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

181–190 of 212 posts

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

#181

Post by foxyv »

To be honest, you would solve so many of these DUI problems by just adding a driver's license interlock that requires the person to be a licensed driver to move the vehicle. So many people are driving on suspended licenses right now. Usually without registration or insurance. It would be cool to be able to use my DL to unlock and drive my car anyhow.

However, the obvious solution is to make it so people DON'T NEED A CAR TO DO EVERYTHING! Public transportation, cycling infra, pedestrian friendly design! All of these reduce drunk driving.

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

#182

Post by helloworld11 »

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…

Truly what a self-indulgent, privileged comment from someone who evidently doesn't share the lives, practical needs or economic circumstances of millions of people who truly, really, fucking absolutely need cars for their daily living needs. Oh hey.. Let's flippantly recommend an "ebike"... Because of course that's the perfect solution for all the ranchers, farmers, far-suburban residents and millions of people who live in neighborhoods and cities where public transit and bikes are absurdly impractical for the jobs they need to do each day to pay the bills.

Truly, some of the people on HN are incredible at taking their own little bubbles of life and just cluelessly extrapolating them outward to any situation without a single pause. It's laughable.

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

#183

Post by kkfx »

A day I think some will bring to court all involved in such "evolution" because a day due to a "for safety" automatism someone else die because the automatism works well in most cases but not in all.

Like emergency braking that prevent a car crush a small fence on purpose to avoid a tanker full of gas, refuse to start when someone have to go to first aid very quickly etc.

When this will happen I home some judges decide to sentence not compensation but exemplar punishments to those who decide a procedure, an automatism is better than single human being and so must prevail on them.

Not differently from companies those call-centers are powerless because of some automated business software procedure designed by some "manager", but different for the impact on human life.

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

#184

Post by Forge36 »

MerelyMortal wrote: post #146
Forge36 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a solved problem today. See Interlock Breathalyzer.

Do they still give false positives? https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-br...

More reason against requiring it in all cars.

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

#185

Post by [deleted] »

leetcrew wrote: post #20
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…

yes and no. I do suspect that limits are often adjusted for reasons that have more to do with revenue than safety. but at the same time, the designed speed of a road isn't always appropriate for the surroundings. 55 could be an reasonable limit for a country road at the time of construction, but way too high when a bunch of shops and homes are built around it later on. ideally the road itself would be modified to ref…

[deleted]

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

#186

Post by egberts1 »

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…

Let us ignore the huge cost saving brought on by truck-trailers.

We cannot imagine a fleet of electric bike pulling one truck-trailer, in the spirit of slaves pulling blocks toward an Egyptian pyramid.

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

#187

Post by resoluteteeth »

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…

> 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.

If there were speed limiters, it would probably be reasonable to increase highway speeds in places where they are excessively low, but to also enforce the current speed limits on residential streets as hard limits or even lower them.

This would massively increase safety while eliminating any concern about speeding tickets at normal highway speeds that people actually drive at.

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

#188

Post by nelgaard »

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…

During the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, tens of thousands of people escaped by driving through the fire. Statistically some of them were probably over the limit. And the police were most likely too busy at the time to override lots of alcohol detection systems.

And how reliable are the Alcohol Detection Systems in a smoky environment?

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

#189

Post by mwint »

kittiepryde wrote: post #118
pigeonhole123 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone suggesting that?

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

The slope we’ve slid down so far has been very slippery indeed.

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

#190

Post by mwint »

eluketronic wrote: post #107
oneplane wrote: post #77

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?

This seems akin to trying to change our nations attitude towards guns and semi automatic weapons instead of improving gun control legislation. According to the 2020 figures in the article > 10,000 people are dying every year from alcohol-related accidents. If there’s something tangible that can be done to reduce that death count, I’m all for it. As wonderful as it would be to reform the national attitude towards alco…

> If there’s something tangible that can be done to reduce that death count, I’m all for it.

If we just put everyone in jail, there would be many fewer DUI deaths.

Yeah, it’d come at the cost of some liberty, but apparently that’s no big deal anymore.

Post reply on HN