Thread: Forbes - DUI Breathalyzers on ALL New Cars.

I do not condone Drinking and Driving and have been Convicted of DUI, but this IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO INCREMENTALLY CONTROL EVERY PART OF OUR IVES FROM A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT. Don't see it yet? Just keep WATCHING and DECIDE WHERE YOUR LINE IS AND WHAT YOU ARE WILING TO DO WHEN IT IS CROSSED.

The Daily Sheeple

New Legislation Would Place Breathalyzers in All New Cars The Daily Sheeple July 27th, As time goes on, cars are becoming less of a symbol of freedom and status, and more like automated golf carts that coddle their drivers. Every other year they add more features that take the driver’s ability out of the loop, and track the whereabouts of said driver, with the ultimate endgame being a car that simply drives itself, that can be stopped remotely, that you can’t modify, and you probably won’t even own. In the name of “safety,” these machines are no longer being built as an expression of your freedom to travel and your standard of living. So perhaps this new piece of legislation being proposed by New York Congresswoman Kathleen Rice isn’t very surprising. What was once the punishment for delinquent drivers, may soon become a new standard. She wants to force car manufacturers to install breathalyzers on all new vehicles. If your blood alcohol content is higher than the legal limit, your car won’t start. She explained her reasoning in a recent press release. “Advancing the progress we’ve made combating drunk driving demands bold action…that’s why I’m working on legislation to require ignition interlock devices in all new cars. This technology saves lives, it saves money, and I’m going to fight to make it standard equipment in American cars.” Gone are the days when a car was synonymous with freedom. Now they’re just another shackle in the open air prison we call America. And soon, you won’t even be able to start your car without being treated like a criminal.

Would You Buy A Car With A Built-In Breathalyzer?


Comment Now




What if there was a safety feature you could install in new cars that would prevent tens of thousands of deaths? Turns out, there is.

Researchers at the University of Michigan did some analysis to determine what impact in-car breathalyzers would have on fatal and nonfatal crashes over time. The devices prevent drivers from starting a car if their blood alcohol levels are above a certain limit.

The results: Installing breathalyzer technology in all new cars over 15 years would save more than 59,000 lives—an 85% drop in crash fatalities. It would also prevent more than 1.25 million nonfatal injuries, and save the country an estimated $342 billion in injury-related costs.

“We knew the results would be substantial, but our modeling far surpassed what we expected to see,” says Patrick Carter, M.D., study lead author and an assistant professor with the University of Michigan Injury Center in Ann Arbor. “And when we estimated the device cost to be around $400 per vehicle, we found that after three years of installing them in all new vehicles, the savings far outweighed the cost.”

(Photo credit: James Palinsad)


Current in-car breathalyzers are clunky and intrusive. “It’s basically a breathalyzer that’s attached to the engine of the vehicle,” Carter says. “And the person has to blow into it when they start the vehicle.”

One of the programs working to improve the technology is called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS. The folks at DADSS are developing two different systems that will unobtrusively measure blood alcohol levels in drivers. The first is breath-based—as the driver breathes normally, the system takes readings from the vehicle cabin and would be designed to distinguish between driver and passenger breath.

The second is touch-based, and would require only that the driver touch the steering wheel or the car’s start button to take a reading. The experience would be the same for all drivers—seamless. “For this to actually work in consumer vehicles, we want to make sure it’s really fast in terms of reading measurements,” says Bud Zaouk, S.D., DADSS program manager and group director for QinetiQ North America. “Our target performance is less than half a second.”
----------------------
USA TODAY

• 

Cars Evedegrees

DRUNKEN-DRIVING STATS • About one in every 80 drunken-driving trips leads to an arrest. • Nearly half of drivers in car crashes in 2004 with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 — the legal limit — or above were driving with a suspended license. • Drivers with blood-alcohol levels of 0.08 or higher involved in fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have a prior conviction for DWI than were drivers with no alcohol. • According to a Hamilton County, Ohio, study, recidivism in DWI offenders is reduced by 65% when the ignition interlock is used on offenders' vehicles. Sources: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USA TODAY research Enlarge Leslie Smith Jr., USA TODAY The Draeger Interlock XT alcohol detector for cars. Will all autos some day have breathalyzers? Updated 4/28/2006 12:06 PM ET E-mail | Print | By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY Could the day be coming when every driver is checked for drinking before starting a car? Widespread use of ignition interlock devices that won't allow a car to be started if a driver has had too much alcohol, once considered radical, no longer seems out of the question. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gives a qualified endorsement to the idea. New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here. Manufacturers are perfecting technology that could detect alcohol on the skin surface, eliminating the need for the current, cumbersome, blow-into-a-tube breath-analyzing systems. Current breathalyzers cost about $1,000. The newer systems are expected to cost about the same. The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts. But Ortiz's bill faces a tough fight. The idea of forcing every driver to pass a blood alcohol test to start a car raises privacy concerns, irritates non-drinkers and has some restaurant industry officials worrying about a march back to Prohibition, or at least the demonizing of social drinking. MADD and others trying to reduce the 17,000 alcohol-related fatalities a year say ignition interlocks are the only sure way to separate potential drunken drivers from their "weapons." "If the public wants it and the data support it, it is literally possible that the epidemic of drunk driving could be solved where cars simply could not be operated by drunk drivers," says Chuck Hurley, CEO of MADD, which is hosting its first conference on drunken-driving technology in June. "What a great day that would be." MADD doesn't currently support requiring the devices on all cars because it doesn't think the technology is ready. For now, the organization prefers requiring the devices, called ignition interlocks, for anyone convicted of a first drunken-driving offense. About 70,000 ignition interlocks are on vehicles — most of them ordered by courts for repeat drunken-driving offenders. Even without universal use, there's a huge potential market in the 1.4 million people who are arrested for drunken driving each year. Legislation is pending in at least 12 states that would require interlocks for some or all first-time offenders. Driver sees it as 'a life preserver' Steven Carter, a Colorado Springs-based photographer, voluntarily put one on his Honda Prelude last year after his third drunken-driving arrest since 1999. He had quit drinking but installed it as a "safeguard with me." The decision was fortunate: Four months ago, Carter had a relapse and tried to drive his car after drinking at a bar. It wouldn't start, so he took a cab home and went back the next day to get it. It still wouldn't start because he set his device to detect alcohol above a 0.01 blood-alcohol level. Carter, 27, who is hoping to compete as a skier in the 2010 Winter Olympics, thinks interlocks should be required on all cars. He believes insurance company discounts for voluntary installation — which some interlock makers are pushing — would be a good place to start. "Some of my friends see it as a toy, but in my opinion, it's more like a life preserver," Carter says. State Farm Insurance spokesman Dick Luedke says interlock discounts wouldn't make much sense because "for the majority of our customers, installing one of these things would have absolutely no impact. For the person who does have the problem and does install (the device), if it does inhibit him from driving impaired, that's worth way more than a lower insurance rate." Barry Sweedler, a former National Transportation Safety Board official, is trying to persuade automakers to put the wiring for ignition interlocks in all cars to make it easier to install the devices. And once interlocks can automatically check alcohol levels without any action from drivers, Sweedler thinks they should be standard equipment on cars. Current technology requires a driver to blow heavily into a breathalyzer device before starting the car and regularly while driving. With that system, "Unless a person is an offender, to require it for everyone is too intrusive," says Sweedler, past president of an anti-impaired-driving group that has sponsored ignition interlock conferences for the past six years. George Ballance, director of sales and marketing for device maker DraegerSafety, says his company advocates interlocks as part of teen driving laws and insurance company discounts. "We want to get on the preventive side of the cycle and not just be on the court-ordered side," he says. Draeger encourages its employees to carry pocket breath analyzers and would fire any worker convicted of drunken driving. "We're not here to say, 'Don't drink.' We're here to say 'Don't drink and drive,' " Ballance says. Opposition to breathalyzers Such talk makes John Doyle, executive director of the American Beverage Institute, cringe. "This campaign is a lot further down the pike than people realize," says Doyle, whose group is funded by chains including Outback Steakhouse and Chili's and is leading the opposition to broader use of interlocks. He says the existing devices are costly and easy to defeat, by getting someone else to blow into them or using an air compressor instead of a driver's own breath. Besides, he says most drunken-driving deaths are caused by hard-core offenders who have slipped through the system. "How far are you going to go to reduce alcohol-related fatalities?" Doyle asks. "Maybe they should make driving at night illegal." Opposition comes from other sources, too. Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU, says his group opposes laws that require judges to mandate interlocks for convicted drunken drivers. Rhode Island's Legislature is considering a bill that would require interlocks for second-time offenders and first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol level above 0.15, which correlates to drinking seven drinks in an hour for a 170-pound male. "Our concern about mandatory penalties is that they don't allow courts to take all situations into account, including that the cost is quite significant and the effect it has on family members," Brown says. "Some individuals can't afford it." While automakers are working on interlock technology, they are cautious. General Motors safety chief Bob Lange says his company has been working on ways to integrate alcohol-detection devices into cars for 30 years, but still doesn't think any are close to ready for widespread use in this country. "If the technology incorrectly restricts ... sober individuals, it is unlikely to be supported," says Lange, who says systems must be "transparent" to non-drinkers. "Public acceptance and technological viability are essential." Sue Cischke, Ford Motor's safety chief, agrees obstacles remain. "Some of the challenges include designing a system that is most of all accurate, not easily disabled or avoided, is easy to use and does not create driver-distraction issues." Swedish brands Volvo, owned by Ford, and Saab, owned by GM, are at the forefront of auto industry efforts to incorporate interlocks into cars. Swedish regulators are expected to soon propose a deadline of 2012 for all cars in that country to have alcohol interlocks. Volvo's Alcolock — which is built into the seat belt buckle — will likely be available as an option on cars in Sweden within three years. Saab's Alcokey has the technology built into the key. For automakers, anything that keeps a car from starting sounds too much like the public relations nightmare that came out of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 1973 decision to require devices that would prevent cars from starting if seat belts weren't buckled. After a huge public outcry and widespread disconnections, Congress passed a law the following year prohibiting NHTSA from requiring seat belt interlocks or warning buzzers lasting more than eight seconds. Some critics say alcohol-related interlocks would be even more problematic than seat belt interlocks because about 40% of adults say they don't drink at all. MADD's Hurley says most people don't steal or have their cars stolen, but keys still have built-in anti-theft technology. Ortiz agrees: "This is a tool that will save lives. We have to stop putting parameters on it." Ortiz disputes claims that the technology is not ready, but even interlock makers don't think their systems should be offered on all cars — yet. Albuquerque-based TruTouch Technologies, which makes a device that detects alcohol using light rays through the surface of the skin, will introduce a version for use in police stations next year to replace breathalyzers. CEO Jim McNally says he is talking to automakers about offering his system as an option, but not until at least 2010. New Mexico, which has the toughest interlock law in the country, isn't ready to go as far as Ortiz is proposing. Last year, New Mexico passed the first law requiring interlocks for first-time drunken-driving offenders after earlier debating — and rejecting — mandatory installation in all vehicles. Wary of 'annoying' car buyers Volvo technical safety adviser Thomas Brobergsays he isn't sure mandating interlock technology is the way to go: "It might not be good to force these kinds of systems onto customers. There are quite a few things that can be quite annoying to the customer." Jim Champagne, a former Louisiana state police lieutenant colonel who spent decades responding to drunken-driving crashes and now chairs the Governors Highway Safety Association, is guardedly optimistic about the prospects for interlocks. Champagne says he would "love to see" optional interlock devices offered. "It would give an opportunity for parents and guardians to get more involved," he says. But as standard equipment on all cars? "To tell the American public this is going to be on your car? No way."

And DONT FORGET ABOUT:

• 

Your car's hidden 'black box' and how to keep it private

Kim Komando, Special for USA TODAY 7 a.m. EST December 26, 2014

(Photo: Thinkstock)


1947 CONNECT 160 TWEET 75 LINKEDIN 22 COMMENTEMAILMORE

Most commercial airplanes have an indestructible flight recorder, also called a "black box" — even though the casing is actually bright orange. Actually, there are two of them: One records information from the flight computers, and the second box records cockpit audio and other sounds inside the plane. In the event of a crash, investigators can recover the black boxes and find out exactly what happened.
Cars can have black boxes, too. In fact, it's a good bet your current car has one already, and if it doesn't your next new car certainly will. That's why you should know exactly what that black box is recording, who can get that information and how you can stay in control of it.
A bit of history
Black boxes in cars aren't a new idea. The practice started in 1994 with cars from Cadillac, Buick, Chevrolet and Pontiac. The black boxes were meant to help manufacturers learn how their cars performed in crashes.
Since the early 2000s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been collecting black box information to get a better picture of the circumstances surrounding car accidents. In 2013, 96% of every new car sold in the United States came with a black box, and as of Sept. 1, 2014, every new vehicle must have one installed.
Black box data has been used in a few high-profile investigations. In 2011, Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Timothy Murray totaled a government car (he walked away). He claimed he was driving the speed limit and wearing a seat belt. Investigators used his black box data to show he was driving 100 mph without a seatbelt at the time of the crash.
Wondering if your car has a black box? The Harris Technical site lists the year, make and model of nearly every car that includes a black box. You can also check your car's manual. If you're buying a car from a dealership, they have to tell you if the car has a black box.
What do black boxes record?
While the first-generation event data recorders did little more than track whether or not the car's airbags deployed, recording and sensor technologies have become smaller and much more powerful. The NHTSA has mandated that every new recorder must track 15 variables.
The information includes vehicle speed, throttle position, airbag deployment times, whether the brakes were applied, if seatbelts were worn, engine speed, steering angles and more. Manufacturers may also have up to 30 additional data points if they want, excluding, they say, GPS location, video and audio. Also, a black box only stores information for 20 seconds around the crash.
Still, many privacy advocates worry that the recording length might eventually increase and include more identifying information. That raises the question of who can access the data in the first place.
Who can pull the data?
Getting your hands on black box data requires professional training, and a Crash Data Retrieval system that starts at $2,000 and can cost up to $20,000 with accessories. The CDR system plugs into the on-board diagnostics port under the dashboard on the driver's side and transfers the information to a special computer program.
Obviously, car manufacturers have the equipment. The NHTSA and law enforcement have the resources to get the information either directly or through specialized third parties. Third-party shops often pull the data as part of an accident reconstruction service. Insurance companies and law firms may also use third parties to get data for accident investigations or court cases.
Then there's the group everyone worries about: hackers. In most cases, I doubt hackers want your black box data. It would need to have a lot more information on you to make it worth their while.
Hackers are more interested in hacking cars so they can take control from a distance. Unfortunately, they're getting good at it, and it's getting easier as cars become more and more computer controlled.
That's the technical side of downloading black box data, but there's a legal side as well. As of this writing, 15 states — Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington — have passed regulations regarding who can pull the information with and without the car owner's permission.
You can find an up-to-date list of the states and their rules at the National Conference of State Legislatures site. In general, however, no one can pull data without your permission or a court order. Insurance companies can't use the data to set your rates unless you opt into a program, and those programs usually use another tracking unit. The rules are much less clear in states that haven't passed any legislation yet.
Can you keep your data private?
Still, anyone with a court order, or just the right tool and a little time, can get at your black box information. There's no way you can delete the data or disable the black box.
Fortunately, there is a simpler option. Products like AutoCYB, OBD Lock and OBD Saver put a lock on the diagnostic port so no one can plug anything into it without your permission. That keeps people from resetting information, extracting data or falsifying records that could be used against you.
Whether a court order would require you to hand over the keys to the lock is another story. I'll leave that one for the lawyers to decide. However, you can at least make sure that nothing short of a court order lets someone get your data.
On the Kim Komando Show, the nation's largest weekend radio talk show, Kim takes calls and dispenses advice on today's digital lifestyle, from smartphones and tablets to online privacy and data hacks. For her daily tips, newsletters and more,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/c...vate/20609035/

The alcoholic is not going to order a Breathalyzer as an option. He/she knows what their disabilities are. Personally I think standard equipment is the way to go. Installed permanently to not be removable, and make it part of the annual vehicle inspection. It will save thousands of lives, providing highway safety is part of governments responsibility. It may even keep some aliens from driving drunk, let's hope. This is twenty five years late already.

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

The alcoholic is not going to order a Breathalyzer as an option. He/she knows what their disabilities are. Personally I think standard equipment is the way to go. Installed permanently to not be removable, and make it part of the annual vehicle inspection. It will save thousands of lives, providing highway safety is part of governments responsibility. It may even keep some aliens from driving drunk, let's hope. This is twenty five years late already.

I do not drink and find it very offensive go suggest I take a breathalyzer test each time I get behind the wheel! Furthermore, why should someone like me, that doesn't drink, pay extra for a piece of unnecessary equipment on my vehicle?