Big Bother in 2026?

[sstarrx2]

Yeah, seems a bit excessive to me. It would be nice to find a way to keep drunk people form getting behind the wheel. Like sensors that can detect blood alcohol levels and disable to vehicle.

 

[Maiden69]

An in-car system that monitors if the driver is falling asleep or driving erratically is hardly government overreach.

GM already have this in a few vehicles. It uses the ACC system to monitor erratic driving and vibrates the seat to alert you, the new "Super Cruise" will have a LiDAR camera that will detect changes in your face and determine if you're falling asleep.

 

[avenali312]

The law that is proposed would put a camera in every new car whether the person has been convicted or not. @ElectricEye is saying he would prefer a breathalyzer instead of a camera that the government can spy on you whenever they want to.

Yeah, I somehow jumbled up the sentences there and misread haha.

New theoretical: What if you got in sober, drank while driving, and became intoxicated during the trip? Obviously, I'm just throwing out devil's advocate nonsense. I don't really have a side on this one. My phone is already recording me way more than I feel like this would.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Yeah, I somehow jumbled up the sentences there and misread haha.

New theoretical: What if you got in sober, drank while driving, and became intoxicated during the trip? Obviously, I'm just throwing out devil's advocate nonsense. I don't really have a side on this one. My phone is already recording me way more than I feel like this would.

If you got drunk after starting driving and turned off the car you wouldn't be able to restart it with the breathalyzer.

 

[Cuzoe]

Breathalyzers have to be calibrated, 60 day interval for most interlock devices. Somewhere in the $20-40 range each time. I'll ignore the inconvenience since I suspect authorized calibration locations would pop up everywhere... at every gas station or something? I guess that would create an industry that a pioneering company could monopolize, haha. You also have to build in the cost somewhere... a discounted rate for a yearly plan as part of vehicle registration maybe, and of course you can pay out of pocket otherwise. But with inconvenience ignored and cost covered...

What happens when your breathalyzer is out of calibration?
Do you get a grace period after which your car will not start?
Does it never disable your car but you incur a penalty of some sort if you continue using an out of calibration device; fines, points on your license, license suspension?
- These penalties always get tied to the registered owner of the car I assume?
Is there 24/7 customer service in case of a breathalyzer hardware/software failure?
- What if your breathalyzer fails at a gas station on I-10 in the nowhere of Texas?
- Can you get a manual override (assuming you have phone service, and somehow prove you're not intoxicated)?
-- This would also mean your breathalyzer has a connection (cellular I guess) through which it can be reset/overridden or whatever.

These are concerns with the interlock devices in use now for people with a DUI. But they are collateral concerns stemming from needing the interlock in the first place because of a DUI.

And if we're at the point of the breathalyzer needing to be connected to handle some of these concerns I would say just put the camera in my car. Let it use algorithms to detect common signs of fatigue/intoxication/inattention/whatever. This detection can be done without a connection to anything, even if that's not likely. I would rather have a connected camera (even one that needs to record/analyze a short video of me to start the car) than have a connected breathalyzer. Both of them will have some type of downloadable history that can be checked in the event of an accident. And even without a connection the camera can perform continuous or periodic checks of the driver, as is the case now with existing systems.

 

[nok513]

I hope these camera systems have super accurate algorithms. There are some funny looking mofo's out there. Hope the cameras don't confuse fugly faces as an impairment.

All kidding aside, I'd be curious to see how this would work.

 

[anotero]

No punishment/penalty would bring anyone back after the accident. People still do stupid $h1t even with stricter penalties.

They're trying to approach a Minority Report type preventative measures without precogs. Prevent the event from ever happening. I'm not feeling the whole intrusive aspect.

So penalties don't help, but monitoring does?

 

[nok513]

So penalties don't help, but monitoring does?

I jacked that up.

It does help and deter the majority from drunk driving. We have penalties/laws in place now, but does that stop anyone from drunk driving? No.

Wasn't implying penalties don't help. I was just trying to point out that even with penalties, the monitoring would hopefully prevent a drunk driver from starting his/her vehicle and putting their/others lives at risk: Proactive vs reactive.

 

[Subliminal]

I was just trying to point out that even with penalties, the monitoring would hopefully prevent a drunk driver from starting his/her vehicle and putting their/others lives at risk: Proactive vs reactive.

Alcohol doesn't stop people from knowing that drunk driving is dangerous, it stops them from caring about the risk

 

[SnailPower]

I think a better option would be to just include the breathalyzer to start the car option. I don't see how that would be a negative thing at all and can probably immediately prevent many deaths with its introduction. For both sides, the driver and the unfortunate victim that gets hit. Cameras on the other hand? How does that help besides it being after the fact? A black box to see what happened while the dude/dudette (sorry, I was gendering on my initial post) was driving drunk and killed everyone?

 

[jimlloyd40]

Congress has passed the bill that requires some form of drunk driver prevention by 2026 or sooner. . The actual device to be used is yet to be determined. It was part of the original infrastructure bill that just passed. Here's a short story about it.


https://www.engadget.com/congress-mandate-anti-drunk-driving-technology-cars-201820120.html

 

[Cuzoe]

I think a better option would be to just include the breathalyzer to start the car option. I don't see how that would be a negative thing at all and can probably immediately prevent many deaths with its introduction. For both sides, the driver and the unfortunate victim that gets hit. Cameras on the other hand? How does that help besides it being after the fact? A black box to see what happened while the dude/dudette (sorry, I was gendering on my initial post) was driving drunk and killed everyone?

See my earlier post with regards to the negatives of a breathalyzer. I have one in my car right now... I don't drink and my wife is pregnant (baby dubber incoming) but one of our long time friends got a DUI. But for grace no one was hurt, she drifted over into a parked car. She doesn't have a car now though. But the DMV/judge doesn't really care about that and said she needed to have a breathalyzer installed on any car she might drive. She can't even drive an MT so she won't be driving my car but it has the breathalyzer installed.

I don't know how a camera could definitively determine a person is not intoxicated, so there is the concern of them starting the car and getting in an accident right away. But the breathalyzer can be defeated by a more sober person (or any occupant that does or cannot drive for any other reason) blowing. I suspect this scenario is person A is intoxicated and wants to leave in their car, person A and person B think person A is capable of driving, person B blows and person A drives away. There could be periodic tests while driving, but I think a camera is better in that situation.

 

[jimlloyd40]

See my earlier post with regards to the negatives of a breathalyzer. I have one in my car right now... I don't drink and my wife is pregnant (baby dubber incoming) but one of our long time friends got a DUI. But for grace no one was hurt, she drifted over into a parked car. She doesn't have a car now though. But the DMV/judge doesn't really care about that and said she needed to have a breathalyzer installed on any car she might drive. She can't even drive an MT so she won't be driving my car but it has the breathalyzer installed.

I don't know how a camera could definitively determine a person is not intoxicated, so there is the concern of them starting the car and getting in an accident right away. But the breathalyzer can be defeated by a more sober person (or any occupant that does or cannot drive for any other reason) blowing. I suspect this scenario is person A is intoxicated and wants to leave in their car, person A and person B think person A is capable of driving, person B blows and person A drives away. There could be periodic tests while driving, but I think a camera is better in that situation.

Tell Congress they have until 2026 at the latest to decide what device to use.

 

[Cuzoe]

Either one works for me honestly, I was just pointing out that there are negatives to a breathalyzer as compared to a camera.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Congress will try to go back to prohibition since they won't be able to figure out what type of device to use to help prevent drunk driving.