





previous entry | main | next entry









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"? 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 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 "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? MADD is making no secret of it at their web site 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! 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.) 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



















Comments











