NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by leetcrew » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 2:42 PM UTC

kennend3 wrote: post #160

leetcrew wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong? you're in the middle lane with cars to your left, right, and rear. the one on the left doesn't see you and starts merging into your lane. if you slam on the brakes, you wouldn't be legally at fault for whatever happens next, but it would probably be best to b…

Or.. honk your horn? Slow down without "slamming on the brakes"? You are not legally at fault for stopping to avoid an accident. In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the car being behind you it is in front... does accelerating help?

> Or.. honk your horn? Slow down without "slamming on the brakes"?

this depends on the assumption that other drivers are aware of their surroundings and following you at a safe distance. unfortunately that's not usually the case on roads in my area. you could try that, or you could avoid the entire altercation by escaping to the open space ahead of you.

> In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the car being behind you it is in front... does accelerating help?

is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? let me make my point more clear. your car has brakes, an accelerator, and a steering wheel. use whichever one of those takes you in the opposite direction of the impending collision and doesn't require other drivers to avoid you instead.

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

#162

Post by runamok » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #148

bluejekyll wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t know why you put safety in quotes. You’re implying that this won’t make streets safer, by reducing drunk driving. But reducing drunk driving would in fact make streets safer. Our goal should be to have zero deaths related to common car usage and driving. For example, the backup camera is there to help reduce the number of people backing up over their own kids. This is a good thing. You can argue that this syste…

I'm not aware of any technology reliable, trustworthy, affordable, and quick enough to accomplish said goal without regularly inconveniencing a significantly larger portion of drivers who may need their vehicles in other emergencies. If you could provide a mechanism that didn't infringe non-drunk drivers rights I'd be more apt to accept this idea. I'd also need to know an override mechanism exists because it seems li…

Many states have quite low legal limits and it's broadly acknowledged that being tired, distracted, angry, stressed, etc. is almost or as bad as driving over the legal limit. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/advice/best-cars-blog/20... In California it's .08. If for example I was at a party and a friend had some kind of medical emergency I feel it would be reasonable to take them to an ER despite being at .08 or .10 while being very cautious (assuming others were also not sober).

I know many people that live outside the US take a zero tolerance policy to drinking and driving in the sense that if you are going to drive you don't drink at all and I applaud that. I take the more practical approach of knowing how many drinks I can have at my body weight and can for example have a glass or 2 of wine during a 2 hour dinner but no more because my BAC with 2 drinks is under .08 and each hour 1 drink is metabolized.

I do fully acknowledge the more people drink the worse their judgement as to whether they are safe to drive so I expect many will get angry at me for the above. From what I recall most DUIs are for multiples of the legal limit but I can't find a source at the moment.

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

#163

Post by TrueSlacker0 » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #151

throwaway0asd wrote: post #97

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.

What do driver's licenses add to safety? The only people they prevent from driving are someone who is crazy enough to drive a car without knowing how, but draws the line at driving without government approval.

If you had to do continuing education to renew your license every X years then it may add to safety. But as it exists today it seems to be more of a form of ID than anything to do with a vehicle. When someone gets hired at a new job (USA) a drivers license can be used as a part to show citizenship, which has nothing to do with driving.

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

#164

Post by namibj » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 2:57 PM UTC

MerelyMortal wrote: post #150

spoonjim wrote: post #21

Instead of treating everyone like a drunk driver they should just better enforce the current laws. Make a single DUI a ten-year loss of license and a DUI leading to a fatality an automatic life without parole and you will see a lot fewer people doing it.

I like that idea, but we just have to figure out a way to prevent unlicensed people from driving that isn't also a terrible idea. I don't want to have to scan my driver license just to start my car.

Making it so they don't have to drive, and then threatening them with severe punishment if they are ever caught driving without holding (regardless of possession) a license, should be feasible. However, that requires making it so they don't have to drive. Nothing's gonna stop them it they have no alternative.

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

#165

Post by TrueSlacker0 » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 2:58 PM UTC

aeharding wrote: post #143

david38 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your rationale why don’t you give up cars? If you care for your loved ones so much, Han them from using cars. Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep your family safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?

Because in this country the options are 1. Buy a car because it’s required in order to literally feed yourself, or 2. Live in one of the highly desirable, expensive pre-war neighborhoods that remain walkable Many Americans can’t just “give up cars” even if they wanted to. Car dependency is literally codified in out zoning and street building (MUTCD) Maybe if car dependency wasn’t such a requirement in order to live,…

>Buy a car because it’s required in order to literally feed yourself

One doesn't eat a car, nor need a car. It sure is nice to have but other options exists for most trips. An electric bicycle makes it easy to go anywhere needed. Even a non electric bicycle can go a great distance.

On the other hand I just looked up the average commute to work distance and it is way higher than I would have though, 27.6miles [1] Still a long distance but not too long for an ebike.

[1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/one-way-...

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

#166

Post by kennend3 » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 3:00 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #161

kennend3 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or.. honk your horn? Slow down without "slamming on the brakes"? You are not legally at fault for stopping to avoid an accident. In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the car being behind you it is in front... does accelerating help?

> Or.. honk your horn? Slow down without "slamming on the brakes"? this depends on the assumption that other drivers are aware of their surroundings and following you at a safe distance. unfortunately that's not usually the case on roads in my area. you could try that, or you could avoid the entire altercation by escaping to the open space ahead of you. > In your scenario, lets make one small change, instead of the c…

Your car also has a horn and a driver. Use proper defensive driving?

I've been driving for ~30 years and cant tell you when "accelerating" was my choice to avoid an accident.

I have had people attempt to change lanes without looking first. I honked and they stopped.

It is great to manufacture a situation where as you put it, people don't keep a safe distance yet the space in front of you is empty? Odd..

The more you post, the less sense you make. Perhaps read the response from the other guy as well?

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

#167

Post by scottshamus » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 3:08 PM UTC

StrictDabbler wrote: post #11

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 alc…

I think the passive system will likely using steering wheel sensors and driving-facing cameras to detect if a person is paying attention similar to Teslas requirement for FSD

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

#168

Post by noworld » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 3:09 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #158

Frost1x wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any technology reliable, trustworthy, affordable, and quick enough to accomplish said goal without regularly inconveniencing a significantly larger portion of drivers who may need their vehicles in other emergencies. If you could provide a mechanism that didn't infringe non-drunk drivers rights I'd be more apt to accept this idea. I'd also need to know an override mechanism exists because it seems li…

An override mechanism seems reasonable to me. How about: when you engage the override, a light on your car turns on, as a signal to everyone else on the road that you may be under the influence. Cops who see the light can consider it "reasonable suspicion" to pull you over.

That sounds awful.

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

#169

Post by 4oo4 » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

noSyncCloud wrote: post #61

4oo4 wrote: post #59

Really looking forward to being convicted of a DUI for using mouthwash just before leaving the house. I'm pretty sure orange juice can do it too.

Certain breads too. Lots of things.

That reminds me of Auto Brewery Syndrome:

https://www.palmpartners.com/auto-brewery-syndrome-body-prod...

It's interesting that those that are diagnosed don't have driving restrictions like people with epilepsy since they are actually intoxicated by it, but that might just be because it's so rare that most people don't know or refuse to believe it exists. They'll have it the worst if this actually gets mandated and deployed.

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

#170

Post by magicalist » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 3:52 PM UTC

pcaharrier wrote: post #156

magicalist wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. OK, but it's the greatest number of fatalities per mile traveled in 14 years, and the highest number per capita in 13 years, though. The recent trend upwards…

All of those would be great things to point out for context, but this article chose only one number to use. The same goes for talking about causes, as you point out by mentioning phone use and vehicle construction. I can add one more to that list: cars equipped with all the latest gadgets that do everything except help the driver focus on other vehicles and road conditions (vividly illustrated by one of those "Mayhem…

> All of those would be great things to point out for context, but this article chose only one number to use

13 or 14 vs 16 years isn't all that different, and most people understand absolute numbers better, so if you have to use one it seems like a good choice and isn't misleading with statistics, as the OP implies.