Interesting article, wow! Wonder if it'll end up saving lives.



Link

Certainly a very interesting concept. It really does sicken me how many people drink and drive with such a casual attitude.

I agree that it is an interesting article. But do we really need another stupid feature added on to our already too high tech automobiles that could malfunction and cause our car not to start...

Sorry just bitter, my Honda Accord won't run....Honda Techs can't even determine what is wrong with it...after they charged me $700!


Instead of not starting, I think a bat should just come out and whack em in the head.

Well I think the idea is right but being a teen I am against it on numerous points. Don't get me wrong I don't drink, smoke, ect, but its not right. Now its your choice if you want the car or not

I know in MA, if you get caught drinking and driving you are mandated to install some device which you blow into to start your car, and it asks for random tests, and you go to a place monthly to have it checked, and uploaded to the RMV / DMV and if you miss it more then 1 your license gets clipped. When I start our car, I don't want to do all this crap just to get it started. The sweating thing is stupid, ok when I get off track or running practice I am sweating, I don't want my car to not start because of this... I don't want a camera checking me out in the car... and the breathalizer thing... I just want to start my car and go home. And defiantly don't want my seat belt locking up on me while I am driving or an annoying message.

Now the only pro for this would be if my insurance company and the maker would give me a break since I am under 21... so I payless insurance, and the car is cheaper for people under 21... since obviously with all these bells and whistles we can't start the car if we are boozed out, passengers (whatever happens to them ) and its "safe" I guess.

Interesting... but I am not a fan of Nissan.

Good idea, but it seems as though it will cause too much inconvenience for us non drunk-drivers if it malfunctions - how would we get to the dealership to get it fixed?

I'm not too excited about it.

Yeah basically my point. We pay and have it towed, but what does it look like. Forget whats inside

Interesting concept.

Being that I am friends with someone who has been the victim of a head on collision with a drunk driver 4 years ago, I think it's a step in the right direction. She has just had her 6th surgery on her face to correct the damage.

I also know someone else who died from a crash due to a drunk driver running a stop sign, he never had a chance to survive it.

What exactly is "not right" about it? Let's assume that such a system would be relatively foolproof, so all your points about it misdiagnosing a drunk are moot. What is unreasonable about checking to ensure a driver is not under the influence before the car starts?



Yes, I'm sure a lot of people thought the same about the seatbelt. "I just want to get it started, I don't want to have to put some safety harness around me", and yet the number of lives they've saved is... countless. I see such a system doing the same. Isn't that worth the miniscule inconvenience?

This isn't really new is it? Some countries fit breathalisers to drink-drivers' cars already I think.

But this is about a car company adding it in, not a country. Which is taking it a step further.

Well I am not sure about other countries, but in MA, USA more then 2 (maybe after 1...?) DUI or DWI charges you have to pay to have your car outfitted with that device, and take it to a place to have it checked monthly. Went through the whole thing in drivers ed...

Seat Belts are easier, I always use it... because when I climb into our car, I just swing it around and start the car, easy. This thing you gotta blow into it, wait for the reading, ect...

Now as I said above if I bought this car or any Nissan that had it installed, I would hope my insurance company would bring down the price... since obviously I am in a vehicle with deturents in it.

As for myself when I lived in VA my freshman year 6 people killed themselves by being stupid and drinking and joy ridding, three ran a red light and a guy in a ford explorer plowed them over into a traffic signal and that was the end of them - yet somehow stupids proclaimed them as "heroes" and the our high school idiots. The other two just died the bad way of laying down while drunk, and could not puke... so you see how they died at a party... that just flat out sucks, and the other guy was hit by a drunk driving downtown Richmond, not by my area and it was at night so he was left until early morning when a street sweeper found his body near the sidewalk... and the driver got away.

Now the only reason why I am against this somewhat is that not all people drink and drive. You can't punish me because billy bob takes his booze and goes driving and does not have a clue why he is driving. What happens if the BAC limit is .07 in MA and .6 in NY... and if your at .06 in MA the car starts but when you reach NY you are considered DUI. (those were just random numbers...) Another thing is when it wacks up... how do I fix it? Obiously it would have to be tamper proof... what happens if you take one of those air gets and spray it in the thing that takes your breath? Hold a cloth over the gear shift... the only thing left is the seat belt and swaying thing.

Good idea, but its only 1 car maker. I don't use Nissans more a Ford, Toyota, small equipment person... so does not effect me anytime soon.

Oh yeah, I know, I'm just wondering why Nissan are talking as though it's a brand new invention that needs extensive field testing. The technology already exists and is used extensively.

I don't have any problem with the device being used, but I don't know if it's going to help much. Some people, who see no moral problem with drink driving, will simply not buy a Nissan because it'd be an 'inconvenience'. Those sensible people who don't drink and drive shouldn't need it anyway. To be honest, I really don't think there's many people who 'accidently' drink and drive. It's a conscious decision to take the risk. So I can only see the device being useful when every car has to be fitted with it.

I can definitely agree with a lot of what you're saying Rikki. But haven't you ever talked yourself into driving, or let someone else talk you into driving when, in hindsight, you shouldn't have? If nothing else I think these measures will curb that potential. Part of the problem with drinking and driving is the judgment impairment. So, I would contest that quite a number of people do, "accidentally" drink and drive.

You can think of it in simple terms. There is absolutely no reason ever conceivable that a car should start when there is alcohol vapor inside the vehicle. Wait...that's not true, passengers can be drunk...I think thats why the need to do more testing and fine tune the system...anyways, Alcohol in driver = car doesn't start. It's a simple solution to a simple problem.

Nope, absolutely not, hand on heart. I don't enjoy drinking alcohol enough to consider taking the risk for a start - if I'm going out, I'm happy (happier, in fact) drinking Coke if I have to drive. I don't really see the point in allowing myself just one drink, I might as well have soft drinks from the start. To me, the point of alcoholic drinks is to get the high from it, and that doesn't kick in until the second or third, so what's the point in having one?

Anyway, of course people sometimes do accidentally drink drive (Stephen made a good point to me that people are sometimes drunk the next morning still, without realising), but I still believe in most cases people know they shouldn't be driving, i.e. they know or suspect they're over the limit, but take the risk anyway ("I've only had 3 and I can walk straight, I can drive fine"). I don't think those kinds of people are going to go and buy the Nissan Breath-a-car.

I'm not contesting those points. And I don't really like to drink either. In fact, my girlfriend of 5 years was saying the other day that she doens't think she's ever seen me drunk. But I know that have driven when I probably shouldn't have before, and I will guarantee that many other members of this community have too. Especially your Lynchburg crew, those Lynchburgians are a rough and roudy bunch of hooligans!

I do disagree with your last sentence though. All kinds of people make those bad kinds of decisions, both mature and responsible and immature and irresponsible. As I said drinking effects your ability to use good judgment, and beyond that, think about parents. As a parent I'd be very interested in buying a car that my kid couldn't start if he/she was drunk. I'm just saying that there can be practical applications of this concept and that the very idea of it isn't contradictory. Who knows they might set a standard and convince other car manufacturers to adopt this technology.

To clarify I'm not really arguing for or against this idea. I just don't follow your logic of, "Drunk people won't buy the car so it's a moot point." I don't think thats a reason not to develop this kind of technology.

Oh me either, I'm just saying it'd be most effective if all cars had it, so that determined drunk drivers can't avoid it

ah so you got that message and are just ignoring me then

Quoted for falsehoods, Meredith.

Pffft What I mean is I don't enjoy drinking alcohol as a drink as such. It's fine if I'm able to get drunk and enjoy that, but as an individual drink they aren't any more enjoyable than Coke.

Having said that, it was that evening that put me off being drunk too Has only happened once since then. Never again.

Now if only someone could come up with a way to stop the "boy racer" type drivers who speed down roads in residental areas without making the rest of us drivers suffer (no speed bumps thanks).

Stories like this one disgust me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6709311.stm

That wouldn't be that hard either. Well, I guess it would be more accurate to say that the technology exists to prevent that as well. If the car is in a 35mph zone don't let it go more than 35mhp. Good luck getting anyone to agree with speed governs though.

If it was 100% foolproof (and that's a very large if), then I suppose I'd support it, providing that it could instantly check. If it took more than, say, 2 seconds, I would get annoyed very fast. I like to be able to sit down, put the seatbelt on, start the car, and go. I don't want to wait for a camera to scan my eyes, my shifter to check my sweat, and a breathalyser to check my breath for alcohol.

Nothing is 100% foolproof



"This device could save *INNOCENT* lives. But hey, let's only use it if it isn't going to inconvenience ME!"

Honestly this attitude is ASTONISHING me. Is drink-driving simply not as big a taboo in the US?

I'm not sure how socially taboo it is considered, but from a legal standpoint I've heard the penalties are more strict than in the UK.

It seems to be a cultural difference, we had something similar when we had a topic about people eating and/or talking on the phone whilst driving, the replies from people from America were generally more concerned with it inconveniencing them where as those from Europe were more concerned with protecting themselves from other people.

I don't think this is a US thing, I think there'd be millions of people that say the same thing here. This is the point I was trying to make - people who don't care (and I'm not saying Garret would willingly ignore the drink drive laws by any means) won't buy it because it'd be an inconvenience to them. Anyone who views the system as a minor inconvenience in an effort to save more lives is, in all likelihood, the sort of person that wouldn't take any risk in the first place.

Well I think the general idea of it is that it measures all of those things on the fly, and if you fail any of them the car shuts off, or stays in park or something to that effect. I wouldn't consider this technology adequate until it's basically transparent to the driver....that is until you get in the car loaded.

Drinking and driving is definitely an issue that should get some attention, but outfitting a vehicle to work at this problem is not really a viable solution. That's like having a device the detects when you about to fall asleep, and wakes you up OR installing means for authorities to remotely shut off your car in the case of a high speed chase OR using governing the speed of all cars, depending on speed limit, by some device provided by the state (idea attributed to Zomg). There will always be issues with cars and the breaking of laws.

Handle the issue at the source, drinking, not at the end result. Besides, I personally would remove the system from my car, if it came with it.

My 2 cents/opinion.

I'm just exploring this idea, I haven't made up my mind about it yet. But what exactly is wrong with all of those things? Eventually I don't see any other way. We've got close to 7 billion people on this planet and it's growing and maybe a few thousand can actually drive.

Ideas like speed governers seem imposing but are we just being immature about it? The police having the power to remotely shut down cars seems imposing and very Big Brother. But are we just being immature about it?

If we have the technology to prevent these occurrences why shouldn't we use them? Why should we view something like this as encroaching on our rights?

Long ago people could have said, "I don't wand some computer controlling the brakes on my car!" but because ABS is basically standard on all cars, there is no count to the number of lives that have been saved.

Where do we draw the line here?

I'm not saying I agree with this idea, but by the same logic, get rid of the public owning guns that people say they have in order to protect themselves from crime, handle the issue at the source and stop crime....

If that were made illegal? If it was linked to an engine immobilisation device?

IMHO, we can attempt to tackle the problem at it's source from now until the end of time, and by then countless people will have died at the hands of those who are incapable of understanding the risk of driving under the influence.

Yes, I have more faith in technology than humanity.

ROFL. I was thinking the same thing.

So did I, but someone talked me into posting it

I was thinking exactly the same thing you were about this similarity between that philosophy and gun control but I didn't wanna mention it

Comon, haven't you seen the movie, The Fifth Element. Do we really want to get to the point where are flying cars judge us and add points to our license? I don't. I wouldn't be able to drive, after a week, and I am one of the decent drivers.

Sorry about my previous comment, by the way - I figured the sarcasm was more obvious than it actually appeared, also, the 100% foolproof was in regards to a post somewhere on page #1. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off the streets, but there is a fine line to draw. Say someone has one beer, but they are a rather avid drinker and it doesn't impair them at all. They get pulled over for a burnt out tail lamp and end up going to jail for DUI. Now should this person get the same sentence as someone who downed a 12-pack and caused a 3 car pileup (on just the DUI charge, disregard the accident fees etc)? I definitely say "no".

Unfortunately, the law doesn't see it that way, and will invest the same amount of time and money into going after the more harmless drunk driver than the crazy unable-to-drive drunk driver. Granted, a DUI is a DUI, but the point of it being illegal is to make the road a safer place for everyone. They need better ways of going about it.

Case and point? The car's a good idea, however, as Wombat said, nothing is 100% foolproof. Now none of us know what it would actually be like, this is all speculation. It may integrate seamlessly into the car, or it might be like integrating WordPress into IPB (*cough*). Good concept - the only thing they need is good execution, and the ability to convince people that the camera isn't invasive of privacy or anything of the sort. Although I'd probably never buy it (I hate Nissan), I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with it.

I know I sound back and forth on this...I haven't really made up my mind 100%. There's good, and bad to it. Like I said, I look forward to seeing it, but not so sure about seeing it on the road (yet).

I wouldn't like it any more than you would Jason but would it be worth it?

Those who are "avid drinkers" would have a lower blood-alcohol level than someone else after drinking one beer. In fact, most people would be below the necessary level to be arrested for DUI.



Well, in the UK at least, the limit is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. That provides a clear distinction between those who are considered to be still able to drive and those who are over the limit. Unfortunately the amount of drinks or units necessary to go over that limit varies from person to person.

A better way to go about it, as you suggest is necessary, would be to fit a breathalyzer or similar device to every car so that anyone who is unsure of whether they're safe to drive will know based on whether the car starts or not.



Air bags aren't 100% foolproof, they can not deploy, they can cause injury when they deploy... they can even end up KILLING young children if a child's seat is used incorrectly in conjunction with them. That said, they save SO many lives it's still worth having a car fit with them.

This is incorrect. Two people of the same weight, size, and metabolic rate will have the same blood:alcohol level no matter what their tolerance is. Alcoholics don't metabolize the alcohol faster it just impairs them less.

Alright, so your saying its a good idea for a car to be able to automaticly shut itself off without warning, while your driving if it detects your over the limit.

What happens if you end up on railroad tracks, in the middle of an intersection or while driving down a freeway at 100 km/h.

It's a good idea, in theory. But I dont agree with the amount of control given to the car.

/sigh

No, what I'm saying is it's a good idea to advocate the developement of this kind of technology. Of course the car shouldn't turn off without warning at 75mph on the interstate....don't be absurd. I don't remember anyone claiming this to be a simple solution, after all that's why products are developed.

It's funny you mention an adversion to the car having control. Right now, your car is run by a computer that is constantly measuring dozens maybe hundreds of different sensors. It controls your breaking, it controls your gearing(automatic trans), your fuel consumption, and it might even control the power given to the wheels. In short, your car does have control over many things. Your car will automatically shutdown without warning from many things, from 0₂ sensors to radiator temps.

Cars already do this, that is when they hit their governed speed limit, it cuts off the gas to the engine.

Not that I know from personal experience....

Yes, but airbags are far more simple than this. All they do is wait for impact, and then boom. There's no need to scan every possible thing that can be scanned and then analyze the data.

Wrong. In fact that is exactly what airbags do, they scan many different sensors to decide whether your airbag will deploy or not: where the impact is taking place, how fast the the car is decellerating, whether the car is starting to move unusual ways (flipping, rolling, spinning, ect..) The system that deploys your airbag is probably far more complicated the the engine in the car.

No it doesn't, it restricts the flow.

No it doesn't, it inhibits the flow.

re·strict (rĭ-strĭkt')
tr.v. re·strict·ed, re·strict·ing, re·stricts
To keep or confine within limits.

Congrats, you fail at correcting me.

Congratulations, you've found two words with the same meaning.