When failure to police yourself against crimes you haven't committed becomes a crime

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this would be unveiled on the same day that a college dean was charged with a felony for failure to police student drinking, but MADD is postively crowing about Nissan's new car design, which they clearly link to their much-touted "Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving":

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. has revealed a new concept car featuring multiple preventative features designed to help reduce drunk driving. Presently integrated on-board a production model Fuga sedan, the various technologies are designed to detect the driver's state of sobriety and to activate a range of preventive measures including immobilization of the vehicle.

Alcohol Odor Sensors

1. A hi-sensitivity alcohol odor sensor is built into the transmission shift knob, which is able to detect the presence of alcohol in the perspiration of the driver's palm as he or she attempts to start driving. When the alcohol-level detected is above the pre-determined threshold, the system automatically locks the transmission, immobilizing the car. A "drunk driving" voice alert is also issued via the car navigation system.
2. Additional alcohol odor sensors are also incorporated into the driver's and passenger seats to detect the presence of alcohol in the air inside the vehicle cabin. When alcohol is detected, the system issues both a voice alert and a message alert on the navigation system monitor.

Passenger seats? Even assuming that I wanted my car to police my drinking, why would I want the passengers policed? Is the goal here to discourage designated drivers from driving people who are too drunk to drive? You'd think MADD would want to encourage sober designated drivers. Or is that just another step in the "process"?

"Sorry, but this is an alcohol free car! You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Besides, I get a lower insurance rate!"

There's a lot more in Nissan's description (which includes a "Facial Recognition System "to monitor the driver's state of consciousness through the blinking of the eyes," and a general Driving Behavior monitor:

By constantly monitoring the operational behavior of the vehicle (e.g. sensing if the vehicle is veering out of its driving lane), the system can identify signs of inattentiveness or distraction in the driver. When the system detects such behavior, voice and message alerts are issued via the navigation system. The seat-belt alert mechanism is also activated, tightening around the driver to gain immediate attention.
And you thought your dishwasher was acting like a fascist control freak!

Sigh.

I guess if people want to buy these things, they can. What I'm worried about is the long-term, Orwellian goal of making mandatory. Last November the New York Times reported that this was precisely MADD's goal:

Many states already require the devices, known as ignition interlocks, for people who have been convicted several times. Last year New Mexico became the first to make them mandatory after a first offense. With that tactic and others, the state saw an 11.3 percent drop in alcohol-related fatalities last year. Officials say interlocks for first offenders are not a panacea but will reduce repeat offenses. They say the next step will be a program to develop devices to unobtrusively test every driver for alcohol and disable the vehicle. Statistics show that about 13,000 people die each year in car crashes in which a driver was legally drunk."
MADD is making no secret of it at their web site:
"The Campaign calls for... exploration and development of emerging technologies that will one day make it impossible for a vehicle to be driven by someone who is drunk and public support for all of these efforts."
Eliminating drunk driving is certainly a laudable goal. No one is "for" drunk driving. But aren't there a lot of other crimes which occur in society which could be deterred my monitoring? For example, parents who are concerned about the quality of the baby sitters who stay with their kids might want to install hidden cameras, and they might want to monitor their children in various ways. But isn't that the business of the parent? How does it become the business of the state?

I have no objection to anyone buying a car with alcohol sensors, marijuana sensors, tobacco sensors, or sensors to detect sexual arousal (which has been shown to be a distraction).

It is one thing to prosecute and punish crime, and when someone has been convicted, I can understand the logic of requiring him to be monitored. But what gives the government the right to step in and require citizens to monitor themselves? What's being discussed here is making it a crime not to use crime prevention devices. Where does it end? Installing monitoring collars and ankle bracelets to keep track of all of us?

Oh, silly me. Technology is constantly improving. Monitoring collars and ankle bracelets will soon be as outmoded as vacuum tubes (if they aren't already). Microchips and tiny sensors are poised to replace them.

And activist groups who are no longer content to punish crime will want to make it a new crime not to deter yourself in advance of committing a crime!

Notice that the language "make it impossible for a vehicle to be driven by someone who is drunk," does not mean what it appears to imply -- that the crime of drunk driving would become impossible. What it would mean is that there would have to be a new category of crime -- the affirmative failure to have crime-prevention devices installed.

From a constitutional perspective, these devices might be an invasion of privacy, as well as inherently self-incriminating.

But I just don't like the idea of criminalizing an individual's failure to pre-empt a crime he never committed.

Might as well stop rape by outlawing penises. Yeah, I know that's ridiculous.

Besides, the modern and more civilized approach would be to prevent sex crimes by criminalizing the failure to prevent erect penises under certain circumstances.

(Don't laugh! Such a device could probably be designed. And "if we could save just one..." You know the routine.)

UPDATE: It's been so long that I almost forgot these words from one of our founding bloggers:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty--even liberty from meddling machines.
When non-meddling machines are outlawed, only outlaws will have non-meddling machines!

I suppose the rest of us can engage in ancestor envy.

MORE: I get email, and I just got this:

Your last post leaves me broiling and despondent. Thanks!
Well, a similar feeling is often what motivates these posts, and a primary goal is often to determine whether my feelings are right, or whether things are not as bad as they seem. (Often they are not, and in a case like this I'd be glad to be wrong in my suspicions.)

I also write in the hope of getting the feelings out of my system, and it grieves me to think that by getting these feelings out of my system, I might be implanting them in other people's systems.

The irony on top of ironies is that I imagine myself trying to police my own feelings -- only to be told that I am spreading them like a virus!

(I'm obviously even more of an asshole than I realized....)

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all!

I noticed Glenn's link to the story about MADD complaining about Amtrak's free drink promotional offer.

Hmmm...

The president of the group is now a man (and unless he's changed his sex, that means he's not a mother, right?) and they've gone from opposing drunk driving to basically opposing alcohol. I have to admit, there's a certain consistency in promoting cars wired to go after passengers, and opposing drinking by train riders.

I think it's clearly become a professional anti-alcohol, neo-Prohibitionist lobbying group. Perhaps the name should be changed from "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" to "Activists Against All Alcohol Anywhere."

Nah, the AAAA acronym doesn't have meaning, and sounds like they're just trying to get the first listing in the phone book.

Perhaps "Neoprohibitionists Against Drinking Anywhere" would be better.

A little multicultural nihilistic inclusionism?

posted by Eric on 08.04.07 at 11:53 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5353






Comments

The Fuga is sold Stateside as Infiniti's M sedan, which is currently at the top of my automotive want list.

Should this device become standard equipment, the list will be revised accordingly. (And I don't even drink.)

CGHill   ·  August 4, 2007 01:51 PM

No one is "for" drunk driving.

I really hate the expression "Nobody believes X" or "Nobody is in favor of Y" because it's almost never true.

There are some people who believe drunk driving is okay and they don't want a crackdown.

Daryl Herbert   ·  August 4, 2007 03:29 PM

This whole idea is rich. It goes in the can the first time a drunk woman is murdered because her car won't start, and the heirs hire an attack attorney.

Brett   ·  August 4, 2007 06:18 PM

Could it be that MADD is essentially supporting a "Minority Report" society in which people will be arrested for crimes which they haven't yet committed?

I think it was Henry David Thoreau who opined something to the effect of, "If I saw a man trudging up the pathway to my door with the fixed intention of doing me good, I should run for my very life."

MarkJ   ·  August 4, 2007 08:09 PM

Shades of the 'smart' handgun, and a pretty good example of why 'gun control' marks the top of a slippery slope that involves a lot more than guns.

PersonFromPorlock   ·  August 5, 2007 08:03 AM


Other features may includes:
- If the vehicle exceeds the posted speed limit, the engine automatically decreases output to slow the vehicle.
- If the operator turns the wheels more than 60 degrees, but the turn indicator hasn't been activated for the previous 3 seconds, a citation is automatically issued.
- If the follow distance is too small, the vehicle slows down.
- If the operator does not maintain two hands on the wheel (when not shifting), the vehicle complains.
- etc....

It would totally suck.

_Jon   ·  August 5, 2007 08:15 AM

If you want to go back further to unexamined assumptions, drunk driving isn't all that dangerous in the first place. It used to be a personal moral failing, not a public problem, and was and still is very common.

Joseph R. Gusfield, an ironic sociologist, put out The Culture of Public Problems : Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order in 1981, which MADD was initially favorable to but became hostile when it turned out he was studying them, not drunken driving ; and later a more general political guide to seizing power Contested Meanings : The Construction of Alcohol Problems , wherein one first creates a ``Public Problem,'' and then takes ownership of it.

It's important to stress, for example, that all debate has already occurred, and the question is settled, in taking over a problem.

Anyway once you own it, you're in.

Ron Hardin   ·  August 5, 2007 08:40 AM

I should mention a nice remark by F.T.Grampp, on MADD, ``If it weren't for the drunks, a lot of them wouldn't be mothers.''

Ron Hardin   ·  August 5, 2007 08:42 AM

Well, how about if the car is falling faster than a certain rate it locks all the doors....er...well maybe not in light of recent events. It also reminds me of the built in features of a low open vehicle I once owned called a Mini Moke here in Australia. It is like a miniature jeep with just a top - no sides so the driver is very visible. I always reckoned it was great when it came to an attack flatulence, but a real frustration when overcome with an attack of sexual arousal.

lgude   ·  August 5, 2007 08:42 AM

I don't go out at night, so I'm not that afraid of the drunks.

If they want to build a safe car, put a cellphone jammer in it that activates when the wheels are rolling. The "hands free" meme was a preventative first strike by the cellphone industry to define the debate terms. The problem is not no hands on the wheel, it's no attention on the road, and you can't avoid them by being home at an early hour on Friday and Saturday nights.

Farnham   ·  August 5, 2007 09:02 AM

I agree that this is a very slippery slope leading to a very Orwellian world.

But this bit of ingenuity dramatically underestimates human ingenuity. The air sensors can't stop the car, or it would be impossible to be a designated driver. And as for the sensor in the shifter I would bet that there would be a piece of saran wrap, duct tape or a pair of gloves around to keep sweat out of it. As we have learned many times, technology is often frusterated by low tech ingenuity.

Daedalus Mugged   ·  August 5, 2007 09:10 AM

I doubt this will go anywhere. I've seen proposals for anti drunk driving features since the 70's, none of them have ever been widely implemented; except by court order.

TucsonTarheel   ·  August 5, 2007 09:24 AM

I used to donate to MADD. That was before they became a branch of the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

If these cars come about, it will be much simpler to ratchet down the legal blood alcohol limit. It might even be something done over radio to keep the car up with current laws as they change.

John Davies   ·  August 5, 2007 09:54 AM

" It goes in the can the first time a drunk woman is murdered because her car won't start, and the heirs hire an attack attorney."

Or the first time the system malfunctions and lets someone drive who *is* drunk. Or someone argues that the sensitivity was set too high. Etc., etc..

David Hardy   ·  August 5, 2007 11:16 AM

I did some checking on MADD after the TABC raided a hotel bar in Irving Texas. What a mess. MADD is driven by a president more interested in fund raising than in raising awareness of MADD's overly zealous anti drunk driving campaign. Then I read the NHTSA website, in particular their method of attributing accidents to alcohol when no evidence exists. They simply use a highly refined algorithm to attribute a certain number of accidents as being alcohol related when no information supporting this assertion is available, surprisingly, the rate of these attributed accidents coincides with the numbers NHTSA wants to report.

Newspaper articles in particular aid popular misconception by reporting numbers of deaths attributed to drunk drivers when the numbers themselves are likely tainted, such as drivers not being legally drunk being reported as drunk for statistical purposes. For instance, NHTSA uses numbers that attribute "alcohol related" to an accident where anyone involved has a detectable BAC, not necessarily the driver that caused the accident. And MADD wants to follow that madness with a law that would allow only a zero BAC, which would have you arrested for having a BAC that you get from using mouthwash in the morning. The raid in Irving as intended to preempt drivers form driving drunk, a position advocated by MADD. Problem was, some people arrested were hotel guests, with no intention of driving.

The curse of drunk driving is being supplanted by the curse of the activists making a living off their fanatic pursuit of the imaginary evil in every driver.

Bill in Texas   ·  August 5, 2007 11:23 AM

Instead of putting all the energy and resources into making the car such a busy body, why not figure out a way to make the car drive for me so that I can consume what I want?

mishu   ·  August 5, 2007 11:25 AM

Can't really see me wanting to buy the new Nazi 380Z.
I went thru a dui checkpoint in Joplin a few months ago. The local MADD had set up lawn chairs and a generator with lights and were out watching people getting stopped like they were at the movies. 5 minutes of searching for registration papers on the car while the cop asks me where I've been and where I am going. So, out minding my own business (not drinking btw) and stopped by the state demanding my papers and a report of my activities. Thanks MADD!

buzz   ·  August 5, 2007 11:54 AM

How about Nurturers Stopping Drinking Absolute Prohibitionists

NSDAP

Makes a good name, doesn't it?

Do you 'not see'?

GW Crawford   ·  August 5, 2007 11:54 AM

Until I stop reading about people being arrested for their third, tenth, thirty fifth DUI, I'm not supporting any tech behavior modification built into cars.

I'd much rather see strict enforcement of existing laws. I'd also like to see more licenses pulled for life as a consequence of a DUI with fatalities. Norway, for instance, will pull a license for life following a second arrest for DUI. It also imposes fines based on the DUI driver's salary. That's gotta sting.

John Burgess   ·  August 5, 2007 11:58 AM

Is there any way we can get an R&D Department working on busybody seeking bullets?

Phelps   ·  August 5, 2007 01:55 PM

Wht does this car consider drunk?Is it .08,.05,.03.Almost all fatal accidents involving alcohol the bac is.15 or higher and most deaths are caused by SOBER DRIVERS.In fact it's the vast majority.We need to punish actions,regardless of drinkig or not.

Michael Pack   ·  August 5, 2007 02:10 PM

I'm with GW. The problem is not a lack of laws. The problem is the existing laws are being ignored.

In my state, a person is supposed to have their license immediately suspended for a minimum of a year if they are caught driving drunk. I believe there's mandatory jail time as well. Enforce that, and you will go a long ways towards reducing drunk driving.

But the laws aren't being enforced. The courts here seem to think driving is a civil right, and will accept almost anything as an "extenuating circumstance" justifying suspending the suspension. (If you follow me.) They are also reluctant to seize the car of a person driving on a DUI-suspended license. And our jails are sufficiently crowded that DUIs are routinely released -- I suppose it's better than letting loose the deliberately violent.

This assumes the charge isn't dismissed because the courts are hopelessly backlogged, or because a skilled defense lawyer successfully argues a minor procedural violation. Mind you, that's what defense attorneys are supposed to do -- but it's the judge's job to toss complaints that really don't have any merit, and see that the people of the state get a fair hearing too.

And, finally, as a lifelong teetotaler, I resent having to pay for such devices in my car.

Kent   ·  August 5, 2007 02:59 PM

Or the first time the system malfunctions and lets someone drive who *is* drunk. Or someone argues that the sensitivity was set too high.

People who sue tend to go after the big money. I think we can assume that this device will have a failure or two along the way. When it fails, the drunk driver who is not stopped will assume he must be OK to drive, thereby placing the responsibility for an accident on the vehicles manufacturer.

At least that is what the attorney for the victim will claim.

How lucky for the victim that Nissan has billions to fork over whereas the drunk just has the change from his bar tab.

After one or two of these lawsuits, Nissan will claim that the 'demand' for this vehicle just wasn't there, and they will stop production.

MagicalPat   ·  August 5, 2007 03:11 PM

I think there's a precedence against making drunk sensors mandatory. In the late 70's cars were equipped with seat belt interlocks. You couldn't start the engine unless you buckled up. It was a real pain when you had a bag of groceries in the passenger seat. I heard that the supreme court ruled against such interlocks. I hope I'm right; this is just from memory.

V. Atkins   ·  August 5, 2007 03:12 PM

Devices have been invented (and patented, and manufactured) for the prevention of erect penises. We are safer than we thought! Now all we have to do is figure out how to get men to wear them. I don't think that's a job for MADD, so let's draft the Trial Lawyer's Association.

Anonymous   ·  August 5, 2007 04:31 PM

Now when are we going to get something really useful...like car that keeps all the MADD mothers from putting on make up while they're driving? How about a car that just automatically swerves and runs over politicians and do-gooders (like MADD) that have a compulsion to try to interfere with everyone elses life for our OWN good? THAT is something I would pay for : )

ZappaCrappa   ·  August 5, 2007 08:40 PM

Now when are we going to get something really useful...like car that keeps all the MADD mothers from putting on make up while they're driving? How about a car that just automatically swerves and runs over politicians and do-gooders (like MADD) that have a compulsion to try to interfere with everyone elses life for our OWN good? THAT is something I would pay for : )

ZappaCrappa   ·  August 5, 2007 08:41 PM

Big brother.

I got a survey in the mail last week from the local DOT indicating that I had been observed traveling on a local highway. Actually I got two surveys, since they must have observed my wife as well, since her truck is registered in my name. A number of roads in our area are under improvement reviews, and I had seen a couple of cars parked to the side with "men working" signs, the work must of consisted of collecting lisence tags.

The survey specifically asked for an address for the start and finish of the trip, whether for business or pleasure, and how often such a trip was made. A nasty reply with a copy to my local government rep. is all they got.


john   ·  August 5, 2007 09:24 PM

Check out the active ingredients of Hand Sanitizer. so you've just completed a walk in the woods, and put some sanitizer on your hands, and then your car may not start?

Product Description (from Amazon)
The active ingredient in Purell is ethyl alcohol, a safe and effective antiseptic. Keep a bottle at work, in the classroom, and at home. Hypoallergenic ~ Dermatologist Tested ~ Non-Toxic.

Ethyl alcohol, btw, is drinking alcohol. Isopropyl alcohol, listed in the ingredients also, is commonly known as rubbing alcohol, or medical spirits.

ns   ·  August 6, 2007 11:39 AM

I was thinking of buying a Nissan vehicle next year. Not now, even if they never implement the concept, just proposing it is so objectionable that I will likely never again buy one of their products.

The post reminded me of the most amusing telemarketing call I ever had, many years ago:

MADD Rep: I'm calling from MADD, blah,blah,blah…would you like to donate $25.
Me: No, I do not.
MADD Rep: If that's too much, how about $20 or even $10?
Me: No, I don't want to give you any money. (voice inflection stressed the word "any").
MADD Rep: How about $5?
Me: I don't want to give your organization any money. (again stressing "any")
MADD Rep: Whatever you can afford to give would help.
Me: (Politely but firmly) You are not listening to me. It is not a matter of what I can afford. I don't want to give your organization any money, not even 1 cent. I don't like your organization, therefore I do not want to financially aid it.
MADD Rep: Oh..ah…(stunned silence for at least 30 seconds)....goodbye.

It was as if the person could not believe that someone may not agree with them.

ray_g   ·  August 6, 2007 06:07 PM


If government mandates that all new cars, sold in the states, have "alcohol sensors" installed the mandate is doomed to fail from the start. That is until government starts levying taxes to help rig the "free market" in leviathans favor.

I wonder, what percentage of MADD donations go to executive compensation.

Persona non grata   ·  August 6, 2007 08:13 PM

So what happens when the gear shift sensor thingy malfunctions while I'm in a high crime area?

MIke   ·  August 7, 2007 01:14 PM

Most first time drunk drivers are noobs who made a mistake.

Forcing this on them would be wrong because they will never drive drunk again.

beebs
ex drinker

beebs   ·  August 10, 2007 08:13 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



August 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits