How to deal with drunk drivers and technology that would assit.

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,848
Location
NYC
One wish.... That drunk driving offenses be treated with actual seriousness in America.
 

Hooked on Fenix

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
3,076
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

One wish.... That drunk driving offenses be treated with actual seriousness in America.

That's a tough one. In many areas, drunk driving is taken seriously, but only after the crash when someone is injured or killed. Then, of course, you do have lawyers that try to help them weasel out of a long, well deserved sentence. The issue is that to deal with this problem effectively, you almost have to get police to make arrests before a serious crime is committed. I mean, if you get police to set up checkpoints to look for drunk drivers, at best the drunk will spend the night in jail and be released the next day to get drunk and drive again. Without an accident, it usually isn't considered enough of a crime to take away their driver's liscense or lock them up for long. There need to be stiffer penalties for those caught driving drunk, even before an accident takes place. Liscenses should be suspended immediately after you are found drunk when tested at a checkpoint (blood, breath, or urine test). Your court case should determine the time for the liscence suspension (the drug test already confirmed your guilt). Mandatory AA meetings and rehabilitation should be required to get your liscense back, as well as having a D.U.I. on your record for a long time to drive up the cost of your insurance for a long time. Mandatory collision coverage should be required for life after a D.U.I. if you chose to keep driving (no need to burden those who no longer bother keeping their driver's liscense). The system doesn't work well for drunk driving currently. The issue is that when you are arrested, and nobody dies they can only put you in jail for 24 hours. Then you're released under bail until your court date. You have to be convicted in court of a crime before you can lose your liscence or go to jail. If you killed someone in an accident, they keep you in jail for 72 hours. Then you make bail and wait for your court date. In both cases, there is a time lag between getting caught and getting convicted to where a drunk driver could possibly repeat the offense and hurt someone else. Without undermining our justice system and going to some Orwellian pre-crime system, I think this needs to mostly be taken care of socially. You could have a percentage of alcohol profits taxed to run ads showing the consequences of drunk driving and how uncool drinking really is. If you can alter the perception of drinking as a cool thing to do, you can reduce drinking altogether. You could ask your local churches, clubs, or other associations you belong to to start a volunteer designated driving program for your local bars and restaurants (make sure you volunteer if you want things to change). That's about all I can think of that would actually help. I'd rather this problem be taken care of mostly on a social rather than government level so the solution doesn't end up worse than the problem.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,848
Location
NYC
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

Unfortunately, that's very true. Especially the part about how it's taken seriously only when someone is killed or seriously injured by one. If that doesn't happen, the general attitude is "No harm, No foul."

Often, if we're fortunate enough to have a police officer pull over the repeat offender (and that's who is usually behind the wheel) all he gets is treated with kid gloves. Put in the drunk tank for a few hours, until he sobers up. And then.... Often just a fine, at worst.

If someone got drunk, pulled out a gun, and fired off even one shot in public.... Yeah, he'd be treated very differently than just (basically) be given a few hours to sleep it off in jail. And he sure wouldn't be let out with a tiny little fine. And oh!! Could you just image what the legal consequences would be if he routinely pulled that sort of thing on a nightly or even semi-nightly basis?? Yeah, he'd get a helluva lot more than just a slap on that wrist.

Let's see.... One fired off a .45 ACP bullet that weighs 230g. and travels at just under 900 Feet Per Second. The other one is "firing off" a 2-ton projectile traveling at 65 Miles Per Hour (and often even faster than that).

Whose the bigger threat? Seems rather blatantly obvious to me. For some insanely bizarre reason, many in America can't see it.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
10,208
Location
Pacific N.W.
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

[h=2]Washington State DUI Offense[/h]
[h=3]1st Drunk Driving Conviction[/h]
  • Jail – From 24 Hours to 1 Year, or Electronic Home Monitoring - 15 Days
  • Jail – From 2 Days to 1 Year (Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above) or, Electronic Home Monitoring - 30 Days
  • Fine – From $865.50 Minimum to $5,000
  • Fine – From $1,120.50 Minimum to $5,000 (Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above)
  • License Suspension – 90 Days
  • License Suspension – 1 Year (Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above)
  • Ignition Interlock Device and License Required
  • Ignition Interlock Device – Add 60 Days if Passenger under 16 in Vehicle
  • Washington SR22 Insurance Required
  • Alcohol / Drug Education – Possible
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

One wish.... That drunk driving offenses be treated with actual seriousness in America.
Drunk driving should result in a lifetime license revocation after the first offense. Same thing if a driver kills or seriously injures someone through recklessness, negligence, or incompetence. And in both cases, if you're caught driving without a license, the car gets confiscated and auctioned off.

The problem is we view driving here in the US as practically a birthright. We're loathe to revoke driving privileges even when the person repeatedly demonstrates disregard for human life.

Let's see.... One fired off a .45 ACP bullet that weighs 230g. and travels at just under 900 Feet Per Second. The other one is "firing off" a 2-ton projectile traveling at 65 Miles Per Hour (and often even faster than that).

Whose the bigger threat? Seems rather blatantly obvious to me. For some insanely bizarre reason, many in America can't see it.

I don't get that myself. Driving is a privilege which should be a lot harder to obtain in the first place, and a lot easier to lose if you screw up. Yes, the end result of not being allowed to drive is going to be inconvenient in many parts of the country, but I tend to think that might give people an incentive to not lose their license in the first place by taking the driving task a lot more seriously.

All that said, within probably 20 years at most self-driving cars will render all of this moot.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,848
Location
NYC
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

Washington State DUI Offense


1st Drunk Driving Conviction


  • Jail – From 24 Hours to 1 Year, or Electronic Home Monitoring - 15 Days
  • Jail – From 2 Days to 1 Year (Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above) or, Electronic Home Monitoring - 30 Days
  • Fine – From $865.50 Minimum to $5,000
  • Fine – From $1,120.50 Minimum to $5,000 (Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above)
  • License Suspension – 90 Days
  • License Suspension – 1 Year (Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above)
  • Ignition Interlock Device and License Required
  • Ignition Interlock Device – Add 60 Days if Passenger under 16 in Vehicle
  • Washington SR22 Insurance Required
  • Alcohol / Drug Education – Possible

Like I said.... Minor.

Honestly, how realistic is it that a first offender will get a year, or that he won't plea down to a lesser charge.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,848
Location
NYC
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

Drunk driving should result in a lifetime license revocation after the first offense. Same thing if a driver kills or seriously injures someone through recklessness, negligence, or incompetence. And in both cases, if you're caught driving without a license, the car gets confiscated and auctioned off.

I'm sure you remember not too long ago, just as I do, when a certain mayor of ours' would confiscate the cars of drunk drivers.... And not give them back. A great idea.

Unfortunately the lawyers argued it violated their client's right to "due process." And unfortunately our mayor at the time decided not to use the full weight of the city's resources to keep those miserable drunks off the road.

The problem is we view driving here in the US as practically a birthright. We're loathe to revoke driving privileges even when the person repeatedly demonstrates disregard for human life.

Yup. Responsible drivers would never need to worry about losing their licenses or cars.


I don't get that myself. Driving is a privilege which should be a lot harder to obtain in the first place, and a lot easier to lose if you screw up. Yes, the end result of not being allowed to drive is going to be inconvenient in many parts of the country, but I tend to think that might give people an incentive to not lose their license in the first place by taking the driving task a lot more seriously.

It's even easy to keep. Just once every 8 years before your license is due to expire.... Come on in, when the DMV opens, wait about 20 minutes or less, deal with a worker who has no soul, take a B.S. little eye-exam by reading one line from a couple of feet away, pay the fee, get temporary license, and then wait for new one in the mail.

Driving test? Nope! Not even a multiple choice exam to show you still remember how to drive properly. Not even that much! Just be sure to come in right before your 8 year-old license is set to expire and you get a new one that's good for another almost decade. It's honestly pathetic.

All that said, within probably 20 years at most self-driving cars will render all of this moot.

Sorry, not happening. We were promised flying cars in the 1950s. Also, why punish good drivers? Let the drunks get those vehicles.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

They can have the key to my sports sedan when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers. :p
As someone who takes pride in my cycling abilities I can see where you're coming from here. You know you can drive competently and will rightfully resent that being taken away. I'm wondering now if there are any ways to balance your desires with the need (and yes, it is a need) to get the majority of people who couldn't drive if their life depended upon it into autonomous cars. Perhaps a much harder licensing procedure which the vast majority can't pass even with practice might be an answer here. Autonomous cars can certainly be programmed to deal with a very small percentage of human-controlled cars on the road. Heck, they need to be anyway because you're always going to have pedestrians and cyclists on streets. Both of those groups are far more unpredictable than a car driven by a competent driver. Anyway, this is something to think about. I wholeheartedly support the changeover to autonomous cars for a bunch of reasons but it might be nice if there was a safe way to balance the desires of the small minority who might wish to continue driving (that probably includes my brother as well) with the need to get most other people into autonomous cars.
 

StarHalo

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
10,927
Location
California Republic
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

Gotta weigh the two possibilities; picture yourself driving a fine sporty car, and there's somebody taking their time moving their car from blocking your way out, and then later some guy runs a red light through a mostly empty intersection, later somebody cuts you off, then you see people gathered around a fallen motorcyclist in the road, then you carefully avoid the drunk driver who can almost hold his lane, and you arrive at work after having been through all this. Nothing unrealistic about that commute, you've been through days like that before.

Now picture yourself getting into a nondescript public transport-looking car, and you're basically just moving from your breakfast table to the car, still have the coffee, still browsing the internet. You respond to an email from a younger member of your family, trying to explain what "rage driving" was back when people drove, but you're not sure they're understanding the concept. You do some last minute paper organizing in your work bag, do a little seat-stretching and relaxation, and you arrive at work.

Now which morning commute would you prefer?
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

Now which morning commute would you prefer?
I would obviously prefer the self-driving car and I bet 99% of people would as well. I'll grant that some people find the task of driving enjoyable, but I'll bet good money nobody enjoys driving under typical commuting conditions with all the issues you mentioned. Still, Monocrom raised an interesting issue. There will be a minority who would oppose mandatory self-driving cars. I'm wondering if there's any safe, reasonable way to accommodate them, or if they'll just have to practice their driving skills on closed circuit courses rather than public roads.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,848
Location
NYC
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

I would obviously prefer the self-driving car and I bet 99% of people would as well. I'll grant that some people find the task of driving enjoyable, but I'll bet good money nobody enjoys driving under typical commuting conditions with all the issues you mentioned. Still, Monocrom raised an interesting issue. There will be a minority who would oppose mandatory self-driving cars. I'm wondering if there's any safe, reasonable way to accommodate them, or if they'll just have to practice their driving skills on closed circuit courses rather than public roads.

I'm sorry, but that 99% number is way too high. Many of us don't live in London where the driving rules & regulations are ridiculously, needlessly, complicated. (If anyone thinks England hates firearms.... That's nothing compared to the attitude towards cars.) Driving is actually a very simple thing to do. It really is. I waited quite a few years before I learned to drive. If I had a dollar for every time back then when someone said to me, "Hey, if I can learn how to drive; anyone can." Well, I'd have enough for a nice Platinum Rolex Daytona.

And the thing is, they were right. They were absolutely right. Even though there's a driving manual, the number of Hard & Fast rules that need to be memorized and followed on a daily basis behind the car is less than a handful. Don't park next to a hydrant, driveway, or yellow curb. If you get to an intersection without a stop sign anywhere, the driver on the right has the right of way.

That right there covers half of the rules one needs to memorize. Driving safely is just not that hard. It really isn't.

Other than for repeat drunk drivers who should be forced to ride around in driver-less cars, or face mandatory, serious, criminal charges; the concept of driver-less cars simply becomes an exercise in extreme human laziness. Once again, no need to punish safe drivers. They're not the problem. There's also a couple of hidden issues as well.

If everyone is forced to get driver-less cars, even good drivers, who is going to pay for each one? The safe driver? Should he be forced to spend his hard-earned money to buy something that he honestly doesn't need or want? Especially if he's not a high-ranking executive in a major corporation. Realistically, brand new technology is never cheap. Nowadays you can get a quartz watch from Wal-Mart for $11, and it'll be just as good as a standard quartz model costing $400 from a so-called luxury brand. Back in the 1970's when quartz watches were new, when the technology was new, you sure as Hell couldn't get a good quartz watch for $11. You paid out the wazzoo for a new-fangled quartz watch. Well, same thing with the new technology behind driver-less cars. I know I don't have a spare $60K lying around. And that's probably a conservative estimate on the cost of producing each driver-less unit. When the Toyota Prius first came out, it cost $10K more to make than what Toyota was selling them for. But Toyota knew that if the cars were priced accordingly.... No one would bother buying them. Why buy a compact Hybrid literally costing as much as a mid-sized luxury car when for at least $10K less, you could buy a VW Jetta with a diesel engine and practically the same increased miles per gallon as the Hybrid?

Going to feel guilty about the environment if you get the VW?.... Volunteer at the local branch of an organization that plants trees and cleans up vacant yards so they can be re-used as community gardens. Put that $10K in your pocket or donate some of it to a good cause.

So, in order to generate tons of positive press for the brand and ensure that folks would realistically consider a Prius model; Toyota started selling them at a loss. Considering how long the economy has been in the toilet, it's just unrealistic to expect driver-less cars becoming the norm on a large scale anytime soon.

Then there are congestion issues. Why would any big city go along with the concept of MORE cars clogging up the streets instead of putting a few more manned buses on the roads? All of a sudden, a certain percentage of the population that would normally take the bus, would now hop into their driver-less cars. The elderly, the disabled, young children driven automatically to school; alone.... Not only is traffic congestion going to go through the roof because that percentage of the population didn't "drive" cars, but the city is going to lose a ton of revenue because less folks are now taking the bus.

Safety considerations as well.... What do you do if your driver-less car malfunctions? If you're lucky, you just get stranded on the side of the road. That's if you're lucky.

Economic considerations, implementation, and safety issues all combine to make sure it'll be a long time before we see driver-less cars being adopted on a wide scale. Though on a small scale, namely for repeat drunk drivers, and *disabled veterans who otherwise wouldn't be able to get around on their own; a driver-less car would be an excellent idea.

*(My apologies to all veterans for including them in the same sentence as those drunk drivers.)
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
Re: Non-traditional wishes for the New Year

I'm sorry, but that 99% number is way too high.
The 99% number is the number I feel would prefer driverless cars over the alternative of driving themselves with typical rush hour traffic problems, not the number I feel can't safely drive. As far as the number of people who can't safely drive, it's not 99% but I'll bet it's more than 50%.

That right there covers half of the rules one needs to memorize. Driving safely is just not that hard. It really isn't.
Piloting an automobile at relatively low speeds on an empty road under decent conditions isn't that hard. The problem is 99% of the driving task involves dealing with other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. It also sometimes involves driving in less than ideal conditions. Collisions occur precisely because of a combination of poor driving skills, poor attitude, or just plain lack of reflexes. I can draw a great analogy here with cycling. Moving around on a bike is really easy, so easy in fact we let young children do it. Becoming a competent cyclist who can ride safely all of the time isn't easy. It took me about a decade of riding on public streets before I reached the point where I could anticipate and avoid many of the common things which cause cyclists to crash. Over that first decade I went from crashing several times a year to once a year to hardly at all. I haven't fallen off the bike or crashed since 1996. Fortunately because a person on a bike typically only hurts themselves when they screw up I didn't cause injury or death to anyone else. That's the problem. Undoubtedly anyone who really wants to learn to become a better driver does in fact become a better driver with practice. In the course of becoming a better driver they may have a few mishaps which involve other people. The vast of majority of people nowadays sad to say have zero interest in becoming competent drivers. In fact, as evidenced by the propensity to drive while texting or talking, they apparently don't have much interest in the driving task at all. It's for this group which self-driving cars are tailor-made. It's also for the group who may have been competent once, but have had their reflexes dulled by age or illness.

Other than for repeat drunk drivers who should be forced to ride around in driver-less cars, or face mandatory, serious, criminal charges; the concept of driver-less cars simply becomes an exercise in extreme human laziness. Once again, no need to punish safe drivers. They're not the problem.
And suppose we could find a way to allow those who can demonstrate their driving ability via a much harder driving test to continue to drive? Would you then object so vehemently to the driverless cars which I'm sure the masses would embrace? Sure, it's yet another exercise in extreme human laziness automating yet another task, but given that 35,000+ people die and several million are injured each year on the roads in the US alone, at least here there is a positive tradeoff. I can't say the same about many other tasks which have been automated.

There's also a couple of hidden issues as well. If everyone is forced to get driver-less cars, even good drivers, who is going to pay for each one? The safe driver? Should he be forced to spend his hard-earned money to buy something that he honestly doesn't need or want?
Yes, cost of driverless cars will be an issue for a while but consider that they change the entire paradigm of car ownership. It will no longer make much sense for most people to own their own car when there are fleets of driverless cars on call. That could mean most people have much lower transportation expenses than now. And the fleets will certainly more than make their money back on driverless cars via fares. Assuming there's a way to continue to allow people like you to drive, manually-driven models will continue to be available. My guess is what might happen is insurance rates for manually-driven cars will go through the roof, and that will be the one thing which drives people towards self-driven cars. Anyway, it's really hard for either of us to predict exactly what will happen. I agree driverless cars will cost more, at least for a while, but the question is how much more, and will they save more in terms of reducing carnage than they cost?

Then there are congestion issues. Why would any big city go along with the concept of MORE cars clogging up the streets instead of putting a few more manned buses on the roads? All of a sudden, a certain percentage of the population that would normally take the bus, would now hop into their driver-less cars. The elderly, the disabled, young children driven automatically to school; alone.... Not only is traffic congestion going to go through the roof because that percentage of the population didn't "drive" cars, but the city is going to lose a ton of revenue because less folks are now taking the bus.
That's a very valid point. I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I feel driverless cars will drastically reduce the rates of car ownership, especially in a place like NYC where many people only use their cars on weekends. It will make more sense to just call a for-hire driverless car when you need it. That will radically reduce the need for parking. As far as people taking driverless for-hire cars instead of the bus, I tend to think the fares for driverless cars will be somewhat higher than bus fares, so most people will continue to take the bus. Nevertheless, it would be a concern if driverless cars resulted in many people who take the bus switching to cars. NYC just doesn't have the street space for that. We might then have to limit for hire driverless car services. I honestly feel driverless cars will be far more beneficial to suburban or rural areas than large cities. NYC can of course have driverless buses. That could be a great thing in that it'll stretch our transit dollars a lot further.

Safety considerations as well.... What do you do if your driver-less car malfunctions? If you're lucky, you just get stranded on the side of the road. That's if you're lucky.
Remember that driverless cars will need to be programmed to deal with unpredictable road users like cyclists or pedestrians. If a driverless car malfunctions, the vehicles in close proximity to it should be able to avoid a collision. That's one reason why I feel one of the touted advantages of driverless cars-namely the ability to follow inches away, may never be realized in practice except maybe on expressways. You still need to maintain safe following distances in case of a malfunction of some sort.
 

StarHalo

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
10,927
Location
California Republic
- By the time the complete driverless car arrives, the technology in it will be very common and slightly dated; you will be carrying more computing power on your person than will be in the car. That means it'll be cheap; now remove the cost of all the driver-input hardware from a car, and replace it with this basic, cheap computer hardware, and the result could be cheaper than the standard driver's car.

- Those who are accustomed to driverless cars will see them as the simple form of transportation, and driver's cars will be regarded as needlessly complicated. Having to operate levers and pedals just to get across town? How crude..

- Automated cars don't need stoplights or external traffic controls; since all cars are networked with and aware of all other cars, intersections are coordinated circuits of cars rolling through at a steady pace, only requiring actual stopping at the most extreme examples of traffic density. A typical intersection with some traffic would be experienced as the car slowing gradually well ahead of the crossing, then rolling through without slowing immediately behind another car that just crossed, then accelerating again. Most riders won't notice that there was an intersection.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FlashKat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
2,364
Location
Anaheim, CA.
Monocrom is correct where I also would prefer to drive my own car. Living in the U.S.A is part of living the dream driving freely on the open roads doing what you want to do.
If people want driverless cars, then round them up like cattle and put them on a train to their destination.
Drunk drivers need to walk or take public transportation if they want to be irresponsible.
 

mcnair55

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
4,448
Location
North Wales UK
One wish.... That drunk driving offenses be treated with actual seriousness in America.


Do you still do those stupid tests walking in a line etc.UK system is breath test at roadside,fail means arrest and another test at station which is used for the prosecution.Kiss goodbye to your licence for minimum 12 months and a possible fine and insurance goes up sky high once you get your licence back.

It is not unusual in the UK for drivers of company vehicles to perform a breath test on arriving at work before they leave the work depot.
 

Capolini

Banned
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
5,945
Location
Valley Forge, Pa.
I know it "MAY BE" a bit different,but what about the sober[maybe not?!] idiots texting/talking on the phone?

Friday night I see a car. I activate strobe and point it to the ground as always,,,,,,I do this for about 7 seconds,,,,,The driver is now about 100ft. from me and still heading towards me,,,,,,,,I blast them in the face with my TK75 when they are 30ft. from me and I see a woman talking on the phone!!That was what it took for her to wake up and pay attention! It pisses me off!! Hey, she could very well have been drinking also!

These are country roads, some dirt roads where I may see 0 to 5 cars in 70 minutes. They are also very narrow, hilly and curvy.

I have walked Capo thousands of miles at night with very powerful and capable torches to alert people,,,,,,,,,,yet when they are doing these things it is like they are BLIND!!
 

StarHalo

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
10,927
Location
California Republic
I also would prefer to drive my own car. Living in the U.S.A is part of living the dream driving freely on the open roads doing what you want to do.

Right, but the catch there is that if you give people the freedom to not have to drive themselves, they'll take that over mere driving any day. Aside from that, people are very interested in how safe a car is and its safety features - the fully autonomous car will have 90% fewer accidents than current drivers cars (as only ~10% of current accidents are due to mechanical failure), so will be in a completely different class of safety -- drivers cars will be considered an unsafe choice, akin to motorcycles.
 
Top