Is
technology key to solving the problem of drunk driving? What do you think about requiring technology through
a law before the technology is completely developed? Why do you think the law requires this
technology to activate passively? Do you
see any pitfalls that these technologies might have?
Thursday, January 6, 2022
Your door is ajar...Your parking brake is on...You have had one too many...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A phrase commonly used by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is: “All user input is error.” Although he mostly says this when mentioning the UX/UI in his Tesla autonomous vehicles, it also ties to the issue of drunk driving. While most drivers are responsible, and do not get behind the wheel when under the influence, there are still at least 10,000 people who lose their lives annually as the result of alcohol-impaired driving in the US alone. The fact that there is no technology automatically—not willingly—detecting and restricting drunk drivers implemented in our already very advanced forms of transportation is leaving the window open for easily-preventable traffic accidents.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, if there is no immediate technical restriction (e.g., the engine does not start), or punishment upon attempting to drive while intoxicated, for some, it may be “worth the risk” if they happen to get away with it without a slap on the wrists. It is the same reason why people justify cheating on a test, or stealing something from the local clothing store. An addition of this sort of mechanism into our vehicles would make sure that we are not the only ones in control of the situation. When you are under the influence, you tend to think less rationally and can make fatal mistakes without much self-questioning as a result of that. The mechanisms described in the article, although in early-development and definitely not bulletproof, would act as a form of recoil for the driver and (hopefully) help them snap back into reality.
With self-driving cars becoming more prominent each year, the addition of these extra measures seems very reasonable, if executed well. That is, as I was reading through the article, I thought of a few ways to trigger a false-positive that the proposed technology might encounter: With the built-in cabin breathalyzers, how would this system prevent false detection of drunk passengers (who’s alcohol residue might get into the samples)? Would this system be able to get bypassed by a sober passenger breathing into the samples? How would these blood alcohol tests deal with problems that regular breathalyzers have? If these do happen, would there be any way to brute force start the vehicle and prove that you are sober? These questions will get their answers eventually, considering that a few of these have been listed as the long-term goals of the system, but I still believe that this needs to be fixed and tested before having a law mandating the use of them.
- Martin
Drivers deserve to feel safe on the road. Something as banal as getting someplace should really not be a risk factor. To me, this tech seems like an amazing step in the right direction, and it’s honestly surprising that a market as saturated and mature as the car market is seeing such revolutionary changes. However, the question stands: will it hold and actually be useful? The way things are headed, motor vehicles will most likely require less and less human input as time goes on. Manufacturers such as Tesla have already implemented an incredibly solid autopilot system into their vehicles, and it’s reliability will only get better as time goes on. Eventually, cars might not even require a driver, rendering an advanced DADSS system quite useless.
ReplyDeleteAs the article mentions, there are basically two distinct approaches to the DADSS problem - physically measuring blood alcohol levels, and detecting “drunkenness” based on visual cues. For me, both approaches contain a lot of uncertainty. The relationship between blood alcohol levels and actual “drunkenness” varies individually, and is not the most accurate representation of the level of impairment. Although it is irresponsible to drive if you’ve had something to drink regardless, this doesn’t seem to be the most realistic approach. On the other hand, visual cues may be a good indicator of impairment. However, in my opinion, even the best “facial reading” softwares are nowhere near the level of precision they would need to be for this purpose. There is just too much uncertainty. As it stands, this tech does not look road ready.
I would also like to discuss what the implications of this tech are. To be honest, I might sound like a raving “slippery slope” lunatic, but I still think that it’s an important thing to consider. As the article mentions, if the DADSS detects any sort of impairment, it will prevent you from driving your car. Essentially, it is preventing you from acting based on a standard set by a government in a private situation. Now, if you’re not crazy, that sounds completely ridiculous. But, gradually, if this would be applied to other situations as well, it might very well lead to an actual slippery slope. A society where all laws have to be followed exactly only works if all laws directly reflect the values of individuals. In this particular circumstance, it is absurd, but in any case I think any and all liberty is an important consideration.
- Teo
I really believe that it would be a huge leap forward for road safety if car manufacturers developed a way to consistently and effectively check the driver’s level of intoxication. Considering that about a third of all car accidents involve drunk driving, I strongly agree with MADD that a measure like this would be monumental. The article proposes two main methods of performing such a check, but I have some doubts about their consistency.
ReplyDeleteThe first method proposes we install devices in all cars that analyze the air in the car and detect alcohol. Perhaps the biggest problem with breathalyzers would be its inevitable lack of accuracy. Let’s say that car manufacturers develop devices that possess a complete fool-proof way of discerning ethanol molecules from the cabin air and stop the engine once a certain threshold is reached. This would undoubtedly be a remarkable achievement from an engineering standpoint, and would also most likely fix all drunk driving accidents. But, it would also present a range of different problems. Since such a device could only tell you whether there is alcohol present in the air, how would it know that the driver ingested that alcohol? There exist many household items that contain alcohol which are not intended for digestion, such as for instance mouthwash, disinfectant wipes, perfume or hand sanitizer among a range of others. I do not intend on sounding like I would prioritize the convenience of bringing disinfectant wipes with me into my car over preventing 10 000 annual deaths, but the fact that one would no longer be able to use alcohol-based products while driving certainly needs to be considered before green lighting the idea of installing breathalyzers into all cars. Personally, I am much more keen on the idea of touch-based sensors that the article touches upon briefly in the first section.
The ideas that the article puts forward in the second section are much more attractive to me as well, since in my eyes, using a camera to discern clear signs of impairment would be much more accurate. Since the eyes’ movement is a clear takeaway between sobriety and intoxication, the method of observing the driver’s eyes is a common practice during field sobriety tests done by policemen, and I simply see it as fitting to use the same method of analysis for fully automated systems that activate each time the driver sits behind the steering wheel. The obvious downside to this is the issue of privacy. While I think this concern is valid, I do not see how having a camera (that presumably only needs to be turned while performing a check) installed in one’s car is a greater concern than using one’s thumb to unlock a phone or disclosing one’s full name and face freely on social media. The only real issue I have with this method is that this method completely disregards the small percentage of drivers that use permanent contact lenses. Since contact lenses and the ingestion of alcohol give eyes the same impairment (this is a fact that is taken into consideration during field sobriety tests), I worry about how the issue of drunk driving would be handled for people with lenses which they cannot take off. Obviously these people cannot be prohibited from using a car simply because they were not able to see properly when they were younger, but giving these people an exception of sorts would only pave the way for more drunk driving.
While the issues I discussed are ones I consider significant, there is not a single doubt in my mind that these issues outweigh the problem of drunk driving. If we have the opportunity to prevent as much as one third of all car accidents, I say that we work towards it, even despite the fact that it might impair some drivers. That is, until a better solution is found.
Reply to Filip B.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Alcohol does not affect everyone equally, the differences between sober and drunk state in an individual cannot be neglected. Except for decrease in concentration and slowing down of reflexes, which can also be caused by tiredness, alcohol also promotes recklessness and false sense of confidence. In regular conditions and low doses of alcohol these effects may not be seen. However, in critical situation sharp reflexes and quick decision making mean the difference between life and death. As you mentioned “10,000 people are losing their lives annually as a result of alcohol-impaired driving in the USA”. So, I do not agree with your statement, that driving does not make you a worse driver. And I believe drivers under the influence have to be excluded from traffic.
The point of the article was to introduce feasible measures to combat the problem of drunk driving. You wrote that “10,000 people are losing their lives annually as a result of alcohol-impaired driving in the USA, but what about another 25,000 people that are losing their lives while sober.” No one is saying that sober people do not cause car accidents or that all roads are safe as possible. But a global reconstruction of critical parts of roads takes an immense amount of time, space and money. This is a chance to save annually some thousands of lives more effectively.