether. ...wait...

 

[joec]

Part of my rationalization for this car is the future I want to see: When I have to take the turnpike somewhere it would be a cool future where all the cars are "talking" to one another and keeping their distance...none of this lane-changing bs that is shown slows every one, including the switcher. None of this tailgating... can you imagine? It's going to be so cool...if we can just keep humans out of the cars altogether. ...wait...

That is the dream. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we'll see it in our lifetimes. It'll be a while before all the cars are driving themselves, let alone talking to one another in any sort of standardized way.

And even if that happens, the cars will likely be programmed to think link ants, not humans. That is, to optimize the shortest travel times for EVERYONE on the road, not just you. Which means your car will slow down, go a different route, let others merge in, etc. at your expense to keep overall traffic flowing. I can just see the dumb males who will be convinced they know better, overriding the car and just doing whatever they want. Saving themselves two minutes perhaps, but causing a half hour of traffic backups everywhere they go.

The only way this would truly work is if along with all the cars talking to each other, we eliminate the concept of car ownership along with it. Basically Uber without the drivers. That means everyone gets a personal ride, but they're all sitting in the "back" seat. Being driven by cars they can't control, even if they want to.

People would be reluctant to buy a car they can't drive manually sometimes. Which means the entire concept of car ownership becomes something for enthusiasts only. And THEN you have to keep the enthusiasts on special roads, so they don't muck up the hive mind of all the automated cars.

I'm convinced this all will eventually happen. Just not anytime soon.

 

[victoryroad]

Good idea in theory, but as mentioned legal and technical problems make it unlikely any time soon. Alcohol is only one cause of impaired driving. Just pay attention to cars wandering in their lane and it is likely that the driver is texting. Obviously, prescription drugs and recreational or illegal drugs can be just as dangerous to others as alcohol-impaired drivers. Lane-keeping functions can be intrusive but generally work as intended, in my limited experience with rental cars. However, I like to be in control and would not depend on lane-keeping equipment. I do not want to wrestle with the car, even a scintilla's worth to avoid an obstruction in my lane.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

That is the dream. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we'll see it in our lifetimes. It'll be a while before all the cars are driving themselves, let alone talking to one another in any sort of standardized way.

And even if that happens, the cars will likely be programmed to think link ants, not humans. That is, to optimize the shortest travel times for EVERYONE on the road, not just you. Which means your car will slow down, go a different route, let others merge in, etc. at your expense to keep overall traffic flowing. I can just see the dumb males who will be convinced they know better, overriding the car and just doing whatever they want. Saving themselves two minutes perhaps, but causing a half hour of traffic backups everywhere they go.

The only way this would truly work is if along with all the cars talking to each other, we eliminate the concept of car ownership along with it. Basically Uber without the drivers. That means everyone gets a personal ride, but they're all sitting in the "back" seat. Being driven by cars they can't control, even if they want to.

People would be reluctant to buy a car they can't drive manually sometimes. Which means the entire concept of car ownership becomes something for enthusiasts only. And THEN you have to keep the enthusiasts on special roads, so they don't muck up the hive mind of all the automated cars.

I'm convinced this all will eventually happen. Just not anytime soon.

This is such a thoughtful post. Thanks.

Yes! And we could standardize the roads for efficiency...like ... lay steel rails or mag lev along routes with high volume, and, and, maybe link up cars that are going in the same direction, and, and, ... wait ... why does this sound so 19th century?

I took AMTRACK from Philly to Connecticut for my sister's wedding. Took just over 12 hours, and two changes of locomotives because they broke down in transit, and had to be sidelined because coal and oil trains own the rails and get priority. Another time I was taking my pre-teen daughter to visit relatives in NH...we got on SEPTA (= sorry I'm late, I left early enough, 'cept ah... took the train) to the airport way early, because I was sharing each moment of the experience and wonder. I was going on about how living in the city means you don't even need a car. Trains and buses are better. Just then we slammed into car trying to cross the level grade with the gates down. Missed the flight. I can not win this argument. Chad will always "know better".

 

[joec]

This is such a thoughtful post. Thanks.

Yes! And we could standardize the roads for efficiency...like ... lay steel rails or mag lev along routes with high volume, and, and, maybe link up cars that are going in the same direction, and, and, ... wait ... why does this sound so 19th century?
View attachment 4855
I took AMTRACK from Philly to Connecticut for my sister's wedding. Took just over 12 hours, and two changes of locomotives because they broke down in transit, and had to be sidelined because coal and oil trains own the rails and get priority. Another time I was taking my pre-teen daughter to visit relatives in NH...we got on SEPTA (= sorry I'm late, I left early enough, 'cept ah... took the train) to the airport way early, because I was sharing each moment of the experience and wonder. I was going on about how living in the city means you don't even need a car. Trains and buses are better. Just then we slammed into car trying to cross the level grade with the gates down. Missed the flight. I can not win this argument. Chad will always "know better".

I remember when SEPTA's motto was "We're getting there." Always cracked me up. We're not there yet. But we're getting there. Like, eventually we'll be a service you'll actually want to use.
New York remains the only city in America where not having a car is feasible. I tried it in San Francsico, but it was so frustrating. Shame, really.

I seldom even want to rent a car in Europe when I visit. But any city in the US, i just factor a car rental into the equation. It didn't have to be this way. But here we are.

 

[Cosmo Cruz]

My youngest daughter got a job on Broadway. I have a closet larger than her bedroom. She has roomates. I sold her car and she trains to Hamilton where we pick her up (going in to Philly then back out to near us on regional rail would take way too long). Electric bikes and scooters rule Manhattan. Our kids will fix this.