Gotcha, you damn drunk driver

I'll play it safe and just add a technological suggestion: Cars that are
keyed to some biometric of the owner (fingerprint, retinal scan,
whatever...)

The beauty of this is that, if the loading of the personal ID data is done
by a regulated site (something like the pollution testers), an individuals
"permission" can be removed from the vehicle for a legal suspension period.
Similar to taking away a suspendee's keys but harder to defeat.

Some ways around it might be: Having your wife (who's not under suspension)
start your jointly owned car for you, but then she also has to come with you
to start it when you return home (unless you're going to leave it run and
get it stolen . Come to think of it, this raises the bar for stealing cars
as well, it's another system that has to be defeated.

The idea of course is to make a person under suspension actually not able to
drive anyway. While a savvy person might be able to find a way around it,
most people wouldn't, especially impatient people under chemical influence.

miker

Eric Baber wrote on 09/28/06 01:49:

> Third - and this is tongue in cheek, but would definitely help a lot - make
> everyone take motorbike lessons and an exam.


I absolutely agree. As a motorbike rider, you learn to have much better
situational awareness. And that of course helps with driving a car as well.

-Joe

Eric Baber wrote:
>>>>1. People driving w/o control of the car kill and maim other, it
>>>>makes NO difference if the reason for the lack of control is
>>>>distraction (ie. cell phone, kids in car, etc.), impairment
>>>>(alcohol, drugs, stupidity, etc.) or bad judgement (speeding,
>>>>unsafe passing, etc.) the effect is the same, people get killed,
>>>>people get maimed.
>>>>
>>>>2. There are laws and established punishments for ALL of the
>>>>above and:
>>>>
>>>>3. These laws have proven to be ineffective.
>>>>
>>>>So what's the fix?
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>We have the necessary laws, we have enforcement (to some level) but it
>>isn't working. Someone, somewhere has to come up with a solution of
>>some sort... why not someone here?
>
>
> Alright then, I'll bite.
>
> I'd say the first part of the solution is proper driver's education and
> testing. None of this nonsense like in the UK and in the US where a parent
> or basically anyone else with a driver's license can "teach" someone else to
> drive; that's just pure insanity and will lead to bad drivers passing on bad
> habits. Sure, some of the bad habits will cause the new driver to fail the
> exam, but no practical exam can catch everything, so people will slip
> through with appalling driving habits.
>
> Second part - regular testing. My parents (bless them) are dreadful drivers,
> but used to be even worse. They moved to Canada when they were in their late
> 50s, where they had to take a test in order to be allowed to drive there
> beyond one year (or something like that). One of them failed which, to my
> mind, was a Very Good Thing. I think they both ended up taking a few lessons
> which did improve their driving substantially.
>
> Third - and this is tongue in cheek, but would definitely help a lot - make
> everyone take motorbike lessons and an exam. I'd been driving a car 15 years
> when I was finally allowed to learn how to ride a bike (I managed to remove
> the thumb I was under, you see). Learning to ride a motorbike without doubt
> improved my car-driving skills: made me much more aware (again?) of what was
> going on on the road, made me think ahead much more, made me sit in lanes
> much more tightly. Whether it was the fact that I was learning to ride a
> bike, or just taking driving lessons of any kind again after 15 years, I'm
> not entirely sure, but something about the experience definitely sharpened
> up my driving. (As an aside, one brilliant thing on the course was that we
> were shown a video of an accident between a helmet-wearing motorcyclist and
> a Mini. The Mini ended up driving over the guy's head - he got up afterwards
> and was fine. That sure taught us to always wear a helmet and proper
> clothing.)
>
> Anyway, that would be my recommendation: real, proper driving instruction
> like they've got in Germany and other European countries, and regular
> testing (every 5 years or so).
>
> Eric

That won't solve the problem, but it would help. The drunk drivers will
still be there, though I seem to remember Germany having extremely tough
laws on DUI.

I completely agree that it is WAY too easy to get a driver's license
here, and apparently in the U.K. as well. The class that I took for my
license was a joke. They concentrated on almost nothing except the
general rules of the road and to look out for cars. No discussion
whatsoever on car handling dynamics except for, "leave some extra room
when it is raining".
Not a word about snow or ice, I guess that they though that we would all
remain in central Texas for life, besides which, we do get freezing
precipitation here on a very rare occasion.

The first time I spun the rear end out on a car, the only reason I knew
to turn into the corner instead of out of it and to not slam the brakes
was because I had read a very good book by Bob Bondurant on racing
before I ever drove.
No teacher ever told me anything at all about what to do to once the
emergency started, except for good old Mr. Bondurant, of course. He also
explains all about corner apex in a great way for beginners.

Pat

"miker" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I'll play it safe and just add a technological suggestion: Cars that are
> keyed to some biometric of the owner (fingerprint, retinal scan,
> whatever...)
>
> The beauty of this is that, if the loading of the personal ID data is done
> by a regulated site (something like the pollution testers), an individuals
> "permission" can be removed from the vehicle for a legal suspension
> period.
> Similar to taking away a suspendee's keys but harder to defeat.
>
> Some ways around it might be: Having your wife (who's not under
> suspension)
> start your jointly owned car for you, but then she also has to come with
> you
> to start it when you return home (unless you're going to leave it run and
> get it stolen . Come to think of it, this raises the bar for stealing
> cars
> as well, it's another system that has to be defeated.
>
> The idea of course is to make a person under suspension actually not able
> to
> drive anyway. While a savvy person might be able to find a way around it,
> most people wouldn't, especially impatient people under chemical
> influence.

Well, I'd say that for a start that's a "punishment" approach rather than a
"preventative" one, which was what XS11E was after (and I agree I'd rather
find ways of stopping people from driving badly in the first place, rather
than focusing on the punishment afterwards).

Secondly this sounds a bit too Big Brother-ish to me!!

Eric

XS11E wrote:

> But I'll bet he'll drive drunk again..... :-(


No doubt.
Also, what I did might not have helped, it may have made things worse.
He appeared to be alone. If he had not recovered after going halfway off
of the road into those big trees at 60 mph, we would probably be looking
at a one-person fatality, which would be problem solved for anyone he
might hurt in the future while doing this again.

Now he may go drive again, this time with 3 kids in the car, and not
recover in that next curve.

Since there is no way to predict this, calling him in seems best. If I
could have been positive that he would wreck and not hurt anyone else, I
would not have called anyone, but that goes back to playing god. :-)

Pat

miker wrote:
> I'll play it safe and just add a technological suggestion: Cars that are
> keyed to some biometric of the owner (fingerprint, retinal scan,
> whatever...)
>
> The beauty of this is that, if the loading of the personal ID data is done
> by a regulated site (something like the pollution testers), an individuals
> "permission" can be removed from the vehicle for a legal suspension period.
> Similar to taking away a suspendee's keys but harder to defeat.
>
> Some ways around it might be: Having your wife (who's not under suspension)
> start your jointly owned car for you, but then she also has to come with you
> to start it when you return home (unless you're going to leave it run and
> get it stolen . Come to think of it, this raises the bar for stealing cars
> as well, it's another system that has to be defeated.
>
> The idea of course is to make a person under suspension actually not able to
> drive anyway. While a savvy person might be able to find a way around it,
> most people wouldn't, especially impatient people under chemical influence.
>
> miker


Ok miker, it's back on. :-)

How much would all of this cost? Who pays for the equipment and for it
to be installed? Who pays for it when it breaks? Do me and the other
people who do not drink and drive have to shoulder the costs? What
happens when it fails? That is one more part on your car to leave you
stranded if it is not working properly.

I agree with Eric, way too big-brotherish. I don't want my car to
communicate with anybody but myself and my mechanic. If it was 100%
foolproof, it might make trading the freedom for security a little less
bitter-tasting, but I think I will pass on that solution if at all possible.

Pat

> How much would all of this cost? Who pays for the equipment and for it
> to be installed? Who pays for it when it breaks? Do me and the other
> people who do not drink and drive have to shoulder the costs? What
> happens when it fails? That is one more part on your car to leave you
> stranded if it is not working properly.

Cost, if made a standard required part of any car and factory installed
(talking new equipment here of course) would probably be less than the cost
to society of the alternative. What do accidents from drinking/driving cost,
including medical, legal, police, prison support? But I should make clear,
this isn't targeted specifically at drinking/driving, it's targeted at
preventing anyone who's lost their license from driving. DUI suspensions
would be one example of that. Loss of license from repeated reckless
behavior would be another. And most likely, extreme failure to pay parking
tickets.

> I agree with Eric, way too big-brotherish.

I'm tempted to open the issue of driving being a priviledge rather than a
right, but y'all know about that. And anyway, this isn't about monitoring
driving, it's about preventing those from driving who, for one reason or
another, shouldn't be.

> I don't want my car to
> communicate with anybody but myself and my mechanic.

???

You understand I'm not talking about monitoring... I'm talking about the
equivalent of a car having only one key, and if they take your key away
(because of something you did) you can't start the car and ergo can't drive
it. And you can't drive anyone elses either, because they only have one key
for theirs and they can't give it to you. Biometric info can be stored
onboard, doesn't have to be transmitted around (tho it could be).

Is it really more big-brotherish than a key only your dealer can duplicate?
(i.e. Corvette etc)

miker

> Do me and the other
> people who do not drink and drive have to shoulder the costs?

Do you have to cover the cost of a ignition lock and steering column lock
even if your car is never stolen? Are you required to pay for insurance even
if you don't have accidents? Do you pay the same annual license fee as
someone else who drives twice as much? This is not so much a
drink/drive-targeted solution as a "Only people who are licensed can drive"
solution... part of the cost of driving, if you will. The above are other
things that you have to pay for even if you aren't "using" your share.

> What
> happens when it fails? That is one more part on your car to leave you
> stranded if it is not working properly.

While you're right, I would ask how many people get stranded thru failed
fuel injection computers or electronic ignitions? While it happens, I guess
I can't say it's ever happened to me.

Anyway, just an idea - from a tech-hating Luddite, no less.

miker

miker wrote:

> Cost, if made a standard required part of any car and factory installed
> (talking new equipment here of course) would probably be less than the cost
> to society of the alternative. What do accidents from drinking/driving cost,
> including medical, legal, police, prison support?

I understand that, but we have cars on the road that are 80 years old or
more, so this equipment would have to be installed and adapted to every
motorized road vehicle made before the equipment became standard.
The costs would be enormous, especially for the first 10 years or so.

> But I should make clear,
> this isn't targeted specifically at drinking/driving, it's targeted at
> preventing anyone who's lost their license from driving. DUI suspensions
> would be one example of that. Loss of license from repeated reckless
> behavior would be another. And most likely, extreme failure to pay parking
> tickets.

Gotcha.

> I'm tempted to open the issue of driving being a priviledge rather than a
> right, but y'all know about that. And anyway, this isn't about monitoring
> driving, it's about preventing those from driving who, for one reason or
> another, shouldn't be.

> You understand I'm not talking about monitoring... I'm talking about the
> equivalent of a car having only one key, and if they take your key away
> (because of something you did) you can't start the car and ergo can't drive
> it. And you can't drive anyone elses either, because they only have one key
> for theirs and they can't give it to you. Biometric info can be stored
> onboard, doesn't have to be transmitted around (tho it could be).

Ok, I can understand that, but now look at what we have. No more driving
a person home in their vehicle if they have been drinking. How about
test-drives? I have driven many vehicles that were not mine to diagnose
problems. That would be the end of that.
Would a mechanic have an override key or would you have to drive them
around in your car?
The mechanic's override device would be a big prize, and probably not
too hard for a high-tech teenager to duplicate. It goes on and on.....

> Is it really more big-brotherish than a key only your dealer can duplicate?
> (i.e. Corvette etc)
>
> miker

I think so, you are giving them your DNA, retinal scan, fingerprints, or
whatever. That is a bit more than having the dealer being the only one
able to duplicate your key.

Pat

miker wrote:

> Do you have to cover the cost of a ignition lock and steering column lock
> even if your car is never stolen? Are you required to pay for insurance even
> if you don't have accidents? Do you pay the same annual license fee as
> someone else who drives twice as much? This is not so much a
> drink/drive-targeted solution as a "Only people who are licensed can drive"
> solution... part of the cost of driving, if you will. The above are other
> things that you have to pay for even if you aren't "using" your share.

I definitely get your point, but let's look at it from another
direction. Do I also need to install a tracking device in my car now
that you can buy one or should that still be optional? They will
probably be standard one day.
Your idea is not completely implausible, though only one person, (maybe
husband/wife or whatever), being able to drive any given car would
present problems, but it would have to be phased in over a long period
of time.

> While you're right, I would ask how many people get stranded thru failed
> fuel injection computers or electronic ignitions? While it happens, I guess
> I can't say it's ever happened to me.
>
> Anyway, just an idea - from a tech-hating Luddite, no less.
>
> miker

Not really a bad idea, I just question the practicality and fear the
misuse of the information given over to "them".
Anyway, it looks like at least 5 people total are still reading rather
than my estimated four. ;-)

Pat