Where does "individual liberty" end and "public good" start?

[ceetee]

Toyota Creating Alcohol Detection System

By Associated Press
Posted January 3 2007, 7:13 AM EST



TOKYO -- Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.

Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.

The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.

The world's No. 2 automaker hopes to fit cars with the system by the end of 2009, according to the report. Calls to Toyota's headquarters in Nagoya rang unanswered on Wednesday, a public holiday.

Nissan Motor Co., another Japanese car manufacturer, has already been experimenting with breathalyzer-like devices that could detect if a driver was drunken. Similar technologies, such as alcohol ignition interlocks, are in use in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Concerns over drunken driving have surged in Japan following a series of alcohol-related accidents last year. In August, a drunken driver collided with another vehicle carrying a family of five, plunging them off a bridge and killing three children.

The incident prompted stepped-up roadside spot checks by police, who also plan to stiffen penalties for drunken driving.

For years now, there have been devices that would render a car inoperable if the driver was under the influence of alcohol. These have only been used (to my knowledge) via court order, as part of a DUI conviction sentence.

This system from Toyota seems to be a totally passive system, for use in all cars. This makes me wonder... It's obviously in the public good to not let drunk people drive. Does it invade a person's rights, though, to constantly monitor his blood alcohol content? What would the next step be? Mandatory breathalyzer checks upon leaving a bar? How about mandatory blood tests before you can access your guns? Where would "the public good" stop, and civil rights begin?

Your thoughts?

Link to story

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

if it was mandated thats one thing

but i'd buy one for my kid to drive or if i had a drinking spouse. let the marketplace decide if its good or bad

 

[crazed_ss]

Individual liberty stops when your actions violate or threaten everyone elses liberty/rights.

 

[1911 guy]

The Nanny State.

Here we go, having to prove ones' innocence to avail ones self of ones' private property. The slippery slope is getting steeper and slipperier. If I am not harming anyone, why should I have to prove that? The problem isn't drunks being able to start their cars, it's drunks knowing that they'll get a slap on the wrist. I work with a man who has had two DUI's in the past year. No jail time, driving priviliges, no impact other than a fine. That was the second offense. First offense was a slightly smaller fine. After work he sits out in the parking lot and has a drink with some of the other guys. I'm not for the guy losing his job, going to jail, etc. I am, however, for him paying the price for endagering everyone else on the road whenever he feels like being as childish and irresponsible idiot. The rest of us pay higher premiums because people drive drunk, drive without insurance, drive recklessly, etc. This costs the insurance companies money, which they recoup by overcharging us. The guilty parties have no repercussions. That's the problem, not making people blow into a tube or make sure their hands don't have any solvents from work on them. The average Joe who drinks and drives think it's O.K. because "he's responsible". No, he's not. He's a drunk behind the wheel of a 1,500 pound battering ram.

Come down hard on the guilty, leave the rest of us alone.

 

[xd9fan]

I love toyota. I saw this and thought to myself what a dumb business move. They will get hurt on this one. stupid.

 

[lysander]

Here we go, having to prove ones' innocence to avail ones self of ones' private property.

Yep...and when your "private property" can impact the "health, safety and welfare" of the public...you are subject to reasonable regulation and control.

Perhaps a combination mood-ring/smart-ring device keyed to your firearms is in our future.

 

[azredhawk44]

I predict a resurgence in the popularity of driving gloves.

Not to evade detection of blood alcohol, but to pre-empt an inadvertent shut down of your car because the electronics are botched in the detector.

 

[ArcherandShooter]

Button pushed

Sure, we want some engineer in Tokyo to decide what a "proper and safe" driving pattern looks like. :banghead:

So the car will slow you down to a stop if it detects you are driving erratically? That would have been just [sarcasm] WONDERFUL [/sarcasm] when my 21-year old son had to drive like crazy to get away from a bunch of gun-waving thugs chasing him across North Houston last year. I'll just bet his driving was a bit erratic - fear / adrenalin / reacting to the jerks on his bumper - all those and more could have easily convinced his car he was drunk, when in reality he was in a possibly life-threatening situation in which being forced to a slow and easy stop could have cost him his life.

This is the stupidest idea yet to come out of the nanny-state's nursery of stupid ideas.

Life is dangerous. Get used to the idea. If I DO something that causes actual or imminent harm to someone, then punish me for that. Until then, keep your hands, laws, and computer chips OFF of me and my property, and out of my life.

 

[Manedwolf]

Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.

How about a...STEERING WHEEL COVER?

The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.

Oh, GOODIE. So if you swerve to avoid a chain-reaction collision and are doing automotive acrobatics, the car SLOWS DOWN so you get nailed.

Does Toyota want to blow away their marketshare?

 

[Art Eatman]

1. If y ou don't like the idea, don't buy the car.

2. If the car is otherwise attractive, disable the devices.

The feds sorta learned their lesson when they mandated buzzers if the seat belts weren't fastened. One of the few laws that got rescinded, fast, fast, fast. I imagine Toyota will, as well, if they actually put it into production. And other carmakers will probably make snide remarks in their own ads about the Big Nannyism of Toyota: "We don't tell you what to do."

Teapot tempest.

Art

 

[jnojr]

Yep...and when your "private property" can impact the "health, safety and welfare" of the public...you are subject to reasonable regulation and control.

What's "reasonable"? And who gets to decide?

I submit that you should have to prove to my satisfaction that you can support children before you can have any. After all, if not, my tax money winds up paying for their health care and education.

And this car doesn't check for the effects of marijuana, cocaine, or having huffed paint or glue... I think we need more detectors and standards and laws and bureaucrats involved.

 

[SolaScriptura139]

I saw this and thought to myself what a dumb business move. They will get hurt on this one.

Doubtful, many parents will see this as a great safety feature. And for those of us who are getting tired of the Drunken Driving plague on the roads, it will be a welcome feature to aid safety on the roads. If you wanna drive, don't get drunk, how hard is that to follow? The only people that would be punished or affected by this system are those intoxicated.

 

[lysander]

What's "reasonable"? And who gets to decide?

Why...our betters of course...you know...those who only have our best interests in mind.

 

[Smurfslayer]

There are a whole lot of threats to me (and everyone else) on the road and intoxicated drivers is but one. Intoxication is an impairment that is as severe as cell yakking, makeup applying, toenail clipping, big-mac eating, insolent child scolding, and various other forms of activities that people have NO BUSINESS undertaking while piloting a 2 ton wheeled platform of DEATH AND MAYHEM!

If you're staggering down the sidewak, I can deftly sidestep you as you face-press the concrete sidewalk, but I may not be able to deftly side step you if you cross the double yellow on a curve because you had too much to drink to safely pilot your vehicle. Additionally, our sidewalk collision will at worst bloody my lip; you may need facial reconstruction, but that's not my problem. Our theoretical auto collision would cause grave injuries or death.
(you is being used in the general context above)


Ultimately you don't have to buy this vehicle the same as nobody puts a gun to your head to compel you to drink alcohol, and subsequently drive somewhere. - again 'you' used in the general context.

 

[lysander]

The only people that would be punished or affected by this system are those intoxicated.

Initially the only people who will be affected by this are the people who choose to buy this model of Toyota automobile. Hopefully the feature will be a market failure before it "proves" its efficacy to the PTB...who in turn pass into law a requirement that ALL vehicles include this feature.

The road to hell is paved by a hard working asphalt crew of meddlesome legislators...

 

[captaincaveman]

I doubt this will go very far. Do you really think Big Brother wants to stop drunk driving? They make way to much money off of it in fines and court costs. And if cars had these sensors they would have no excuse for checkpoints

Josh

 

[ArmedBear]

There is no such thing as the "public." The "public" is just a bunch of individuals.

You can't do anything that hurts individuals and simultaneously helps those same individuals just because you rename them "the public."

Personally, I'd welcome two things:

1. Drunk driving laws based on science and on reality, not emotion. BAL of .10 should be impaired; anything lower than that is designed to turn more everyday people into "criminals" rather than improve road safety.

2. Car-mounted or pocket breathalyzers available at Kragen. If you drink, it makes sense to use the same tools as the government to determine whether you ought to drive. A glass of wine with dinner can result in very different BAL's for different individuals, for example.

I don't like any sort of interlock that disables a car, because it introduces more possibilities for unsafe malfunctions than it does for improved safety.

 

[ArmedBear]

I doubt this will go very far. Do you really think Big Brother wants to stop drunk driving? They make way to much money off of it in fines and court costs. And if cars had these sensors they would have no excuse for checkpoints

Bingo.

It's all another excuse to turn us all into "criminals" so that we can be controlled more easily in a "free" society.

For example, it would be hard to ban guns in the USA. It is much easier to make it illegal for felons to have guns, politically. Few people want to speak up for "felons."

So what's in this for an authoritarian government?

Simple.

If you can make ever-expanding laws that no one person can possibly know, nearly everyone will be a "criminal" in a legal sense, though not a moral one.

Then, you make more of these crimes into "felonies."

Soon, you have a society where nearly everyone can be made a "felon" with ease.

Don't believe this? California's legislature passes 4 new laws per day, many of them quite vague.

 

[Norton]

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with."
('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

 

[lysander]

I doubt this will go very far. Do you really think Big Brother wants to stop drunk driving? They make way to much money off of it in fines and court costs. And if cars had these sensors they would have no excuse for checkpoints

Hah!! How about a checkpoint to verify that your DUI sensor is functioning properly or to doublecheck that you haven't taken the doubleplusungood step of disabling the device?

As far as the money goes...I'm sure that some kind of national levy could be cooked up to tack onto every single vehicle sale. After all...we have to have an agency to track and monitor all this...

We could always fine people for "attempted DUI" and use evidence collected by the locking device. You could get your fine over email.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Here we go, having to prove ones' innocence to avail ones self of ones' private property. The slippery slope is getting steeper and slipperier.

Uh, oh, I see a sinkhole at the bottom of the slippery slope forming....can
someone toss me a rope?

 

[MikePGS]

but i'd buy one for my kid to drive or if i had a drinking spouse. let the marketplace decide if its good or bad

Exactly. As long as the government doesen't intervene, then let the people decide. When they start forcing people to use this, thats when it denies people of liberty.

 

[Phetro]

What a Crock

TOKYO -- Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.

Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.

Wear gloves.

The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.

So will steering to avoid an animal running across the road shut your car down in the middle of a highway? Really brilliant.

The world's No. 2 automaker hopes to fit cars with the system by the end of 2009, according to the report. Calls to Toyota's headquarters in Nagoya rang unanswered on Wednesday, a public holiday.

Nissan Motor Co., another Japanese car manufacturer, has already been experimenting with breathalyzer-like devices that could detect if a driver was drunken. Similar technologies, such as alcohol ignition interlocks, are in use in the U.S. and elsewhere.

I'd like to know where, so I can avoid those too. Any control over the driver = too much control.

Concerns over drunken driving have surged in Japan following a series of alcohol-related accidents last year. In August, a drunken driver collided with another vehicle carrying a family of five, plunging them off a bridge and killing three children.

The incident prompted stepped-up roadside spot checks by police, who also plan to stiffen penalties for drunken driving.

Oh sure, stiffer penalties will work. That's why there's no such thing as murder: it's the death penalty's deterrance factor!

All that happens when people turn to government to solve unsolvable problems is they lose more liberty, and the government has more control over them. The same is true when people turn to car manufacturers.

 

[Henry the Eighth]

Hint: There is no such thing as "the public good". The "public good" is an idea right out of the communist manifesto.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Where does "individual liberty" end and "public good" start?

Where our masters tell us.