Look, I know that drunk driving is a serious issue, but based on what I see on the roadway, NOBODY is paying any damn attention out here anymore. Whether it is phones or giant screened infotainment systems, the amount of distractions is staggering. If we are going to go the route of overreach and “nanny state”, why not find a way to disable certain features of the drivers phone and do away with the large screen infotainment systems altogether.
Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
41–50 of 87 posts
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#42People also forget that these measures, taken together, significantly increase the costs of cars.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Slippery slope "fallacy" is actually nothing more than "you are not allowed to be human and extrapolate from trends."
No, its not. “Fallacy” is not “you are not allowed to”, only “it is a source of error to”.
Kind of a nitpick, don't you think? Obviously the fallacy police aren't knocking on doors.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#44Even 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?
Packaging things this way lets representatives and senators more effectively barter for support - "I'll support this bill if you add this other thing" is more effective tactic with these large omnibus bills.
You can argue if this is good or not for the country, but the argument definitely is that it allows a representative more tools/leverage for his constituency, and that it allows for more effective compromises.
Any attempt to reversing this trend requires dealing with that line of argument.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe match the low reliability of classification with a low impact rule, if the system thinks you're drunk you just have to drive slower ?
Yeah make them do 30mph on the highway this will surely reduce the danger /s
Honestly, if the sensor suddenly thinks you're drunk in the middle of a highway segment, there's something very wrong since long before.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#46This bill keeps getting worse with all the wreckage that is getting included. Please please, start including the names of the reps pushing these idiotic measures as it's the only way to stop them. And before someone accuses me of "not wanting to stop drunk driving", of course I do. The way to do that is to address the underlying causes of alcoholism, not patching the symptoms.
You can address causes til you're blue in the face. We've already tried a dozen ways - state-run liquor stores, therapy programs, breath testing, prohibition and on and on.
It may be time for something different. Maybe just stop a car cold that's behaving erratically. Nobody has the right to endanger strangers on the highway, for any reason.
The right bill will be important. But its not idiotic, to try to save lives with technology. Nor is it far away from a workable solution.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#47As someone who has convicted of DUI twice in my youth, I'm 100% in support of keeping people off the road if they're drunk. The two times I got caught are just that: the times I was caught. I deserved many many more. We can't stop people from thinking it's okay to drive when they're drunk because they're drunk. Driving is not a right. Keep people like my younger self from making potentially deadly decision.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, its not. “Fallacy” is not “you are not allowed to”, only “it is a source of error to”.
Kind of a nitpick, don't you think? Obviously the fallacy police aren't knocking on doors.
No. There's a pretty big difference between “you are not allowed to do ” and “you should be aware that is a potential source of error rather than a solid step in reasoning.”
Point out that something characterized in the former manner is, in fact, the latter is not “a nitpick”.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Technically the wording is vague enough that they could be referring to anything, but the article specifically highlights distracted driving systems that scan drivers’ eyes: > Among the systems that have been studied are ones that monitor a driver for signs of distracted, impaired or fatigued driving. One uses sensors that scan drivers’ eyes for signs that are similar to ones that police officers look for when they s…
Indeed the wording is vague, and the response to a positive sensor detection is not specified at all. So maybe it’s premature to worry too much about the amount of damage it might do, since we don’t even know what it will do, and it hasn’t passed yet?
Do you think the goal is worth pursuing? Imagine we could achieve zero false positives, would you be in favor of it then? Would it depend on what the system does with a positive detection? If we could have perfect detection of drink driving, should we? Or, said another way, should it be anyone’s right to choose whether they drive drunk?
It’s worth remembering that it was argued that mandatory seatbelts were also terrible overreach, as well as other mandatory safety measures like airbags, child seats, mandatory motorcycle helmets, etc, despite the fact that the safety results are unequivocally positive. It seems like in the US we tend to have a problem with things that are mandatory, regardless of the benefits or outcomes.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#50Around 40,000 American die each year on our roads, this has been pretty consistent for decades. As we add more safety features, the marginal cost per life saved is going up. We got a big bang for the seat belt. But backup cameras cost around $5.7 million dollars in cost for every one life saved. I commend NHTSA for their hard work, but I can't help but feel government safety mandates in cars are now scraping the bott…
The other argument is vision zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero Helsinki and Oslo have got to zero road deaths. Now, it may not be possible to hit zero, but it's the only number worth aiming for (aim high or you won't know how far you can go).
America has an abysmal annual death rate for automobiles (per one million citizens) compared to the Nordic countries (104 vs 27 in 2013). US is one of the worst in the developed world.
Clearly, something is being done correctly everywhere else.