In-Car Alcohol Sensors Are Coming - Should They Be Legal?

In-car alcohol detections systems have been talked about for years, but new advances in technology are making them much more feasible than ever before. Should these systems be mandatory in all vehicles? What about the privacy concerns - should they even be legal?

In-car alcohol detection systems center around four technologies:

1. Sniffers. Automakers are currently testing in-car "sniffers" that can detect trace amounts of alcohol in the air. If these sensors are placed correctly, they can usually determine if the person behind the wheel is drunk.

2. Skin sensors. Because trace amounts of alcohol "soak into" a drunk person's skin, sensors in the steering wheel and shift knob can be used to determine if the driver is drunk. A company called TruTouch has even developed a sensor that could someday be hidden in a vehicle armrest.

3. Facial recognition. Using a camera pointed at the driver's face, automakers have been able to determine when someone is drunk by tracking eye and facial movements and then comparing them to how the vehicle is being driven.

4. Behavior patterns. Drunk drivers tend to have certain patterns they use when driving - the way they use the steering, accelerator, and brake is often similar. The engine computer could monitor these inputs and use them to help determine if a driver is drunk.

While all four of these technologies have flaws - sniffers can be fooled by drunk passengers, skin sensors can be fooled by alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and facial and behavior recognition needs calibration - the fact is that it would be very hard to trick all four of these systems at the same time.

It's estimated that there will be a working prototype by 2013 that will be able to detect a drunk driver quickly and accurately. The questions are:

1. Should this system be mandatory?
2. What about privacy concerns?
3. Will this data be stored, and if so, could it be retrieved later? Insurance companies, for example, might use this data to influence rates. Is that OK?
4. Is this a safety feature, or big brother?

Vote and discuss by following the link.
Read Article

vvelez - 6/24/2010 7:53:05 PM

+2 Boost

mandatory? no. If this is mandatory this will just be another added cost on cars causing us to pay more. Maybe for those who have DUI's on their record make it mandatory to purchase that option when buying a new vehicle, IDK. But they have something like that already where you can install in the vehicle. I call fail.

camrydriver - 6/25/2010 9:23:15 PM

+2 Boost

"Should these systems be mandatory in all vehicles?"

No, just the vehicles of idiots who keep getting DUIs and need to be constantly babysat to make them behave like responsible adults.

BondMI6 - 6/24/2010 9:16:44 PM

+2 Boost

Mandatory? Again, no.

Optional? Sure.........right next to the missile launchers and ejection seat buttons.

Yonder7 - 6/25/2010 9:48:19 AM

+2 Boost

Well....I think that should be mandatory for all the ones that have that kind of fellony as driving with alcohol in their blood...any one with a record like that should have that accessory installed.

thstone - 6/25/2010 12:49:03 PM

+3 Boost

Silly idea. Drunks won't buy cars with these sensors or they will hack around/disable them.

lexusrox123 - 6/26/2010 4:10:21 AM

+1 Boost

Exactly. Drunks WILL find a way around it, no matter what.

KZ258 - 6/25/2010 6:41:10 PM

0 Boost

this feature does not bother me at all for i dont drink

lexusrox123 - 6/26/2010 4:13:52 AM

+1 Boost

The better solution would be to raise the fine/punishment for drunk driving. In europe, the law is extremely strict against this, and drunk driving deaths are far, far lower than here in the US.

tango - 6/26/2010 2:09:23 PM

+1 Boost

I believe in ZERO tolerance for alcohol and driving. Not a single drop should be allowed. It is far too easy for a person to be under the legal limit and not be capable of operating a vehicle effectively. Somebody's weight, physical, and medical condition can have a part to play in this. Too many people are seriously hurt or killed every year by drunk drivers. The good will suffer with the bad. If I had my way the only use alcohol would have would be to fuel our cars and to clean dirty CDs with.

MsM8 - 3/14/2011 9:02:14 PM

+1 Boost

1. Should this system be mandatory?
Seat belts, air bags, safety glass, child seats up to the age of 7.. all those are mandatory...I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking a PROACTIVE move toward preventing a drunk driver from defeating all four of those safety laws and injuring or killing a human. This device would be the only safety device that protects OTHER DRIVERS ON THE ROAD - HELLLLLO! That means it would protect YOU - YOUR SPOUSE - YOUR MOM - YOUR DAD - YOUR KIDS!!!! from being hit by a drunk driver.

2. What about privacy concerns?
Privacy? This one has to be explained further...what privacy do we have in our automobiles now? We can be pulled over, made to exit our vehicle and be searched, have our vehicles searched by police dogs for any reason a police officer determines to be "suspicious"...Privacy? Really?

3. Will this data be stored, and if so, could it be retrieved later? Insurance companies, for example, might use this data to influence rates. Is that OK?
If the device prevents the vehicle from being driven, I do not see the need for it to store any data and/or report to anyone... the worst that could happen is the person will be late, alive, but late. I wouldn't mind the discount for having yet another safety device either!

4. Is this a safety feature, or big brother?
The courts have been playing big brother since the first DUI law was passed. Over the years the courts role as big brother has only grown, the laws have gotten less effective despite increased penalties and more restrictions on driving. I would rather a device render my vehicle inoperable then dole out AT LEAST 5,000.00 to various courts, attorneys, and bureaus of motor vehicles. Worst case, jail for hurting or killing someone because of a stupid decision. The ones who have money pay, the ones who don't have money we pay for by way of jail, higher insurance rates or the injury or death of a loved one. People with no money rarely have insurance, so WE PAY the higher rates, we've all heard of the ripple effect, well, with DUI's the ripple effect seems to never end.

Playing big brother is currently all the courts do in DUI's, it's time the courts started handing real legal cases and citizens start utilizing REAL SAFETY FEATURES.

Add up 5 grand for each DUI a year per state - the millions are staggering. The money that is made by courts, attorneys, BMV's and all the other middle men (DUI classes, jail, half way houses, etc...) is the single reason that a alcohol detection device will never be mandatory in an American automobile, the beneficiaries of DUI's would be out of jobs.

Another thought - why hasn't MADD backed this safety feature? Simple, MADD supporters get elected, once elected the paycheck needs to keep coming in.

If the problem is practically eliminated, hundreds of lives will be saved annually, but thousands upon thousands of county, city and state jobs would be lost..there would be nothing for them to do.

I