Toyota Developing Drunken Driving System

[one...two...tree 2,762]

TOKYO (AP) -- Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology...amp;oref=slogin

[Fandango 1,439]

I'm all for controlling drunk drivers, but this is too much 'big bro' if you ask me

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What an idiotic idea.

[mawilson 2,133]

What if you're drinking while driving? Will it "shut the vehicle down" in the middle of the road?

[Jenn! 918]

What if you're drinking while driving? Will it "shut the vehicle down" in the middle of the road?

It said the car will "slow to a halt". Does sound rather dangerous though.

I'm not opposed to something like this for someone with a DUI conviction, but for everyone? No way.

Edited January 3, 2007 by jenn3539

[Fandango 1,439]

'slowing to a halt' if the driver is actually drunk would prolly CAUSE an accident.

Cars have so much technology in them today that it cost $$$ when summat malfunctions. Imagine if this system broke.

[Chris-n-Veronica 0]

'slowing to a halt' if the driver is actually drunk would prolly CAUSE an accident.

Cars have so much technology in them today that it cost $$$ when summat malfunctions. Imagine if this system broke.

Should be able to turn it off and on like the front airbag on some trucks..and SUV's but with that in mind...

Also part of the system off and on.. is if it's on..it won't start if you fail the blow test before starting your car....Should have a higher fine if you have it off and are drinking Also to cover your typical user/abuser, you can't turn it on after you've started the car, that way when they are pulled over they can't switch it on quickly..

But honestly... Keep the Auto builders out of the States business, All they need to do is get even more agressive with DUI's and repeat offenders.. I remember how it hurt the bar business back in the mid-90's when they final upped the ante' then..

[Fandango 1,439]

'slowing to a halt' if the driver is actually drunk would prolly CAUSE an accident.

Cars have so much technology in them today that it cost $$$ when summat malfunctions. Imagine if this system broke.

Should be able to turn it off and on like the front airbag on some trucks..and SUV's but with that in mind...

Also part of the system off and on.. is if it's on..it won't start if you fail the blow test before starting your car....Should have a higher fine if you have it off and are drinking Also to cover your typical user/abuser, you can't turn it on after you've started the car, that way when they are pulled over they can't switch it on quickly..

But honestly... Keep the Auto builders out of the States business, All they need to do is get even more agressive with DUI's and repeat offenders.. I remember how it hurt the bar business back in the mid-90's when they final upped the ante' then..

So if you can just turn it off and on, what's the point?

[Chris-n-Veronica 0]

'slowing to a halt' if the driver is actually drunk would prolly CAUSE an accident.

Cars have so much technology in them today that it cost $$$ when summat malfunctions. Imagine if this system broke.

Should be able to turn it off and on like the front airbag on some trucks..and SUV's but with that in mind...

Also part of the system off and on.. is if it's on..it won't start if you fail the blow test before starting your car....Should have a higher fine if you have it off and are drinking Also to cover your typical user/abuser, you can't turn it on after you've started the car, that way when they are pulled over they can't switch it on quickly..

But honestly... Keep the Auto builders out of the States business, All they need to do is get even more agressive with DUI's and repeat offenders.. I remember how it hurt the bar business back in the mid-90's when they final upped the ante' then..

So if you can just turn it off and on, what's the point?

I asked myself the same questions with the airbags that can be turned off.. As I said a better options would let the states handle it..

And the point was...If you had it off and was stopped drinking..The fine would be higher because you set out to Drink and drive...no question about it because you turned it off..

And I guess you could have it as an option from the Dealer.. and you'd have lower Ins. rates but it would be on all the time..

[Fandango 1,439]

'slowing to a halt' if the driver is actually drunk would prolly CAUSE an accident.

Cars have so much technology in them today that it cost $$$ when summat malfunctions. Imagine if this system broke.

Should be able to turn it off and on like the front airbag on some trucks..and SUV's but with that in mind...

Also part of the system off and on.. is if it's on..it won't start if you fail the blow test before starting your car....Should have a higher fine if you have it off and are drinking Also to cover your typical user/abuser, you can't turn it on after you've started the car, that way when they are pulled over they can't switch it on quickly..

But honestly... Keep the Auto builders out of the States business, All they need to do is get even more agressive with DUI's and repeat offenders.. I remember how it hurt the bar business back in the mid-90's when they final upped the ante' then..

So if you can just turn it off and on, what's the point?

I asked myself the same questions with the airbags that can be turned off.. As I said a better options would let the states handle it..

And the point was...If you had it off and was stopped drinking..The fine would be higher because you set out to Drink and drive...no question about it because you turned it off..

And I guess you could have it as an option from the Dealer.. and you'd have lower Ins. rates but it would be on all the time..

But do you see where it's getting hairy? The state would be allowed to mandate personal choice? You shouldn't be fined any higher for not having it on.

This is a no-brainer for me....bad all the way around.

[Chris-n-Veronica 0]

'slowing to a halt' if the driver is actually drunk would prolly CAUSE an accident.

Cars have so much technology in them today that it cost $$$ when summat malfunctions. Imagine if this system broke.

Should be able to turn it off and on like the front airbag on some trucks..and SUV's but with that in mind...

Also part of the system off and on.. is if it's on..it won't start if you fail the blow test before starting your car....Should have a higher fine if you have it off and are drinking Also to cover your typical user/abuser, you can't turn it on after you've started the car, that way when they are pulled over they can't switch it on quickly..

But honestly... Keep the Auto builders out of the States business, All they need to do is get even more agressive with DUI's and repeat offenders.. I remember how it hurt the bar business back in the mid-90's when they final upped the ante' then..

So if you can just turn it off and on, what's the point?

I asked myself the same questions with the airbags that can be turned off.. As I said a better options would let the states handle it..

And the point was...If you had it off and was stopped drinking..The fine would be higher because you set out to Drink and drive...no question about it because you turned it off..

And I guess you could have it as an option from the Dealer.. and you'd have lower Ins. rates but it would be on all the time..

But do you see where it's getting hairy? The state would be allowed to mandate personal choice? You shouldn't be fined any higher for not having it on.

This is a no-brainer for me....bad all the way around.

I agree... It would better to let the states kick it up a notch on the fines and police cruisers on duty during the prime times..

Plus these new cars are getting to point that they are out of price ranges of alot of younger customers.., Just adding this stuff is just driving the cost up..

[mawilson 2,133]

I see lots of lawsuits coming their way if they try to sell this ####### in the U.S.

Not to mention, who would buy such a car? Teetotallers and Muslims?

[Alex+R 0]

I see lots of lawsuits coming their way if they try to sell this ####### in the U.S.

Not to mention, who would buy such a car? Teetotallers and Muslims?

Parents of teenagers I'll bet.

[mawilson 2,133]

I see lots of lawsuits coming their way if they try to sell this ####### in the U.S.

Not to mention, who would buy such a car? Teetotallers and Muslims?

Parents of teenagers I'll bet.

Damn!

[eric&gen 0]

Who ever though of that idea must have been really drunk that night lol.