Drunk Sensor ?

[5GENIDN]

Oh my lord!!!! Muffin top crawl back under your rock....

For anyone else that is buying into this drivel "because some dumb ass wrote it, it must be true"...

Stop and actually use your BRAIN for 2 maybe 3 seconds..... ! it ain't happening... As mentioned before a blood alcohol (breathalyzer) monitor would be a violation of your civil rights (unless you have been convicted of drunk driving where we as a society have determined you lose that privilege).

2. NO car manufacture wants to put these in their cars. They want to sell cars to people who want to buy their cars. The vast majority of people want everyone else to blow in a breathalyzer before they drive but they sure do not want to do it them selves.

3.Ford sure as hell is not going to do it before other manufactures.... Sales would plumet... They need to keep the share holders happy....

4. The Tin hat describes this hysteria perfectly!

Yes we want to stop drunk driving but this????

Some fat dumb ass living in his grandmother's basement wrote this and of course it was the post that published it... Why... to get people like muffin top all riled up and searching for his pitchfork and torch AND to come back to the paper to read more because he can't get enough now that he is all hot and bothered...

Calm down... It is all a bunch of crap. It ain't happening.

Sponsored

 

[Shazamalingo]

Oh my lord!!!! Muffin top crawl back under your rock....

For anyone else that is buying into this drivel "because some dumb ass wrote it, it must be true"...

Stop and actually use your BRAIN for 2 maybe 3 seconds..... ! it ain't happening... As mentioned before a blood alcohol (breathalyzer) monitor would be a violation of your civil rights (unless you have been convicted of drunk driving where we as a society have determined you lose that privilege).

2. NO car manufacture wants to put these in their cars. They want to sell cars to people who want to buy their cars. The vast majority of people want everyone else to blow in a breathalyzer before they drive but they sure do not want to do it them selves.

3.Ford sure as hell is not going to do it before other manufactures.... Sales would plumet... They need to keep the share holders happy....

4. The Tin hat describes this hysteria perfectly!

Yes we want to stop drunk driving but this????

Some fat dumb ass living in his grandmother's basement wrote this and of course it was the post that published it... Why... to get people like muffin top all riled up and searching for his pitchfork and torch AND to come back to the paper to read more because he can't get enough now that he is all hot and bothered...

Calm down... It is all a bunch of crap. It ain't happening.

Civil rights are not implicated with privileges like driving. Other than that, I generally agree.

 

[5GENIDN]

Civil rights are not implicated with privileges like driving. Other than that, I generally agree.

Actually my civil right comment has to do with unlawful search.... It is a bit of a stretch but I think it is a good argument.

 

[Tex]

Forscan to the rescue, just hop into the module and edit the threshold value for a DUI reading from .08% to 100%, problem solved

 

[gtabert]

But it's not 100% preventable Probably not even 50% for decades. There are literally decades of cars they won't retrofit. I'll bet good money there will be a defeat mechanism on the market before this half cocked idea hits the streets. Add to that there will be non drinkers that will blow the test "to get their buddy home" or some nonsense. It's like people never study history or even pay attention to human behavior. Mandated seat belts. Excellent idea. Thousands still don't use them. Mandated gun laws. More mass shootings than when I was a kid and everyone owned a gun. The list is endless. You cannot mandate human behavior. Covid ring a bell?
I'm 39 years sober. I get it. I remember many times waking up in my driveway or even my house not remembering how I got there. Against all logic and rational thinking I did what I knew was wrong. The only thing that stops you is you.
Depending on the government to be mankind's nanny has proven to be the wrong course of action throughout history.

You have misunderstood my point. No electronic device will solve this problem, it's up to you, the one who is under the influence to be responsible and not get behind the wheel of any vehicle. Yes, this is 100% preventable, use common sense, do not drive while under the influence.

 

[KC5MO]

Nice! I don't drink but I'm thrown in the group of irresponsible people that drink and drive.

 

[Shazamalingo]

Actually my civil right comment has to do with unlawful search.... It is a bit of a stretch but I think it is a good argument.

I’m going to guess you are going to consent when buying the car. Or you don’t get the car. I don’t think requiring consent when buying the car is going to be a constitutional issue.

But who knows how this is going to work.

 

[indio22]

Civil rights are not implicated with privileges like driving. Other than that, I generally agree.

Driving is not a privilege, whatever some people and courts might want to claim. Grownups shouldn't want "dad" doling out "privileges".

 

[Silver-Bolt]

6G needs a breathalyzer. You need to blow before posting. It would cut down on threads like this.

 

[Shazamalingo]

Driving is not a privilege, whatever some people and courts might want to claim. Grownups shouldn't want "dad" doling out "privileges".

I mean, it is a privilege according to US law. But, other than that, your argument is on solid ground

 

[Boostedblues]

Just disable it with Forscan, problem solved This likely wont happen. Well maybe in California where they want to physically limit your car so you cant go over the speed limit..

Proposed Law: Speed-Limiting Technology Required by 202723 by San Francisco Democrat Scott Wiener, would require that new cars and trucks sold or built in California come equipped with an “intelligent speed limiter system.”

 

[KABQ]

This thread is wild...

 

[cbrenthus]

Wow, so much misinformation and misunderstanding in this thread!

First, driving is a privilege, not a right. The government can require vehicles to have whatever they want to drive on the roads, since the roads are owned by the government. You can drive whatever you want on private property, but the second you hit a road you have to conform to the government's rules.

Second, this has not been mandated yet. The only thing that has been enacted is the rule that the NHTSA must come up with a rule. And they are still waiting on the technology to be there.

Third, I think many people don't understand the difference between "passive" and "active". All of the talk so far is around "passive" which means you aren't going to have to blow into a straw to start your car. The technology being discussed is around things like cameras to monitor the driver's eye and head movement, sensors in the steering wheel to measure BAC, etc.

I m against this technology for a few reasons: I'm sick of all the nannies in cars these days, really don't need another one, don't need something else to break and require repair, and what is going to happen when the drivers BAC is too high?

Let's say someone gets in a car totally sober, then starts driving while chugging vodka. What's going to happen when their BAC gets over the limit? Is the car just going to die immediately? That might be even more dangerous than a drunk driver in certain situations. Will the car call the cops?

Anyway, some links I read before posting

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...s-technology-drunk-driving-nhtsa/71907164007/
https://www.reuters.com/business/au...ate-anti-drunk-driving-technology-2023-12-12/
https://www.wired.com/story/us-regulators-cars-drunk-driver-detection/

 

[KABQ]

This thread should be a lesson in civil discourse. It's possible to agree with what someone is saying, but disagree with them personally because of their attitude. Almost everyone on this thread comes across this way. Even the people who agree with each other are arguing against one another.

 

[indio22]

I mean, it is a privilege according to US law. But, other than that, your argument is on solid ground

Well, it's all good then.

Sponsored