61–70 of 87 posts
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.
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-k…
Around here the fee for talking with a handheld phone is more than twice what a headset costs + points off your license. Yet people still do it all the time.
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…
Isn’t this a misleading framing? It suggests that safety isn’t improving, but the population has increased, as have speed limits and road miles traveled. The per-capita death rates have been falling consistently for decades. See the first graph at the top of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
However the current systems we have imply that I'd have to blow into something every time to start my car, that straw thing would get full of saliva, and on top of that there could be false positives so it's obviously a big no.
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 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
I assume you mean mandatory breathalyzers as car equipment, alongside high-visibility vest, documents etc. It is law in some countries - I know of France. I judge it one of the most absurd conceivable piece of legislation.
You cannot go to people who are possibly abstinents and suggest that they may drink: it is offensive. Even if well below the median, even if only the third, tenth standard deviation refrained from intoxication, you still cannot go to some random individual and assume they drink - in their culture, that could be a disrespectful to defamatory act.
Plus, it is a matter of prudence: also on a matter of proper relation, you do not want to put those people in the condition of discussing why they find it offensive - forcing them to possibly offend the inquirer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
doesn't mean a good team of serious guys could make a useful device (I'm no proponent of it btw)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The Senate was rigged from the jump to favor states with lower populations. That clause is also the only part that is immune from the amendment process. It's never represented the people, it's always represented the states. The problem at the moment is that the person in charge of one of the two equally sized factions in power has zero interest in doing any kind of leadership or legislating. That's why nothing is hap…
...which is a lot less of a problem if the House and the Presidency represent the majority. Then the Senate functions as intended: a check on the "mob" of democracy.
But now we're in a position where most states are gerrymandered, the Electoral College also heavily favors the rural minority, and the judiciary has been intentionally hijacked by abusing the rural bias.
It makes sense if you think about it. Given hundreds of years to figure it out, eventually a minority interest is going to find a way to engineer the federal system to seize (and retain) power against the will of the majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fourt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just authoritarianism with extra steps.
Arguably it's fixing externalities by correctly pricing risk.