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

31–40 of 212 posts

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

#31

Post by landemva »

dTal wrote: post #27
vuln wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installe…

Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive ? That's perverse.

If people don't like it, they can choose to instead do the jail time.

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

#32

Post by landemva »

nullc wrote: post #28
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…

Normal procedures have them measure the n-th percentile actual speed and then derate it. So if procedures aren't changed limiters would lower speed limits.

Yes, typically State DOT has published rules for speed studies and they seem to usually follow those results. I have seen speed limits on several road sections increase after speed studies.

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

#33

Post by landemva »

piva00 wrote: post #19
maxsilver wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 spe…

I lived and drove up and down Europe, though not Norway. Roads there are designed to be less injurious, and speeding fines can be very high. There is also little tolerance for any drinking and driving.

USA infatuation with left turns across roads posted at 45 mph or higher lead to deadly T-bone collisions. European roads often have roundabouts which naturally slow traffic and a collision would be a glancing side kiss. USA foot gun left turns kill people by design.

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

#34

Post by ozfive »

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…

Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?

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

#35

Post by londons_explore »

dTal wrote: post #27
vuln wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installe…

Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive ? That's perverse.

I assume the logic is that you need to demonstrate you have driven X thousand times, never with alcohol on your breath, before you can say your DUI problem has been solved.

I guess you are free to not drive in a month, but then the tester will need to stay attached to your car longer till you have demonstrated you are rehabilitated.

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

#36

Post by vuln »

dTal wrote: post #27
vuln wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installe…

Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive ? That's perverse.

Well if you just let the car sit there all month then there is no reason you need to take it into the shop to be “calibrated” which costs 45-55$ per month.

Oh and by the way the interlock calibration installation / removal / calibration business is privately owned and only open Monday through Friday 9-11am 2-4pm by appointment only.

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

#37

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ozfive wrote: post #34
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…

Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?

> you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?

I’m against a system that refuses to let me drive because it thinks I’m drunk. Or a system that would prevent me from breaking the speed limit, at my discretion, e.g. in an emergency.

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

#38

Post by vuln »

landemva wrote: post #31
dTal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive ? That's perverse.

If people don't like it, they can choose to instead do the jail time.

Not really. In most cases the actual jail time is suspended. Jail costs the city/town. Getting you back in the road insures more tax revenue and your fines will most likely get paid which is additional revenue to the city.

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

#39

Post by throwaway0a5e »

ozfive wrote: post #34
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…

Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?

> Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?

Your strawman is naked. You should dress him in some plausible deniability.

There's nothing in the comment you are replying to to suggest in the slightest way that he is in favor of those things. Just because he's against the flavor of Skynet(TM) you want doesn't mean he's in favor of whatever random "bad thing" you want to paint him as in favor of.

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

#40

Post by superkuh »

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…

Since some people don't believe this happened here is an overview of how the the requirement which once seemed inevitable, never happened:

https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-car-tech-forgotten-by-auto...

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p...

>Assuming a final rule is issued in 2019, this would mean that the phase-in period would begin in 2021, and all vehicles subject to that final rule would be required to comply in 2023.

See also, https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/contributed-blogs/arc... And here's is my 2017 post on alt.cyberpunk about the ruling and a link to an articles about it back then, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.cyberpunk/c/YpRasEtoOwA , https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/06/21/killing-car-privacy... and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/danger-ahead-governmen...

Post reply on HN