MADD Wins
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_hi_te/japan_toyota_drunken_driving

I guess you can't take your Toyota to the track:

Great,

Now on Saturday nights we'll have highways full of cars parked in the middle lane stopped with a panicky drunk behind the wheel...

...or drunks wearing latex gloves and contact lenses... :)

Exactly.

I don't think the technology will work as intended. People will figure out how to bypass it.

Other people will be super-pissed when they can't drive their car for 8 hours after they clean the steering wheel.

see ALPR thread.

I'm glad I like my old cars:D

If they wanted to require this technology for a person to drive again after their first DUI conviction, then I would be all for it. Implementing it on all vehicles would be a waste of money and another big brother effect.

Another good reason not to buy a Toyota. Better they should find a way to auto-park the car when moron drivers get on their cell phones.

How about requiring cell-phone jammers on all new cars, to be active when the engine is running. That would be real progress.

YEAH!

I am ABSOLUTELY against driving drunk and cell phone users piss me off too....BUT...

How about people take responsiblity for their own actions instead of making auto companies be our parents?

Yeah, I know...people just will NOT take responsibility for themselves. I don't disagree, it just pisses me off. I don't need someone to tell me to wear my seat belt, wear a helmet on a motorcycle or not to drive after I've been drinking. I'm a grown ass man and my Dad has passed on; no need for anyone to fill his job! Flame away.

Initially, I was turned off by this as most others in the thread, but on thinking about it a little more, I don't think it's such a bad idea.

I know a few people who are responsible, sensible people who just didn't realize they were at 0.10%, or 0.11% and have paid the price in court. I agree these people shouldn't be on the road for everyone's sake, but I'm sure they all would rather have spent $500 on an option for the car rather than $5000 for a lawyer.

So, if the option can be set up with a few stipulations, I think it's a good idea:

(1) The option must be cheap and discreet. Keep it to $500 or less, and no big breathing tube coming out of the dash. It looks bad and people won't buy/use it.

(2) The data will not be stored or transmitted in anyway to police agencies or insurance companies. I want it set up to start if under 0.08 and not start if 0.09 or more. Then zero it out so that it can't be read. I don't want to be penalized by my insurance or have it used against me in court if something happens and they bring in the black box from my car that says I've regularly been at 0.05 (well under legal limit) while driving.

(3) Insurance discounts if it's installed. Though, I don't see that happening with the #2 in place. Ins co want all the data they can get their greedy little hands on.

What happens if it's cold and sunny and you are wearing sunglasses and gloves? Car won't run?

Does the car shut off after you swerve to avoid an accident, only to be rear-ended?

Neat tecnology, but I don't see why the average car buyer should be saddled with the extra cost. What's the percentage of drunk drivers? 1-3% ? Anyone caught driving drunk should have to have something like this installed for 10 years, at their expense. But like Legion said, looks like something that could be bypassed.

And another thing... sometimes I think MADD is off their rockers. I heard one of them on the radio a few months ago, lobbying for a 0% blood alcohol limit.
Give me a break. I'm more concerned with TIRED drivers than a guy coming home after having a beer at a BBQ, or a glass of wine with dinner.

On principle I'm opposed to adding more irritating and potentially unreliable gadgets to cars that are already full of useless gadgets. This includes anti-booze gadgets. People who aren't drunk drivers suffer the cost and maintenance of such devices when they have not exhibited behavior that warrants them. Better to have courts require DUI convictees pay for and install the devices in their own cars.

Responsibility can be mandated. Have an accident, your blood alcohol is checked if the officer thinks you're boozing. Why not require checking cell phone records? If on a cell at the time of an accident you're At Fault - let the insurance companies work their magic. Trouble is, this all happens *after* the accident and does nothing to prevent it. We have become obsessed with Demon Rum when it is *not* the highest priority for improving highway safety.

Should people be responsible? Yes. Are they? No.

Add this to the idiocy: CA now requires the use of hands-free devices while using a cell and driving. Of course, you can still dial the damn thing (mind and eyes elsewhere) and text messaging while driving is permitted (mind and eyes completely out of the driving loop). Un ****** Believable. Only an industry lobbyist could come up with insanity like that.

A couple of interesting links:
www.hfes.org/Web/PubPages/celldrunk.pdf
www.its.umn.edu/sensor/2005/spring/cellphones.html

Cell jammers look better every minute.

MADD is beyond reproach. Not once has a member of MADD talked on the phone while driving or taken both hands off the wheel. Moreover, they've all completed Formula 1-level driver training and check tire pressure with a NIST-calibrated gauge every time they drive. They get 9 hours of sleep every night, and NEVER drive more than 1 hour at a time without stopping to stretch and take a break.

Oh wait -- MADD. No, they all sit in darkened basements, rocking back and forth and moaning all day. That is, until they have to write a check to the idiot lobbyist representing them.

I guess my fear is that if Toyota is considering building cars like this, MADD will run with it and get laws passed to mandate these devices. The uneducated masses will nod their heads and conform.

The Anti-MADD:

http://www.motorists.org/index.html

Did MADD do this? I thought the article mentioned lots of Japanese alcohol related accidents.

No, but I would be surprised if they don't run with it. I can see a press release that reads: "Even Toyota recognizes the grave danger any alcohol consumption poses to drivers and is actively developing technology to make drunk driving a thing of the past."

Put another way:

Good ideas don't necessarily make good laws.

The original mad mom wound up getting a DUI a few years after starting the whole thing. Like any self-rightous group on a crusade (and hoping to never have to get real jobs) they have, however, proven themselves to be bigger than just her.

Changing the subject just a wee bit, I have always wondered why no one feels compelled to dig down to the basic premise behind enforcing DUI laws. That premise is that alcohol impairs one's ability to operate a motor vehicle. Going one layer deeper, it impairs that ability because it affects judgement, reaction time, and coordination. The underlying implication is that it takes a certain measure of each of these to drive safely. So that is the premise.

Now what if I can demonstrate that although I'm blowing a .10 or greater, I am still well ahead of average in all of these areas (I'm not; just hypothetically)? What if, conversely, I can demonstrate I'm well below average in all of these areas even when stone cold sober? This is a whole new can of worms. Maybe the MADD mothers would be kept off the road, and competent, experienced drunks would be good to go.

Re: MADD Wins
 

Unbelievable.

Just one more reason to stick with my classic P-car as opposed to the modern plastic junk on the road today.

Jeff, Carey Nation would have your head for even thinking that! MADD = New WCTU

What about G-meters in a black box that will only unlock the last 30 minutes only after a special code from a police search warrent?
Driving like an idiot and crash?

What about requiring establishments that serve alcohol to hold onto you licence. You get it back after a breathalizer next to the bar.
Licences will be printed without home addresses or something suitable..

There are a lot of ways to reduce drunk-driving without infringing on privacy and functionality. This would be a bad move Toyota.

Except that sterner punishment doesn't necessarily reduce the likelihood of the crime.

Quote:

What about requiring establishments that serve alcohol to hold onto you licence. You get it back after a breathalizer next to the bar. Licences will be printed without home addresses or something suitable..

And we all know you can't drive the car without that piece of paper and plastic.

How about the drunk driver who wipes out the family and gets probation, making it his fourth conviction.

Right before new years eve, I was driving back on the highway in the hardest rainstorm I've ever seen. Safe speeds were 55mph but everyone was doing 70. Three teens in a truck were parked across both lanes after spinning out, then took off at 80mph+.
I think the problem with their driving behavior started long before that night, alcohol-related or not.

I used to like and supprot MADD

But not anymore. All of the new laws they push for just are not well thought out.

How can I support someone who gets the legal limit down to .08 which is like a sip of wine.

IMO they hurt more then they help.

Join my club, DAMM, Drunks Against Mad Mothers. Send me 100$ n I'll send you a membership card, oh ya I'll try n get around to a news letter or somthin too.

We focus too much on the "drunk" part of the equation. How about any driver, for whatever reason, that does these things? It's no better or worse because they are drunk or sober. Whatever it is that contributes to an accident, be it innattention, sheer stupidity, or whatever does not change the responsibility. Nor should it change the nature and the level of the punishment.

My older brother was rear ended while sitting at a stop light, in broad daylight, on a sunny summer afternoon. Speed limit was 35; he got hit at 35. The guy never even touched his brakes, according to several witnesses following him. Turns out this guy had done something similar twice over the last few years. He was stone cold sober. He was approaching 80 years old. His family had fought succesfully to allow him to retain his license (as far as we know, he still has it even after this, his third collision). AARP is in his corner. No one wants to "restrict his freedom".

Jeff -- I bet that geezer STILL pays less for insurance than I do! :mad:

Are you defending this "Anti-DUI" vehicle technology?

The problem there is the JUDGE. Those are the cases i do sympathize with the cops. They go and place themselves at risk to snatch these drunks up, and BANG, some dumb-assed liberal judge lets them out before the ink on the criminal complaint form is even dry.

It's a joke.

duplicate post.

Did you see my first post in this thread?

Apparently not, or i wouldn't have asked. ;)

Actually i read it, just didn't connect the "Wludavid" dots properly between the two posts. You have my humblest apologies. :)