Live data from Hacker News

NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

ntsb.gov

111–120 of 212 posts

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

#111
If the NTSB truly wanted to reduce traffic deaths, they’d focus on speed. Speed limiters (overridable) that discouraged the driver from going over the speed limit would do more more to save lives of all road users than just focusing on alcohol.

Yes, alcohol is bad, but it’s still the car that’s dangerous, but these systems would only target a subset of drivers, and wouldn’t do anything to improve overall safety of cars.

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

#113

The story buries the lede, the real win for them is driver-facing cameras. Can't wait until they install a printer so they can just print the tickets out right into my car.

The printers would run out of paper and would be distracting. More likely the fine would be auto-deducted from the soon to be government run blockchain that is shimmed into all the banks we use. Also more likely the car would pull over and refuse to let people out until the police arrive.

Here [1] is a video Utopia that describes our potential future.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 [video]

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

#115
Just make them smaller, slower, and lighter rather than bigger, faster, and heavier. Then we don't need any of this garbage.

Have a special more restrictive license for anything over 400kg and 40km/h and actually enforce existing dui laws by existing mechanisms rather than giving bars parking minimums.

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

#116
post #80

"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.

'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.

Can you define "personal liberty", in the context of living in a society?

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

#117

Instead of mostly attempting symptom mitigation, wouldn't it be a much better improvement for society if the relation (some?) Americans have with alcohol was repaired?

We can implement breathalyzers in cars right now, today. There are no serious hurdles in the way and it would make driving while drunk a little harder.

How exactly do we convince an entire country be more responsible with alcohol?

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

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could eliminate food inspection and driver's licenses. That would increase liberty, but I don't think most people would find the freedom worthy of the cost.

Is anyone suggesting that?

Some libertarians are -- but I think they were trying to employ the slippery slope argument

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

#119
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, scooters and bicycles with electric motors are held to higher standards than cars when it comes to speed/power and it makes no sense

Cars should be limited to .5g forward acceleration, and .5g/s change of acceleration, and you should need the full stroke of the accelerator to get those figures. In other words, all throttle maps stuck in “eco” mode forever. No more twitchy aggressive throttles. Then we won’t have so many drivers murdering school kids in crosswalks because oopsie I tapped the wrong pedal.

You can’t limit acceleration. That would cripple accident avoidance

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could eliminate food inspection and driver's licenses. That would increase liberty, but I don't think most people would find the freedom worthy of the cost.

Is anyone suggesting that?

No, but I think GP’s point is that there will always be a tradeoff between personal liberty and safety. We can argue about where the line should be, but it needs to be drawn somewhere between the two extremes.
Post reply on HN