Driving Under the Influence

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This winder I called in an erratic driver to 911 when I was just west of town and they took it very seriously, so I guess it varies based on operator.

I suppose.

I asked the operator if this was an inconvenience and apologized for calling 911 if I shouldn't have. She responded by saying I could call back and get an update later if I wanted. OK, then!

I had never seen such erratic driving in my entire life... let a few things slide and when they nearly sideswiped multiple cars as they missed an offramp I figured I'd call it in. Operator was extremely annoyed that I didn't know the closest intersection, despite the fact that I explained I was on the newer SW portion of Stoney Trail and had just made the turn from heading west to north at the far SW corner of the City limits and was approaching the Taza Costco. There was silence on the call for over a few minutes until I saw the next interchange signage.

I was shocked how it played out to be honest.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I also called 911 on one a number of years back in 17th Ave in Calgary. They took it seriously and called me back to say they got him.

On the topic, Uber has been a huge blessing. They've really taken away most inconvenience of the decision and made it so much easier to just leave the car at home from the get go.

Personally, I hope for automated driving everywhere in the future. There's just no need to drive, unless you're an enthusiast and can go to a track.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

Lumping all people who enjoy a drinking responsibly with drunk drivers isn't fair. People have drinks at sports events, because they work hard, for most of their lives, and drinking is relaxing and fun.

Anyone who drives drunk is someone who doesn't care about the rules or other people's safety. I don't see how having more restrictions directed at law abiding citizens who enjoy alcohol is going to stop the drunk drivers.

Given the current knowledge of health affects from alcohol I don’t think it’s fair to say that anyone drinking to get drunk is n drinking responsibly.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Something that only requires a blow when you start the vehicle is going to reduce the number of drunk drivers dramatically.

And will be incredibly trivial to disable for anyone who doesn't want to deal with it, and will cost an absolute fortune to administer a program to make sure that it hasn't been defeated. C'mon, we don't even have routine safety or smog inspections in this province.

[Street Pharmacist]

I used to bartend/cook/serve at an establishment in Edmonton whole going to school. We had a regular that we would call the police about regularly. Took about a year before he finally got arrested in the parking lot

[DownInFlames]

I'm all for tough penalties for drunk drivers, but I never drink anything before driving so I don't see a good reason for making me test every time I get in a vehicle.

I got pulled over for speeding on Highway 1 and the Sheriff made me blow, saying they do it for everyone. I stated my objections to being tested without cause but obliged. I tried three times and couldn't get a result. I don't know if that's common but if my car wouldn't start in that situation I'd be pissed.

I also drive for a living. There are times I'm in and out every few minutes. Do I have to blow every time? The odds of a malfunction have to go up with that much use. What about false positives?

You can't compare it to putting on your seatbelt. That takes under five seconds. The interlock device can take several minutes. #### that.

[lazypucker]

Maybe the government can subsidize cab and Uber rides for drunk people going home at night? I always think one of the factors people decide to "chance it" and drive home after a night of drinking is because it is stupid expensive to get a ride...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

And will be incredibly trivial to disable for anyone who doesn't want to deal with it, and will cost an absolute fortune to administer a program to make sure that it hasn't been defeated. C'mon, we don't even have routine safety or smog inspections in this province.

So come up with a version that isn’t easy to disable and works better.

We’re not talking about smog.

[the-rasta-masta]

There's a few rest stops along 22x South towards Turner Valley with garbages and recycle bins. Always surprises me when ever I open one up how much alcohol bottles are in there.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I'm all for tough penalties for drunk drivers, but I never drink anything before driving so I don't see a good reason for making me test every time I get in a vehicle.

I got pulled over for speeding on Highway 1 and the Sheriff made me blow, saying they do it for everyone. I stated my objections to being tested without cause but obliged. I tried three times and couldn't get a result. I don't know if that's common but if my car wouldn't start in that situation I'd be pissed.

I also drive for a living. There are times I'm in and out every few minutes. Do I have to blow every time? The odds of a malfunction have to go up with that much use. What about false positives?

You can't compare it to putting on your seatbelt. That takes under five seconds. The interlock device can take several minutes. #### that.

Not to mention the regular calibrating of the equipment that would be required.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So come up with a version that isn’t easy to disable and works better.

This is a software problem masquerading as a hardware problem, and the answer is that you can't unless literally every jurisdiction where that vehicle is sold has it and doesn't have a fleet version (eg: police and emergency services, etc.). Not every jurisdiction is going to want or even allow that, particularly for safety reasons. You can make it illegal to defeat the interlock in legislation, but that doesn't stop anybody if there's no way to monitor it or detect that it has been defeated.

As an example, something which is pretty much universal in the developed world is compulsory seat-belt use, so we have seatbelt reminder chimes. And yet, because Land Rover sold RRS and RR models to law enforcement in some areas (and also they're used on farms which is private land so seatbelts aren't required), it required them to be able to disable the seatbelt chime in the vehicle's BCM. I'm not six years old, I put my seatbelt on as a force of habit and I don't need something BONG-BONG-BONGing in my ear to remind me every time I start the car. So I coded it out on both of my Range Rovers, and it took maybe 5-10 minutes.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We’re not talking about smog.

No, of course not; smog would be a better use of resources, and yet even BC killed AirCare after 20 years because it was an expensive program to run and it was a better use of resources to narrow the program scope and target for the biggest impact, which was heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

If you have an alcohol interlock now, sure, you have to get it checked as conditions of your punishment and that's fine because as a percentage of population, the number that need that service is very low. Now imagine every vehicle in the province requires it to be checked and certified operational... well, you think it's hard to get an appointment to swap your winter tires now....

A narrow program scope -- requiring those with DUIs to have interlocks and get them inspected annually or whenever -- is not only doable but demonstrably so. Requiring them for everyone is just not ever going to happen.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

This is a software problem masquerading as a hardware problem, and the answer is that you can't unless literally every jurisdiction where that vehicle is sold has it and doesn't have a fleet version (eg: police and emergency services, etc.). Not every jurisdiction is going to want or even allow that, particularly for safety reasons. You can make it illegal to defeat the interlock in legislation, but that doesn't stop anybody if there's no way to monitor it or detect that it has been defeated.

As an example, something which is pretty much universal in the developed world is compulsory seat-belt use, so we have seatbelt reminder chimes. And yet, because Land Rover sold RRS and RR models to law enforcement in some areas (and also they're used on farms which is private land so seatbelts aren't required), it required them to be able to disable the seatbelt chime in the vehicle's BCM. I'm not six years old, I put my seatbelt on as a force of habit and I don't need something BONG-BONG-BONGing in my ear to remind me every time I start the car. So I coded it out on both of my Range Rovers, and it took maybe 5-10 minutes.

No, of course not; smog would be a better use of resources, and yet even BC killed AirCare after 20 years because it was an expensive program to run and it was a better use of resources to narrow the program scope and target for the biggest impact, which was heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

If you have an alcohol interlock now, sure, you have to get it checked as conditions of your punishment and that's fine because as a percentage of population, the number that need that service is very low. Now imagine every vehicle in the province requires it to be checked and certified operational... well, you think it's hard to get an appointment to swap your winter tires now....

A narrow program scope -- requiring those with DUIs to have interlocks and get them inspected annually or whenever -- is not only doable but demonstrably so. Requiring them for everyone is just not ever going to happen.

Your view is that it’s hard now so nobody should bother even thinking about the possibility of working toward a solution like that?

Come on, don’t be so narrow minded.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

Not to mention the regular calibrating of the equipment that would be required.

This would be a major issue. Humans naturally have some degree of alcohol in their breath. That amount will go up if you, for example, drink fruit juice or eat breads with high yeast content. You'd have to have some set minimum level, which I'm guessing would be .05 blood alcohol volume and then frequently recalibrate.

Law enforcement has to recalibrate their breathatlyzers every 150 uses. You could probably get away with every 300 uses or so, for one that wasn't being used in a court of law. If the thing automatically shut off your car and your car had to be towed every time the calibration was off, that would drive people nuts.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your view is that it’s hard now so nobody should bother even thinking about the possibility of working toward a solution like that?

Come on, don’t be so narrow minded.

How about we invent something that reserves intoxication instantly, like a Narcan for booze? That sounds about the same level of difficulty as what you're proposing, and it would let us responsible people go out and have fun without the worry!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Your view is that it’s hard now so nobody should bother even thinking about the possibility of working toward a solution like that?

Come on, don’t be so narrow minded.

We're arguing about something hypothetical that frankly will never happen anyway, but if we're going through the exercise all the same, my view is that what you're asking for is:
i) impossible, because software and hardware can always be defeated or worked around.
ii) impractical, because run-of-the-mill vehicles often have fleet variants that require such things be disabled for special use, and such ability to disable will bring us back to i).
iii) a well-meaning overreaction to the Gaudreau tragedy that hit close for all of us on this forum.

An inconvenient truth is that GGG's post hit the nail on the head. Hell, impaired driving wasn't even the top contributor to road fatalities per the latest statistics from Transport Canada and continues to trend downward (and COVID numbers aren't remarkably out of line with pre-COVID numbers) without such an intervention.

Suggesting that everybody should be subjected to this intervention because, on the seldom occasion, an idiot will have too much to drink and hurt or kill someone, and not being willing to understand why it's a bad idea and never going to happen; it's a non-starter and while maybe not narrow-minded, it's certainly stubborn. If you can enforce it with hardware or software, someone with enough motivation can un-enforce it.

Offer more and better transit / transportation options for people, enact stiffer penalties for drink-driving; I'm all for it. Or I really like DownInFlames' idea if we're going for ambitious pie-in-the-sky ideas... although I think you actually have a better chance of manipulating how the neurotransmitters and receptors in the human brain deal with alcohol than you do making unhackable software.

Originally Posted by blankall

This would be a major issue. Humans naturally have some degree of alcohol in their breath. That amount will go up if you, for example, drink fruit juice or eat breads with high yeast content. You'd have to have some set minimum level, which I'm guessing would be .05 blood alcohol volume and then frequently recalibrate.

Law enforcement has to recalibrate their breathatlyzers every 150 uses. You could probably get away with every 300 uses or so, for one that wasn't being used in a court of law. If the thing automatically shut off your car and your car had to be towed every time the calibration was off, that would drive people nuts.

They can also detect things that aren't ethanol (Paywall; use Reader Mode). When the liver breaks down fat for energy (ie: in ketosis), it creates acetone which is expelled through the breath and urine as isopropanol, the former of which can give a false reading on a breathalyzer.

[PepsiFree]

Guys everyone is a hacker so software can never be the solution

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Guys everyone is a hacker so software can never be the solution

Where do you stand on phones disabling when moving faster than 5km/h?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Guys everyone is a hacker so software can never be the solution

Now who's being narrow-minded? If you have a credit card and an internet connection, you can buy a hand-held programmer that will do all kinds of crap the manufacturer never intended your car to do, and it's so easy that my mum could do it. Hell, search "[Your Car Model] Video In Motion" as an example, most of those work off a CD/DVD or USB stick.

[Dion]

If you drink and drive and get caught, you should lose your license for life.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Now who's being narrow-minded? If you have a credit card and an internet connection, you can buy a hand-held programmer that will do all kinds of crap the manufacturer never intended your car to do, and it's so easy that my mum could do it. Hell, search "[Your Car Model] Video In Motion" as an example, most of those work off a CD/DVD or USB stick.

How many people do it now?

If you asked 100 people, how many do you honestly think would say they’ve reprogrammed their car software?

1?

Let’s not pretend what people can do today is something everyone actually does.