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

71–80 of 87 posts

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

#71

Post by aww_dang »

mdp2021 wrote: post #65
roflc0ptic wrote: post #9

Earlier 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

> Mandatory breathalyzers 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…

Not to mention the ongoing maintenance and calibration costs of the breathalyzer.

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

#72

Post by kazoomonger »

dahart wrote: post #49
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #25

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…

The difference is between this and say mandatory seatbelts is that the car won't refuse to start if it thinks that someone isn't buckled. I would refuse to buy a car that did try that, as that's just asking for inconvenient sensor failures that leave you stranded.

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

#73

Post by ryandrake »

tomjen3 wrote: post #62
ryandrake wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I could get 10% of the fine, I could quit my job, stand by the road and record all the drivers who did that. I would make bank. 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.

According to [1], in California, total out of pocket for a first time cell phone violation is ~$150, total out of pocket for a subsequent offense is ~$250. Let's conservatively assume that for 75% of drivers, it's a first time violation. Average fine is $175.

According to random internet search [2], the saturation flow of a lane of traffic is about 1900 vehicles per hour. Let's assume a 4 lane highway at rush hour is about 80% of saturation, which yields 6,000 vehicles per hour.

Assume 50% are offending, and you can positively catch/convict 10% of those, so 300 vehicles x $175 = $262,500 in fines per hour. At 10% finder's fee, you could make $2,625 PER HOUR just sitting by the side of the road with a camera. Not bad!

1: https://www.drivinglaws.org/sb1613.php

2: http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-...

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

#74

Post by mmastrac »

988747 wrote: post #53
stuaxo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I found a stat that suggested ~100 [1] (another stat says 500 and 15,000 injuries (!) [2] and there's a 3rd between them [3]), so say 600 million. Given the insurance cost of replacing vehicles, that would only be 30k accidents prevented to pay for itself.

FWIW, I've heard anecdotally that the insurance companies pushed for backup cameras more than anyone else, but given the benefits to lower insurance (arguable, but in theory), less deaths and less injuries, it seems like a win. The technology will also get cheaper over the years.

[1] https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/

[2] https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehi...

[3] https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back...

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

#75

Post by mmastrac »

dahart wrote: post #60
hermannj314 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poi…

This is a super-interesting transcript I ran across with some discussion re: COVID, but actually mentions backup cameras.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

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

#76

Post by dahart »

mmastrac wrote: post #75
dahart wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 poi…

This is a super-interesting transcript I ran across with some discussion re: COVID, but actually mentions backup cameras. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

I checked out the part out that mentions backup cameras, and it’s got misinformation contradicted by the report I already posted above. For example, the people talking claim nobody tried to analyze the benefit to people other than children, which isn’t true, and they claim the benefits of backup cams “didn’t work out”, while the report above shows the calculation isn’t expected to pay off until 2028 and isn’t expected to reach maximum benefit until around 2050, but will on the whole be a positive to the economy. “Not that many lives saved” just seems like such an awful position to take, when we’re taking about per-vehicle costs that are less than a week’s gasoline.

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

#77

Post by mmastrac »

dahart wrote: post #76
mmastrac wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a super-interesting transcript I ran across with some discussion re: COVID, but actually mentions backup cameras. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

I checked out the part out that mentions backup cameras, and it’s got misinformation contradicted by the report I already posted above. For example, the people talking claim nobody tried to analyze the benefit to people other than children, which isn’t true, and they claim the benefits of backup cams “didn’t work out”, while the report above shows the calculation isn’t expected to pay off until 2028 and isn’t expecte…

Interesting, thanks. I think the transcript was specifically calling out the low value of human lives that were used in the past. This report seems a lot more rigorous than the other investigations and articles I've seen.

This is also from 2014, which means the net cost/vehicle has probably come down a fair bit (camera modules are <$5 and most cars including entry-level are shipping with screens already).

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

#79

Post by fsckboy »

kazoomonger wrote: post #72
dahart wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The difference is between this and say mandatory seatbelts is that the car won't refuse to start if it thinks that someone isn't buckled. I would refuse to buy a car that did try that, as that's just asking for inconvenient sensor failures that leave you stranded.

> I would refuse to buy a car that did

ok, but if it's mandated that means you'll do without a car

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

#80

Post by kazoomonger »

fsckboy wrote: post #79
kazoomonger wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is between this and say mandatory seatbelts is that the car won't refuse to start if it thinks that someone isn't buckled. I would refuse to buy a car that did try that, as that's just asking for inconvenient sensor failures that leave you stranded.

> I would refuse to buy a car that did ok, but if it's mandated that means you'll do without a car

There are enough used cars available today that I'm pretty sure I could just buy used for the rest of my life and not have to worry about that.

I don't think I will have to worry about it though because if such legislation ever passed, it wouldn't be long before someone got stranded in the middle of nowhere and died next to a perfectly functional car that refused to start up, the media would make a big deal about it, and the legislation would be reverted.

Post reply on HN