Toyota developing blood alcohol sensor in steering wheels

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This isn't about seatbelts or eyetests, this is a technology that presumes you guilty and you have to prove your innocence. This is backwards to how our system is supposed to run.

What like a airport scanner? Stopping you if you have a gun?

Or like a cop giving you a breathalyzer? Why do it if he doesn't think you're guilty?

How does the installation of a device presume guilt?

Not having a drivers license is pretty much saying you can't drive until you prove you can!

You can't drive until you have insurance!

Well if you can't start a car until the car safely knows your sobre MY GOD WHAT A TRAVESTY!

Still no one has brought up a single one of my rights that has had any negative bearing on my life whatsoever..

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by Looger

Big Brother is Driving You
Controversial and creepy technology, which lets car rental agencies track whether drivers are speeding, finally has its day in court. Privacy loses.
New Haven Advocate | June 3 2004
It took a jury of six Connecticut residents only about 40 minutes to decide that ultimately, Big Brother can ride shotgun.
On Tuesday, May 25, the case involving Acme Rent-a-Car--the notorious New Haven rental car company that used a satellite tracking device to catch customers speeding--finally came to a speedy and eerily quiet close.

However, the decision in the case of Turner v. American Car Rental may open dangerous doors.
James Turner sued Acme (American Car Rental) in New Haven Superior Court for invasion of privacy and violating the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, after Acme--automatically and without permission--withdrew $450 from his bank account for speeding in an Acme minivan. The Whalley Avenue agency had equipped its vehicles with a global positioning device, which tracks customers' locations and driving habits.

how long before this information is used against us when we insure a vehicle or get a new license etc.?

information is traded all the time, and as soon as a government can chase people for this (money), they will.

the car i rent is not my car, the company has every right to protect their assets. while i'm not familiar with the case i would assume he signed a contract before renting the car?

as another poster said as well - driving is a privledge, not a right.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

this is a technology that presumes you guilty and you have to prove your innocence.

Exactly.

Hey folks, nobody is advocating drunk driving, but saying "as long as it's saving one life it is good" is a pretty weak rationale for anything.

Outlawing campfires, drawstrings on curtains, bacon-doubles, bathtubs filled with over 1/8th of an inch water, driving a car under any circumstances and pretty much anything else you can think of is going to "save one life".

Should they outlaw those things. If they save one life...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by TanguayFan

the car i rent is not my car, the company has every right to protect their assets. while i'm not familiar with the case i would assume he signed a contract before renting the car?

as another poster said as well - driving is a privledge, not a right.

Say you rent a car and you happen to hit 122 going down a hill on the highway, you have no problem with the rental company dinging you for 450 bucks?

If that's okay, say you rent a hotel room after your long journey and they happen to have installed a camera in the room. That camera records your activities as you watch the local soft-porn channel and they ding you $450 charge for excessive use of the complimentary Jergens, is that alright with you? The company does, after all, have every right to protect their assets, and Jergens is certainly an asset, in some circles, or so I hear.

Applying human attributes, like presumption, to an inanimate object is going rather overboard IMO.

Fact is, the device simply stops your car from running if it detects alcohol in your blood.

Could that information be used ,traded, etc? Sure. Why? Maybe the xfiles crew can help me out with that.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Say you rent a car and you happen to hit 122 going down a hill on the highway, you have no problem with the rental company dinging you for 450 bucks?

If that's okay, say you rent a hotel room after your long journey and they happen to have installed a camera in the room. That camera records your activities as you watch the local soft-porn channel and they ding you $450 charge for excessive use of the complimentary Jergens, is that alright with you? The company does, after all, have every right to protect their assets, and Jergens is certainly an asset, in some circles, or so I hear.

If you signed a contract with them agreeing to those terms, then you really brought it upon yourself didnt you?

[the_hound]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Say you rent a car and you happen to hit 122 going down a hill on the highway, you have no problem with the rental company dinging you for 450 bucks?

If that's okay, say you rent a hotel room after your long journey and they happen to have installed a camera in the room. That camera records your activities as you watch the local soft-porn channel and they ding you $450 charge for excessive use of the complimentary Jergens, is that alright with you? The company does, after all, have every right to protect their assets, and Jergens is certainly an asset, in some circles, or so I hear.

That's why you bring your own jergens. Yeesh

[Looger]

Originally Posted by TanguayFan

the car i rent is not my car, the company has every right to protect their assets. while i'm not familiar with the case i would assume he signed a contract before renting the car?

oh he probably did.

but this was simply an example of tracking technology already in some cars, and the possible correlation data.

a profile built on you could be used against you, like recording where you were - at a bar - and that you had an elevated but not illegal BAC, so you're not breaking the law.

just like if the cops can't get a good sample they still take your car away on suspicion, even though they have nothing.

your insurance company takes a look at your activities and does not approve, i mean, having one beer, what's wrong with you???

[ken0042]

I could see this actually causing other issues.

- Somebody mentioned wearing gloves. So somebody gets in to their car drunk, hits somebody, and then takes off their gloves. Now he has a defense that he didn't know he was drunk because the car did start.

- Malfunction causes the system to allow a drunk driver to drive. Said driver has come to rely on the cars sensors to tell him if he is OK to drive instead of what most people should be doing; knowing their own limits.

I also have an objection to the cost. Now a new car is going to cost me $500 more for a function that isn't needed. (for me) One of main reasons we now have airbags in our cars is because people weren't wearing seatbelts, and the auto industry was pushed into developing a safety system designed to work no matter if the passengers were wearing seatbelts or not.

In my mind- if you want to get tough on drunk driving, and I think we should, give the law more teeth. 1st offense- one month in jail; servable on weekends. 2nd offense- 1 year in jail. Drunk driving causing death- 1st degree manslaughter; no reduced sentances just because you are drunk.

[worth]

Guilty until proven innocent.

[trew]

Freedom of speech ends with yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, and freedom of action ends with an impared person's rights to operate a 1 tonne motor vehicle.

I think every new vehicle should include a blood alcohol content reader. Not necessarily a vehicle disabling electronic component, but just a breatholizer in the glovebox. This is not expensive technology, and could be used to keep unwittingly impared drivers off the road. Many people think it's "ok" to drive if they've only had a couple beer, and put back two large pints of strong ale in half an hour, and hit the road with a .10 BAC.

Originally Posted by Looger

just like if the cops can't get a good sample they still take your car away on suspicion, even though they have nothing.

I don't minid you voicing your conspiracy theories. In fact, I find them very entertaining as you present THE most extreme case for us vs. 'the man'.

However, the above statement is a complete farce and you know it. Try keeping with facts and you might gain some credibility.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

this is a technology that presumes you guilty and you have to prove your innocence.

I disagree entirely.

The car will start regardless, but will slow down and eventually stop if it detects alcohol. This presumes innocence and only reacts when it detects "guilt"... which is exactly how our system works.

[worth]

The fact that it is installed in the car assumes guilt until proven innocent.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

However, the above statement is a complete farce and you know it. Try keeping with facts and you might gain some credibility.

what, you've never been pulled over late at night and had your car towed and get a 24 hour suspension based entirely on a cop's suspicion, even though the BAC readout was fine?

lucky you.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by worth

The fact that it is installed in the car assumes guilt until proven innocent.

What a stretch.

Originally Posted by Looger

what, you've never been pulled over late at night and had your car towed and get a 24 hour suspension based entirely on a cop's suspicion, even though the BAC readout was fine?

lucky you.

Again, your ignorance has blinded your ability to present a rational argument.

A 24 hour suspension is a provincial regulation that allows police to suspend a driver when they suspect the driver has been drinking. This suspicion can be formulated three ways: 1) Admission bythe driver of consuming alcohol 2) Indictia of impairment (smell, speech, etc) 3) The administration of a 'roadside' test and registering a 'warn'.

I am a little unsure of what you mean by 'fine'. Do you mean that you were 'fine' to drive or that your blood alcohol concentration was zero?

As far as towing goes, police are again given those powers provincially. If the car is illegally parked or in a hazardous spot, they have legal authority to tow. If it is legally parked or there is another person (sober) that can drive, then it will not be towed.

Have a read of the Traffic Safety Act.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Again, your ignorance has blinded your ability to present a rational argument.

wow, you've got me convinced. it's almost like you know of which you speak.

it was in BC for starters, and by 'fine' i mean that i didn't blow any discernable level and he figured his machine was broken and towed my car.

read the act yourself, the rest of us in the real world will obey the guy with the badge and the gun.

wow.

[Looger]

Bent Wookie, looks to me like you're really out to prove a point here.

why don't you send me a pm and keep your vitriol off the forum?

maybe you'd like to meet me by the bikerack at 3:15?

exactly what level of childish behaviour am i dealing with here?

[Phanuthier]

Maybe they'll have you peeing in a bottle to see if you're on drugs before you drive too!

I'm all for non-drunk driving, but this seems a little invasive to me, so on one hand, I'm on board with it; on the other, I'm with Looger.