[trippy_biscuits]

When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on investment. Why can't we do something to prevent self-inflicted suffering? Those people did not need to die. While I don't consume alcohol I don't see why a person that has consumed alcohol should be transformed into a homicidal idiot after getting into the driver's seat. Since we can't seem to limit DUI, perhaps we can we make a car that won't operate when the driver is incapacitated? Although, I would oppose any legislation that forces such technology on everyone. To be sure, this remains a tough problem to solve (1). Rather than working around the problem (removing drivers or reducing the need to drive, limiting/controlling alcohol, etc) how should we address the issue? If we could stop alcohol-impaired driving the United States could save USD$51 billion per year and prevent over 10,000 deaths annually.

1. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...

[aspensmonster]

Well, I'd love to see some tech a la "Ghost in the Shell" that can just break down all the alcohol in the bloodstream on command, or otherwise maintains the euphoria without getting to the point of "I'm going to go drive my car through Red River tonight." When you're ready to go you just activate the tech and poof, you can drive again. And you avoid the hangover too.

But in the meantime, it certainly seems that the best we can do is prevent others from getting behind the wheel at all. Which really only works in an environment of peer pressure, backed up with at least one person that will go beyond words and physically restrain the would-be driver if necessary. Avoiding the bystander effect is difficult enough as it is, but when the person is drunk at home and decides that they want to go get some McDonalds...

[coryrc]

The problem is letting people with DUI back on the roads. The punishments for negligent murder is only a few years; the punishment for just getting caught is often not even jail time, just a short suspension of license. (This guy had 2 DUI arrests already before murdering two people: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020640576_nseattleac... ) The punishments for violating license suspension are minimal. Want to get serious about DUI? Make this the punishment:

1st time: 10 year suspension of driving privileges, monthly random police tailing to make sure you don't drive that day (funded by the violator); if you drive, the rest of your sentence is spent in jail

2nd time: 10 years in jail, permanent driving privileges revoked, monthly police tailing as above.

3rd time: Life in prison

You ever kill or injure someone while DUI: Life in prison

[jcromartie]

Life in prison has got to be one of the worst ways to deal with a criminal. If you think that the danger posed by DUI is worth life in prison, then it should apply to texting/phone use too.

[coryrc]

It is people who knowingly put themselves in a situation where they kill people. It isn't about dealing with them, it's about protecting the rest of us from them. Typical prison may in fact be wrong -- an isolated island without vehicles where they can work and participate in society remotely would be okay for the ones who haven't murdered anyone yet.

[nsmnsf]

I don't know about the jail punishment, but I see no reason that DUI punishment shouldn't be equal to phone/text punishment (and it should certainly be a license suspension of massive length).

[pikachu_is_cool]

What about driverless cars? That'd pretty much solve that problem completely if I'm not horribly mistaken.

[jakobe]

Preventing DUI is a difficult problem. A much easier problem would be to prevent speeding. Put a GPS in every car that prevents the car from driving faster than the speed limit. All the technology exists, and this would doubtlessly save lives, but somehow I doubt anybody would pass the required laws.

[freehunter]

I always wonder why we make cars that can go so fast. Even my car with a 1.4L engine making 100 HP can easily do 100mph, even though there's almost no place in the US where that's legal, and no place in my state where it's legal. The fastest speed limit in my state is 70mph. Why not speed-limit cars to 70mph by default, with an option to disable this limiter in a controlled fashion if the person wants to go out on a racetrack where these speeds are legal?

There are obviously arguments in favor of personal liberty that would make some people uncomfortable with this, but they shouldn't be. No one should be. If the speed limit on the road is 70mph, there is no reason for your car to be doing more than 70mph on the road, period. I don't care that you want to pass a vehicle that is only doing 69mph, you'll either lower your speed or pass them at 1mph (which, at least in my state, is also illegal. To pass someone, they must be doing at least 5mph under the speed limit, and you can't break the speed limit in order to pass someone).

Now, it wouldn't help in this situation, but it's something that's always bothered me. As we make better and better performing entry-level cars, we can't change the laws of physics. 90mph isn't unheard of as a common cruising speed on a road where the minimum speed limit is 45mph. That's just stupid and dangerous.

[wtracy]

I always wonder why we make cars that can go so fast.

If you are actually questioning why car engines have enough power to do that in the first place: An engine capable of hauling a heavy load uphill at the speed limit is capable of exceeding the speed limit on a flat surface. Ditto for an engine capable of accelerating quickly to perform a merge in a short space.

If you are asking why cars don't come with interlocks preventing those kind of speeds: Because they're not required, and they're not a marketable feature.

[freehunter]

I understand more power. What I was trying to get at was "why is it not required to speed limit cars to 70mph". That's common with semi trucks; the trucks at my company are speed limited to 65mph (the semi speed limit here).

[jcromartie]

Speeding is not involved in the majority of fatal accidents.

[freehunter]

Maybe, maybe not (I don't know), but two things come to mind:

1) Speeding is illegal. This is a law that is broken every day by millions. Obviously the law and the punishments aren't working as a deterrent, and the next steps usually involve control rather than deter.

2) Do you know how reaction time and braking time change for every 5mph faster you're going? It might not make you cause an accident, but it sure doesn't help trying to avoid an accident.

[jakobe]

That is a pretty bold statement. Pretty much all fatal accidents I've heard about involved speeding in some way. Now, anecdotes aren't reliable, so do you have some numbers to back up your claim?

[overdrivetg]

"Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding? A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent."

from http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/faq

Q: Is the National Motorists Association a reliable source for this data?

A: I did the 30 seconds of work to go and Google this, go find your own stats if you don't like mine.

[jakobe]

> 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related"

Almost all accidents are "speed related". Very few accidents happen with cars standing still.

[derekp7]

I would love to have a device like that, kind of a reverse cruise control The only times I've gotten speeding tickets is when I was unaware of a drop in the speed limit. Maybe something that combines GPS, plus a dash cam that recognizes road signs (so that it can pick up construction zones, etc).

Only one major problem with this -- many areas are funded in large part by speeding tickets. If it is impossible for a car to speed, what will these areas do for revenue?

[xbonez]

Agreed. My $100 Garmin GPS tells me what the speed limit is, an what speed I'm doing. I've often wondered why this wasn't just built into cars to ensure they throttle lock at the speed limit.

[gre]

That would be extremely dangerous.

[freehunter]

Why? What's the situation where you would need to go faster than the speed limit?

[wtracy]

Passing another vehicle comes to mind.

I'm not sure I would call that "extremely dangerous", though.

[freehunter]

Breaking the speed limit to pass another vehicle is against the law. At least in my state, you can't legally pass unless the other car is going 5mph under the speed limit, and then you can only pass at the speed limit, not over.

[mdemare]

You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device ? It's operational here in nl, about 100 people a week are forced to have one installed.

[trippy_biscuits]

Sure, the device is mentioned in the link I cited. It's a remedy applied after the fact. It limits drunk driving after someone has already demonstrated poor behavior. While I earnestly want a safer world for everyone it must not be like the dystopian Gattaca.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

[ToastyMallows]

I wonder how self-driving cars would impact this situation? Also: what would happen to a self-driving car that went through a sobriety checkpoint with the drunk person as a passenger?

[unethical_ban]

DUI is a problem, and any human loss is painful, especially when avoidable. All that said, I feel like DUI is an overblown problem, in a way. 8 people dead per 1 million estimates incidents of DUI with a max. toll of 10k lives is not insignificant, and human loss is always bad. However, I disagree with your thesis. Curing cancer, raising the standard of living for the poor, and the death toll to obesity are all much more impactful things on society, though DUI is more 'senseless' and painful for victims.

I think limiting the need to drive is the only feasible option.

* You won't stop people from drinking in places where they can't sleep. Drinking at a bar costs 5-6x as much as drinking at someone's home, and yet people are constantly going out to be in a public drinking environment.

* Hopefully, we won't see mandated technology on vehicles requiring alcohol inspections for driving. Privacy, constitutional and technological issues all exist there. Yes, I know the devices exist, but they're clumsy, frustrating, and in the US are only used for people convicted of a 1st time DUI.

Solution: Incentivize people to walk or taxi home, or have a designated driver.

* By far the biggest immediate change that could be made: Make taxi services as cheap as possible. Stop limiting competition like Uber and the pedbikes in Austin from competition; while there are public safety concerns regarding drivers, I think the economic and safety benefits outweigh the risks. Cheap, responsive drivers = less drunk driving, period. ESPECIALLY in places like Texas, or most of the US, where public transit isn't ubiquitous.

* Allow mixed development and stop making suburban islands. If the hip bars are a three block walk from the houses and apartment complexes, fewer people will need to drive. Or, if you're making a suburban neighborhood, build the bar/drug store/grocer right into the town!

* The following thing is a dangerous and controversial thing to say, because it might imply that DUI is "okay": If you're going to drive after drinking, be honest with yourself. Don't say "I'm totally fine to drive". When you're exhausted on a trip, you don't just say you're fine and keep driving. You either pull over and sleep (get a cab) or you recognize your state and roll down the windows, turn on the radio, splash some water on your face, get a Red Bull, etc. If you are inebriated, say "I am drunk, don't speed, check my mirrors, watch out at all the intersections." That is a big cause of accidents, I'd be willing to bet. Whenever you see government propaganda about the dangers of DUI, it's the couple stumbling to the car, kissing each other, and not paying attention to driving. It's not good to drive when your body is impaired in ANY way, but the big problem is not recognizing your impaired state and focusing on the road.

---

Postscript: DUI checkpoints are shit, and I don't care what the Supreme Court says. It's an invitation for the police to create probable cause and search your entire self and vehicle, your insurance, and if you piss them off, your cell phone. Even if you're sober, avoid them/fight them whenever possible.

[jvagner]

"All that said, I feel like DUI is an overblown problem, in a way."

Drinking and alcohol, and their impacts on our society.. and family.. and work, are not overblown. It's completely underestimated. Those who are dealing with the direct impacts of addiction and abuse in their families feel like they're in a bubble, and yet it's absolutely everywhere.

Everyone knows an alcoholic, and drinking&driving&death is only a very small data point in a massive societal issue.

[malandrew]

The leading cause of death for people under 35 are automobile accidents. About 1/3 of automobile accidents involve alcohol. With those two figures, I'd say it's pretty likely that it's not an overblown problem.