It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nissan Turns to Technology to Stop Drunk Driving

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Nissan Turns to Technology to Stop Drunk Driving


slashdot.org

"The first attempts to directly detect alcohol in the driver's sweat and gear shift lever. A second system in the car uses a camera mounted in front of the driver to monitor eye movement[...] A third system monitors the path of the vehicle to ensure it's traveling in a straight line and not weaving about the road, as is common with a drunken driver."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.pcworld.com



apc

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I've been anticipating the integration of technologies like these in our vehicles, however not optimistically. If auto manufacturers want to offer it as a customer option, wonderful. What concerns me is when these systems are made mandatory, like airbags.

If I've been drinking and the aliens decide to abduct me again, how am I supposed to get away if my car won't let me drive?

slashdot.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-8-2007 by apc]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I don't like the idea at all... In any emergency whether your drunk or not, your screwed... well you are blowing into a tube, looking in a camera, and driving straight at the same time when someone is trying to stab you in the face, how do you get away?

About those blowing contraptions but... what I never thought about it, after you blow in this thing that usually take about 2 minutes with a blue face... how do you drive when everything is spinning?


I don't like that on-star stuff ether "You are being chased by some people with bigass guns, please slow down or we will turn off your vehicle." If you have on star, I don't know much about it but my cousin works there or somewhere similar... It seems like you have no privacy at all.

There is some good features like... It automatically notifies someone if the car rolls or gets in an accident and specifies everything, including the amount of times rolled ex.

[edit on 8/6/0707 by Bumr055]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
They can put anything into a car they please. It doesn't affect me because I can remove it.

What everyone has to watch out for are these crazy groups like M.A.D.D and S.A.D.D. because they will push, fight, and lobby in order to make these devices mandatory and protected by law. If they do win their battle, citizens won't be able to remove the devices from their cars and the police state comes one step closer.

Jon



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
They can put anything into a car they please. It doesn't affect me because I can remove it.

What everyone has to watch out for are these crazy groups like M.A.D.D and S.A.D.D. because they will push, fight, and lobby in order to make these devices mandatory and protected by law. If they do win their battle, citizens won't be able to remove the devices from their cars and the police state comes one step closer.

Jon


I guess we will have to fight back D.D.A.M, Drunk Drivers Against Mad Mothers!



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Keep in mind with this tech that Japan has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to drinking and driving.

Furthermore, if you are a passenger in the car with someone who is drinking and driving, you are charged as well - and your license can be suspended.

Oddly, they don`t go after the bar owners or party hosts like they do in Canada and the US. Which is nice, because I rather missed office parties where the boss encourages you to have a few beers on the company tab.

Over the last year or so, there has been a nationwide crackdown, in the wake of a handful of serious traffic accidents. Most towns out here have a company offering a driving service - you drive to the bar/restaurant/whatever, and they send a driver to pick you up and drive your car back home. I use that a LOT.

I can see this tech being mandated for those coming off of license suspension, in a similar fashion to the ignition-linked breathalyser tests they have in Ontario, Canada and a few other places.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:48 PM
link   
First I feel these devices should not be mandatory. It is one step closer to a police state.
Second even if these devices are installed what if the break? Then you cant start your car for no good reason, and you have to have it towed and fixed which will no doubt be a but load of money.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Personally I support non-invasive forms of this technology, like alcohol biomonitors
in the steering wheel and such.

In reality it comes down to the company, if they want to make it mandatory
that all their new cars be built with this in them they can, if they want to offer it as
an option they can, if they want to just ignore the technology they can.


apc

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
The problem is, iori, it won't be the auto manufacturers that make this option mandatory.

Seatbelts used to be optional. As were airbags. Now both are mandatory under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

This however is presumption of guilt. You have to prove your innocence before operating your own property. I think I'll pass.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Don't like this ? Then vote !

Sounds stupid huh ?

Votes aren't just cast in elections. Every time you spend a dollar you're voting in support of whatever your buying. Don't buy Nissan, write Nissan telling them you think this is BS and so on.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Well, I'll be honest, in this case I support the requirement of these things in cars,
since driving drunk's not simply a threat to ones own self, but to the rest o the
population around them.

It is one of the cases where I believe that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.


apc

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Why not just pay cops to sit in the passenger seats? A lot more effective!

As you do not own a car right now (I'm assuming since the Tesla isn't available yet......), I don't think you're in a position to grasp the impact of having Big Brother installed in your own paid-for property.

discomfit, agreed in such case that Nissan begins making these options standard. My last three vehicles have been Nissan, and all but one of my vehicles have been Japanese. Having to start purchasing American just to get away from the prying eyes of Government seems really backwards!



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Why not just pay cops to sit in the passenger seats? A lot more effective!


Because that would cost money, and having a system that just checks if you're drunk,
and does'nt remember or transmit that information is'nt the same.




As you do not own a car right now (I'm assuming since the Tesla isn't available yet......),


It's available, I just don't see the need in paying nearly 100 grand when I don't
even really need a vehicle.


Oh, and you're way to observant.




I don't think you're in a position to grasp the impact of having Big Brother installed in your own paid-for property.


I'm capable of understanding and grasping a near infinite amount of concepts,
and I don't really care if, saying I actually do decide to purchase a vehicle,
that something like this is in it, plus it's not like it's transmitting to anywhere,
just a basic computer bio sensor system, no one seeing the results.


apc

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
How about a twelve-dimensional pregnant R.O.U.S. ? Conceptualize that bizzy!

If I got a tax deduction for owning a Bigbromobile, I would be less opposed, but not by much. That is, if the Government wishes to pick up the cost of sticking their noses in my car, I might be more inclined to let them.

Still, this is presumption of guilt... something that is in almost all cases a bad thing. This is no exception. As a previous poster vox2442 mentioned, a mandatory implementation of this system would be justified for a convicted offender. In much the same manner as a breathalyser immobilizer. If someone has already been found guilty and proven they can't be trusted to take responsibility for themselves, it is appropriate for Government to step in and ensure public safety.

Personal responsibility... don't leave home without it. Unless your car won't start...



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
What everyone has to watch out for are these crazy groups like M.A.D.D and S.A.D.D. because they will push, fight, and lobby in order to make these devices mandatory and protected by law.


While some of their initiatives may seem brazen, people wouldn't be populating these groups if morons weren't driving drunk and killing innocent people. I applaud MADD if anything for their sense of civic responsibility. I think your opinion sends the wrong message, in fact its downright dangerous.

brill



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
next your car will be giving u dui ticket for sitting in car drunk and your house will give u a ticket for engaging in sex without a procreation license.
then come the three sea shells in the bath room. but seriously this is too
invasive. what if technology fails or breaks and you can't get to hospital or evacuatee from hurricane.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
next your car will be giving u dui ticket for sitting in car drunk


So assuming the intent was to drive under the influence what's the problem here? Do you advocate drinking & driving or were you trying to imply otherwise? Not sure where this ones going


brill



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
So assuming the intent was to drive under the influence what's the problem here? Do you advocate drinking & driving or were you trying to imply otherwise? Not sure where this ones going



No offense but there's a huge difference in drunk driving and driving when you've had a sip too many to be over the limit. But, in response to that, a little wait time might do you good? I'm torn on the subject.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by brill
So assuming the intent was to drive under the influence what's the problem here? Do you advocate drinking & driving or were you trying to imply otherwise? Not sure where this ones going



No offense but there's a huge difference in drunk driving and driving when you've had a sip too many to be over the limit. But, in response to that, a little wait time might do you good? I'm torn on the subject.


Actually I beg to differ. If you've had a sip too many to be over the limit, then although by some standards you may not be drunk, but your still over the limit, therefore you can be charged. Hey I'm all about having a few as well and I do see your point. I just think in the case where the driver is over, this technology would be a benefit but far from perfect.

brill

[edit on 7-8-2007 by brill]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I don't like it, it's just another step towards more and more technology like this until it just becomes too intrusive, but by that time we won't be able to do anything about it.

I like having the freedom to do what I want, then choosing to use that freedom in a good way. Remember Clockwork Orange, where Alex can't commit violence because it hurts him? Well the point that film makes is that you shouldn't have to force people into being 'good' people, we just need to sort our society out so that people genuinely want to be nice by choice.

It's the same thing with this, most people are genuinely good people, so they choose not to drink-drive. They shouldn't be forced not to, otherwise people are going to forget what morals are.



new topics




 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join