All new cars will be required to come with passive alcohol detection systems to prevent drunk driving by 2024?

[Kensington]

So that makes driving a right....free to travel right.


But it's a privilege to use on public roads.

Hence why I said you can buy acres of property and drive on it while drinking, no seat belts and going 100mph and police can't do shit.

When I say driving, I mean driving on public roads. Most people don't have the means to buy acres of land to drive on for funnsies. You are talking about owning a vehicle, which is a right and you are free to enjoy your property on your own property as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others (i.e. you likely can't build a racetrack on your property because of noise/nuisance restrictions). Because the government "owns" the public roadways, they solely determine who, how, when that road is used. Most times that means you have to have a driver's license, which is not a right, to operate a motor vehicle on. It's also fun to note, that some states (including Illinois) police can arrest you for drunk driving on private property.

I'd also imagine that if the breathalyzer thing passes, like emissions control devices, it will be "illegal" to bypass or disable.

 

[blakbearddelite]

The used car market would surge as we would approach 2024. I'd be looking at buying some of the last non-BAC cars and selling them for a nice profit.

 

[Lord Tin Foilhat]

I'll bet KJ's $500 that I owe him that this doesn't happen in the next decade.

 

[blakbearddelite]

I agree that I don't think this will happen that soon...if ever.

 

[Blood on Blood]

The used car market would surge as we would approach 2024. I'd be looking at buying some of the last non-BAC cars and selling them for a nice profit.

The used car market would surge as we would approach 2024. I'd be looking at buying some of the last non-BAC cars and selling them for a nice profit.

Carb 350 v8 G body

 

[guspech750]

People will spend x amount of dollars on heated cooled seats Nav etc etc.

Same people say fuck paying x amount for another safety device that would actually save lives and families being ruined by ignorance. But ma rights blah blah blah.


When you're hit, injured by a drunk driver or someone you know or love is injured or killed. Then you can from a valid opinion key board worriors. There's no rights being taken except your right not to give a fuck about someone else's life while you decide to ignorantly drive drunk.

In the same breath. I doubt anything like this would ever happen though.


Driving is an earned privilege. Not a right.

 

[willizm]

As per inoperability, same thing can be said with any module, sensor, component (including) the chip in the key.

But, good point in that it is another component that can fail and render the vehicle in operable.

Good time to consider a carbureted 350 G body. Then I can roll like Denzel in Training Day and tell the Govt to eat my dirty white ass

Difference is that it’s not a vital component to run the car like a crank/cam position sensor, nor is it a passive component like a cat o2 sensor where if it fails it doesn’t prevent the car from operating still. It’s a component that will render the car useless that has absolutely no purpose for the car to run properly.

 

[Mr_Roboto]

I just skimmed the replies but lets be real here. The fucking government can't make people use a catalytic converter in their cars without someone adding a spark plug anti fouler to it and bypassing the cats. There are guys who use a can tied to their steering wheel to bypass the safety measures on their Mercedes auto driving so that they can sit in the back while the car drives its self at huge risk to themselves and others. They install full blown breathalyzers in peoples cars and the drunkards still manage to bypass them at times. It's fairly well documented. Why would some passive sensors on a steering wheel work any better? Why wouldn't someone in Ukraine, China or wherever cut a custom firmware or "fixed" sensors that would bypass this? Why wouldn't someone have some gloves, disconnect the sensors, move them off the steering wheel or any other measures to bypass them? That would wind up on YouTube or a myriad of other sites in no time flat if only because people didn't want to be monitored.

Instead of pushing for cars to detect drunkards why not start getting the drunkards to use other options? Bars could adapt to this too by changing policy like leniency for cars parked where they are, arranging rideshares to/from the bar etc. Not only that but we're probably on the cusp of self driving cars. I'm not typically a fan of the idea, but in that case I'd be a huge fan. Pile my drunk ass in and be like "hey car get me home" and bam it's taking care of business while my lit ass is along for the ride. If you don't do this you go to jail. None of this "we're going to give you 10 chances not to DUI before we throw you in jail" stuff. As said, my buddy worked for a guy who's kid had 7 DUIs and he was under age for all of them. How in the fuck is he not in jail?

Example:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-trooper-crash-plea-deal-met-20161201-story.html

Sixteen broken bones, eight surgeries and two years after a chronic drunken driver struck and nearly killed Illinois State Trooper Michael Cokins, he sat in a Cook County courtroom trying to distill the experience.

"As I get older, I will have to live with what you did to me for the rest of my life," Cokins told Leslie Thurow, 61, of Mount Prospect, at her sentencing. Minutes later, a judge imposed a prison term of 13 years.

"One thing I do not want to live with is knowing you got off easy, again," said Cokins, 30. "So I will bear the burden to make sure you never hurt another person again."

Two days before Thurow hit Cokins on Sept. 6, 2014, while he spoke with a motorist on the shoulder of Interstate 294 near Northlake, Judge Geary Kull had released her on probation and ordered her to stay off the road. At the time, Thurow had spent three months in jail and received treatment for her third drunken driving crash in nine months.

This lady hit an officer and got 9 years for it. He's never going to be right after a bunch of surgery and years of physical therapy. She was stopped after she hit him by crashing into an SUV with a 3YO boy in it and rolling it over. She had previously been in 3 drunken driving crashes in 9 months. Why the fuck is she even on the road? It's not like it's unclear that she's a threat to peoples' safety.

Adding sensors to cars especially with the talk about making cars IOT devices and almost all of them having the option of cellular connection these days brings up extremely serious privacy concerns and likewise legal and ethical ones. Would GM who can pull your sensor data and start your car/truck remotely not be obligated to send that you've had a beer and are driving back to the government? Fuck stick a camera in the vehicle so they know it's you too and wire up some sound so they can hear you talking to your buddies about whatever. Personally I say fuck the idea of giving an inch we don't have to while judges give actual criminals a slap on the wrist and do nothing to actually solve them. It is largely foolhardy to seek technical solutions for social problems.

Even though driving is a privilege you still maintain some rights as if you were in your house even. The police can not oblige you to search your trunk or glove box without a warrant or probable cause for instance. They don't just go rooting around shit typically they ask you for consent to do such because they know that their case could get tossed otherwise. You do not have to consent to those searches. It varies widely from state to state but in many states castle doctrine even applies to a person in their car. The truth is I don't want the government in people's business for the greater good. If they're driving erratically by all means pull em over, make em blow and take em to jail if they're intoxicated. At the same time it shouldn't give carte blanche rights to the police to do what they damn well please and intrude on people's lives.

 

[ragingclue]

I'm all for making safer vehicles off the assembly

People will spend x amount of dollars on heated cooled seats Nav etc etc.

Same people say fuck paying x amount for another safety device that would actually save lives and families being ruined by ignorance. But ma rights blah blah blah.

I'm not sure how this compares with options like heated seats etc.... Sure, the cost of its implementation is a factor, but I'm not sure many (if any) are arguing that as a sole or main point. It's the other reasons PLUS at the same time we would be required to pay more on top of all that, e.g. have another device that could malfunction (whether false positive or actual system failure) and render the car useless. And have to pay a premium for OE/certified replacements. And face legal action if defeating the device even if you never drive after drinking a drop. And have to deal with data collection/privacy concerns etc.... Adding it as an option is one thing, requiring it be there from the factory is another, but federally mandating it be operating correctly at all times else face criminal action is another. I'm fine with the first two scenarios, the third is just derpy. I agree with Roboto, you'd just create a market for a way around it for the people who are going to drive drunk anyway. Does that sound familiar to other angles on other law-based discussions?

When you're hit, injured by a drunk driver or someone you know or love is injured or killed. Then you can from a valid opinion key board worriors.

A lot of people have been affected by this. I've lost friends and family to it. But do you consider your opinion invalid on anything you haven't actually been through yourself?