Live data from Hacker News

NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

ntsb.gov

191–200 of 212 posts

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

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 l…

No post body was provided.

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

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? This fixes the problem of "what do I do if I can't start my car in an emergency?"

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

#194
post #14

Once again, the actions of a few are hurting everyone else. Why not target the few? There's a solid connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths. We've all heard of crashes involving someone with multiple DUI arrests. These offenders need identifying, help, supervision, and maybe removing their driving privileges. https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/

Your link doesn't seem to establish a connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths FYI (unless I somehow missed it...). Driving deaths from DUI may have decreased while states were enforcing DUI laws, but the causality isn't all that clear. Meanwhile, distracted driving has exploded since the arrival of the smartphone and made it even harder to understand the dynamics behind road safety.

That said, I once read that the most important enforcement factors, with regard to actually reducing DUIs, were 1) increasing the likelihood of being caught and 2) minimizing the time between being caught and experiencing consequences. Notably, severity of punishment wasn't a significant factor. I know that states will differ in enforcement approaches, but the US states I've lived in haven't seemed at all interested in adopting a data-driven perspective - what I've seen has been a very low likelihood of DUI detection coupled with prosecution that can take a year or more for a routine DUI (let's not forget needlessly harsh punishments that are more likely to destroy one's family or finances than decrease the likelihood of future DUI...).

The contentious nature of this topic seems to make it hard to find rational discussions online. I've found plenty of emotional anecdotes, but few evidence-based suggestions mentioned (aside from the obvious but unrealistic suggestion to make cars unnecessary...). I'm no expert, but the "traditional American" perspective - 'Drunk drivers are horrible people who will go to hell when they die. Let's just charge all of them with attempted murder and lock them up for good. [commented on reddit via phone app from driver's seat of car in left lane on I-95]' (my characterization) - seems completely useless, in terms of actual harm-reduction.

What does seem clear is that drunk driving is caused by poor judgment and/or inadequate risk-assessment (its correlation with # miles driven could be a third factor worth mentioning). If we observe the two largest demographic groups among drunk drivers, young men and chronic alcoholics, it's clear that they share these characteristics - young men because their frontal cortex hasn't matured enough to reliably assess risk in general and chronic alcoholics because their constant drinking necessarily impedes good decision-making. If we're not developing solutions that target those particular deficiencies (i.e. not a small chance at having a harsh, but essentially abstract punishment a year or more in the future), I don't think we'll see real progress on this front.

In any case, I certainly don't think bringing enhanced surveillance into privately-owned vehicles is the solution.

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

#195

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.

Yes, absolutely. I often think about whether we should just go to the natural logical conclusion. Using GPS and speed data to automatically fine you if you speed and deduct from your linked bank account - you can contest this but you must pay first. I dislike cameras as it feels like you're constantly performing and if you slip up, you don't get to learn, instead your mistake is archived and put up for others to scru…

The more logical step would be having the GPS just limit the speed in the first place so speeding is impossible.

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

#196
post #181

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…

An amusing idea would be having bars check all IDs on entry/exit, perhaps some automated tech here, and then it locks the license from driving for x hours.

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

#197

Older cars that can be legally driven without all the nanny state crap are going to be worth bank for a while; until they get outlawed. Theme music: "Red Barchetta" by Rush

When most cars have auto braking, you'll just see a new car, walk out, it will immediately stop and any car without tech in it will slam in to the back of the new car. So there will soon be no old cars left.

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

#198

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 suspect the edge cases will do this in. False positives are potentially discriminatory and are dangerous if they prevent someone from driving in an emergency. I also suspect many people favor letting some legally over the limit people drive, at least short distances, in certain emergency situations, like transporting relatives who can’t walk away from a fire. Exactly what those situations are seems like a subject o…

It would make sense to make the system possible to disable and then make speeding a much much more serious crime where unless you can prove it was an emergency or other edge case, you lose your license on first offense.

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

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds awful.

Why? This fixes the problem of "what do I do if I can't start my car in an emergency?"

...until you get pulled over

> Cops who see the light can consider it "reasonable suspicion" to pull you over.

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that anyone should be allowed to drive whatever speed they like, based on their "discretion"? If so, is that different from getting rid of speed limits?

Distinguish "anyone should be capable of driving whatever speed they like" vs. "it should be legal for anyone to drive whatever speed they like".

Most people aren't capable of driving as fast as a trained emergency responder, much less driving like a psycho in a panic because they're dealing with a medical emergency and are completely emotionally unprepared for it.

I've been involved in an situation that resulted in a fatality and trying to rescue the victim and for an untrained responder your ability to think and process gets chopped down to around 25% of what it is normally. That is probably worse if the victim is someone you know. Now you want to argue that those people should be driving 100 mph through the streets blowing through red lights and whatever at their own discretion like that solves problems.

People need to call 911 and get the ambulance, which can stabilize the patient, to come to them. They can run code red and are trained in how to run red lights and get around traffic safely. They do it for a living and they're emotionally detached from the emergency.

Not to mention that the tires on the average vehicle shouldn't be driven that fast and they're probably nearly bald due to lack of maintenance.

Post reply on HN