5 ms·

> Stop letting people get behind the wheel after drinking. Solve that problem. The solution to this problem seems quite trivial to me: to equip all cars with a

by ablekh 6y ago

> Stop letting people get behind the wheel after drinking. Solve that problem. The solution to this problem seems quite trivial to me: to equip all cars with alcohol (and, perhaps, some drug) sensors [not breathalyzers, but rather some more sophisticated remote-sensing devices], strategically located throughout interior to prevent cheating / gaming the system, and integrate them with ignition and engine. As long as the system determines that a driver is drunk or under influence of drugs, it prevents the car from starting or (in case someone starting drinking or using drugs after stopping a car, but leaving it idling) moving.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
Trivial, eh? I would argue that the solution is not some imaginary set of sensors that could somehow flawlessly detect every class of psychoactive drugs that could somehow impair a person, including but not limited to: xanax, PCP, ketamine, cocaine, alcohol, GHB, LSD, mushrooms, marijuana, 2C-I, MDMA, MDA, meth, heroin, fentanyl, etc. Not to mention a myriad more prescription drugs, including sleep medication and antipsychotics which are perfectly legal to drive on, but can also be equally impairing. ... But actually to continue the work that we're already doing to implement self-driving cars. I mean, it's not just drugs, it's also tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes. We can make cars safer by removing human drivers and replacing them with extensively tested machines. It will take a bit more time, but we'll get there.
- ablekh 6y ago
  I didn't say trivial implementation, but rather a trivial solution (i.e., a general approach). Regarding the issue that, in addition to alcohol, there exist a large number of drugs potentially diminishing one's ability to drive: it could be approached using Pareto principle. Either focus just on alcohol (which most likely is responsible for 80% of road accidents) and ignore the other 20% (distractions, lack of attention, drugs, etc.), or apply Pareto principle again, now to the drugs class, and identify most frequently used ones and/or most potentially impairing ones and design relevant sensors to cover the 20% that causes 80% of issues. While I certainly recognize potential benefits of autonomous driving (and automation, in general), relevant global or nationwide deployments are still a very long way to go; it's not "a bit more time", but most likely decades. Imagine how many lives could be saved with simpler sensor-based solutions (which, by the way, could very much help with the problems of "tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes") in the meantime ...
  - tachyonbeam 6y ago
    I think it's very realistic to have driver-assist solution that can provide advanced collision warnings, collision assistance and watch the driver's face to see if they are paying attention. With respect to self-driving, search YouTube for FSD beta. You can see what Tesla has been up to. It's not perfect but it keeps getting better. It's not going to take several decades.
    - ablekh 6y ago
      The sensor-based driver assist solutions is what I meant as a secondary aid in my comment above. However, these solutions are reactive and quite partial as opposed to strong preventative measures like alcohol detection-based car immobilization solutions. Some would say that it is a radical measure, but so is electronic speed limiter/governor in all modern cars. I'm well aware of the progress in autonomous driving space (including Tesla's - though, I would argue that Tesla is not the leader in this space; I think that it's Waymo). However, more generally, my point was not about limited fleet use cases, but rather global-scale deployments and massive adoption. That, I believe, is certainly not going to happen soon.
voltagex_ 6y ago
Love for my engine not to start after I've used mouthwash in the morning.
- megablast 6y ago
  A small price to pay for safety. Maybe one day you will figure it out, and do the mouthwash later?? No. Oh well.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Also I don't get it - alcohol free mouthwash exists.
- ablekh 6y ago
  Well ... Firstly, human lives are much more important than a preference to use an alcohol-based mouthwash (considering that non-alcohol alternatives exist). Secondly, it very well might be possible to design and/or calibrate sensors to distinguish between both cases based on chemical components or relevant concentration ratios that are specific to mouthwash formula.

by ablekh 6y ago

tachyonbeam 6y ago

Trivial, eh? I would argue that the solution is not some imaginary set of sensors that could somehow flawlessly detect every class of psychoactive drugs that could somehow impair a person, including but not limited to: xanax, PCP, ketamine, cocaine, alcohol, GHB, LSD, mushrooms, marijuana, 2C-I, MDMA, MDA, meth, heroin, fentanyl, etc. Not to mention a myriad more prescription drugs, including sleep medication and antipsychotics which are perfectly legal to drive on, but can also be equally impairing. ... But actually to continue the work that we're already doing to implement self-driving cars. I mean, it's not just drugs, it's also tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes. We can make cars safer by removing human drivers and replacing them with extensively tested machines. It will take a bit more time, but we'll get there.

ablekh 6y ago
I didn't say trivial implementation, but rather a trivial solution (i.e., a general approach). Regarding the issue that, in addition to alcohol, there exist a large number of drugs potentially diminishing one's ability to drive: it could be approached using Pareto principle. Either focus just on alcohol (which most likely is responsible for 80% of road accidents) and ignore the other 20% (distractions, lack of attention, drugs, etc.), or apply Pareto principle again, now to the drugs class, and identify most frequently used ones and/or most potentially impairing ones and design relevant sensors to cover the 20% that causes 80% of issues. While I certainly recognize potential benefits of autonomous driving (and automation, in general), relevant global or nationwide deployments are still a very long way to go; it's not "a bit more time", but most likely decades. Imagine how many lives could be saved with simpler sensor-based solutions (which, by the way, could very much help with the problems of "tiredness, distractions, and simple mistakes") in the meantime ...
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  I think it's very realistic to have driver-assist solution that can provide advanced collision warnings, collision assistance and watch the driver's face to see if they are paying attention. With respect to self-driving, search YouTube for FSD beta. You can see what Tesla has been up to. It's not perfect but it keeps getting better. It's not going to take several decades.
  - ablekh 6y ago
    The sensor-based driver assist solutions is what I meant as a secondary aid in my comment above. However, these solutions are reactive and quite partial as opposed to strong preventative measures like alcohol detection-based car immobilization solutions. Some would say that it is a radical measure, but so is electronic speed limiter/governor in all modern cars. I'm well aware of the progress in autonomous driving space (including Tesla's - though, I would argue that Tesla is not the leader in this space; I think that it's Waymo). However, more generally, my point was not about limited fleet use cases, but rather global-scale deployments and massive adoption. That, I believe, is certainly not going to happen soon.

voltagex_ 6y ago

Love for my engine not to start after I've used mouthwash in the morning.

megablast 6y ago
A small price to pay for safety. Maybe one day you will figure it out, and do the mouthwash later?? No. Oh well.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Also I don't get it - alcohol free mouthwash exists.
ablekh 6y ago
Well ... Firstly, human lives are much more important than a preference to use an alcohol-based mouthwash (considering that non-alcohol alternatives exist). Secondly, it very well might be possible to design and/or calibrate sensors to distinguish between both cases based on chemical components or relevant concentration ratios that are specific to mouthwash formula.