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

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

#171

Post by leetcrew » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

runamok wrote: post #162

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…

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 .…

FYI, the way it works in most states is that 0.08 is the "per se" limit. this means that having a BAC >= 0.08 is enough for a conviction. it does not mean you're guaranteed to be fine if your BAC is below that. if you get pulled over for any reason with a BAC >= 0.04, there is a good chance that you get arrested and face charges anyway. it's just a bit more work for the prosecution.

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

#172

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 4:00 PM UTC

TrueSlacker0 wrote: post #165

aeharding wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] Stil…

I usually WFH, but that's about the distance to my job if I take the highway, where bikes aren't allowed. If I were to go using side streets it would easily be double that.

Wouldn't be looking forward to a 50 mile ebike commute!

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

#173

Post by eternalban » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #120

pigeonhole123 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But GP's OP is not saying there shouldn't be a line, rather that it is that line that will likely be crossed in guise of public safety to unburden us from the burden of having liberties.

Food, water, stuff like that have potential to kill off everyone. Drunk drivers on the other hand are not likely to ever pose an existential threat. So I tend to agree with those who insist that, of course there must be regulation, there must be informed discussion, no we shall not consult the i-ching, but definitely loss of liberties require an exceptionally high public good threshold to be considered.

tldr; to keep that line in an optimal space between the extremes, clearly two opposing forces are necessary.

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

#174

Post by tsol » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 4:29 PM UTC

jrnichols wrote: post #43

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 skyro…

It doesn't help that culturally people get extremely defensive about alcohol as well. Even if you bring up its huge negatives people will do everything to deny it

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

#175

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 5:05 PM UTC

msh wrote: post #101

madamelic wrote: post #70

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.

You dont need cameras for that at all. Its usually solved like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device

Which usually has a camera so that if needed, they can verify that it was actually the driver blowing into the interlock and not a passenger.

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

#176

Post by lancepioch » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

throwaway0asd wrote: post #97

a2tech wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

People who want to drive and don't have licenses (whether by their choice or not) are currently driving on the roads right now. Also some of the worst drivers I've ever seen all do have their driver's license.

While what you're saying does seem to make sense, sometimes the situation isn't always that simple.

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

#177

Post by polski-g » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

pigeonhole123 wrote: post #102

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.

Is anyone suggesting that?

Oh such a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZITP93pqtdQ

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

#178

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

skapadia wrote: post #122

a2tech wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would you be okay with a drunk driver killing one of your family members? What if that could be prevented with tech like this? Does your personal liberty outweigh the need to keep people safe from tons of metal hurtling at them at insane speeds?

Many americans would rather that whole swaths of the population, including their own family members, die painfully then wear a mask in a grocery store.

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

#179

Post by pwinnski » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #5

pwinnski wrote: post #4

So-called "self-driving" systems, or the more-accurately-named lane-keeping and distance-keeping systems, may or may not be safer than human drivers driving equivalent cars, but they are much safer than alcohol-impaired drivers. The idea of having to blow into a tube every time I start my car seems outrageous, of course, but so many deaths every year in the US are due to alcohol-impaired driving that I'd almost be wi…

To be clear: this article is about passive detection systems that use e.g. infrared and touch sensors; it's not the blow-in-a-tube kind of system a judge might order to be installed in the car of a habitual DUI driver.

I missed that, thanks for the call-out. Now I'm curious about how well these systems work, whether they are able to tell the difference between someone inebriated and someone sick, etc. Making a note for a future rabbit hole.

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

#180

Post by mrguyorama » Wed, Sep 21, 2022, 7:27 PM UTC

kennend3 wrote: post #166

leetcrew wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It literally also just doesn't make sense. In order for your car to actually accelerate a meaningful amount to "dodge" an accident it would have to be VERY powerful, and most likely naturally aspirated. I have a GTI with 230hp but it has enough turbo lag that if you aren't already halfway into the throttle it won't go anywhere in the time it takes for the accident to occur, never mind adding onto that the time it takes the human brain to realize something is going on and think through that moving forward would actually improve the situation. There's a reason why race car drivers have rules about how you should drive around other cars, in an attempt to PREVENT dangerous situations instead of expecting fallible humans to always do the perfect thing in dangerous situations.

It's the same thinking that people who carry guns around all day do. They think they're the protagonist in an action movie, that they can hero their way through any problem, and any limit to that is a violation of their rights.