
Coming soon: If you’re not sober, you won’t be able to start the car - petethomas
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2019/04/06/coming-soon-if-youre-not-sober-you-wont-be-able-start-car/
======
RickS
I'm okay with this being mandated for people with DUIs, but the idea of it
becoming a standard feature is disheartening. It's bad enough that internet
connectivity is trending towards becoming mandatory. To also mandate that a
person surrender biometric data as a requirement for ignition is beyond the
pale.

~~~
fzeroracer
The problem is that by the time you catch someone with a DUI, they might've
already caused grievous harm to someone else. Since the US and Canada seem to
consistently have a bad DUI problem the next step is to prevent people from
driving period if they're drunk.

~~~
mruts
Have you read A Clockwork Orange? A great book about the moral fallacy of
taking away choice in the name of the greater good.

~~~
fzeroracer
We've already established that we take away choices in the name of the public
good. For example, many states have it illegal to text and drive, or to not
wear your seatbelt.

Unless you believe both of those should be legal as well, then we're at an
impasse.

~~~
beatgammit
I personally believe that both are stupid, but they shouldn't necessarily be
illegal.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't really affect anyone else, so it shouldn't be
illegal IMO. However, I could see an argument for insurance refusing to cover
you for medical injuries if you weren't wearing a seatbelt.

Texting and driving is a bit different and I would consider that "reckless
driving", which already is an infraction. If you're operating your vehicle in
a manner that is unsafe to other road users, you should have your driving
privilege suspended. However, just making it a fine makes it seem less serious
IMO, and handing out tickets for innocent use of a phone while driving also
seems wrong.

If you're not endangering others, you shouldn't get a ticket. I think this
should apply to all infractions of the legal code. If you're driving over the
limit, but there's nobody around, then you either shouldn't get a ticket or it
should be a much smaller one. However, if you _are_ endangering others, the
penalty should be far more severe than it is today.

The same goes for alcohol. There are a lot of other ways for you to be driving
dangerously, but being slightly over the limit is often safe for many people,
while being under the limit could still be dangerous for others. For example,
driving while sleepy is often more dangerous than driving drunk, yet I don't
think I've heard of anyone getting their license suspended for driving sleepy.
Also, driving with screaming kids is also dangerous (as a parent, I've been
there).

You should only be pulled over if you present a higher than average risk to
other drivers, and that needs to be proven independent of things like your
BAC. I don't think, but I also don't think it's fair, especially since some
state levels are quite low (e.g. I live in Utah where we have 0.05% limit).

~~~
fzeroracer
The reason why some states put the level so low is because you shouldn't be
driving after any drinks, period. Your argument that 'being slightly over the
limit is often safe' does not work, because it relies on people being able to
rationally judge how good they are at driving while drunk. Which, as it turns
out, generally does not work and leads to accidents.

And even if there's 'no one around', that relies on a judgment call made while
drunk and impaired. If you told a lawyer 'Sorry, I didn't think anyone was
around when I drunkenly drove into them', you'd be laughed out of court and
straight to jail.

Which is why they're illegal. If you drink and drive, you've established that
you're putting yourself and others at danger while driving. The same can be
true of driving sleepy, but that also happens at a far less rate statistically
than driving drunk in the US.

------
viraptor
> Q: What about people who might try to game the ignition interlock or tamper
> with it?

> A: Part of our research is also looking at how we would know for certain
> that the alcohol measurement that we’re making is coming from the driver and
> not anyone else in the vehicle.

That's a non-sequitur, mentions an issue and skips over how this is going to
work. I already heard about existing systems failing if you have too many
drunk people in the car. I don't see how that can be avoided with an ambient
air sensor. Especially in the extreme "I'm getting drunk by breathing the air
you exhale" situations.

~~~
nmridul
Fingerprints

~~~
beatgammit
How would a fingerprint prevent ambient alcohol in the air from tampering with
your test result?

------
mruts
This is clearly anti-consumerist, just like those cars that beep when you
don’t wear a seatbelt. I don’t care if drunk driving is bad, I would never buy
a car with this technology.

Moreover, there are situations in which this is more dangerous. What if you
are stuck in a blizzard and drunk in a remote location? What if someone is
trying to kill you?

These kind of products are disgusting and Orwellian, I find it surprising that
there isn’t more pushback from consumer.

~~~
beatgammit
My car makes that beep and it's really frustrating because, a lot of the time,
it beeps when I have heavy stuff in the passenger seat. It should just show a
light and be done with it.

~~~
mruts
You can buy these plastic things that clip into the seatbelt so the beeper
doesn’t activate. I have one and they work well.

------
jkcmailbox
Also, what if I'm the designated driver and I'm taking 3 of my drunk friends
home. How likely would this system be to give a false positive and now the
responsible person's car won't start until you get a bunch of drunks out of
the car and air it out.

------
jmpman
I might be ok with requiring this for drivers under 25, but for the general
population?

