Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by sb057 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #34

Around 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…

>If I had to offer an alternative, SAMHSA, the government org focused on substance abuse seems to be under-funded and highlights numerous ways additional dollars can save lives.

>So rather than scrape the bottom of barrel on making cars safer, perhaps we can instead spend that money on substance abuse interventions with youth and college age students that lead to alcoholism, binge drinking, and drunk driving. Maybe we would get more bang for our buck.

Keep in mind though, it isn't tax money that's going to fund this, it's consumers, who will pay in the form of increased car prices. This means disenfranchising poorer people from being able to afford to own cars and/or reducing other features, such as increased passenger safety and fuel efficiency.

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

#52

Post by pythonaut_16 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 2:56 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #46

exabrial wrote: post #36

This 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…

That's the exact problem with the bill. Of course a car that refuses to be driven drunk sounds like a great way to stop drunk driving.

But the technology to feasibly and reliably do that does not exist.

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

#53

Post by 988747 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #40

mmastrac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).

Exactly, 5.7 millions is probably nothing compared to a years worth of reversing based accidents.

I understood it as "5.7 million per life saved" so you need to mulltiply that number by few thousands.

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

#54

Post by hermannj314 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:02 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #37

hermannj314 wrote: post #34

Around 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…

Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).

My point was about government mandated safety features.

Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't need to mandate their inclusions on cars as consumers voluntarily were willing to add this feature for years.

However, when the government forced all consumers on all to have to add this feature that is where the line was crossed.

I drive a fuel efficient Chevy Spark, it cost me maybe $11000 brand new. I drive an average of 5000 miles a year. When I have to replace the car, it will cost a lot more because now it will have cameras and drunk driving gadgets, etc. I dont even have an automatic transmission or power locks - these features are a waste of money for me, but the government is forcing me to purchase safety features and the economic value to society is spurious. I'd rather there be a sticker where my rear view camera is saying 'in lieu of camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us'

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

#55

Post by ryandrake » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:04 PM UTC

oxymoran wrote: post #41

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 infot…

Used to commute on one of those double decker tech busses down a few Interstate highways in the Bay Area, and from those you can get a good view into the cabins of other commuters’ cars. Every day you can see about 50% of drivers playing with their phones while driving. And it’s not just people occasionally glancing at their phones in their cup holder. They are holding the phone in their hand, scrolling through god-knows-what, typing/texting, watching videos. It’s totally insane! At least half of drivers are doing this. What can possibly be this important on Instagram that you’re willing to risk your life for?

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

#56

Post by jihodl » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:04 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #46

exabrial wrote: post #36

This 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…

Just do away with the legal limit altogether, drop it to zero. If you've had anything at all to drink then you should not be operating a motor vehicle on puclic roadways. If you get caught DUI then your license should be permanently revoked. I wonder how drastically improved the alcohol related traffic fatality statistics would be with that law. The regulation currently up for consideration clearly violates the fourth amendment.

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

#57

Post by rdtwo » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #54

mmastrac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).

My point was about government mandated safety features. Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't need to mandate their inclusions on cars as consumers voluntarily were willing to add this feature for years. However, when the government forced all consumers on all to have to add this feature that is where the line was crossed. I drive a fuel efficient Chevy S…

Sometimes you need government mandates otherwise the industry standardizes a model that actually costs the consumer more. Bumper height and construction for example should be standardized because the incentive is for ineffective bumpers. Forward visibility and pedestrian impact standards need to be set to prevent monster grills. A lot of this will actually lower total cost of ownership at little or no cost.

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

#58

Post by lm28469 » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #45

lm28469 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

idk man, Discord thinks a picture of my fingers is explicit content, google Lens thinks my gf's cat is a dog, tesla can't detect people _asleep_ at the wheel...

AI is fun until you start applying it to real world issues, then it crumbles apart.

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

#59

Post by mindslight » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

satyrnein wrote: post #29

It seems like insurance companies should be liable for massive damages for DUIs (raising rates), but offer the option to "voluntarily" install a breathalyzer to get lower rates. That feels like the American way.

That's just authoritarianism with extra steps.

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

#60

Post by dahart » Sun, Aug 08, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #54

mmastrac wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).

My point was about government mandated safety features. Backup cameras have value for the consumer in preventing accidents and damage, the government didn't need to mandate their inclusions on cars as consumers voluntarily were willing to add this feature for years. However, when the government forced all consumers on all to have to add this feature that is where the line was crossed. I drive a fuel efficient Chevy S…

> in lieu of a camera we made a $2000 gift to clean water in Africa, it saved more lives, trust us

Wait, so do you mean you don’t care about the extra cost at all, and you don’t care if Chevrolet charged you a lot more than the cost of a backup cam in order to donate? It’s just the government safety rule you object to?

Or are you saying you think backup cameras cost $2000?

And why didn’t you acknowledge the valid point that the economic value to society of backup cameras is in reduction in accidents, and not limited to loss of life situations?

Are you being honest with a dollars per life calculation? It seems misleading. What about the property damage value, how much is that? What about injuries?

According to the stats I found with a quick search that were used to justify the backup cam rules, there were 15,000 injuries per year in addition to the ~200 deaths. And one third of all backup related deaths are children under 5. What is the economic value of a child, and are you sure it’s less than 5.7 million?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/04/07/2014-07...