Toyota Creating Alcohol Detection System

[BoogyMan]

I guess we won't be seeing Ted Kennedy driving a Toyota in the future. :D


SOURCE: Link Here (http://www.physorg.com/news87048491.html)

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.

[Stoner]

Man, that car would seriously complicate my evenings.

[bobbylien]

Man, that car would seriously complicate my evenings.

If that means you drive drunk then I sincerely hope you burn in hell. Or at least get caught and rot in prison.
Cars like this will save thousands of innocent lives.

[lily]

People have tried many things to stop idiots who drink and drive. Seems those idiots always find a way around it. I highly doubt anyone that has a record of drinking and driving would even consider buying this car.

[Stoner]

If that means you drive drunk then I sincerely hope you burn in hell.

Well I hope so because I wouldn't know anyone in heaven. Would be lonely.

Seriously, I have driven on more than a few occasions so tore up I could barely operate a cigarette lighter.

Don't drink and drive, kids.

[Nitrus]

These cars would be a god-send. But who would buy them?

[Professor]

But who would buy them?


The parents of teenagers.

[Pookie]

Oh good! Yes, perhaps it may put a dent in some drivers' feelings, but to be honest, anything to keep drunks off the road is a good thing I feel. My post in off topic mentions a car accident in which my cousin suffered a broken neck and is paralyzed. I may be a tree-hugging liberal but I think it's great if Toyota would do this. I don't mean any harm to anyone by saying that, but since my cousin cannot walk due to a drunk driver you have to understand I would, of course, feel strongly about this.
After all, our experiences make us what we are, right? Go, Toyota!
Hugs,

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you fill the gas tank with E85 will this car start?

[bobbylien]

These cars would be a god-send. But who would buy them?

One day something like this will hopefully be standard in new vehicles.

[Mayberry]

Oh, unfortunately, it will. Now before everyone starts bashing me, hear me out. I am not advocating driving drunk by any means. But this is just one more thing that will be mandated by Big Brother to keep us all "safe". One more little tightening of the cuffs. Just in the automotive world, we have been restricted and regulated to death. Mandatory airbags, ABS, side impact crash beams, "stability/traction/roll control" systems, etc... Big Brother would also LOVE to implement OBDIII (http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/may/obd_iii_new.cfm) emissions systems, which would include the ability for the car to transmit operational data to a central server, which would be able to shut your car down remotely if out of emissions compliance. All this crap is part of the reason a new car costs $30k or more. It is getting ridiculous. Personally, I would like to be able to opt out of most of this junk. I'll never buy a new vehicle because I refuse to shell out $30k, and I don't want all this garbage thrown at me. My neighbor's new truck dings incessantly until you put on your damn seatbelt, another shining example of Big Brother lookin' out for us. Hooray. I want to be able to buy a small, lightweightÂ*Â*Jeep type 4X4 suv with a rag top, removable doors, and a turbodiesel with a MANUAL transmission (a WHAT?!). But I can't, because such a vehicle could never be equipped with all the hoopla required, and if it was, it would be rendered useless anyway because it would be too damned heavy, and nearly impossible to modify to suit my needs. So I'll just have to keep riding around in my brand new 25 year old Jeep CJ until it falls apart, then put it back together and drive it some more. That is until some bleeding heart treehugger makes it illegal.

[bobbylien]

I'm willing to suck it up and pay a little extra to save thousands and thousands of innocent people. I would like to make myself clear that I'm not talking about the drunk drivers, they should all die as far as I'm concerned. We should absolutely up the penalty for drunk driving, just recently a man was arrested for his 8th drunk driving offense in my area. How many chances are we going to give these pricks before they kill someone?

I want to make myself clear here. I think people should be able to make as many mistakes as they want to so long as they don't hurt others. If someone wants to drink and smoke himself to death, fine with me. I draw the line when that persons reckless behavior harms someone else. These systems would do nothing but stop a crime(a very serious crime.)

[Professor]

One day something like this will hopefully be standard in new vehicles.


Then I would be against it. Living in a free country I have the freedom to drive drunk, if I chose to. I know there are consequences to this, so if I chose to, then it's my ass on the line. When laws or technology take the place of individual free will and decision making then we have gone too far.

Right now we are far from that. So as of now, I am on board.

[Buck Laser]

One day something like this will hopefully be standard in new vehicles.


Then I would be against it. Living in a free country I have the freedom to drive drunk, if I chose to. I know there are consequences to this, so if I chose to, then it's my ass on the line. When laws or technology take the place of individual free will and decision making then we have gone too far.

Right now we are far from that. So as of now, I am on board.

'Fessor, it's not only your ass on the line. If you cause someone else's death or injury while driving drunk, then your responsiblity goes way beyond your personal risk. Please think again about the position you've taken.

[Labrocca]

What if when the car detected you were drunk it would drive for you? :)

That would kick ass!

[Mayberry]

I'm willing to suck it up and pay a little extra to save thousands and thousands of innocent people. I'm not.

[Professor]

One day something like this will hopefully be standard in new vehicles.


Then I would be against it.Â*Â*Living in a free country I have the freedom to drive drunk, if I chose to.Â*Â*I know there are consequences to this, so if I chose to, then it's my ass on the line.Â*Â*When laws or technology take the place of individual free will and decision making then we have gone too far.

Right now we are far from that.Â*Â*So as of now, I am on board.

'Fessor, it's not only your ass on the line.Â*Â*If you cause someone else's death or injury while driving drunk, then your responsiblity goes way beyond your personal risk.Â*Â*Please think again about the position you've taken.


I am aware of that, and that it isn't fair. But it is also unfair to force someone into obeying a law. They need to have the basic freedom to refuse.

I realize this is a potentionally lethal view, and I don't want anyone to die. But I think taking away someone's rights isn't the solution.


What if when the car detected you were drunk it would drive for you?

That would kick ass!


Forget when drunk, how about all the time? I'd love to take a nice nap when on the way to the doctors.

[lily]

Oh, unfortunately, it will. Now before everyone starts bashing me, hear me out. I am not advocating driving drunk by any means. But this is just one more thing that will be mandated by Big Brother to keep us all "safe". One more little tightening of the cuffs. Just in the automotive world, we have been restricted and regulated to death. Mandatory airbags, ABS, side impact crash beams, "stability/traction/roll control" systems, etc... Big Brother would also LOVE to implement

Mayberry......I think you're upset with the wrong people. It's not Big Brother, it's the insurance lobbiests.

I want to be able to buy a small, lightweight Jeep type 4X4 suv with a rag top, removable doors, and a turbodiesel with a MANUAL transmission (a WHAT?!).

Not sure what a turbodiesel is, but my son has all the other stuff. He loves it! I shudder when he used to take the grandkids for "a little ride", of course they loved it.

[bobbylien]

Living in a free country I have the freedom to drive drunk, if I chose to.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you on that one. Nobody has the right to break a law.

I'm willing to suck it up and pay a little extra to save thousands and thousands of innocent people.
I'm not.
How nice of you. Glad to see you would put a new TV before thousands of lives. Anyone who would argue against putting seat belts in cars because he doesn't want to pay for them is absolutely insane. Anyone who would force kids to ride in a car without seat belts should be locked up and have his/her kids taken away on the spot for reckless endangerment. How much does it really cost to put seat belts in a car anyways? I can't see it being over 100$.

[lily]

What if when the car detected you were drunk it would drive for you?Â*Â*:)

That would kick ass!


Doesn't the new Lexus parallel park? I'm easy......I'd be happy with that.

[BoogyMan]

I am aware of that, and that it isn't fair.Â*Â*But it is also unfair to force someone into obeying a law.Â*Â*They need to have the basic freedom to refuse.Â*Â*

I realize this is a potentionally lethal view, and I don't want anyone to die.Â*Â*But I think taking away someone's rights isn't the solution.

Who gets to choose what laws get to be refused professor? This isn't just a lethal view of the law, its an anarchist view. Buck and I seldom agree, but this is one case where we clearly do.

[bobbylien]

Living in a free country I have the freedom to drive drunk, if I chose to.

Alright, lets take this a step farther. Do you have the right to shoot someone just because you live in a free country?

[Mayberry]

How much does it really cost to put seat belts in a car anyways? I can't see it being over 100$.
Seatbelts aren't the issue. Being forced to wear them is. I always buckle up my kids, but I am a grown adult and don't need a nanny telling me what to do. I shouldn't get fined for not putting on my seatbelt for a trip to the corner store where I'll never exceed 30 mph. When I get on the expressway with the idiot drivers, I'm buckled up, because I want to be, not because of some stupid law. All the other garbage in cars nowadays is what I was referring to.

[Professor]

Seatbelts aren't the issue. Being forced to wear them is. I always buckle up my kids, but I am a grown adult and don't need a nanny telling me what to do.


This is the attitude I am trying to get across. There needs to be a way to disobey the law, or else it becomes basic, unbending reality.



I am aware of that, and that it isn't fair. But it is also unfair to force someone into obeying a law. They need to have the basic freedom to refuse.

I realize this is a potentionally lethal view, and I don't want anyone to die. But I think taking away someone's rights isn't the solution.


Who gets to choose what laws get to be refused professor?



The citizen who is facing the choice of breaking or following the law.


Alright, lets take this a step farther. Do you have the right to shoot someone just because you live in a free country?


This argument is making me rethink my stance. I'll post back later.

[bobbylien]

Seatbelts aren't the issue. Being forced to wear them is. I always buckle up my kids, but I am a grown adult and don't need a nanny telling me what to do.

I'm absolutely against forcing people to help themselves. I only have a problem with peoples right to do stupid things when it puts unknowing people in danger.
I'm against public smoking bans but for don't believe in parents being allowed to smoke around their kids.


Alright, lets take this a step farther. Do you have the right to shoot someone just because you live in a free country?
This argument is making me rethink my stance. I'll post back later.
Nowhere in the constitution does it give you the right to harm someone else. You have the right to do what you want until it harms someone who isn't a willing participant.

[Mayberry]

You have the right to do what you want until it harms someone who isn't a willing participant. Exactly. The government needs to stop "protecting" us from ourselves.