Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#2I think random breath testing by police is a better idea.
Your car stopping you from drink driving will false positive too much or just break. Drinkers will just buy older cars anyway. Let’s keep cars simple!
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#3More monitoring of the normal citizen
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#4This is terrible overreach and a good example of magical thinking about the abilities of AI.
Even if the false positive rate of such a system was only 0.1% per driving session, an extraordinarily ambitious goal for any AI system, that still translates to an incredible number of false positives across all drivers. Someone who drives twice a day for work would be expected to hit a false positive every couple of years or so. Do we really want our cars randomly flagging everyone as drunk every once in a while?
Obviously the people writing this bill assumed that perfectly correct AI could exist. They did their job, now the problem is punted to the engineers.
Ridiculous. I’m sure this will get removed eventually, perhaps with further legislation.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#5This is terrible overreach and a good example of magical thinking about the abilities of AI. Even if the false positive rate of such a system was only 0.1% per driving session, an extraordinarily ambitious goal for any AI system, that still translates to an incredible number of false positives across all drivers. Someone who drives twice a day for work would be expected to hit a false positive every couple of years o…
I think a lot of the proponents for these sorts of rules/restrictions tend to be anti-car and/or throwing bones to their various transport unions, and don't care that they are overreaches or impractical.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#6This sounds less like an anti-drunk driving measure and more of a permanent general driving ability monitor.
Surely if they wanted to target alcohol specifically they would just mandate breathalyser to start the engine, which is already a thing in many countries for people previously convicted of DUI
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#7It appears the slope actually is slippery.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#8"Safety" has become an euphemism for "control". It's as if politicians speak a coded language: one of them says "we want safer cars" and others translate that to "we want more control over cars". If someone says "to protect children we need these measures" others understand that it really means "we need these authoritarian measures".
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#9This is terrible overreach and a good example of magical thinking about the abilities of AI. Even if the false positive rate of such a system was only 0.1% per driving session, an extraordinarily ambitious goal for any AI system, that still translates to an incredible number of false positives across all drivers. Someone who drives twice a day for work would be expected to hit a false positive every couple of years o…
I think it’s off base to pin this on AI enthusiasm, that’s just kind of unclear writing in the article. The legislation doesn’t specify a particular anti drunk driving provision, just that the NHSTA study the issue and determine the best course of action. Mandatory breathalyzers seems like what, um, sober minds will come up with. Which certainly feels like stunning overreach to me, but isn’t strictly about AI
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#10Even if one agrees these are good things and needed, why does our congress not pass these laws individually so they can be voted and understood for their own worth?