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

131–140 of 212 posts

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

#131

Post by bluejekyll »

a2tech wrote: post #80
pcaharrier wrote: post #65

"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.

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

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 system may not be the correct implementation to reduce drunk driving. You can argue other things might actually be better. But don’t claim that personal liberty is at stake for people when 43,000 people lost their personal liberty when their lives ended. Why don’t you care about their personal liberty?

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

#132

Post by pessimizer »

vidanay wrote: post #89
fnord123 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Printing tickets? You guys need to decide is the US is ahead of the world or decades behind. What's next, being pulled over for speeding?

Nahhh, we will withold medical care if there are unpayed tickets.

And inject a modal reminder into your web browsing on every page load with two buttons, "Pay Now" and "Remind me Later."

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

#133

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

aboringusername wrote: post #92
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.

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…

There are toll highways, operated by local governments, that track when you get on and off using cameras at fixed points. They could do this today and choose not to. Probably because they know everyone speeds and that if they did, people would avoid the highway and revenue would drop.

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

#134

Post by pessimizer »

BowBun wrote: post #125

Always interesting to see HN's take on regulation vs. liberties. Everyone here has benefited from regulations in various industries, so why are you complaining for this one? Cameras aside, I don't see what 'personal liberty' you lose by not being able to drive while drinking. You don't have a right to drive, it's a privilege. If I can encourage technology and regulation to get people who unnecessarily put my life in…

> Everyone here has benefited from regulations in various industries,

Yes, all regulations are the same. Literally no difference between any of them.

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

#135

Post by kennend3 »

kurupt213 wrote: post #119
jeffbee wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars should be limited to .5g forward acceleration, and .5g/s change of acceleration, and you should need the full stroke of the accelerator to get those figures. In other words, all throttle maps stuck in “eco” mode forever. No more twitchy aggressive throttles. Then we won’t have so many drivers murdering school kids in crosswalks because oopsie I tapped the wrong pedal.

You can’t limit acceleration. That would cripple accident avoidance

Can you provide a scenario where to avoid an accident the best choice is to add speed, which would have the effect of worsening the accident if you are wrong?

Limiting acceleration isn't a great solution, but your idea that accelerating cripples avoidance makes even less sense.

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

#136

Post by bluGill »

Forge36 wrote: post #79
pcaharrier wrote: post #65

"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.

We could try reducing miles driven. Add more pubic transit.

Not more, a lot more! Public transit is about the entire system. To make a difference we need a lot more transit. A small extension is generally not enough to be useful to anyone, but a large extension could actually be useful. Running transit only during rush hour is useless, as it running transit every hour, you really should aim to run every line every 5 minutes all day (and every half hour late nights) - if you don't cars are not that expensive and so well worth the convenience.

The republicans are right when they say most transit funding is just throwing good money after bad. Most transit projects spend far too much on making things look nice and often have been given bad routes that will never result in anything useful.

The first paragraph is useful for every country. The second is obviously US specific.

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

#137

Post by magicalist »

pcaharrier wrote: post #65

"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.

> True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.

OK, but it's the greatest number of fatalities per mile traveled in 14 years, and the highest number per capita in 13 years, though.

The recent trend upwards is pretty alarming and it's not worth pretending otherwise, even if you're dead set against this solution. Both statistics are up over 20% from the lows of a decade ago, 30% in absolute numbers.

Personally I'm pretty convinced by the case of rising phone use and vehicle size in the same period and would like to see those addressed.

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

#138

Post by nottorp »

deburo wrote: post #104
msh wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a solved problem, you can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device

Requires a starting sample and samples at random times afterward. It’s very intrusive.

"at random times"... for example when i'm taking a curve at the speed limit? :)

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

#139

Post by TrueGeek »

Freeaqingme wrote: post #109

Would it not be way more useful if the NTSB focused on road design? As someone from Europe I oftentimes see very wide roads in the USA with a maximum speed of 15 mph or something, their design does not stop one from driving 50+ mph, however. In Europe, you often see that if there's a lower maximum speed, the width of the road is reduced, and obstacles are placed to ensure you actually can't drive significantly faster…

I don't know that I've ever seen a road in the USA with a limit as low as 15. The road my house is on has a limit of 25, no sidewalks although children attempt to walk on it since the community swimming pool is at the end, and people regularly drive 35+. The road it connects to has a limit of 45 and no shoulder (although, amazingly I've still seen people attempting to walk on it too!) and I've seen people that must have been going 90 mph.

As you say, the roads in Europe are much different. The speed limits are MUCH lower and the roads are designed such that you really can't go much faster. If we invested in safer roads and public transportation a lot of our problems with cars would solve themselves.

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

#140

Post by Tangurena2 »

dTal wrote: post #27
vuln wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installe…

Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive ? That's perverse.

People like to claim to courts that they NEED a car and MUST have a car. This way they can keep some sort of restricted driving license that lets them drive to/from work, school or grocery stores.

Actually not driving would show your claims (under penalty of perjury) to be lies. Courts do not like that at all.

Post reply on HN