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

SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

nydailynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#41

Post by trippy_biscuits »

When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on investment. Why can't we do something to prevent self-inflicted suffering? Those people did not need to die. While I don't consume alcohol I don't see why a person that has consumed alcohol should be transformed into a homicidal idiot after getting into the driver's seat. Since we can't seem to limit DUI, perhaps we can we make a car that won't operate when the driver is incapacitated? Although, I would oppose any legislation that forces such technology on everyone. To be sure, this remains a tough problem to solve (1). Rather than working around the problem (removing drivers or reducing the need to drive, limiting/controlling alcohol, etc) how should we address the issue? If we could stop alcohol-impaired driving the United States could save USD$51 billion per year and prevent over 10,000 deaths annually.

1. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impai...

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#42

Post by Jtsummers »

corresation wrote: post #17
jcromartie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should still raise the question: do sobriety checkpoints save lives? Even though this was the fault of the driver, and obviously an extremely rare event, would those people still be alive if the driver had just gone home? I'm not anti-checkpoint or anything.

This should still raise the question Should it? Is baseless conjecture informed by essentially no facts, in the echo of a just-happened tragedy, ever useful? I am going to say no, it is never useful. Many misinformed words are spilled, blame is heartily doled out liberally and easily by keyboard warriors, and everyone feels like they've done the world some good, when they've done nothing of the sort. Sorry if this co…

I may have downvoted you, if I did, I'm sorry. All I know is that during my fidgeting-by-highlighting I clicked on an arrow.

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#43

Post by dllthomas »

Crito wrote: post #22
Codhisattva wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "impaired meta-consciousness" is the problem. It's a fact of human life that when drinking, a person reaches a point where they are no longer able to make rational judgments. Not only about their actions but also about the level of impairment they are experiencing. This is why drunks are dangerous - after X drinks they look at their car and think "I've got this" when in fact they are so drunk they don't know wh…

I've been drunk enough to loose consciousness my fair share of times, but I have never been drunk enough to do something like get behind the wheel of a car. If that point of drunkenness exists for me, it exists beyond the "alcohol poisoning, facedown on the floor" point. Alcohol is often used as an excuse for poor behavior, but in practice with most people it does not have the power to induce most of the behavior tha…

My experience has been similar to yours, but I am not confident that there isn't enough variation in human cognition and physiology that wouldn't still wind up with a lot of drunk drivers if every instance of driving drunk was as described above. This is not inconsistent with the notion that the predominance of effects of drinking on personality/behavior have more of a social basis than a chemical one (as studies have suggested, IIRC).

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#44

Post by elipsey »

Crito wrote: post #22
Codhisattva wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "impaired meta-consciousness" is the problem. It's a fact of human life that when drinking, a person reaches a point where they are no longer able to make rational judgments. Not only about their actions but also about the level of impairment they are experiencing. This is why drunks are dangerous - after X drinks they look at their car and think "I've got this" when in fact they are so drunk they don't know wh…

I've been drunk enough to loose consciousness my fair share of times, but I have never been drunk enough to do something like get behind the wheel of a car. If that point of drunkenness exists for me, it exists beyond the "alcohol poisoning, facedown on the floor" point. Alcohol is often used as an excuse for poor behavior, but in practice with most people it does not have the power to induce most of the behavior tha…

I agree with Codhisattva that in many cases people who are very drunk are not in control of their behavior. Moreover, an alcoholic is, by definition, not able to control his behavior. I have heard first hand accounts from self identified alcoholics of such situations, some of which resulted in a death that the person in question could not even remember. I don't mean to suggest that this is an excuse; in the stories that I refer to, the guilty parties said they were sorry, and went to prison. Of course a person could be a jerk and a drunk. This guy was driving drunk in a stolen car from the next town over -- it seems like there might have been some opportunities to exercise sober judgment somewhere along the way.

My point is that the fact that you or I believe that we can control our behavior when drunk, or that drinking does not alter our essential character (e.g. "people only do things when drunk that they wanted to do anyway) does not imply that the same is true for everyone unless you don't believe in alcoholism.

I think that not believing in alcoholism because you aren't an alcoholic is harmful.

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#45

Post by [deleted] »

kevingadd wrote: post #33
anigbrowl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh for heaven's sake, there are other ways to get from A to B besides driving yourself or taking Uber. Blaming APD for this is a cheap shot, especially as the driver appears to have stolen the car from another town an hour's drive away and was thus not likely to be an Uber customer int he first place.

God, and the first answer to this is Uber ? What about public transit and denser cities? Ugh.

[deleted]

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#46

Post by aspensmonster »

trippy_biscuits wrote: post #41

When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on investment. Why can't we do someth…

Well, I'd love to see some tech a la "Ghost in the Shell" that can just break down all the alcohol in the bloodstream on command, or otherwise maintains the euphoria without getting to the point of "I'm going to go drive my car through Red River tonight." When you're ready to go you just activate the tech and poof, you can drive again. And you avoid the hangover too.

But in the meantime, it certainly seems that the best we can do is prevent others from getting behind the wheel at all. Which really only works in an environment of peer pressure, backed up with at least one person that will go beyond words and physically restrain the would-be driver if necessary. Avoiding the bystander effect is difficult enough as it is, but when the person is drunk at home and decides that they want to go get some McDonalds...

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#47

Post by [deleted] »

kevingadd wrote: post #33
anigbrowl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh for heaven's sake, there are other ways to get from A to B besides driving yourself or taking Uber. Blaming APD for this is a cheap shot, especially as the driver appears to have stolen the car from another town an hour's drive away and was thus not likely to be an Uber customer int he first place.

God, and the first answer to this is Uber ? What about public transit and denser cities? Ugh.

[deleted]

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#48

Post by jakobe »

trippy_biscuits wrote: post #41

When I think of all the money spent in the name of improving and enriching the lives of human beings, it troubles me that we don't have a reliable solution for ending DUI. I know many companies fund research to end cancer or improve the quality of life for those with various diseases. While this research may help save or improve lives, it's motivated in part by a potential return on investment. Why can't we do someth…

Preventing DUI is a difficult problem. A much easier problem would be to prevent speeding. Put a GPS in every car that prevents the car from driving faster than the speed limit. All the technology exists, and this would doubtlessly save lives, but somehow I doubt anybody would pass the required laws.

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#49

Post by zingui »

jcromartie wrote: post #15
rosser wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These specific people would, yes. But how many more people would risk driving drunk if they knew there were no sobriety checkpoints?

It's clear that sobriety checkpoints aren't killing people left and right (that's preposterous). But it's not clear (edit: to me) if they actually save any lives for the effort.

Here in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), they saves lives. People are afraid to go out to drink driving and lost the car (with stay with the police) and the driver's license (1-year without the license and have to go through all the classes to get the license again) plus a fine of R$1,915.65(around US$980).

It works here, a lot of people are preferring a cab over the car to go out to places they know they will drink.

Re: SXSW: 2 dead, 23 injured.

#50

Post by glesica »

jessedhillon wrote: post #26
paddy_m wrote: post #11

Good thing APD is protecting the public by keeping Uber out. The driver was definitely at fault, but we need to seriously look at how we design cities and laws. If the only way to get around in a city is to drive, people are going to drive drunk. Make it easier for people to get around without driving, and there will be less drunk driving. People will seek out jurisdictions where driving is less necessary because the…

I am just going to venture a guess that the kind of person who steals a car and flees cops -- first in a car and then on foot -- is not in Uber's target demographic.

Unless you just robbed a union hall or a non-GMO organic food coop, then Uber has your back... ;)
Post reply on HN