4 ms·

Very difficult to prove that the simulation is an accurate and easy to grasp representation that holds up in a court.

hirundo 8y ago
You could put the judge and/or jury in VR headsets for the playback. They would see just what the defendant saw, in four dimensions. That's amazingly high fidelity, and the chain of evidence can be demonstrated with a checksum. Compared to judging the inner workings of a breathalyzer, that pretty good.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  All that proves is they failed a simulation, not that they were under the influence. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
  - hirundo 8y ago
    Seems like we should care more about driving impaired than about driving under the influence. The former is what we're trying to prevent by policing the later. You can be impaired without being under the influence, and under the influence without being significantly impaired.
    - bdcravens 8y ago
      I don't disagree, but I've had moments when I was a terrible driver: I was tired, I was pissed off, I was stressed, I had just received bad news, I was quitting nicotine, etc.
      - hirundo 8y ago
        I've done that too, and I should have been busted for that too. Is it really better to risk other lives due to lack of sleep than from too many drinks? For some stranger's little kid in another car's back seat, impaired is impaired.
        bdcravens 8y ago
        By that standard, that stranger could be arrested for careless driving because the child in their back seat was screaming for a juice box and they were allowing themselves to be distracted.
        hirundo 8y ago
        Failure to control a vehicle is a violation in the places I've lived. It applies regardless of circumstances. Ice patch, animal runs in front, screaming toddler, whatever the cause, you can still be arrested for it.
        bdcravens 8y ago
        In which case you need no VR setup, as the event happened prior to the officer interaction. Most of what you described is a ticket, not an arrestable offense.

You could put the judge and/or jury in VR headsets for the playback. They would see just what the defendant saw, in four dimensions. That's amazingly high fidelity, and the chain of evidence can be demonstrated with a checksum. Compared to judging the inner workings of a breathalyzer, that pretty good.

bdcravens 8y ago
All that proves is they failed a simulation, not that they were under the influence. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
- hirundo 8y ago
  Seems like we should care more about driving impaired than about driving under the influence. The former is what we're trying to prevent by policing the later. You can be impaired without being under the influence, and under the influence without being significantly impaired.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    I don't disagree, but I've had moments when I was a terrible driver: I was tired, I was pissed off, I was stressed, I had just received bad news, I was quitting nicotine, etc.
    - hirundo 8y ago
      I've done that too, and I should have been busted for that too. Is it really better to risk other lives due to lack of sleep than from too many drinks? For some stranger's little kid in another car's back seat, impaired is impaired.
      - bdcravens 8y ago
        By that standard, that stranger could be arrested for careless driving because the child in their back seat was screaming for a juice box and they were allowing themselves to be distracted.
        hirundo 8y ago
        Failure to control a vehicle is a violation in the places I've lived. It applies regardless of circumstances. Ice patch, animal runs in front, screaming toddler, whatever the cause, you can still be arrested for it.
        bdcravens 8y ago
        In which case you need no VR setup, as the event happened prior to the officer interaction. Most of what you described is a ticket, not an arrestable offense.