Driving Under the Influence

[Dion]

Friday night is Karaoke at Sally's bar in High River. I plan to wear my Gaudreau jersey and I'm hoping Terry who runs it will allow me to mention the death of Johnny Hockey and his brother Matt who were killed by a drunk driver. I want to give out a message of if you drink, please don't drive to all the patrons. I don't expect everyone will listen but i'm hoping the message reaches some of them and causes them to re think about driving home.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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

Like drunk driving, yes, so let's not fantasize about putting breathalyzer interlocks in everyone's car for no reason.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

If you have something that inconveniences people and provides no benefit you would see that number go up. A good example is pre-Apple music and Spotify everyone pirated musics with the subscriptions or even just the individual song purchases available pirating dropped drastically.

So while your car works fine there is no reason to intervene but if you put in interlocks that were buggy you would see bypasses.

The Prius reverse beeping is commonly bypassed one.

[Minnie]

We were first on scene after a drunk driving incident when our youngest was just barely a year old, headed north to visit my in-laws (almost 30 years ago). We'd stopped about 5 miles before, to quickly change a diaper blowout and then got back on the road. Had that blowout & stop not happened, timing wise it's likely that it would have been us the guy hit, rather than drive off the road, hit an approach and flip end over teakettle. He survived, drunks always seem to; split his nose open, which was the worst of it. He REEKED to high heaven & there were beer cans everywhere. I gave first aid until the paramedics arrived, talking to the RCMP as I sat in his overturned vehicle with him - several times he turned his head and wheeze-breathed all over the cop. I'm sure they made him blow or tested at the hospital, I don't know, but it was so blatantly obvious he was plastered.

Far as I know, dude is still driving - I was supposed to go up north to appear, I got called about it. I got a separate call the week prior to his trial or whatever it was, asking me to reiterate what I'd said in my statement from that night, which I repeated almost verbatim. They called again & said I didn't have to come up, my statement was sufficient - I'm assuming that since the details I gave months later were as accurate as the night of, his counsel advised him to change his plea to guilty. Would have been a 12 hour drive, so that part I was glad to get out of.

I will not even drive if I have a sip. I am a lightweight. I drink so little that I can generally count on one hand, how many drinks in a YEAR, that I have. Being adopted, I was always cognizant of the fact that I had no idea whether or not alcoholism was an issue in my biological family, and I did not want to find out by becoming an alcoholic - as it turns out, it runs on both sides. So, I rarely drink. I've never been drunk in my entire life - I get migraines/horrible headaches without trying, so why give myself one on purpose. I can make a single drink last an entire evening, lol.

As much as there are multiple ways to get home (taxis, Ubers, etc), I prefer not to use them (I don't trust them much, for reasons), so IF we go out, which is rare, we usually decide which of us will be the sober driver, and I usually choose to be. The only time we don't, is if we went to the local pub on wing night (now shut down) that we could walk to, then I'd have a drink. Even on camping weekends, I ensure one of us is sober/had 0 alcohol, in case we get a phone call from home, and we have to take the kid into emerg. It's happened a few times, so we're careful - me especially.

I am brutally "rude" about ppl trying to drive when they've had alcohol. I'd rather bully you into a ride home from me or a taxi, and have you be mad at me, then go to your funeral or find out you killed someone/people. I will, to your face, tell you what a *bleepity bleep* idiot you are and have 0 qualms about it.

I don't know what they/TPTB/courts do about it, aside from make the consequences much harsher, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

[stamps]

One day we will have the technology that can read your blood through a magic censor when you sit in the driver's seat or touch the steering wheel that constantly monitors when the vehicle is turned on ... if it malfunctions at any time the motor or whatever is powering your wheels is disabled ... until then harsher penalties for drinking and driving and banning alcohol use from those charged with a DUI.. you've lost your privilege to drink alcohol because you're too irresponsible to use it.. I think people can be banned from owning guns because they have shown they are not mentally fit to do so ... apply this mentality to drunk drivers ..

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by stamps

One day we will have the technology that can read your blood through a magic censor when you sit in the driver's seat or touch the steering wheel that constantly monitors when the vehicle is turned on ... if it malfunctions at any time the motor or whatever is powering your wheels is disabled ... until then harsher penalties for drinking and driving and banning alcohol use from those charged with a DUI.. you've lost your privilege to drink alcohol because you're too irresponsible to use it.. I think people can be banned from owning guns because they have shown they are not mentally fit to do so ... apply this to mentality to drunk drivers ..

If we have the technology you mentioned I'm certain that vehicles will be capable of driving our drunk asses around without any human input or crashing so this problem will be solved.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by stamps

One day we will have the technology that can read your blood through a magic censor when you sit in the driver's seat or touch the steering wheel that constantly monitors when the vehicle is turned on ... if it malfunctions at any time the motor or whatever is powering your wheels is disabled ...

That sounds safe. J/K This is mental.

[powderjunkie]

DUI is just one branch of a much bigger root issue in our world: the indiscriminate prioritization of the automobile in so many facets of daily life. It's a lot like email - it was supposed to deliver freedom, convenience, and productivity - while it's undeniably delivered those things, we've allowed everything to evolve to silly extremes and we turn a blind eye to the many significant harms and externalities.

The sad thing is that a lot of the issues would be very easy to mitigate substantially with negligible downside. I've started driving like a grandpa. It's kinda zen, but also hilarious to observe common driving behaviours around me
- while recognizing that used to be me, including a very subtle layer of stress and aggravation that I'm now mostly free of (it's kinda hard to articulate without simultaneously over&understating it).

My trip times have not noticeably increased at all. Every other trip I'll note an instance where I might have made the end of a green/yellow if I had a heavier foot. One light cycle. Big ####ing deal.

But god forbid anyone proposes anything that challenges the constitutional RIGHT of CARS to go wherever the #### they want as fast as they ####ing want

Originally Posted by GGG

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

Great idea. 15kph might be a more reasonable number, though.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

But... what if you're the passenger in a car? How does it tell if you're driving or just sitting next to the driver?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But... what if you're the passenger in a car? How does it tell if you're driving or just sitting next to the driver?

That was the bait for Pepsi to see if he was committed to his significant inconvenience for everyone to save lives.

Alas it didn’t work.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Like drunk driving, yes, so let's not fantasize about putting breathalyzer interlocks in everyone's car for no reason.

The reason is to prevent drunk driving. There’s a lot of safety features on your car you’ll never need. Let’s use your logic and get rid of all of them.

[Locke]

Okay. *incoming un-popular opinion*

Yes.

We rely on tech too much.

Why can we barely park our own cars anymore, the sightlines are atrocious. Why are we so reliant on things to do things for us? We rely on all of the gadgets to figure it out for us.

Park your own car.

What are mirrors for? You dont need 360 degree cameras.

"MIRRORS!!" Yeah. High Tech Stuff.

Learn. To. Drive.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

But god forbid anyone proposes anything that challenges the constitutional RIGHT of CARS to go wherever the #### they want as fast as they ####ing want.

It’s the dumbest thing in the world. People here are literally arguing against even a theoretical future when something like blood alcohol is measured before you can start a car. Just… nope, technology will never change and it’s impossible and expensive and everyone is a hacker and it will cost me one minute and that’s unacceptable and MY FREEEEDOM.

We’re at the brink of self driving cars and people are literally saying software that could accomplish this would be more difficult than developing entirely new drugs or changing brain chemistry.

Because it might, maybe, inconvenience them… in theory…

[stamps]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That sounds safe. J/K This is mental.

How about instead of cutting off engine power immediately our tech of the future takes control of the vehicle pulls over safely reports the incident to AMA/Alcohol&Drug Monitoring Inc. then shuts off engine power

[stamps]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But... what if you're the passenger in a car? How does it tell if you're driving or just sitting next to the driver?

Driver side censors ... we can get it done !!

[DownInFlames]

I've been wondering if the fact the ####-whistle was driving a Grand Cherokee contributed to the fatal injuries. I know driving drunk was the main cause but...

[powderjunkie]

Distraction, speed, other factor, and no contributing factor are all more likely to put someone in the morgue than impairment.

Spoiler!

I'd also suggest that if we improve design standards and change our normalized ####ty driving behaviour, that DUI fatalities would drop, too.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by stamps

How about instead of cutting off engine power immediately our tech of the future takes control of the vehicle pulls over safely reports the incident to AMA/Alcohol&Drug Monitoring Inc. then shuts off engine power

We should call their mum, too.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The reason is to prevent drunk driving. There’s a lot of safety features on your car you’ll never need. Let’s use your logic and get rid of all of them.

Most safety features that aren't emergency interventions can be switched off. Things like lane-keep assist and traction / stability control can easily be disabled with the press of a button (or several depending how deep in a vehicle menu it's buried).

I mean, you could just ban cars or ban alcohol if you really want to target the source. It's about as realistic.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s the dumbest thing in the world. People here are literally arguing against even a theoretical future when something like blood alcohol is measured before you can start a car. Just… nope, technology will never change and it’s impossible and expensive and everyone is a hacker and it will cost me one minute and that’s unacceptable and MY FREEEEDOM.

We’re at the brink of self driving cars and people are literally saying software that could accomplish this would be more difficult than developing entirely new drugs or changing brain chemistry.

Because it might, maybe, inconvenience them… in theory…

Spare us the pearl-clutching. The dumbest thing in the world is that when faced with having virtually no response to any of the actual points made as to why such a thing is unfeasible -- of which there are several after even a cursory glance at the proposal -- is a retreat to handwaving it all away with some vague "but technology!!!" retort, and the usual throwaway bait one-liners like "Guys everyone is a hacker so software can never be the solution". Then again, I probably don't know what I'm talking about, it's not like I do sh-t like this as a hobby or anything. The laptops and OBD-II interfaces are just for decoration.

Developing new drugs happens all the time, it is most certainly less difficult to do that than it is to create unhackable software; after all, there is literally no such thing.

Originally Posted by GGG

That was the bait for Pepsi to see if he was committed to his significant inconvenience for everyone to save lives.

Alas it didn’t work.

Pepsi just likes to argue when he has a willing dance partner. [shrug] Can't fault him, I've been known to myself.

[powderjunkie]

Any slap it on new cars solution is impractical because it would take decades to become effective.

Just enforce traffic laws and stop overbuilding roads.

The problem with increased enforcement is that it would pay for itself at first...but then people would change their behaviour enough that revenue would not cover the costs. And that people are ####ing stupid and can't fathom the notion that a 12km vehicle trip could take 18 minutes instead of 17 minutes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

We should call their mum, too.

Most safety features that aren't emergency interventions can be switched off. Things like lane-keep assist and traction / stability control can easily be disabled with the press of a button (or several depending how deep in a vehicle menu it's buried).

I mean, you could just ban cars or ban alcohol if you really want to target the source. It's about as realistic.
Spare us the pearl-clutching. The dumbest thing in the world is that when faced with having virtually no response to any of the actual points made as to why such a thing is unfeasible -- of which there are several after even a cursory glance at the proposal -- is a retreat to handwaving it all away with some vague "but technology!!!" retort, and the usual throwaway bait one-liners like "Guys everyone is a hacker so software can never be the solution". Then again, I probably don't know what I'm talking about, it's not like I do sh-t like this as a hobby or anything. The laptops and OBD-II interfaces are just for decoration.

Developing new drugs happens all the time, it is most certainly less difficult to do that than it is to create unhackable software; after all, there is literally no such thing.

Pepsi just likes to argue when he has a willing dance partner. [shrug] Can't fault him, I've been known to myself.

It’s not my fault you can’t imagine any advancement in software that would make it possible.

I mean, hey, we have AI and cars that can drive themselves, but you’re right, a program that dictates whether a car can be turned on that can’t be easily disabled is impossible.

You’re letting your experience as hobbyist, which probably gives you more experience than the average person but also limits your actual perspective, cloud your judgement. You should know the limits of your own knowledge.