Infrastructure Bill's Drunk Driving Tech Mandate Leaves Some Privacy Advocates Nervous (gizmodo.com) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: The recently passed $1 trillion infrastructure package is jam-packed with initiatives but sprinkled in there alongside $17 billion in funding for road safety programs is a mandate requiring carmakers to implement monitoring systems to identify and stop drunk drivers. The mandate, first noted by the Associated Press could apply to new vehicles sold as early as 2026. Courts have ordered some drunk drivers to use breathalyzers attached to ignition interlocks to start their vehicles for years, but the technology noted in this bill would take that concept much further and would need to be capable of "passively monitor[ing] the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired."
Though the Department of Transportation has yet to put its foot down on the exact type of technology it will use for this program, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and 17 automakers have been working on something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) since 2008. DADSS is exploring both a breath and touch-based system to detect whether or not a driver has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08%. The breath-based system aims to measure alcohol readings based on a driver's breath with the goal of distinguishing between the driver and passengers. The touch-based system meanwhile would shine an infrared light through a driver's fingertip to measure blood alcohol levels under the skin's surface. [...]
The new mandate struck a positive note with some car safety groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving which has advocated for more detection tech in the past. "It's monumental," Alex Otte, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving told the AP. Otte went on to describe the package as the "single most important legislation" in the group's history. At the same time though, the mandate has drawn concerns from safety experts and digital rights groups that warn driver monitoring technology could have knock-on privacy implications. In a letter sent last year by the American Highway Users Alliance, the organization urged support of the NHTSA's DADSS Research Program but expressed concerns that the technology could potentially infringe on driver's civil liberties. "The group also expressed concerns over how the collection and storage of driver data would work and who would have the rights to that data," adds Gizmodo. Others have also expressed concerns over the accuracy of driving monitoring technology and potential risks of bias.
Though the Department of Transportation has yet to put its foot down on the exact type of technology it will use for this program, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and 17 automakers have been working on something called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) since 2008. DADSS is exploring both a breath and touch-based system to detect whether or not a driver has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08%. The breath-based system aims to measure alcohol readings based on a driver's breath with the goal of distinguishing between the driver and passengers. The touch-based system meanwhile would shine an infrared light through a driver's fingertip to measure blood alcohol levels under the skin's surface. [...]
The new mandate struck a positive note with some car safety groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving which has advocated for more detection tech in the past. "It's monumental," Alex Otte, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving told the AP. Otte went on to describe the package as the "single most important legislation" in the group's history. At the same time though, the mandate has drawn concerns from safety experts and digital rights groups that warn driver monitoring technology could have knock-on privacy implications. In a letter sent last year by the American Highway Users Alliance, the organization urged support of the NHTSA's DADSS Research Program but expressed concerns that the technology could potentially infringe on driver's civil liberties. "The group also expressed concerns over how the collection and storage of driver data would work and who would have the rights to that data," adds Gizmodo. Others have also expressed concerns over the accuracy of driving monitoring technology and potential risks of bias.
Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:2, Informative)
Too bad nobody brings this shit up before it passes. This is why people hate democrats. Who can blame them?
Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:4, Informative)
Too bad nobody brings this shit up before it passes. This is why people hate democrats. Who can blame them?
Both sides do this crap constantly. IMO, short of a constitutional amendment that outlaws amendments that are unrelated to the primary subject of the bill, things will never improve. As long as special interests are allowed to tack their unpopular ideas onto popular laws, they will do so at every possible opportunity.
Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically. This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few -- depending on how obstructionist the sides are being. I mean, *perhaps* it could work, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
Re: Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:2, Informative)
Thatâ(TM)s a good thing, you donâ(TM)t want the government to pass bills.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I'll bite. How exactly would this be a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a congress that could pass a few bills a day instead of arguing the intricacies of all the different layers of pork.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a good imagination ... :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In my imagination, ranked choice voting weeds out the most useless incumbents.
Re: (Score:2)
In my imagination, ranked choice voting weeds out the most useless incumbents.
Agreed. I was just thinking about that when I voted (early) in the VA election -- although VA governors are term limited to one at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably the only country - and definitely the only one I'm aware off - where such a bullshit voting system is active.
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably the only country - and definitely the only one I'm aware off - where such a bullshit voting system is active.
Ya, but Mitch McConnell really, really likes it. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
All you really need to fix most of it is a line item veto amendment. Allow a 50%+1 vote to override the line item veto to prevent the president from getting too much power.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically.
That's how it works in the rest of the world [wikipedia.org], and it works quite well. It's also how it works in 41 US states [wikipedia.org], so the idea is not that alien to Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works in the rest of the world [wikipedia.org], and it works quite well. It's also how it works in 41 US states [wikipedia.org], so the idea is not that alien to Americans.
Two words: Mitch McConnell :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works in the rest of the world [wikipedia.org], and it works quite well. It's also how it works in 41 US states [wikipedia.org], so the idea is not that alien to Americans.
Two words: Mitch McConnell :-)
You're saying Mitch McConnell is an alien? That explains a lot. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
The real fix here is to do away with the system that creates extremely bipartisan politics and replace it with one that creates a representative democracy. Then you don't have two big parties dominating everything, and most bills are passed by consensus and tend to be moderate, and crucially without endless unrelated amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically. This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few.
The reason both parties have a hard time passing larger bills is because they are sprinkled with contentious, no-go items. These are everything-and-the-kitchen sink bills (aka "omnibus bills").
Politics are always local (and far too often, based on identity.) So if you are a congressperson facing a large omnibus bill that you mostly agree, but that has a clause or item that is political suicide for you or that fundamentally runs counter to your base or party platform, then you are obligated to vote against
Re: (Score:2)
This was exemplified by McDonnell when he said his objective was to make the 44th a one-term president (via obstructionism.)
Good example, Mitch McConnell is actually more interested in the Democrats losing than in America benefiting from anything they may be offering, so the Republicans can win and be in control -- most often to the benefit of rich, old, white men (said as an old(er), fairly well-off white guy, who votes Democrat) and large corporations. I know, sounds partisan, but with Mitch it's true -- and some others, on both sides, but I think more in the R camp.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on this conceptually, but don't know how it would work practically. This would require Congress to pass hundreds of separate bills when they have huge problems passing even a few -- depending on how obstructionist the sides are being. I mean, *perhaps* it could work, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
Imagine if your family argued for 9 months and then on some random day in December agreed on a single framework which would control ALL of you purchases and travel and schedule for the next year. I think that would be a LOT better than this crap like asking "What do you want for supper tonight?" or "Do you want to go for a bike ride tomorrow?"
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if your family argued for 9 months and then on some random day in December agreed on a single framework which would control ALL of you purchases and travel and schedule for the next year. I think that would be a LOT better than this crap like asking "What do you want for supper tonight?" or "Do you want to go for a bike ride tomorrow?"
No... I get how it would work for us regular folk, just not how it could work with Congress. I mean, Mitch would get exhausted obstructing 100 bills rather than 5. :-)
Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're referring to the (previous) "talking filibuster" vs. the (current) "two-track system", then I agree that would make things more visible and painful to utilize and, hopefully, limit its use as a political weapon, but it would also bring the Senate to a halt while it was going on -- which was the reason the two-track system was implemented -- but may be a beneficial side effect in this political climate. I'd love to see some of those older Senator be forced to yak endlessly to impede things.
Another change, mentioned in Filibuster, proposals for reform [wikipedia.org], would be to gradually lower the cloture threshold each time a cloture vote fails until only a simply majority is required.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more, I imagine our democracy looks and operates A LOT like that cancelled house of cards series. Politicians are "scratching each others backs" and quid pro quo is running wild in exchange for supporting each others personal agenda's. I've thought about this several times in the shower, the pros and cons of the rider bills and how a new system could reduce the number of bullshit mandates that are not a part of the original bill and haven't come up with a good way yet besides something forcin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Some kid is going to have some vodka. The car will not start. The kid will get raped or murdered. ...
If that happens regularly your problems are not drunk driving
I mean if only 1% of the horror stories you hear about the US are true: how can you live there?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Plenty of poison in those bills (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why people hate
Because of news stories that are false, and are nominally reporting about a "passive" monitoring requirement but then switch in midstream and talk about various types of active monitoring technology that is being researched, in order to confuse and anger you?
Gee. You hate because you're stupid. Why am I not surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats (lawful good) push "this is a good idea for everyone" stuff, and get shot down by people who think only of themselves (lawful evil.) Why do people think infringement of their right to be an awful person means that they will suddenly be thrown into the soylent green mill?
If vehicles were required to detect NO Alcohol in the car before starting it, that would remove the most common reason why people die in car accidents. If your designated driver wants to drive you home, they get in the car first an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more like (chaotic good) and I disapprove of this legislation.
Also, how will this work with hand sanitizer, which has been normalized since COVID? If it's an attention monitoring system, will it work with neurodivergent people?
Re: (Score:2)
This is why people hate democrats.
The only people who hate democrats because of this are partisan shills stupidly oblivious to the fact that this practice is a normal part of USA politics engaged in by both sides in practically equal measure.
But you knew this, if you actually believed your bullshit you'd not be posting AC.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who doesn’t drink (Score:5, Insightful)
I don’t want this horse shit in my vehicle. It’s just another failure point to cause grief when it inevitably starts malfunctioning, and this fascist nanny state stuff really rubs me the wrong way. Furthermore, they won’t be content with just monitoring for BAC. Mark my words, it won’t be long before some government weasels determine that having a coffee while driving is too much of a distraction, and we can’t have that either.
It’s a good thing I’ve gotten quite accustomed to doing my own car repairs, because it looks like I’m going to be keeping my old dino juice guzzlers for a long time.
I don't drink either. (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks like the EVs and hybrids between now and 2025 will become highly desirable in 2026
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of fixing the underlying problem they want to saddle all of us with some chastity belt type system AND make us pay for it.
Maybe you'll get upset about it to not tolerate the underlying problem which led to this kind of law being adopted. The overwhelming majority of people who drive drunk do so while someone sober knows about it and didn't stop them.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the underlying problem this is meant to solve are anemic auto industry profits and some minor victories by the right to repair movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops can ticket you for anything that they feel is distracting you from driving.
Re: (Score:2)
I've used alcohol products in my car during covid: Hand sanitizer, which evaporates from multiple people's hands into the air in the vehicle shortly after getting in, and isopropyl spray for sanitizing my phone/purchases. Once or twice it's leaked out the bottle.
Would I be unable to use my car, despite being completely sober, because of this?
Sounds sketchy.
Re: (Score:2)
having a coffee while driving is too much of a distraction, and we canâ(TM)t have that either.
It actually is. Why you think otherwise is beyond me. It is a hot drink, right? You take more care about not spilling it than about other things.
But I find it low culture anyway if one thinks he has to have a coffee in his car, instead of sitting at a nice place and relaxing.
Re: (Score:2)
But I find it low culture anyway if one thinks he has to have a coffee in his car, instead of sitting at a nice place and relaxing.
Have you ever had to drive 800 miles overnight to reach the bedside of a dying relative? You should try it sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever had to drive 800 miles overnight to reach the bedside of a dying relative? You should try it sometime.
And why would I do that?
So that he is scared I die on the way before he is dead? Or that he hurries to die before me so one calls me and stops me?
You do not need to drink the coffee in a car to "hurry" to a dying relative. You get an espresso and go on. Simple.
Super tasteless example by the way.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been the reaction to most safety system mandates in the past. Forcing people to wear seatbelts was an affront to their freedom to die head first through their windshield, ABS was going to kill everyone because it would inevitably fail to work properly, crumple zones were just a scam to increase repair bills etc. etc.
Soon cars will be required to have front radar for collision avoidance, and people will complain that those will fail and be expensive to repair too.
What you really need are strong cons
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, not wearing a seatbelt didn't cause your car to fail to even start based on weird detection systems that sound like they'll have plenty of false positives. If an airbag is non functional it just shows an indicator and won't pass inspection. ABS can still be turned off.
The average age of a car on the road in the USA is 12 years old. Do you actually think that they will be required to repair this mess of weird sensors for that long? And realistically it should be even longer since that is
Watch the First Part (Score:2)
back door way to kill 3rd party service and repair (Score:2)
back door way to kill 3rd party service and repair.
some car manufacturers can pull an apple and disable that system if ANY non dealer service is done (EVEN TIRES / OIL / LIGHTS)
force the state to pay all monitoring fees roaming (Score:2)
force the state to pay all monitoring fees roaming as well
Politicians not understanding science again (Score:5, Informative)
As a diabetic, the existing technology has a known issue where ketosis can result in a false positive on the breathalyzer (one source: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/d... [shouselaw.com]) On the flip side, the opposite state of hypoglycemia can result in behavior that appears you are intoxicated. Argument can be made that if you are in either state you might not be in a state to be able to drive...but its not that black and white.
So we're now dealing with someone on the edge of a medical emergency who may need to just get to food (if hypoglycemic) or home to meds if not to actual medical care (and is actually safe to drive) potentially being locked out of driving. Hopefully by then we have self driving cars?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the proposed technology isn't a breathalyzer, because we already have that and that's reserved for those who are guilty of DUI.
The system instead will use existing driver monitoring cameras (yes, most new cars have a camera watching you drive) and detect if you show the signs of being under the influence
That's why there's a privacy thing going on - because we don't know if the car is storing those photos it takes of you or anything else. A breathalyzer is far more discreet in that you can always cl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There have been instances of pilots failing a breath test due to medication they were on that was safe to fly with.
The breath testing equipment that cops use isn't even very accurate. In the UK if the machine says you are over the limit they will ask to take a blood sample for lab testing (refusing is itself a criminal offense, hope you don't have a needle phobia).
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the summary succeeded at confusing you by placing their discussion of available active monitoring next to news about a requirement for passive monitoring of driving behavior.
If your reaction time drops to similar to that of a drunk, you're probably having a medical emergency and should call 911.
Also people rushng someone to a hospital... (Score:2)
[example of diabetic being locked out of driving to get to needed food]
There are plenty of other medical scenarios where such systems could end up killing by denial of service. Many other medical conditions requiring immediate treatment may result in erratic driving. Someone hurrying to get a passenger with injuries or a medial emergency to a hospital, through traffic, may also be driving "erratically". How about someone in a remote region, out of cell coverage and water and getting dehydrated? (I could
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it make more sense to invest in making more of the United States walkable?
No, most people would rather have a large house, plenty of space, and not have to take public transportation. Me too, and I've spent a lot of years living in walkable places without a car. A car is better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a streetcar, you still have to take public transportation. Most people in Newton, Mass prefer not to take public transportation.
Also, while those streetcars are nice if you want to go to Boston, they really suck if you want to travel directly north or south.
That is sick (Score:2)
This is not to prevent drunk driving, it is for tracking and insurance purposes. The only solution is self driving cars. Or active accident avoidance where the car stops drivers from running red lights, haphazard lane changes, or hitting pedestrians
medical privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta love politicians passing laws... (Score:2)
Gotta love politicians passing laws that mandate technology that doesn't even exist yet.
DADSS? (Score:2)
I'll have to see what position DAMM takes on this (Drunks Against Mad Mothers).
This will be a disaster (Score:2)
A friend of mine got convicted of drunk driving and wound up with one of those devices installed in her car for a year. They don't work. False positives are frequent. Pepperoni, mouthwash and lots of other things will trigger one. Also, at random times it would demand an immediate sample while the driver was actually operating the vehicle (having just passed the initial sample). If a sample isn't provided in what the device deems to be a timely manner, it will simply turn off the car. This happened to
Same as it ever was (Score:2)
Politicians like someone to blame that everyone can get on board with. They like easy to say fixes. This is why we seem to botch everything up.
Think about it: drowsy driving is as impairing as drunk driving. If you were to address both problems, we may end up with less of a Rube Goldberg contraption and something that would make sense.
But . . . getting people to change their already-m
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol fatalities are more common than drowsy driving fatalities by an order of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol fatalities are more common than drowsy driving fatalities by an order of magnitude.
Again, neither are close to distracted driving fatalities, but thanks for clarifying . . .
Interesting ... (Score:2)
Interesting that a country can not get drunk driving under control.
Some countries in Europe have a zero alcohol policy, e.g. France.
In Germany the limit is something like 0.05% - you are automatically partially guilty if you are involved in an accident and have more than 0.03% alcohol level.
While accidents with alcohol involved still happen, they are basically not a thing here. Punishment if you get caught drunk driving is draconic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a complex problem here.
In some rural areas, its downplayed because of geography. If you run off the road in a good chunk of North Dakota, you just get stuck in some farm field or the ditch because its so flat an open. This is a garbage excuse, but I've heard lots of people say it up there and it has the veneer of believability to it.
There's probably more drunk driving going on because of where people live relative to where they drink and the need to drive to get there. Public transit is marginal at
What if (Score:2)
You'd been drinking and were trying to get away from someone who became violent and the car wouldn't start?
Re: (Score:2)
> You'd been drinking and were trying to get away from someone who became violent and the car wouldn't start?
Run Forrest, run!
Infrastructure Bill's Drunk Driving (Score:2)
I always told William to go easy on the booze.
false positives (Score:2)
Also... (Score:2)
Also, this will increase the cost and therefore price of every car by hundreds of dollars. Way to go, Joe.
Re: So drug users are free and clear (Score:3)
This is an excellent point.
Recently I've been more worried about drivers under the influence of drugs. I see a lot more of them on the road - they are erratic and they reek.
There is currently no legally accepted way to measure and proof DUI of drugs in the field. Druggies get a free pass.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: So drug users are free and clear (Score:5, Informative)
It's time to ditch the reefer madness propaganda and get up to date with the science.
You mean from the same link which has as its first sentence:
Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.
You're parsing what that page says. There is a direct relationship between marijuana use and impaired driving. The part you quoted says there is no significant increase in crash risk while using marijuana. Those two are not same.
And yes, people who smoke weed do reek. It's quite easy to know when you're driving behind someone who's been smoking, or is smoking, because of the smell. No different than driving behind someone who smokes cigarettes. The smell is unmistakable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's one of those papers that has an executive summary that toes the party line and then a ream of research data that says the opposite.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Performing a test, when yo know it has bad consequences if you fail, is something completely different then approaching absent minded a road crossing and over seeing a danger.
People who regularly smoke obviously can tolerate a lot, and do look more sober than they are.
Fact is: dope impairs people, just like alcohol. There is no real difference.
Source: my life experience. Basically everyone around my used to smoke dope - I know hundreds of people who smoke or smoked it regularly. But: we either only ride the
Re: (Score:2)
Also age impairs people's driving ability, having kids in the back or an agitated passenger impairs people's driving ability, having the radio turned on impairs people's driving ability, having a sticky gear shift impairs people's driving ability, the sun being low in the sky impairs people's driving ability...
The questions is by how much and do we need to do anything about it. We could ban driving for an hour a day when the sun is very low in the sky, but is that a reasonable thing to do given the risk and
Re: So drug users are free and clear (Score:4)
While stoners reaction times are impaired while under the influence, the actual effect is for them to drive with exaggerated care so that the net effect is no increase in crash rates. Whereas drivers under the influence of alcohol are significantly more reckless and liable to black out while driving, leading to their increased crash rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So drug users are free and clear (Score:2)
Such a situation would require me to imbibe alcohol or partake in the wacky tabaccy. As neither of those things are true with my drug of choice being limited to caffeine your post becomes nonsensical at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Cannabis alone has never been shown to impair driving. [drugabuse.gov]
Does not change the fact: that it does.
However not on the level of a normal recreational dose. But if you smoke half a night, you can not drive. That is a no brainer. If you don't believe it: try it. For that you do not need a study.
Re: (Score:2)
There is currently no legally accepted way to measure and proof DUI of drugs in the field. Druggies get a free pass. That is most likely nonsense.
If you see an erratic driver you pull him over. If you visually confirm he is under drugs, you arrest him. Simple. There is no damn need to have an on site test - like a breazer for alcohol. Then a judge will give a warrant and a doctor takes a blood sample. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Also getting a free pass, people in big empty white pickup trucks who think that less than one vehicle length is a safe following distance, and honk their horn and flash headlights at you to pull over so they can then do the same thing to the guy 10 car lengths in front of you. If we're going to go full nanny-1984, how about a report back to Central Command every time somebody flashes, honks, or follows too closely?
Re: (Score:2)
how about a report back to Central Command every time somebody flashes, honks, or follows too closely?
That is actually what I do. So not sure what your point is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not lane-hogging. This happens to me on two-lane roads where there's no passing lane. The truck can plainly see that I'm maintaining a safe following distance with the car in front of me, and we're doing the limit but that's not good enough for these SOBs.
Re: (Score:3)
This is applicable [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
My state passed a law saying it was illegal to drive in passing lane under the speed limit. The aggressive drivers all were wildly supportive of this because they thought it would give them the right to speed uncontested on any road with more than one lane.
Meanwhile, it never legalized speeding or even made it an offense to drive at the speed limit in the left lane, but you wouldn't know it from the aggressive drivers.
Now, on rural interstates, it completely makes sense to keep right except for passing. I
I bet that Police vehicles are exempt (Score:2)
Example why it is useful for boozy cops:
https://pinacnews.com/index.ph... [pinacnews.com]
Re:So drug users are free and clear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I do see on a daily basis any time of day is texting and driving. Now that is something they should fix.
There is no clean way to fix this by legislation.
It reminds me of some dashboard function in a rental car that refused to work while the car was in motion. The fact that it was my passenger trying to use it didn't matter, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the phone is blutooth connected to a car, disable texting. ... The passenger's phone(s) should not be connected to the car.
This doesn't solve the problem at all. Those wanting to text and drive just won't connect their phones to their cars. Which is even less safe, since it also means they can't use the hands-free calling features.
It also unreasonably restricts passengers from connecting to the car e.g. to play music or to help with navigation. (IIRC Android Auto only works with a Bluetooth connection, even when using the wired option, so if the passenger can't connect with BT then they can't have their phone show maps or direc
Re: (Score:2)
Will the fingertip thing work on people with skin darker than type 2/3?
What about hand sanitiser?
Re: (Score:2)
So... there will possibly be a breath monitoring thing....
They sure tricked you easily, just by talking about that system in the same summary that they reported on a news item about completely different passive technology.
Think about that... and look at the fact that most news stories use this same "engagement" technique. This means that almost ever time you think you're learning about the news, you're "learning" about the irrelevant, inflammatory filler that the media placed next to the news. You perceive the unrelated bullshit as being the news merely becaus
Re: easy to bypass. (Score:2)
Charcoal will filter out fusel alcohols but not ethanol. That's why you can turn shit vodka into good vodka with a Brita filter.
Re: (Score:2)
If any of these systems start preventing the elderly from driving, you can guarantee it won't be allowed. Those old fucks have the most money and they vote consistently.
Overall I think this is a pretty lame idea but society seems easily fooled by promises of security in exchange their freedoms.
Funny how you almost never heard about bars being held accountable for over-serving. I've only actually seen one bar cut someone off ever. There were plenty of times in my twenties that I should of been cut off but ne
Re: (Score:2)
There were plenty of times in my twenties that I should of been cut off but never was. I never drank and drive but they should never of kept serving me.
Perhaps they knew you were not driving?