ummmm….no.

ummmmm… YES. As long as there are individuals out there that don’t give’a'f#*k.

Mr. Orwell your car is ready…

I guess it goes back to the eternal question: Do we take responsibility for our own actions or do we need to be regulated? How you answer determines how you feel about this.

Should there be tougher restrictions on teens getting into movies or do the parents need to step up and enforce the rules that are there? Should we have mandatory Social Security or should people be allowed to put their own money where they want?, etc.

In this case, as much as I think that it’s one more thing to break or malfunction or mess up somehow in a car, it’s a good idea. In practice, not too sure. The steering wheel thing is sweet. It’s not as invasive or inconvenient as attaching a breathalyser to your car. The camera for the pupils could suck though…I mean, where is this camera going to be, how easy will it be to just put a piece of tape over the lens, and what if you get flashed by some high-beams at night? And the other one about steering might go off when you’re tired and driving. I guess that’s not bad but I don’t like the idea that a system to prevent one thing could possibly affect another thing.

The only way it works is that all three work in tandem, it doesn’t add any hoops to the normal driving experience, and it errs on the side of caution (i.e. it doesn’t shut off your car at the slightest hint).

Makes it sound like you have to put your hands on the wheel, sit there for a minute and start sweating before you can even try to start the car. I don’t even drink but I’m against anything as silly as I’m thinking this is. Could they make sensors to put over the wheel that could be court-ordered for repeat offenders’ cars like some places do with breathalyzers?

I guess by using gloves this system would be bypassed.

I am concerned about the car shutting down by erratic driving. Can you image a Toyota suddenly stopping in the middle of a busy highway at night?

We need people to RESPONSIBLY drive their vehicles. All this non sense of alcohol detection, automatic parallel parking, automatic distance amongst vehicles is technology targeting the lazy drivers that are distracted by their MP3/cellular phones/reading and not about driving. If you cannot focus on driving, don’t drive.

Awesome next they will bring back those great automatic seatbelts from the eighties.
Maybe they will make it so the car will only start if your MOM is sitting in the car so no one drives to fast or listen to loud music.
Really we should put governors on all cars to limit there speeds to 55 MPH, we all know speed kills.
Also why not make those backup sensors a requirment on cars so people never have to learn how to actually drive.
Screw it lets make all cars fully automated so nobody can ever have an accident or drive off road and rules are never broken.

We already pay extra for insurance, because of drunk driving, now they want to add significant costs to the price of a new car, for these pieces of ****(drunks).
California has a program where if you get a DUI they can put a breath-a-lizer, start preventer in your car and the drunk has to pay for the unit.
To me it makes more sense to put the burden of this on the offender of the crime.
How long until someone will develope a memory flash to bypass the system and post it on the internet.

I don’t know why so many of you hate the system, I like it. Honestly I don’t care if you drink and drive, get into an accident, and kill yourself…I’m more concerned about the person you hit. If this thing makes it a little safer to be on the roads, then I’m all for it.

I guess I missed the part were it said Toyota was going to make this standard equipment, because reading the comments you’d think thats what it said.

This is an absurt proposition by Toyota. Obviously a system like this will never see production.
~Am I the only person who wears gloves when it’s cold?

How about this? Drivers must maintain a 0%BAL. If you are caught with DUI, it is an automatic License suspension for an incredibly long time, say 10 years. The fines should be huge, say $10,000 with minimum jail sentences of 3 yrs (ie, long enough to destroy your lifestyle)

If the recprocusions of drunk/high driving were this steep, I doubt many people would take the chance.

I agree with everyone here. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

I’ve heard of many friends getting pulled over for DUI and getting a slap on the wrist. Phook that!! We need to scare the shiit out of people and make the punishment incredibly severe. Hit people where it really hurts…their pockets. Confiscate the car (and they never get it back.) Fine them heavily and make them serve numerous hours of community service.

I had my license taken away for 3 weeks last year (71 in a 55) and let me tell ya, that SUCKS!!

Increase punishment and ENFORCE it. We pay heavy taxes for government services that would enforce this sort of thing. I don’t understand why there aren’t tons of police surrounding the local clubs. Sure, it’s profiling, but it saves lives.

This would never work for me (not that I’m a alcoholic), because I wear driving gloves, the camera to see your pupils is a little out of question, that would add potentially thousands of dollars to the cost of a car. What needs to be done is putting the breathalizer systems in the car, and leave that up to law enforcement. As for what Jeff said, law enforcement could never pass such high penelties for a DUI, at least for a 1st offence, because everybody makes mistakes and the law understands that. People that have 2nd and 3rd offences I think should see those kind of penelaties, just not 3 years prison, people do to jail for shorter than that for selling drugs, and drugs ruin more lives than DUI cases.

Drunk people get into too many accidents. Plain and simple. My good friend and his wife were hit by a drunk driver on new year’s day. She’s pregnant. The paramedics and admitting nurse thought that she might lose the baby.

It’s possible that the accident would have happened regardless of whether or not the guy was drunk, although highly unlikely. But there is a very good probability that the severity of the accident wouldn’t have been as bad.

and you can sure-as-hell bet that I will buy one when I have a kid that turns driving age. In a heartbeat.

GO TOYOTA!

@Random Jerk: So, if it isn’t a standard feature and someone orders it, does that throw up a red flag with the customer’s insurance company? Would people who own Toyotas equipped with this feature be scrutinized more heavily by their insurance company, or would this be considered a safety feature (like air bags) that warrants a rate deduction?

Come on! You can never expect anything from anybody, especially responsibility.

I am lucky to be alive with my high school under the influence shenanigans. If I had a kid, they’d have one of these big brother Toyotas.

In jive:

Right on! You’s kin neva’ ’spect nuthin fum any fool, especially responsibility. Slap mah fro! I’s gots’ta be lucky t’be alive wid mah’ high farm unda’ de influence shenanigans. If ah’ had some kid, dey’d gots one uh dese big broda’ Toyotas.

I don’t get what’s with you people. As long as you aren’t drunk (which you shouldn’t be while driving), the system would still let you drive. What’s the big deal? Do you all drink every single time you drive or something?

this notion has AIDS.

What constitutes too much alcohol to legally drive?

How bulletproof will the technology be? Will it advertise the ability to read X bac, but actually read it much worse, a la a prius lmao?

If I felt I needed this as an option on My car, I would take the bus.

If I needed it as an option on my kid’s car, I would not let them drive my car..

I would not want it as standard equipment if it were to cost more money.

congrats on giving the world a useless hug toyota..

We need to discuss this over a beer, or two.

It is a shame people can’t realize they’re a danger when driving drunk but this is a great idea.

“If the recprocusions of drunk/high driving were this steep, I doubt many people would take the chance.”

Wow.

You tools. If you’re so drunk that you’re driving 120 mph in a residential, your “sense of personal responsibility” left the room a long time ago. That’s why they have legal trouble with prosecuting under 1st degree (although that’s changing in some areas), because technically the defendant wasn’t in a normal state of mind. Being drunk affects your decision-making; it’s pretty simple. Yeah, obviously, there are those that only had 1 beer, and think they can wing it, and usually they can, but the larger problem involves the dumbasses that are way beyond that point.

As for suspended licenses, you think that actually deters people from driving? Maybe in areas that aren’t as car-dependent like California, but I’ve met plenty of people that admit to driving with a suspended license from DUI’s. There’s no way to track people driving with suspended licenses (because that’d be too Big Brother), so they’ll only get caught if they get pulled over again.

One thing you have to remember about when drunk people get in a car and decide to drive: their thinking is impaired. This may seem common knowledge, and is the reason a drunk person cannot drive well. One thing I think you are forgetting is that because of this they think that they can drive properly.

If the system was not standard, how many people would actually buy it? It would be very expensive whether its optional or standard, though being standard would drive the cost of each unit down slightly.

I think more responsibility should be put on the people and bars and clubs. Not only should the driver take punishment, but maybe the bar or club they were at should have to take responsibility since they have the power to get a cab or bus to get them home. Bars and clubs should be forced to get a ride for impaired people, not just drunk but also those high on drugs. Whether the person or the establishment pays would be up to the establishment. Giving bars and clubs more responsibility and making punishments harsher would reduce drunk driving.

So if I wore gloves than I could bypass the system?

Nevermind, thought it said they were working on the pupil and steering sensors.

togo… obviously the person that hit my cousin, his wife and their child, did not take the bus.

There very well may be ways around it, but it will just help to prosecute the offenders once they have made the offense.

You might be responsible, but other might not be. I am not opposed to impairing some of the ability for other people to inadvertedly kill or harm the ones I love… or, for that matter, for the ones that I love to inadvertedly kill or harm others.

Toyota is thinking out of the box and they should be applauded for it. This will also help when you are falling asleep on the road, which is responsible for many accidents on my early morning commute. Thank you toyota.

The system will have to be cheap so that it can be fitted Scions.

“I don’t get what’s with you people. As long as you aren’t drunk (which you shouldn’t be while driving), the system would still let you drive. What’s the big deal? Do you all drink every single time you drive or something?”
- Comment by PruceJuice, posted on January3 at 2:49 pm
—————————————
No offense intended, but frankly, I just don’t get what’s with *you* people: you’re precisely the same type who’d scream treason if I didn’t promptly hand over my credit card statement over to the state so they can check it for “suspicious activity” – I’m supposed to just shut up, do what I’m told, and just generally be delighted with the concept of the government ass-raping me as a matter of “National Security”.. a term which is beginning to conjure similar feelings felt when the “Common Good” under the former USSR is evoked in casual conversation.

Is any one else as tired as I am of being treated like a communist in the ’50s every time he stands up for himself? Whether it’s government, or private business pushing “safety”, I don’t need a babysitter. It’s insulting that these two entities think otherwise, but particularly infuriating when career pussies masquerading as “free” citizens gladly surrender their freedom and then demand the rest of us do the same or else be branded as some kind of traitor or “person of interest”.
.
On the plus side, there’s no real reason to be upset here. Other than the demonstrably asinine comments of a few rollovers who value the appearance of security over actual freedom, the only thing going on here is that Toyota is merely developing the technology. I didn’t read a thing about implementing it voluntarily on their vehicles or forcefully through government. No one knows yet how it will ultimately be used, whether or not it would be compulsory. I have no problem with the technology itself – if anything it’s just another development in a long trend that’s been going on in American for more than a decade. There’s already a bunch of other gadgets that disconnect people from the road, and there are very few real drivers in America anyway. Most people on the roads are hazards, not drivers. Those of us who know what we are doing have the clean DMV records to back it up.
.
That being the case, I like the idea of forcing this technology AND the cost of it on someone who already forfeited his rights when he’s been found guilty of drunk driving. Beyond that, there’s virtually no reason to believe this is going to fly any other way.

if people have teenagers theyll surely want such a device to be in their car i bet… and its a good technology to force upon those who receive DUIs.

This isn’t even worth posting a comment on, but I feel I wanted to say something too.

tougher laws against drunk driving are fine, even this stuff is ok. However, the .08 level is too low. Raise it to a reasonable level and then toughen the living heck out of the laws.

shooting someone sounds a bit extreme, besides being “cruel and unusual punishment”. there are many worse crimes in society that get off with much less, this is just an easy one to pick on.

I can understand the alcohol detector but…

A CAMERA to check the focus of your eyes? Suppose it’s very late, you aren’t intoxicated but very tired and you just want to get home. Shall the car shut down before it reaches the driveway, thus forcing you to sleep in it?

What percentage of blood alcohol level will TOYOTA allow for their cars before the system activates? I ask rhetorically because this varies from state to state in the USA.

Fun. Very fun. I don’t approve of drunk or even buzzed driving. This is too little information to like the idea, however.