Posted on 09/10/2009 7:42:11 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
Let the debate begin.
Toyota Motor Corp. began testing an alcohol-detection breathalyzer that can immobilize a vehicle if the driver is wasted. Toyota is testing the device on 30 commercial vehicles in Japan. Mounted on the instrument panel, it locks the truck's ignition if it senses the driver has imbibed too much.
The idea is to give companies better control of their fleets.
(Excerpt) Read more at autoweek.com:80 ...
Seems reasonable that a private company should have the option of ensuring the employees operating its vehicles aren’t wasted.
Yep. They probably drug test the drivers too.
No problem at all if a company wants to implement this on their commercial fleets.
What bugs me is that I can’t go to the local steak house and enjoy a good cigar after my meal, but I can get crap-faced drunk, get in a wreck and kill innocent people, and the same steak house bar will be open for business tomorrow morning. That really bugs me!
>>>>Does having to prove sobriety before you drive bug you?<<<<
Yes. But if your company does it on its commercial vehicles, you either do it or find another job.
ML/NJ
Just out there creating a whole new industry. I want to get copy write on “Can-o-Breath”.
Looks like a germ factory that could cost the company money in lawsuits.
I think it would be a great idea to require a person who has had more than one DUI conviction to have such a device installed in their vehicle.
When I was in Europe almost 10 years ago, it seemed like Mercedes was testing this on some of their S500 models. I could be mistaken, though.
In the world of Liberal La-La land, this is a gross invasion of privacy. However, forcing companies like ours who drug test employees to ensure they aren't wasted to offer health insurance with complete coverage for substance abuse is perfectly normal.
If the owning company requires it as a condition of employment for its drivers, that is their choice.
If it is the government forcing ALL drivers to do this, I have a BIG problem with the “guilty until proven innocent” aspect (although, in fairness, this is NOT the United States government).
I know cronic smokers have killed their own sense of smell, but mine is still quite active and I want to smell a sizzling steak, not tobacco smoke.
There is a reason to have a ‘smoking room’, and a darn good reason the dining room isn’t it.
And why would the steak house bar be responsible if someone imbibes and then breaks the law to drive while drunk?
How about a bit of personal responsibility.
Yeah, a lot of them drive cars like farmers drive tractors. But there is a reason auto insurance premiums from both such groups are cheaper than your average bear.
[When is the last time you’ve seen a geezer yakking on a cell phone while driving, weaving in and out of traffic or some of the other risky behavior so common on the road.]
this morning, 140th pl. in woodinville.
More critically, if a company doesn’t use the available technology and a drunk employee is involved in an accident, the company is up the tree without a paddle.
Pirvate company. No problem.
Government - been convicted of drunk driving. No problem.
Government - no record of drunk driving. Problem.
“Wouldn’t bother me a bit if it could fairly judge reaction time and stuff like that.”
Since a test like that would be horrendously expensive and complicated, you have to fall back on a PRACTICAL measure: Blood alcohol level. Perfect? No. Good enough to get the job done? Yes.
“But a fair test might rule a lot of geezers off the road. Can’t have that! (And I’m approaching geezerdom myself.)”
You could probably come up with a test for this that could be used once a year (often enough to ensure people that have lost the ability to drive are taken off the road.) The problem with trying to use the same test for drinking is it would probably take 30-45 minutes to administer the test. Do you really want to take a 45 minute test each time you have a drink to see if you are able to drive?
I think it is that a lot of them drive hardly any miles; and never fast enough to kill anything. Driving Miss Daisy wasn't a joke.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.