One item per bill.
This didn't have bipartisan support. This wasn't debated. Neither you nor I had any representation whatsoever on this issue, it was proposed by an obscure lobby group and someone tacked it onto something that actually mattered.
Who actually wants to buy a breathalyzer as a required option on a new car?
I'm seriously concerned about my car not starting or turning off while on driving. Think about that Maui wildfire, what if your bac was just over the limit? Do you deserve a death sentence because your car won't start?
And any system that can disable your car can be hacked or abused by the government.
And what about "distracted driving?" Fool, I'm just looking out the windows?
Not to mention how expensive that shit will be to install in every car.
Yup, install and maintain.
I wonder what insiders are getting kickbacks for this.
Each feature added to a car raises the price by more than it costs to add.
Horrible idea. False positives are gonna get people fired.
Can a car be disabled by pouring a cup of vodka through the window?
Or by having a sufficiently drunk passenger?
I'm worried because I use hand sanitizer in my car.
Gonna carry around a spray bottle of booze to prank people.
Breathalyzers don't test for alcohol. They measure metabolites from alcohol
What, like a breathalyzer in every car?
"technology that would automatically test a driver’s breath for alcohol and stop a vehicle from moving if the driver is impaired. The driver wouldn’t have to blow into a tube, and a sensor would check the driver’s breath.
Another company is working on light technology that could test for blood alcohol in a person’s finger, the group has said."
I like the idea of fewer drunk drivers on the road a great deal, but I'm not sure I'd trust auto companies to handle that kind of data responsibly
No worries, someone will have a workaround before it's even out. But it'll make cars more expensive anyway.
I don't trust them to implement the functionality successfully.
So now we can see who has a profit incentive to control US policy on this matter.
So what if the passenger is drunk? This seems like an awful idea
No it's alcohol sensors on the steering wheel, like the scram bracelet.
It's about $2 in sensors and the technology is 80 years old. It can wired up as an on/off switch, it doesn't require telephony
The fact that it hasn't been done already should be criminal in itself.
That's what we need. A car that shuts off on the highway.
Or people leaving their cars running while they go get hammered.
It can take continuous readings you know.
And idk why it'd shut off on the highway. Don't drink and drive. Just about everybody agrees that's the move, I'm not alone in that sentiment.
This is already tried and true, non invasive tech. It just takes skin on the wheel, throughout the entire drive.
I don't understand the push back, seriously. Enlighten me. I'm all ears.
False positives could be deadly, and bypassing it is trivial (duct tape). So it adds a little amount of risk for no real reward and slightly more cost.
I used to work in an office that was next to a beer canning plant. Some days when the weather was just right the car park would reek of alcohol. Going to be interesting for the people currently working there when cars refuse to start under such conditions.
Hey looky that, humanities been here before. Back in the olden days they used to have problems with air quality around factories too, just like you're saying, because that's what it is.
The robber barons were able to put up smokestacks, sometimes hundreds of feet high, so the town wouldn't be buried and blackened under coal ash. Simple elegant solution, besides not polluting in the first place, I guess.
Regardless, the hypothetical problem would exist today with blowers on cars yet those people seem to manage just fine. None of this is any kind of stretch, so I mean, it kind of feels like you're throwing a disingenuous argument over on my side, like astroturfing for the police union trying to protect their main source of income (which, at least in my city, theyvr been caught red-handed doing, more than once)
Are you seriously accusing me of being a "thin blue line" supporter? I don't think you realize just how offensive that is to me, it's akin to asking me "been to any good Klan meetings lately?" I am struggling to keep this response civil.
Also, do you actually know what the false positive rate is on blowers in cars? Do you actually know how well people "seem to manage just fine?" Or would you dismiss any problems they encounter with "I have a hard time caring about the problems of a convicted drunk driver." Because this legislation is basically going to treat every single person like they're a convicted drunk driver, so maybe you should start caring about their problems.
Seriously, this law proposes putting a robotic policeman who cannot be reasoned with and has no awareness of context in control of everybody's car. That's not a good thing. What other elements of a preemptive fully automated police state would you be okay with? Filters in cameras to make sure nobody takes "illegal" photos? Maybe recalibrate the alcohol sensors to measure hormones and prevent pregnant women from crossing state lines into anyplace where abortions are legal? You may think some of those ideas are good and others are not, but now we're just haggling over the price.
I am a teetotaler and I hate drunk drivers with a burning passion. Closely rivalled by my hatred of corrupt cops. This isn't about any of those people. This is about treating everyone like they're unable to make decisions for themselves and must be kept under constant surveillance. This is not a good place for society to be heading.
I think we should just ban people from driving completely.
Its free and people have been dying in vehicles for over 80 years. We can just stop selling cars, it doesn't require telephony.
The fact that driving hasn't been banned already should be criminal in itself.
/s
It's a thought.
Not a very helpful one but it is one option.
Seriously, I can see commuters or shoppers being banned from driving downtown in big cities, and I don't even think it's a terrible idea. Have to stop at a park and ride and take a train or tram in. Which would allow the roads to be reduced to a single lane making room for public seating, food trucks, fountains/statues, stages, squares, greenery and other park features put in in the torn up lanes. Making it the kind of place people actually WANT to be in. Only have emergency services, delivery and tradesmen on the road.
What about driving gloves?
Great intentions, but I'm a bit worried about how the non-contact breath detection will work, if you're sober and giving your wasted friend(s) a ride home from the bar. BAC detection by touch might be better, if they can make it work that is.
Seeing how cars with Super-cruise have eye tracking, why not roll impaired & distracted driving into one safety package.
Eye tracking has become a reliable neuroscience tool for identifying the eye movements that are linked to impairments caused by alcohol use disorders. For example, a machine-learning model has been developed to detect alcohol intoxication based on a person's eye gaze and eye closure. (From Google's generated cliff notes)
Disabling a vehicle if the driver isn't looking at the road for x seconds might be a bit drastic. I could imagine e.g. muting the volume if not at the very least glancing at the road every 2~3 seconds. Would piss off a lot of people, then not long thereafter teach them to pay attention to where they are going.
I'm putting electric tape over any camera inside my house and vehicle. I'm glad my vehicle is older.
Welp, guess I'll just have to start smoking crack.
Picked a good day
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.