Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

autoblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 87 posts

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#11

Post by PragmaticPulp »

gedy wrote: post #5
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #4

This 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.

The article notes MADD (Mother’s Against Drunk Driving) as one of primary sponsors.

MADD is notorious for demanding government overreach in reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption altogether. They have a history of ignoring any possible negative consequences of their proposals for other people, and this is a good example.

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#12

Post by smt88 »

cabaalis wrote: post #10

Even 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?

Lots of reasons, one of which is that the Senate is rigged to favor rural places and doesn't represent the majority of Americans anymore. Even reasonable, popular bills are unable to pass.

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#13

Post by tpmx »

I guess this is the bill?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

(Warning, it takes a minute or so for Chrome to render the HTML "text" tab. PDF link: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs...)

The scope creep seems insane.

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#14

Post by smt88 »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #2

I 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!

Breath testing by police is notoriously fallible and police can even fudge the results in some cases.

People should not have contact with police when they are presumed innocent.

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#15

Post by humanistbot »

gedy wrote: post #5
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #4

This 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.

Nope. As the article mentions, the major push is from modern-day temperance organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which was the major lobby that got the US drinking age raised from 18 to 21. Although you are right that these organizations have authoritarian impulses and don't care that these are overreaches and impractical.

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#16

Post by h2odragon »

More shit to fail.

Honda Insights have a "gas cap sensor" that lights the "check engine" light when the gas cap isn't tight enough. "to prevent VOC emissions in California" I'm told. But after nearly 20 years, the sensor isn't reliable anymore, and is hard to find and expensive, so the practical thing is to dike it out.

I've no idea how the "drunk driver" detection is supposed to work; but how is it going to be any more reliable or less troublesome than the gas cap sensor?

Does anyone even in the offices of anyone voting for this crap have the slightest idea what technology they're mandating or how reliable it is? Is there any understanding or concern for people with "auto brewery syndrome" or any of the other edge cases that will trip some folks up?

Or is this purely kabuki "see us care" and damn the cost?

Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill

#17

Post by humanistbot »

> It orders NHTSA to study the feasibility of various technologies and establish a final rule within three years mandating some form of anti-drunk driving technology.

This kind of administrative rulemaking is required to go through multiple rounds of public notice and comment. The EFF & related orgs should be intervening and lobbying at every stage in this three-year long process.

Post reply on HN