Drunk Driving eliminated in our lifetime?

Discussion in 'In the News' started by xcel, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    [​IMG] Did the title grab your attention?

    [fimg=right]http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/DUI_driver_kills_one_-_injures_4_others.jpg[/fimg]Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - July 30, 2009

    Fatality in downstate IN last year - Man with multiple previous DUI arrests had a blood-alcohol level of 0.21 when he killed one and injured 4 others in this high speed head on crash :mad:

    Automotive coalition for Traffic Safety selects TruTouch Technologies’ light-based system for funding.

    The day is coming when drivers who are legally intoxicated may not be able to drive their vehicles. Recent technological advances make it possible to measure a driver’s intoxication level by analyzing light reflected from his or her skin, and governments are now working with the global automotive industry to adapt this technology for use in cars.

    According to the World Health Organization, 576,000 people die each year as a result of injuries sustained under the influence of alcohol. Not all were driving fatalities fortunately or not. The Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, ACTS, hopes to eliminate a large portion of those deaths by facilitating the development and adoption of technologies capable of preventing alcohol-impaired driving. Under the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program, ACTS has teamed up with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and a Blue Ribbon Panel representing the Who’s Who in the global automotive industry to turn this lifesaving idea into standard practice.

    “Implemented properly, advanced intoxication detection systems have the potential to save far more lives than airbags and to prevent hundreds of thousands of injuries every year,” says Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD. “Getting effective intoxication detection systems into production automobiles should be the key strategy that will end drunk driving. It’s highly conceivable that in 10 years cars will have such sensors and they will stop drunk driving altogether.”

    To become widely implemented, intoxication safety systems need to be as user-friendly as other automotive safety systems. TruTouch Technologies’ light-based systems have that potential, as they are truly a touch-and-go technology.

    ACTS selected TruTouch Technologies’ light-based system for funding following an extensive engineering review of existing and emerging technologies. TruTouch Technologies, Inc. will receive $395,000 in development funding from the DADSS program for the first phase of this project, and if all goes according to plan can expect millions more from subsequent phases, leading to a prototype vehicle in 2012.

    “Too many lives have been devastated by impaired drivers. We need to attack this problem from every angle, including advancing technology like TruTouch,” U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman said. “TruTouch holds great promise, which is why the federal government is investing in this New Mexico company.”

    “Using technology to save lives and save money is our business,” says TruTouch Technologies President and CEO Dr. Richard D. Gill. “As a husband and a father, I am concerned that 1 of every 140 miles driven in the United States is driven by a drunk driver. As a President and CEO, I take pride and comfort in knowing that because of what we’re doing here today my children and your children are less likely to have to face that risk or suffer the consequences.”

    TruTouch’s noninvasive alcohol measurement systems are currently available and being used across the country everywhere from drug courts and work release programs to safety-sensitive worksites and the military. More information on TruTouch’s technology and a link to the DADSS program is available at TruTouchTech.

    Self promotion through a release of course but this one saves lives!
     
  2. brucepick

    brucepick Well-Known Member

    Looks like a good idea to me. Big Brother phobia fanatics won't like it but from where I sit it's a fine idea.
     
  3. psyshack

    psyshack He who posts articles

    So in the future I wont be able to drink beer when washing and detailing my cars. I will have to wash them and do the other work in the the same place and not be able to move the car around my own property never getting on a public road. Well unless I push it. And that may not be able to happen with the womb to tome movement in this country.
     
  4. DocOc

    DocOc Well-Known Member

    I wouldnt call myself a big brother phobia fanatic. And yet I see many problems with this kind of system. First off, whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty', and 'trial by a jury of my peers'? The implemetation of this system in EVERY vehicle negates both those rights, and that has nothing to do with big brother. Unlike you and others I prefer to not have my rights infringed upon.
    If a known offender (caught once with blood alcohol level over 0.10) is court ordered to have one of these in their car, I have nothing against that. But please don't take away my freedom because a few people get killed each year from motor vehicle collisions that involve alcohol.
     
  5. JusBringIt

    JusBringIt Be Inspired

    Driving is a privilege, NOT a right. Therefore the gov't has every right to mandate what it needs for safe operation of a motor vehicle. Do you NEED to have alcohol when you're around your car?? If installing these systems in cars is what it takes to keep this from happening, if having it in my car allows me to know that it is saving lives all over the country, then do it. My beer while washing my car or my "infringed" freedom is not worth someone's life.
     
  6. DocOc

    DocOc Well-Known Member

    Who says it's a privilege? Find me the appropriate quotation from a legal document and I'll believe you.

    EDIT: I'll do you one better by proving my point:

    Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
    No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    OK? Now find the legal documents negating the amendments and we can settle the issue.
     
  7. psyshack

    psyshack He who posts articles

    So goes a once great country down the tubes. :(
     
  8. JusBringIt

    JusBringIt Be Inspired

    I'm sorry, let me rephrase, driving on PUBLIC ROADS is a privilege... I can't go into a store with a gun hanging out of my hand...thought I do have a right to bear arms.

    It is silly to think otherwise.
     
  9. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    Well said DocOc, everything is a Right until it is taken away by my reading of the Constitution.
     
  10. Shiba3420

    Shiba3420 Well-Known Member

    I don't believe any quotation or access to legal predicence is necessary here. What makes it a privlidge and not a right is that you have to qualify to be able to do this. You don't automaticly get your right to drive when you turn 16. You only get the right to try and qualify to drive. If you need legal predidence, then the fact its often been taken away by law (drop out of high school in many states, you aren't allowed to drive until you reach 18 or 21) (you don't have insurance or equiv, you can't drive)

    However one could easily say that you have the right, if you pass, and if you pay your insurance, and you don't do anything which causes a judge to pull your license. Frequently the words right and privlidge are interchangable with the addition of a few qualifying words.

    That said, I'm slightly against this kind of technology. If you look at most things in a car, one can't honestly say they would never need it.
    Seat belts; You don't know someone isn't going to crash into you; And its proven you will maintain more control after the crash with a seatbelt that without;
    Air bags; Again you can't guarantee you won't crash (your fault or others)
    Antilock brakes; At some point, most of us will use them. Its a rare individual where they never come into play.
    Traction assist systems; Same as antilock brakes.

    But anti-drunk system. Thats different. The driver can guarantee that he isn't drunk behind the wheel, by just not drinking. Should a teetotaler be required to spend the $25 to $100 required for a system to protect him from something that can never happen? Seems a bit unfair. On the other hand, many of us pay taxes for things we will never be able to use, so its not exactly a unique problem.

    Now if a system could prevent an impared driver from driving, that might be different. No doubt all of us have driven somewhat impared...we woke up very groggy and were still less than 100% when we left the house. Were we too impared to drive? Well, if you are impared, you are less likely to be able to know the answer to that question, so having the car be able to recognise this and prevent you going would hopefully be a plus and one that everyone could use.
     
  11. DocOc

    DocOc Well-Known Member

    You can go into a store with a gun in a holster and out of sight, as long as you have a permit to carry the weapon. This only proves my point.
    You can drive a car without the need to be checked for inebriation or whatever else they can check for as long as you have a permit. My driver's license enables me to exercise my right to drive. If there is a device in my car that tells me I can't drive the car I bought which I have a permit for, that is an infringement of said rights.
    Either way, this has turned into a bit of a circus because we obviously have different view points and will probably never agree. You come up with a counter to my point and I'll try to disprove it, and vice-versa. One last thing though, I'll give you my phone number so you can call me when your car won't let you drive even though you're sober, because of some system malfunction. 519-498-7371. Cheers.
     
  12. JusBringIt

    JusBringIt Be Inspired

    That's happened with corroded terminals before...a camshaft not sending a signal, an ASD relay malfunction, a bad ecu...the list goes on. ;).

    A right is Jonathan mentions is something you're born with. Human rights is a right. There is not a right to drive.

    I lost my license because I got into an accident and wasn't able to provide proof in a reasonable amt. of time that I did not have some for of sleep related illness. That said, with a right, you're innocent till proven guilty, with a privilege, you're guilty until proven innocent.
     
  13. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    So I have a right - not a privilege to drive a bus, pilot an airliner, run a nuclear reactor?

    If I have a right to drive, it would seem so.
     
  14. DocOc

    DocOc Well-Known Member

    Show me the person stopping you from doing those things and I'll come over and help you move them out of the way. BTW, those activities require permits just like driving does. But there are no extra things you have to do to perform those activities besides having a permit. By having that piece of plastic, you have the right to perform the activity. When you crash land an airliner because you were drunk, you relinquish that right. Just as when you crash your car because you were drunk. Innocent until proven guilty.
     
  15. Chuck

    Chuck just the messenger

    My point: driving in not in the US Bill of Rights.

    You have to demonstrate you have the ability to drive competently among other things....not to be confused with free speech, etc.

    Don't want a nanny state? Then insist it's citizens act grown up and not DWI and the like! Best solution is they do it on their free will....laws happen when too many people act irresponsibly.
     
  16. psyshack

    psyshack He who posts articles

    It seems some really have it out for the drunk drivers. I can see them and adjust to the impairment. I can't more times than not see a sober person about to screw up.

    After Obama gets his health care program through we won't be able to drive or have any money we after we work in our pay checks. So it's all mute over all.

    Welcome to the nanny state! You have no control over your own future, and it's always somebody else's fault. :)
     
  17. Shiba3420

    Shiba3420 Well-Known Member

    I'd like throw another concept into the fray to see what different sides think of it.

    What if someone was pushing for a madatory device in cars. This device would require a valid drivers license to be inserted before the car would start.

    I'm already seeing at least a few arguements both for and against...
    I don't believe you have to be licensed to drive a car on private property, so a system like this would limit use of property beyond what limitatoins currently exist in law. So thats a strike against; However the system or laws could be modified to bring the two into sync.
     
  18. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Jeff:

    ___You can adjust to a drunk? The pic I chose above was an innocent family that was hit head on at a very high rate of speed. The two cars were over 100 yards apart when they came to a stop. And of course the guy had a BAC of .21. Simply stated, you cannot adjust for a drunk driver and they should not be allowed on the road with a 1 ton plus weapon pointed at any of us.

    ___Good Luck

    ___Wayne
     
  19. psyshack

    psyshack He who posts articles

    Please Wayne. I know all good well you would see a car weaving and coming at you and take action. I know I would. Drunk drivers over all do not sneak up on people paying attention to traffic and there surroundings. Cars just don't end up having head crash's without a bet of warning or drama.

    We had a drunk kill some folks here not long ago. The poor dead folks had a flat on the side of the road. Had just pulled over. If they had been watching behind them,,, ie using the mirros,, standard equitment on cars now days. They would have seen the drunk going shoulder to sholder coming up behind them and maybe went to the next exit or at least went for the ditch. It was not there fault they died. But they could have done something about it,,,

    Wrecks are bad,,, death is bad. But thats the risk you take. If I go through life scared or worried about something that may or may not happen. I'm not living my life to it's full extent. Life has risk. Always has.

    All the risk managment and pointing fingers at each other in life to me has seemed to dul the human spirt and our god given flight, attack and self preservation instincts.
     
  20. Shiba3420

    Shiba3420 Well-Known Member

    There isn't always action you can take. The worse cases are those where a driver plows into someone who is sitting behind other traffic at a light. In that case the person hit may have no inidication something is wrong until way too late.

    Drunk drivers, like any impared driver, can appear perfectly norrmal for a period of time, but it only takes they doing 1 stupid mistake to cause a head-on collision, a spin-out into a tree or pole, or other deadly accidents. While we can't identify all problem drivers, we should consider dealing with those we can.
     

Share This Page