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

81–87 of 87 posts

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

#81

Post by randompwd »

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…

> 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.

Where does that figure come from?

Car sellers don't sell OEM cameras at cost. They have a ridiculous markup (between 5x & 10x and yes that includes certification & testing). Your $500 dollar reverse cam is cost at ~$50.

By mandating them, the 'luxury!' margin will magically disappear.

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

#82

Post by prirun »

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…

I was in a wreck 2 months ago where I'm assuming the woman was on her phone, because she slammed into me while I was stopped at an intersection. I am still arguing with her insurance company over the property damage claim, and we haven't even started on the bodily injury claim because I haven't yet finished all my health-related crap caused by the "accident".

The phone companies, insurance companies, car companies, and individuals have no incentive to disable phones while driving. Who is left to fix this problem?

Maybe it will get fixed when a senator's family member is killed by someone driving and using their phone.

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

#83

Post by jihodl »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #68
jihodl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's childish, and doesn't belong here on HN.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, all have BAC limits of zero. Try to leave constructive comments that discuss the points made in a parent instead of attacking it outright and calling it names.

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

#84

Post by quickthrower2 »

smt88 wrote: post #14
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.

Normally you get a blood test if you are over the limit, rather than relying on the result.

The balance is saving lives vs. individual freedom. As a European I probably have a less pure view about freedoms than people in the US.

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

#85

Post by quickthrower2 »

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).

I’ll take the backup camera even if it costs more than my expected savings on car damages because of the value of not having your day ruined by needing to talk to insurers. I got yelled at once by locals when I slightly nudged a car behind because they assumed I wouldn’t tell the owner of the other car! That sort of shit as well!

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

#86

Post by lm28469 »

agumonkey wrote: post #66
lm28469 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

those are all terrible implementations though, nobody would ask a discord like dev team to work on safety critical systems, and musk has a serious problems overselling his driving aid.. doesn't mean a good team of serious guys could make a useful device (I'm no proponent of it btw)

Anything short of 100% reliability and 0% error will be a pain in the ass to thousands of people worldwide every single day

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

#87

Post by DangitBobby »

dragonwriter wrote: post #48
DangitBobby wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

Oh, ok. I disagree, since we all know there are no fallacy police and you can legally do it but it's considered a source of error.
Post reply on HN