Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[irishScott]

your strongest argument is a hypothetical scenario about what happens if a sensor fails. I'm not an engineer but I'm pretty sure I they can have the forethought to work through that obvious scenario.

ORLY? I recently had an improperly installed fuel-air sensor in my 2000 Toyota Avalon malfunction. Now what would I have done if that sensor shut down my vehicle? Sensor failures are not hypothetical. Even military equipment is prone to failure.

Your strongest point is that, hypothetically, it wouldn't be intrusive. I pointed out a situation where it would be highly intrusive. Assuming the driver always drove sober, highly intrusive for no reason. Seat belts are applicable to all drivers. Mirrors are applicable to all drivers. Breathalyzers are applicable to drunk drivers only.

 

[Genx87]

..

I have already proven I am a capable legal driver. Hence the reason why I have a drivers license. The DMV isnt making me pass an eye test every time I start my car. That argument is apples and oranges. Would you support an eye test every time we started our cars?

 

[jonks]

ORLY? I recently had an improperly installed fuel-air sensor in my 2000 Toyota Avalon malfunction. Now what would I have done if that sensor shut down my vehicle? Sensor failures are not hypothetical. Even military equipment is prone to failure.

see above

Your strongest point is that, hypothetically, it wouldn't be intrusive. I pointed out a situation where it would be highly intrusive. Assuming the driver always drove sober, highly intrusive for no reason. Seat belts are applicable to all drivers. Mirrors are applicable to all drivers. Breathalyzers are applicable to drunk drivers only.

There's also a brake sensor in many cars that won't let you start the car or failing that won't let you put it into gear if you don't depress the brake pedal.

Yes, it's an intrusion. All laws are intrusions. The debate is, is it a legal intrusion, and following that, is it worth the cost/time/etc.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

ORLY? I recently had an improperly installed fuel-air sensor in my 2000 Toyota Avalon malfunction. Now what would I have done if that sensor shut down my vehicle? Sensor failures are not hypothetical. Even military equipment is prone to failure.

Your strongest point is that, hypothetically, it wouldn't be intrusive. I pointed out a situation where it would be highly intrusive. Assuming the driver always drove sober, highly intrusive for no reason. Seat belts are applicable to all drivers. Mirrors are applicable to all drivers. Breathalyzers are applicable to drunk drivers only.

You just supported why your hypothetical is so silly. Your fuel sensor failure didn't shut down your car so why would the DUI sensor failure shut down your car?

Further more DUI sensors are applicable to all drivers because you share the road with all drivers who may or may not be impaired.

 

[jonks]

You just supported why your hypothetical is so silly. Your fuel sensor failure didn't shut down your car so why would the DUI sensor failure shut down your car?

facepalm

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I have already proven I am a capable legal driver. Hence the reason why I have a drivers license. The DMV isnt making me pass an eye test every time I start my car. That argument is apples and oranges. Would you consider an eye test every time I start the car an intrusion or a safety feature?

it was more a rhetorical example because a blind person would face obvious hurdles before even starting a car let alone driving.

A non intrusive eye test? Absolutely, if I can't prove I can see why should I be driving. However we don't have an epidemic of blind drivers and blind driving car accidents so I don't really see the need for this type test.

 

[irishScott]

You just supported why your hypothetical is so silly. Your fuel sensor failure didn't shut down your car so why would the DUI sensor failure shut down your car?

Further more DUI sensors are applicable to all drivers because you share the road with all drivers who may or may not be impaired.

No, you just fail at reading comprehension. I was proving that sensors, designed by engineers, fail. Just like DUI sensors, designed by engineers, have and also will fail from time to time. And DUI sensors do not apply for all drivers. Because most drivers are freaking SOBER.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

facepalm

unless he is confusing a failure with a false positive. They are two different scenarios.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

No, you just fail at reading comprehension. I was proving that sensors, designed by engineers, fail. Just like DUI sensors, designed by engineers, can have and also will fail from time to time. And DUI sensors for sober drivers do not apply for all drivers. Because they're freaking SOBER.

yes so what why does a failure have to shut down the car? That was my point.

 

[Genx87]

it was more a rhetorical example because a blind person would face obvious hurdles before even starting a car let alone driving.

A non intrusive eye test? Absolutely, if I can't prove I can see why should I be driving.

How would you implement a non-intrusive system? You couldnt provide a better example of a slippery slope if you tried. How about hearing? Alertness? Sugar levels? Any predisposed illness?

 

[irishScott]

yes so what why does a failure have to shut down the car? That was my point.

Failure = false positive in my case. They occur too you know.

Edit: And even excluding false positives, if failure doesn't disable the vehicle then I can just break my DUI sensor and go about my business.

 

[xj0hnx]

So does this awesome device differentiate between me having pounded a pint of hefeweizen and gargled with Listerine, or taken some alcohol based cough medicine?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

How would you implement a non-intrusive system? You couldnt provide a better example of a slippery slope if you tried. How about hearing? Alertness? Sugar levels? Any predisposed illness?

Driving is a privilege you keep forgetting that.

Besides the point we don't have an epidemic cause by the above issues that is killing 15k people a year and costing society hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So does this awesome device differentiate between me having pounded a pint of hefeweizen and gargled with Listerine, or taken some alcohol based cough medicine?

I would assume it has a tolerance built into it and it takes readings continually. You shouldn't be driving on cough medicine either.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Failure = false positive in my case. They occur too you know.

Edit: And even excluding false positives, if failure doesn't disable the vehicle then I can just break my DUI sensor and go about my business.

no tampering with a DUI sensor should be punishable by a lifetime ban on driving as I said before.

A false positive is different than a failure. If you get a false positive you just try again. A failure means the sensors isn't working at all.

There could be an integrated way for the car to communicate when the sensor has failed back to DMV. DMV can issue you a letter with instructions for resolving this within a reasonable grace period.(should be a free service) There should be stiff penalties if you are caught dui during this grace period before your sensor is repaired.

 

[Genx87]

Driving is a privilege you keep forgetting that.

Besides the point we don't have an epidemic cause by the above issues that is killing 15k people a year and costing society hundreds of millions of dollars.

Because it is a privlege I should just roll over for a poor policy idea?

You know just glancing at google about repeat offenders. They represent anywhere from 26-50% of DUI convictions each year. Requiring these devices on the actual offenders could cut this down quite a bit without requiring everybody be forced to prove they arent drunk. The rest, well, it is terrible situation. But I dont view forcing law abiding citizens to prove they are sober a reasonable plan.

 

[xj0hnx]

I would assume it has a tolerance built into it and it takes readings continually. You shouldn't be driving on cough medicine either.

I don't want your assumption, I want to know that when I get in my car with my minty fresh breath some stupid fucking sensor isn't going to make me late for work. As far as driving on cough medicine, or any other medication it is perfectly legal. Chronic pain patients that have to take drugs like morphine, or Fentanyl are allowed to drive provided their medications do not impair their ability to operate a vehicle.

 

[irishScott]

no tampering with a DUI sensor should be punishable by a lifetime ban on driving as I said before.

A false positive is different than a failure. If you get a false positive you just try again. A failure means the sensors isn't working at all.

If you get a false positive you just try again? The false positive I got persisted for several start-ups, and probably would have persisted forever if I'd let it (according to the mechanic).

And for the record a false positive is a sub-set of failure.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Because it is a privilege I should just roll over for a poor policy idea?

you haven't made a convincing argument for why this is any more poor a policy than any other safety feature

You know just glancing at google about repeat offenders.

Key term here they already offended. They may have already caused an accident, death, or permanent injury.

They represent anywhere from 26-50% of DUI convictions each year. Requiring these devices on the actual offenders could cut this down quite a bit without requiring everybody be forced to prove they arent drunk. The rest, well, it is terrible situation. But I dont view forcing law abiding citizens to prove they are sober a reasonable plan.

So you have put a price on human life then that's fine just admit that its not worth saving 15k lives per year. Or preventing the life changing injuries for survivors. Or the exorbitant legal costs involved with prosecuting and jailing offenders.

Laws Will NEVER prevent crime especially this crime. The only thing that will prevent this crime is technology.

qq

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you get a false positive you just try again? The false positive I got persisted for several start-ups, and probably would have persisted forever if I'd let it (according to the mechanic).

And for the record a false positive is a sub-set of failure.

In windows terms your comparing firefox crashing, to a BSOD to a dead hard drive. They are all failures in a sense. some more critical than others.

 

[irishScott]

A seatbelt sensor doesn't disable the car because if you don't put a seatbelt on it doesn't determine whether you will cross into oncoming traffic and kill a family of 5.

Neither does driving under the legal limit. But you might but just below it and it may be within this sensor's margin of error so it trips you up. If you adjust the margin to compensate, then you're theoretically allowing people to drive over the legal limit, compromising the sensor's purpose. Even if the margin of error is negligibly small, what happens when I turn my fan on high and focus it on my face? Sensor is in the steering wheel right? How about I just keep my mouth closed in the car?

I'd like to see some specs and testing on these sensors iceberg is singing praises of.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I don't want your assumption, I want to know that when I get in my car with my minty fresh breath some stupid fucking sensor isn't going to make me late for work. As far as driving on cough medicine, or any other medication it is perfectly legal. Chronic pain patients that have to take drugs like morphine, or Fentanyl are allowed to drive provided their medications do not impair their ability to operate a vehicle.

Point taken. The new sensors are on the steering wheel and do not take reading from your breath but from your skin. problem solved.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Neither does driving under the legal limit. But you might but just below it and it may be within this sensor's margin of error so it trips you up. If you adjust the margin to compensate, then you're theoretically allowing people to drive over the legal limit, compromising the sensor's purpose. Even if the margin of error is negligibly small, what happens when I turn my fan on high and focus it on my face? Sensor is in the steering wheel right? How about I just keep my mouth closed in the car?

I'd like to see some specs and testing on these sensors iceberg is singing praises of.

The steering wheel sensor doesn't take breath readings it takes readings from your skin.

 

[jonks]

Neither does driving under the legal limit. But you might but just below it and it may be within this sensor's margin of error so it trips you up. If you adjust the margin to compensate, then you're theoretically allowing people to drive over the legal limit, compromising the sensor's purpose. Even if the margin of error is negligibly small, what happens when I turn my fan on high and focus it on my face? Sensor is in the steering wheel right? How about I just keep my mouth closed in the car?

I'd like to see some specs and testing on these sensors iceberg is singing praises of.

They're already in use on past offenders. There's probably some data on it.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I'd like to see some specs and testing on these sensors iceberg is singing praises of.

are you always this narrow minded? Do you have doubts of all technology or just BAC sensors.

I think you would have a little more faith in our technological capabilities. We have achieved things orders of magnitude greater than stupid BAC sensor in a steering wheel. Seriously, there is more tech in the average cell phone.