Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

ntsb.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 212 posts

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#11

Post by StrictDabbler »

The text of this law is nonsensical.

> The passage defining what Congress actually wants describes a system that can "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and... prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected." This is only half of the proposed system, though. The other half specifically references blood alcohol content, saying the technology must "passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and... prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected."

The first half is impossible in a car that has assistance features. You can't use machine learning to figure out if a driver using lane-assistance and radar cruise control on a highway is drunk because they're hardly driving at all. There are no inputs to analyse.

The second half is literally impossible. You cannot passively detect a driver's blood alcohol. You can actively detect it by having interlocks in the car but they have to be calibrated regularly and it's not passive at all.

This is a Timmy Turner wish, not a law.

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#12

Post by smelendez »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB…

I suspect the edge cases will do this in. False positives are potentially discriminatory and are dangerous if they prevent someone from driving in an emergency.

I also suspect many people favor letting some legally over the limit people drive, at least short distances, in certain emergency situations, like transporting relatives who can’t walk away from a fire. Exactly what those situations are seems like a subject of contention.

There’s also the related interesting case of moving vehicles on private property. For instance, a couple has a few cocktails at home, their car is towards the bottom of a sloped driveway under a tree, and there’s an unexpected flash flood or high wind warning. Should the car prevent them from driving it forward a few feet to safety?

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#13

Post by [deleted] »

superkuh wrote: post #2

A handful of years back the NHTSA announced that all new cars would have to have a vehicle to vehicle 5.7-5.9 GHz system for announcing vehicle position, velocity, and cryptographically signed ID. Luckily the dates just came and went and the manufacturers didn't do it. The NHTSA folded and eventually the FCC gave that ~hundreds MHz of 5 GHz band back to wifi. Hopefully that's what will happen here. The NTSB only reco…

[deleted]

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#14

Post by imglorp »

Once again, the actions of a few are hurting everyone else. Why not target the few?

There's a solid connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths. We've all heard of crashes involving someone with multiple DUI arrests. These offenders need identifying, help, supervision, and maybe removing their driving privileges.

https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#15

Post by parker_mountain »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB…

> They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits.

That's not the entire truth. They want speed limiters that _can be disabled_, in the same way as the Auto Off emissions control feature. And, right now, the discussion is leaning towards first employing mandatory speeding chimes - and doing away with speed limiting functionality altogether.

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#16

Post by r2_pilot »

smelendez wrote: post #12
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB…

I suspect the edge cases will do this in. False positives are potentially discriminatory and are dangerous if they prevent someone from driving in an emergency. I also suspect many people favor letting some legally over the limit people drive, at least short distances, in certain emergency situations, like transporting relatives who can’t walk away from a fire. Exactly what those situations are seems like a subject o…

Well, just this past Sunday I literally had a random drunk driver pull onto my private property and proceed to wreck their vehicle in my front yard. While the interlock would have kept them from starting the vehicle originally, the stupidity from drunkenness is still present regardless of location or speed. I strongly disagree with interlocks (someone could have just cleaned their hands with alcohol sanitizer, or someone spilled a beer on their hand or on the sensor itself), but I would be more amenable to something that could be overridden immediately but with some warning notification lights on the vehicle with laws stating you will be pulled over for inspection and you(not insurance) will be responsible for any damages or accidents you caused if proven drunk driving after disabling the lock.

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#17

Post by dahfizz »

r2_pilot wrote: post #16
smelendez wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the edge cases will do this in. False positives are potentially discriminatory and are dangerous if they prevent someone from driving in an emergency. I also suspect many people favor letting some legally over the limit people drive, at least short distances, in certain emergency situations, like transporting relatives who can’t walk away from a fire. Exactly what those situations are seems like a subject o…

Well, just this past Sunday I literally had a random drunk driver pull onto my private property and proceed to wreck their vehicle in my front yard. While the interlock would have kept them from starting the vehicle originally, the stupidity from drunkenness is still present regardless of location or speed. I strongly disagree with interlocks (someone could have just cleaned their hands with alcohol sanitizer, or som…

> I would be more amenable to something that could be overridden immediately but with some warning notification lights on the vehicle

I think that is a pretty good solution. In any emergency/ edge case / false positive scenario, you are still able operate your car. But a "pull me over" light goes on so that cops will know to double check in "regular" scenarios.

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#19

Post by piva00 »

maxsilver wrote: post #10
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB…

> I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. Roads designed for 55 get labeled 45 (in 1990) then 40 (2000) then 35 (2010) and then "road dieted" to 25 (2020). Everyone's "speeding" on paper, but not in reality -- they're going the speed they're were always supposed to go. But politically, people ju…

> Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality.

This is utter absurd, it's definitely based in the reality of 1/2 m*v^2. Decreasing the speed decreases the kinetic energy of impacts, decreasing injuries and deaths. That's the reality.

The fact that American roads were designed as the beastly stroads and 6-lanes inner city avenues that are present all around doesn't mean their speed limits should follow that design, the speed limit should follow what utilisation occurs around the road.

You might be right that in some places speed limits can be a political stunt of sorts. Basic physics and the examples of multiple Western countries which achieved a less deadly traffic by implementing stricter speed limits (among other measures) should show you part of the reality you feel is lacking.

Look at Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and so on. USA's road fatalities per billion km-vehicle are on average double, you can do better and kill less people, in total amount of road fatalities the USA is only behind Brazil.

No road in a city centre should allow for faster than 40 km/h traffic around people. A road (non-motorway) with major separation between automobiles and people in a city shouldn't exceed 60 km/h. Traffic even flows better with larger windows for smart traffic control, lower the speed, lower the average travel time.

Re: NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

#20

Post by leetcrew »

maxsilver wrote: post #10
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB…

> I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Yeah, "speed limits" are primarily a political game, not anything based in reality. Roads designed for 55 get labeled 45 (in 1990) then 40 (2000) then 35 (2010) and then "road dieted" to 25 (2020). Everyone's "speeding" on paper, but not in reality -- they're going the speed they're were always supposed to go. But politically, people ju…

yes and no. I do suspect that limits are often adjusted for reasons that have more to do with revenue than safety. but at the same time, the designed speed of a road isn't always appropriate for the surroundings. 55 could be an reasonable limit for a country road at the time of construction, but way too high when a bunch of shops and homes are built around it later on. ideally the road itself would be modified to reflect that, but there isn't always money for these types of projects.
Post reply on HN