Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–57 of 57 posts

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#51

Post by Ancapistani »

buzer wrote: post #50
superkuh wrote: post #5

It is already illegal to drive on public roads or third party property while intoxicated. Drunk driving interlocks which you have to blow in are pretty much the only way this could possibly be implemented. But https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/business/drunk-driving-in... "The Unforeseen Dangers of a Device That Curbs Drunken Driving".

In some states merely sitting on driver's seat with no intention to drive while intoxicated can lead to DUI charges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgOekbY8Sqs

Sitting in a lawn chair next to the car with the keys in your pocket can count. You have "effective control" over the vehicle.

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#52

Post by tzs »

kyrra wrote: post #17
josephcsible wrote: post #3

This is terrible. All such systems will have false positives. It's wrong to treat everyone as a criminal instead of reserving such systems for people who actually have been convicted of it.

It also increases the cost of every new car. People complain about housing, and goods like cars being expensive. But many fail to realize that every do-good law has a cost. "There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs."

> It also increases the cost of every new car.

It can probably be pretty cheap, since it looks like it does not have to detect actual drunkenness. It just has to detect impaired driving. That might be mostly doable with hardware already being built into new cars.

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#53

Post by dang »

RC_ITR wrote: post #24
tomohawk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - Emerson Consistency is not a primary value. It's important, but it shouldn't be the only driver to do something.

[flagged]

"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

Please don't do this here. You can make anyone look terrible by cherry-picking something garish, but it is not the curious conversation we want on HN. Moreover it gets trivially easier the further back in time you go.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#54

Post by RC_ITR »

dang wrote: post #53
RC_ITR wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

" Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " Please don't do this here. You can make anyone look terrible by cherry-picking something garish, but it is not the curious conversation we want on HN. Moreover it gets trivially easier the further back in time you go. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I wholeheartedly disagree.

First of all, that quote was pulled to insult me - it's specifically a quote about individuals' minds, not ideas. That is in fact the one of the strongest criticisms of Emerson - he grounded idea-based discourse in commentary on the people who hold those ideas. I'd even go so far as to say 'English Traits' is the perfect example of that failure.

Secondly, When a premise is supported only by a quote from an individual, it is completely acceptable to post a separate quote from that individual in response.

Why should I believe Emerson about consistency when (hopefully) all of us here disagree with him about Norsemen?

Maybe it would be flamebait if that was part of an argument, but his entire argument was "Emerson said this thing so it's true" and my argument was "Emerson also said this patently false thing."

I know it feels bad to look at the whole gorey corpus of otherwise really cool historical figures, but encouraging people to believe anything they say without critical analysis is the true anti-curiosity stance.

Thirdly, I agree it's easier to make people from the past look morally bad morally and that is precisely why we should not base our worldview on their quotes alone.

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#55

Post by dang »

RC_ITR wrote: post #54
dang wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. " Please don't do this here. You can make anyone look terrible by cherry-picking something garish, but it is not the curious conversation we want on HN. Moreover it gets trivially easier the further back in time you go. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I wholeheartedly disagree. First of all, that quote was pulled to insult me - it's specifically a quote about individuals' minds, not ideas. That is in fact the one of the strongest criticisms of Emerson - he grounded idea-based discourse in commentary on the people who hold those ideas. I'd even go so far as to say 'English Traits' is the perfect example of that failure. Secondly, When a premise is supported only by…

I agree with you that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38222537 invoked Emerson as a cliché, which was neither interesting nor helpful.

I think you took it too personally if you felt like it was specifically insulting you though. People regurgitate these things out of their own mental associations. It's not personal.

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#56

Post by RC_ITR »

dang wrote: post #55
RC_ITR wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly disagree. First of all, that quote was pulled to insult me - it's specifically a quote about individuals' minds, not ideas. That is in fact the one of the strongest criticisms of Emerson - he grounded idea-based discourse in commentary on the people who hold those ideas. I'd even go so far as to say 'English Traits' is the perfect example of that failure. Secondly, When a premise is supported only by…

I agree with you that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38222537 invoked Emerson as a cliché, which was neither interesting nor helpful. I think you took it too personally if you felt like it was specifically insulting you though. People regurgitate these things out of their own mental associations. It's not personal.

Yeah this is an anonymous forum (which inherently requires a false persona) so it literally can’t be personal.

BUT my point is that a common trope here is laundering bad behavior through quotes and revered historical figures - it’s something people often pick up when doing forensics in their youth.

I’m fine being told I’m small minded (we all are, significantly more than we’d like to believe), but it feels weird to have it happen on here without people supporting the argument. For example, “How far do you extend the demand for consistency RC_ITR - should we allow the government to install cameras on public land facing our homes? in that case they’re simply capturing photons that exist in public areas.”

That at least would have made me look foolish in a way that requires critical thinking.

Re: Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving (2021)

#57

Post by pauldenton »

csharpminor wrote: post #35
adrr wrote: post #10

This is going to be so awesome when I can't drive my car because I just used hand sanitizer. Or won't let me drive because i just cleaned the windows with window cleaner. Solution is cars that drive themselves.

If you read the article, it speculates that the most likely mechanism will be IR cameras that detect distracted driving/sleep. This technology is already widely used in commercial truck driving.

I knew there was telescreens in every workplace and home in 1984, but Cameras in every vehicle observing the drivers action perpetually is something even Orwell couldn't come up with
Post reply on HN