His ramblings cited the constitution and compared driving to gun ownership. Total false comparison
Chester Copperpot ES!All new cars will be required to come with passive alcohol detection systems to prevent drunk driving by 2024?
- Thread starter Mook
- Start date
Chester Copperpot ES!
I did it for you.
Government mandates breathalyzer and decides "guess what, we're now utilizing that data for 'pre-crime'" and arrests you solely because they were able to get a warrant from your...
...self-incrimination! You being COMPELLED to buy a new vehicle with this breathalyzer system because "safety"
Last edited:
Dude
You speed every day and your vehicle knows it
You drive without a seatbelt and your vehicle knows it
Yet nothing is sent to the police. In the case of an accident they will get a warrant and pull your vehicle data if the damage is bad enough, but again, that's with a warrant.
"Precrime" is a TOTALLY different discussion than having a vehicle that won't start because it detects alcohol on your breath.
You speed every day and your vehicle knows it
You drive without a seatbelt and your vehicle knows it
Yet nothing is sent to the police. In the case of an accident they will get a warrant and pull your vehicle data if the damage is bad enough, but again, that's with a warrant.
"Precrime" is a TOTALLY different discussion than having a vehicle that won't start because it detects alcohol on your breath.
Thankfully I can still shoot up heroin and drive.... 
So serious question Conrad..... Do you think it should be allowed to start even if it sense you at say .07 BAC?
If it starts at .07 and the driver kills some kid who was playing in the street, is the vehicle manufacturer liable for letting the car start?
So serious question Conrad..... Do you think it should be allowed to start even if it sense you at say .07 BAC?
If it starts at .07 and the driver kills some kid who was playing in the street, is the vehicle manufacturer liable for letting the car start?
Thankfully I can still shoot up heroin and drive....
So serious question Conrad..... Do you think it should be allowed to start even if it sense you at say .07 BAC?
If it starts at .07 and the driver kills some kid who was playing in the street, is the vehicle manufacturer liable for letting the car start?
.07 legally is sober, correct?
But overall impairment while driving, via drugs, alcohol or fatigue, is the bigger issue.
Though I agree, how the vehicle assesses the state of the driver, and how the data is used, needs to not infringe on folks constitutional rights. It is a fine line.
Thankfully I can still shoot up heroin and drive....
So serious question Conrad..... Do you think it should be allowed to start even if it sense you at say .07 BAC?
If it starts at .07 and the driver kills some kid who was playing in the street, is the vehicle manufacturer liable for letting the car start?
IMO it should be a little over the legal limit, but that's not my call to make. The vehicle manufacturer won't be liable, just like if you have a tesla set to autopilot with a threshold of 90mph and you crash doing 85 in a 70, tesla isn't liable because the driver made the choice to speed.
I'd much rather they focus on this than something like figuring out how to govern vehicles to within ~10mph of the current speed limit, because that's totally feasible from a software perspective. Hell many new cars tell you what the current speed limit is
No.
As stated in the open container thread, you can 100% still get a DUI if you blow less than a .08.
We're seeing more and more states legalize marijuana, so we might as well ensure the breathalyzer checks for BAC and also if the user has smoked marijuana recently correct?
So the first time someone has a DUI and the car started, the vehicle manufacturer gets sued. Then they change it to car wont start if over .04, and if it is less than .04 but greater than .01 we will send notification to your insurance agency and or local police.
But you also have the means to avoid all of that privately.
maybe you give up "mountains of personal data", but I don't.
Just like those ring cameras.... "we wont use this data...." yet they technically own it and are now working directly with PD to give out your video of a product you bought...
so who would own the BAC readings? Who is going to calibrate the units?
If I am in an emergency and the BAC sensor is inaccurate and saying I am drunk without a way to bypass it, and now I get injured or can't escape because of a failing sensor.... are the OEMs going to be responsible for redudant sensors and verifying the accuracy regularly? on the tax payers dime? Who is paying for it? Can I now sue the OEMs?
detecting BAC accurately over time requires a lot more then just "install the sensor and go", hence why police have to get their device calibrated regularly.
No but forcing me to be monitored in my private vehicle does.
Dont worry, theyll get that all figured out with the $35 million written into the bill for the government....
Im sure it also will not go over that $35 million budget.
Who is liable with this use case today when aftermarket breathalyzers are installed?
1. That's the case with literally every other sensor on your vehicle...and there are hundreds of them that can fail at any time, hell a lot of them only exist because of fed emissions requirements which IMO have a lot less value than a sensor that won't allow you to drive drunk
2. The OP doesn't state anything about being monitored, just shutting off a vehicle automatically if it senses you're drunk. As long as any available data isn't turned over to the gvt without a warrant, there's no violation of your rights.
The driver. Because they are under court order to have the device installed and court ordered to use it.
Does it matter? That's a totally different scenario. If you have one in your car currently its because you were already busted driving under the influence and were ordered by a judge to have one installed in your vehicle.
Not you have never been busted for a DUI ever in your life but you must be subject to a test anytime you wish to start your vehicle.
Not all of it, but if one feels the evolution of technology in vehicles is infringing on one’s privacy or rights, then don’t buy a new vehicle.
Not being sarcastic; the less technology in a vehicle, the less data can be recovered from a vehicle.
Am I reading this right? You would be okay with them governing everyone's vehicle so it is not able to go more than 10mph over any posted speed limit?
Thats an option, but then again, tracking technology should be optional add-ons.
It is one of the reasons I am against owning a Tesla.
What if they say it must be retrofit into any vehicle that drives on the road... You know, cause safety.
I have a feeling theyre already pushing for shit like this in California (airbags) after Kevin Hart's restomod crash, whats to stop them from enforcing it to be installed on any vehicle?
There is no way something like this can be effective... Your BAC level can go up after consuming and waiting a bit... Say you have 4 beers in a hour which normally puts someone around a .1 or so. They get into the vehicle 5-10 minutes after finishing their last drink there BAC is still going up. That's why there's a minimum 20 minute observation period prior to giving a sample after someone has been arrested for DUI. Like mentioned prior there are way to many other factors, Drug DUI, mix of alcohol and drugs, etc.
Thread Info
-
Created -
133Replies
-
3KViews
-
Participants list
