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

41–50 of 212 posts

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

#41

Post by throwaway0a5e »

vuln wrote: post #36
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.

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.

Pretty much every post-conviction thing court mandates people pay for is a blatant cash grab from people nobody will stand up for. Interlocks are no different.

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

#42

Post by voldacar »

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?

I'm for cars which behave correctly. A correctly designed car, like any tool, does exactly what I command it to.

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

#43

Post by jrnichols »

Perhaps if our media wasn't constantly peppering people with advertisements about alcohol and we weren't constantly trying to equate alcohol with social status, things here might be a whole lot different. But no, we sell t-shirts with phrases like "Chardonnay all Day" and "mommy needs wine" and have beer ads equating drinking with a good happy life, and then we wonder why people are experiencing alcoholism at a skyrocketing rate.

instead a Gov agency says that we all now need to jump through a hoop because of drunk drivers.

Great. Just great.

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

#48

Post by landemva »

vuln wrote: post #38
landemva wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the actual jail time is suspended.

As you said, the sentence is suspended - because the person agrees to the option of staying out of jail with conditions which the person agrees to comply with. If the person doesn't want that option then they do the jail time.

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

#49

Post by rubatuga »

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?

Driving on the 401 in Toronto, cars are usually going 130 km/he in a 100 km/hr zone. People get to their destinations safely. The unnecessary complexity and price of a speed limiter is not worth it.

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

#50

Post by Pet_Ant »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #37
ozfive wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm against disabling cars, but all for automatically notifying 911.
Post reply on HN