Toyota saves us from ourselves! Parker probably doesn't drive one.

I just read under a cutesy headline in the paper how Toyota now has steering wheels fitted with transducers that will shut off your car if they detect alcohol. What if you were checking the lines on your New Mexico ranch after dinner? The arrogant presumptuous jerks. They can kiss my butt rather than sense it. I bought my last Toyota anyway after they decided (with full USA market acquiescence) that I couldn’t decide what level of traction I needed.

Americans are no longer expected to make any decisions for themselves or take any responsibility for their lives. It’s not even their right anymore, and hardly anybody born less than 40 years ago even notices. As far as I am concerned, America died 40 years ago and went to hell.

I know that this sounds like a rant, but it isn’t. My tone is thanksgiving, seriously. I thank my lucky stars that I witnessed the end of freedom; otherwise I wouldn’t have recognized that I once had it. Freedom – real freedom, is a beautiful thing, – and I’m not so cognitively impaired that I can’t remember it perfectly…and fondly reminisce about it with a glass of wine from a time when vintners were free to make a wine how they liked it, rather than how Parker decides it should be for the clueless minions. He’s a true American ball buster from when America existed. HE decides. Young folks now can only read about freedom, when and if the concept ever comes to mind.

If this is an option, I have no problem with it, why would anyone want it though? I could see wanting a detector, esp if you are a social drinker & don't know if the 3rd beer put you over the limit. Disabling the car is admiting to the world that you are a mental toddler who probably should not drink anyway.

Ahhh...Freedom. The freedom to swing one's fist ends at someone else's nose. What happened 40 years ago? Civil Rights Act? Vietnam? School prayer banned? Hot coffee at McDonalds? Love Canal? Mandatory seat belts? If I was in the car rental business and could save a ton of money on insurance by having a fleet of such Toyotas, I'd probably buy them.

I just read a couple of articles re this. Actually it seems Toyota has put a fair amount into this technology based on recent drunk driving events in Japan, so references to America aren't particularly pertinent.

I actually argued against alcohol interdiction devices (such as currently mandated for some convicted drunk drivers) when Jim Cowan said they should be on every auto a few months ago. I didn't think that someone should need a designated driver to have 2 glasses of wine with a long dinner. But reading these articles, it's clear that they have worked on a technology that stops those with excessive alcohol from driving. And that's A-OK with me. I don't think society has an obligation to provide the "freedom" to kill and maim others.

I think these devices as standard equipment are a great idea. With modern technology I'd even make them 2- mode. They could be set for zero tolerance (many parents of teens would welcome that freedom of mind) or maybe .06% for standard mode. Adults over 21 would have a code to set their vehicle for the higher (yet still legal) level.

My two cents:

True freedom is freedom of choice and, at the same time, freedom from the consequences of others' choices.

Covert, one of the most hated things for me in cars back in the '90s (hated when shopping for a car, that is) was those idiotic two-part motorized seatbelts. That was the icing on the cake of idiocy for me - how lazy can someone be not to make one arm movement and clip on a regular seatbelt that they need the darn thing to do it for them? Pardon my ire, but I swear one day they are going to have automatic wipers installed in public toilets, if you know what I mean ...

Covert,

Once again, Toyota is ahead of the American auto makers. This time Toyota has responded to pressure that all auto makers will have to respond to sooner or later. Those ignition alcohol meters are a thing of the future and you can thank organizations like MADD, CSPI, etc., but don't blame the auto industry.

I'll just add that of course the goal is noble - to prevent impaired drivers from driving and killing or maiming people. That is of course correct and proper - it's the means that I have a problem with.

My personal policy is to abstain completely if I am to drive anywhere. I have no way of measuring BA and so I take the extreme but sure route and simply don't have anything if I have to drive. But it takes self-discipline ... why is that such an avoided value in our common culture these days?

True freedom is freedom of choice and, at the same time, freedom from the consequences of others' choices.

Brilliantly stated! I think they should give up on alcohol detection altogether and simply find a way to test if the driver can thread a 35mm projector or a reel to reel tape machine. That would easily separate those who can and those who shouldn't drive, at least in the area of coordination. Plus, in the time it takes to set up the test, they'd be sober anyway.

Manually eyeing a needle with thread is the real test!

Manually eyeing a needle with thread is the real test!

I can't do that even when I'm sober.

As an aside, except in major cities, I have never seen a bar without a parking lot!

As an aside, except in major cities, I have never seen a bar without a parking lot!

I've always wondered why cops don't wait across the street from bars and nab people as they drive off.

[David M. Bueker]

Those few who are truly irresponsible will eventually ruin everything in life for the rest of us. Fanatics and idiots are slowly taking away all of our freedoms.

I for one would never drive a car with sucha device. If they become standard in new autos I will buy used cars for the rest of my life. It's my job when I drink to drink responsibly. It's not Toyota or Ford's job to check up on me. Realize that the first time someone manages to drive one of those cars while seriously impaired (and you know someone will) that an auto maker will get sued into the stone age. And it won't have been their fault.

People must take responsibility for their own lives!!

'I've always wondered why cops don't wait across the street from bars and nab people as they drive off."

Harry, Mahwah has something called "Cop in the Shop". Last week they arrested a 22 year old for buying wine in the shop, and handing it over to an 18 year old in the parking lot.

At least, according to the Police Blotter in the local paper here in Franklin Lakes.

Regards, Bob

'I've always wondered why cops don't wait across the street from bars and nab people as they drive off."

Harry, Mahwah has something called "Cop in the Shop". Last week they arrested a 22 year old for buying wine in the shop, and handing it over to an 18 year old in the parking lot.

At least, according to the Police Blotter in the local paper here in Franklin Lakes.

Regards, Bob

How times have changed in New Jersey, Bob. I went to St. Peter's Prep. On Friday afternoons after school, we'd hop onto the tubes and head for Cooper Union where in a number of liquor stores of the area the only age verification required was the ability to reach the counter top with a fistful of dollars. What was the N.Y. drinking age back in the 60's, 17 or 18? In any event, I didn't like to drink, but it was titillating indeed for a somewhat misguided 14 year-old to score a gallon bottle of Turnpike scotch or a six-pack or two of Schlitz. I guess the statute of limitations has expired on those crimes?

I would love the device because it might keep my wife from BEEAChing at me .

People must take responsibility for their own lives!!

I totally agree. An excessively litigious society speaks of a certain mass-immaturity of some kind. I really think that thinking for oneself and learning to plan wisely for things are qualities that the education system should be instilling in youngsters - it's a matter of character formation. Thing is, if the "it's not my fault" syndrome starts at an early age and continues into adulthood, we get what we see now.

So David , you would refuse to buy a car that wouldn't let one drive drunk? Because it's your responsibility to make that decision? Unless you're driving on a closed track in your backyard, your choices impact others' lives. I'm a pretty big advocate of personal responsibility. But the idea that only the individual can decide whether oneself is capable of driving seems to lead to taking responsibility only after one have been arrested- or killed or maimed others.

It's a pretty big jump to say that a vehicle that won't let someone drive with excessive alcohol limits (beyond BAC levels in sweat the other methodolgy was eyes that wouldn't focus) is a serious encroachment on civil rights. One opponent of BAC devices on this thread has previously written blithely about near-accidents after consuming a lot of wine and then driving. He claimed an ability to drive well even after a lot of consumption; I've seen that person at an offline and I'd be terrified to know he was driving in my neighborhood if my wife or son were out on the road.

As I stated earlier, I argued against interdiction ignition devices that wouldn't start a car with any alcohol present. But the Toyota initiative seems to be based on stopping drivers with excessive drinking. If someone showed evidence that the technology was so defective that it gave false positives in a large percentage of cases, that might be a valid argument for opposition. But if the system is reasonably accurate, I can't see a societal argument against that as a standard.

[David M. Bueker]

Dale,

Yes I would, but you take my point too far. My job as a human being is to learn and live responsibly. I have done tests with breathalyzers to understand how much I can have over a period of time and be legal, and it turns out I am uncomfortable driving (as in won't) at that level. So I have a built-in "safety zone." I'm sure others have different tolerances, but that's me.

As for the accuracy argument...I've spent to much time in an industry dedicated to getting things exactly right every time to believe that it's possible. Once someone defeats the in-car system we will all be in a world of hurt.

[quote="Dale Williams"] I don't think society has an obligation to provide the "freedom" to kill and maim others. [quote]

That's what I thought before our president did a tattoo on a few thousand Americans in the name of his personal concept of freedom. Now I figure in the name of my freedom, however I see it, I can take a very long shot chance of hurting somebody else. If I do, I should certainly pay for it.

Last night I drove to a bar after consuming enough to get myself in trouble with the law and felt liberated. Haven't done it in a while.

Oh Well!!!! I bet they will not let you smoke in the car as well!!!!

I do agree that to the extent possible and reasonable, technology should be employed to help prevent drivers who have had too much to drink from harming others. Where I think it goes over the line is where you attempt to prohibit or regulate activities that do not have a serious potential to harm others.

Seemingly there is a segment of our society that does not understand or agree with the distinction I made above. Smoking was only the beginning. It has now moved into trans-fats. Drinking, wine included is next.... don't doubt it for an instant. I doubt they will be satisfied until people are thrown in jail for carrying a few extra pounds around and there are fines for missing one's daily required workout.

Glenn

Well, I'm sure to get flamed for this, but driving is a privilege, not a freedom. You must pass a test to prove you should be allowed to drive in order to get a licence. And though I'm Canadian, I don't recall freedom to drive being in the American constitution.

Less so is it a "freedom" to drink and drive.

Glenn, I agree that the anti-smoking, anti-fat, anti-etc, lobby is going too far. But there's a big difference. What I do to myself is my own business. That's my freedom. I do not, however, have a freedom to act in a way that endangers others.

Drunk driving puts others at risk. Period. Full stop. And we, as a society, are entitled to take actions to prevent it and protect ourselves.

I will agree that knowing your limits is a personal responsibility. But let's face it, there are a lot of irresponsible people out there.

Last night I drove to a bar after consuming enough to get myself in trouble with the law and felt liberated. Haven't done it in a while.

Covert, please tell me you didn't just admit to driving drunk. If so, you've only proved my point.

I doubt they will be satisfied until people are thrown in jail for carrying a few extra pounds around and there are fines for missing one's daily required workout.

Yes, it's so obvious here in America that the "they" are studiously enforcing all the fat edicts. All you have to do is look around at your fellow citizens (and in a mirror, perhaps; no perhaps in my case) to see how efficiently that is working. It is a terrible thing, living in such a repressive society, isn't it?

Now, you'll have to exuse me. I have to run down to my local McDonalds (the one on this block, not the next one) for my hit of transfats while I can still get them on the local market. Guess I'll have to make a connection in the future for that.