Guest EXPAT Posted March 18, 2012 Posted March 18, 2012 How do you know if someone is too stoned to drive? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/18/stoned-driving-epidemic-p_n_1357101.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 Quote
Members JKane Posted March 19, 2012 Members Posted March 19, 2012 Interesting, but until recreational use is passed (if ever) it's really just like every other medication. Many require stuff like pain killers to be able to even get behind the wheel but could also easily have too much, impairing them, and there's no easy breathalyzer-type test for it either. Quote
Members lookin Posted March 19, 2012 Members Posted March 19, 2012 What about poppers? Or prescription drugs? Or the giddiness that comes from just being high on life? If I understand correctly, the laws being considered would work to determine why a driver was unsafe, and then only after the fact. Tests to determine levels of alcohol in the blood are usually made only after a driver has caused an accident or has been observed driving erratically. And it sounds like tests for THC or prescription drugs or other chemicals that could cause impairment would also be made only after an impaired driver has taken to the road. And what if a driver has an impairment that does not have a measurable blood-based component? What if he has unusually slow reflexes related to age or some other factor? What if he forgets his glasses, or has just had his eyes dilated by his ophthalmologist? What if he's zoned out on a drug for which we don't yet have a test? There are probably millions of such folks on the road as we speak, and we'll hear about them only after they've crashed or been spotted zigzagging by the police. The ignition-interlock that some convicted drunk drivers are required to install and blow into before the car will start has the advantage of preventing an impaired driver from getting on the road, and it seems that a similar principle could be applied to prevent a driver who is impaired for any reason from starting the car in the first place. Perhaps the solution would be to define the basic criteria that indicate a driver - any driver - is safe to be behind the wheel and to use technology to determine if he meets those requirements before the car starts. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should probably be the ones to develop these requirements, I'll throw out a couple off the top of my head: response time and peripheral vision. The enabling technology might be as simple as projecting a half-inch symbol on a random spot on the far side of the windshield and requiring the driver to step on the brake and push a button on the steering wheel within two-tenths of a second. After repeating the process with a symbol on a random section of the rear window, the ignition would be unlocked and the car could be started. I'm sure there's plenty wrong with the criteria and the examples I've used, but there should be some experts out there who could come up with better ones, and require that they be implemented on all new cars. The critical component would be performance-related tests given to every driver before the car starts. I can hear the squeals coming from at least three directions: The car manufacturers would holler just as they did after seat belts were proposed and for all the same reasons. Is that a good enough reason to keep doing what we're doing, and just try to find more and better blood tests? Prescription drug users would point to the legality of their drugs and their right to drive whether or not they're impaired. Is that a good enough reason to let them loose in the neighborhood? Some may worry that a stoner still has good enough vision and fast enough reaction time to pass the objective tests and get the car started. Is that a good enough reason to keep him off the road even if he's still a safe driver by objective standards? Discuss, if you like. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 19, 2012 Members Posted March 19, 2012 VERY interesting idea, but long before that we should start with in-depth and thorough training and testing in order to get a license at all. Compared to European countries, for example, our standards are a farking joke! Quote
Members RA1 Posted March 19, 2012 Members Posted March 19, 2012 "Our standards are a joke." No kidding. Entirely too many folks engage the transmission before they engage the brain and that is folks who are not chemically impaired. Most folks regard a DL as a right rather than a privilege. We would save a lot of gas as well as road repair costs if we kept inept drivers off the road. Just think of how serene driving would be with only 1/2 the current drivers OR if they all obeyed traffic rules and drove competently. Best regards, RA1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Autonomous ground vehicle navigation, i.e., robotic car technology, has gotten a lot of funding from DARPA as well as private industry and contributions by university researchers. The military's interest is in taking ground troops out of harm's way, much as UAVs are already making possible in the skies. But academia and private industry (auto and others) are in it equally if not more so to slash civilian traffic fatalities and injuries. Now Google's backing of such R&D is adding to the momentum as well as awareness. It sounds too Jetsons, I know. But the computing, sensing and positioning technologies needed to enable it are farther along than might be expected, and progressing faster every month. Granted, counter to my own argument here, I do remain convinced that many of Toyota's acceleration problems arose from flawed electronic/"intelligent" on-board systems, not just the floor-mat or sticky-pedal hogwash claimed. Nevertheless, having seen some of the DARPA-backed events and technologies in person, and talked with a number of the key development people, their progress convinces me that we are a lot closer to fixing the car than to fixing the driver. Quote
Members RA1 Posted March 19, 2012 Members Posted March 19, 2012 Fixing the driver is beyond a reasonable expectation. Technology will never be perfect because, after all, it is invented and contrived by man who, by definition, is not perfect. However, the "best" technology will almost certainly be superior to the "average" man. Also, "amazing". Best regards, RA1 Quote
Members lookin Posted March 20, 2012 Members Posted March 20, 2012 AdamSmith invites RA1 for an evening spin through West Hollywood. Before long they spot a couple of twinks looking for some company. Quote
Members JKane Posted March 20, 2012 Members Posted March 20, 2012 I've read several article on autonomous vehicles, I'd love it but think it's a long way off, even though I enjoy driving. Would LOVE to have all the current bells and whistles though, I'd even like some of them to be gov't mandated: Cool think about blind-spot warning is it can also remind people to FUCKING SIGNAL. Love the idea of closing distance alerts and full-authority braking, paired with full authority cruise control is a plus (as they're usually paired anyway). Quote
Members lookin Posted March 20, 2012 Members Posted March 20, 2012 Love the idea of closing distance alerts and full-authority braking, paired with full authority cruise control . . . These would come in handy in my social life as well. Quote
Members RA1 Posted March 20, 2012 Members Posted March 20, 2012 AdamSmith invites RA1 for an evening spin through West Hollywood. Before long they spot a couple of twinks looking for some company. I would be more than pleased to cruise WEHO with AS looking for some twinks. I am hoping either the twinks or AS and I would be more physically appealing than those depicted but who knows? lookin', you are welcome to come along and cruise also. Best regards, RA1 Quote
