8 ms·
Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
- quickthrower2 5y agoI think random breath testing by police is a better idea. Your car stopping you from drink driving will false positive too much or just break. Drinkers will just buy older cars anyway. Let’s keep cars simple!
- smt88 5y agoBreath testing by police is notoriously fallible and police can even fudge the results in some cases. People should not have contact with police when they are presumed innocent.
- quickthrower2 5y agoNormally you get a blood test if you are over the limit, rather than relying on the result. The balance is saving lives vs. individual freedom. As a European I probably have a less pure view about freedoms than people in the US.
- ashneo76 5y agoMore monitoring of the normal citizen
- aww_dang 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28106549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28106549 >Infrastructure bill could enable government to track drivers’ travel data
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoThis is terrible overreach and a good example of magical thinking about the abilities of AI. Even if the false positive rate of such a system was only 0.1% per driving session, an extraordinarily ambitious goal for any AI system, that still translates to an incredible number of false positives across all drivers. Someone who drives twice a day for work would be expected to hit a false positive every couple of years or so. Do we really want our cars randomly flagging everyone as drunk every once in a while? Obviously the people writing this bill assumed that perfectly correct AI could exist. They did their job, now the problem is punted to the engineers. Ridiculous. I’m sure this will get removed eventually, perhaps with further legislation.
- gedy 5y agoI think a lot of the proponents for these sorts of rules/restrictions tend to be anti-car and/or throwing bones to their various transport unions, and don't care that they are overreaches or impractical.
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoThe article notes MADD (Mother’s Against Drunk Driving) as one of primary sponsors. MADD is notorious for demanding government overreach in reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption altogether. They have a history of ignoring any possible negative consequences of their proposals for other people, and this is a good example.
- humanistbot 5y agoNope. As the article mentions, the major push is from modern-day temperance organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which was the major lobby that got the US drinking age raised from 18 to 21. Although you are right that these organizations have authoritarian impulses and don't care that these are overreaches and impractical.
- roflc0ptic 5y agoI think it’s off base to pin this on AI enthusiasm, that’s just kind of unclear writing in the article. The legislation doesn’t specify a particular anti drunk driving provision, just that the NHSTA study the issue and determine the best course of action. Mandatory breathalyzers seems like what, um, sober minds will come up with. Which certainly feels like stunning overreach to me, but isn’t strictly about AI
- PragmaticPulp 5y agoTechnically the wording is vague enough that they could be referring to anything, but the article specifically highlights distracted driving systems that scan drivers’ eyes: > Among the systems that have been studied are ones that monitor a driver for signs of distracted, impaired or fatigued driving. One uses sensors that scan drivers’ eyes for signs that are similar to ones that police officers look for when they suspect impairment during traffic stops. Even breathalyzers aren’t as fool-proof as they sound. Apparently eating certain meals right before using a breathalyzer can trigger false positives. Even breathalyzers have not insignificant numbers of false positives they would become a huge problem if forced upon the entire driving population. So even with breathalyzers, it’s still about magical thinking about technology’s ability to monitor people’s behavior.
- mnahkies 5y agoThis sounds less like an anti-drunk driving measure and more of a permanent general driving ability monitor. Surely if they wanted to target alcohol specifically they would just mandate breathalyser to start the engine, which is already a thing in many countries for people previously convicted of DUI
- daenz 5y agoIt appears the slope actually is slippery.
- nathanaldensr 5y agoYep. Slippery slope "fallacy" is actually nothing more than "you are not allowed to be human and extrapolate from trends."
- dragonwriter 5y agoNo, its not. “Fallacy” is not “you are not allowed to”, only “it is a source of error to”.
- DangitBobby 5y agoKind of a nitpick, don't you think? Obviously the fallacy police aren't knocking on doors.
- dragonwriter 5y agoNo. There's a pretty big difference between “you are not allowed to do <thing that humans naturally do all the time>” and “you should be aware that <thing that humans naturally do all the time> is a potential source of error rather than a solid step in reasoning.” Point out that something characterized in the former manner is, in fact, the latter is not “a nitpick”.
- DangitBobby 5y agoOh, ok. I disagree, since we all know there are no fallacy police and you can legally do it but it's considered a source of error.
- akomtu 5y ago"Safety" has become an euphemism for "control". It's as if politicians speak a coded language: one of them says "we want safer cars" and others translate that to "we want more control over cars". If someone says "to protect children we need these measures" others understand that it really means "we need these authoritarian measures".
- cabaalis 5y agoEven if one agrees these are good things and needed, why does our congress not pass these laws individually so they can be voted and understood for their own worth?
- smt88 5y agoLots of reasons, one of which is that the Senate is rigged to favor rural places and doesn't represent the majority of Americans anymore. Even reasonable, popular bills are unable to pass.
- zrail 5y agoThe Senate was rigged from the jump to favor states with lower populations. That clause is also the only part that is immune from the amendment process. It's never represented the people, it's always represented the states. The problem at the moment is that the person in charge of one of the two equally sized factions in power has zero interest in doing any kind of leadership or legislating. That's why nothing is happening.
- smt88 5y ago> It's never represented the people, it's always represented the states. ...which is a lot less of a problem if the House and the Presidency represent the majority. Then the Senate functions as intended: a check on the "mob" of democracy. But now we're in a position where most states are gerrymandered, the Electoral College also heavily favors the rural minority, and the judiciary has been intentionally hijacked by abusing the rural bias. It makes sense if you think about it. Given hundreds of years to figure it out, eventually a minority interest is going to find a way to engineer the federal system to seize (and retain) power against the will of the majority.
- icegreentea2 5y agoPackaging things this way lets representatives and senators more effectively barter for support - "I'll support this bill if you add this other thing" is more effective tactic with these large omnibus bills. You can argue if this is good or not for the country, but the argument definitely is that it allows a representative more tools/leverage for his constituency, and that it allows for more effective compromises. Any attempt to reversing this trend requires dealing with that line of argument.
- tpmx 5y agoI guess this is the bill? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684 (Warning, it takes a minute or so for Chrome to render the HTML "text" tab. PDF link: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs.pdf https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs...) The scope creep seems insane.
- tssva 5y agoAs with all submitted legislation it is available at congress.gov.
- icegreentea2 5y agoSpecifically you want section 10105 in your version of the text. I think its 24220 in the senate version? I dunno.. I don't fully get the system. Keyword to search for is "passively".
- h2odragon 5y agoMore shit to fail. Honda Insights have a "gas cap sensor" that lights the "check engine" light when the gas cap isn't tight enough. "to prevent VOC emissions in California" I'm told. But after nearly 20 years, the sensor isn't reliable anymore, and is hard to find and expensive, so the practical thing is to dike it out. I've no idea how the "drunk driver" detection is supposed to work; but how is it going to be any more reliable or less troublesome than the gas cap sensor? Does anyone even in the offices of anyone voting for this crap have the slightest idea what technology they're mandating or how reliable it is? Is there any understanding or concern for people with "auto brewery syndrome" or any of the other edge cases that will trip some folks up? Or is this purely kabuki "see us care" and damn the cost?
- humanistbot 5y agoThe tech industry has spent decades hyping up AI, convincing the public that they have created human-equivalent general-purpose AI because your phone can do good speech recognition that can read answers parsed from Wikipedia or control your house's lights. The tech press goes along with it, painting a vision that AI can do anything. And then we blame the politicians for buying into the hype? Although I do blame the Republicans for defunding Congress's Office of Technology Assessment in 1992, which offered independent, non-partisan, evidence-based assessments of the feasibility of exactly this kind of law.
- question000 5y agoBasically anything we can do to make cars more expensive and take them off the road I support at this point, driving in America right now is a frustratingly brutal experience that leaves thousands dead, maimed, late or in prison, every day as well driving the environment into a state of global chaos. I love these kind of laws, oh we mildly inconvenienced a car company, big deal, they'll end up making more money off it in the end. Hopefully I'll just stop seeing the bodies of people being decapitated or torn in half on my commute to DC and actually be able to actually go where I want on time.
- humanistbot 5y ago> It orders NHTSA to study the feasibility of various technologies and establish a final rule within three years mandating some form of anti-drunk driving technology. This kind of administrative rulemaking is required to go through multiple rounds of public notice and comment. The EFF & related orgs should be intervening and lobbying at every stage in this three-year long process.
- failwhaleshark 5y agoSo if you have vestibular problems or are drunk and trying to avoid being raped, your car won't start. I definitely want to pay money for that liability feature. /s
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- NoblePublius 5y agoHow about we mandate alcoholism detectors in liqour bottles instead?
- satyrnein 5y agoIt seems like insurance companies should be liable for massive damages for DUIs (raising rates), but offer the option to "voluntarily" install a breathalyzer to get lower rates. That feels like the American way.
- mindslight 5y agoThat's just authoritarianism with extra steps.
- satyrnein 5y agoArguably it's fixing externalities by correctly pricing risk.
- mindslight 5y agoPerfectly pricing risk implies omniscience (ie totalitarianism), which means that pricing risk is not an unquestionably good thing. Furthermore, markets can never be fully efficient, as that would imply P == NP. And so what is actuarially considered and ignored is itself a public policy choice. Stating things in the passive terminology of "the market" is just obfuscating that choice.
- overgard 5y agoIf this happens I imagine used cars will be more valuable than new ones (and not because people want to drive drunk but because its impractical and requires more stuff that can fail + higher costs)
- hermannj314 5y agoAround 40,000 American die each year on our roads, this has been pretty consistent for decades. As we add more safety features, the marginal cost per life saved is going up. We got a big bang for the seat belt. But backup cameras cost around $5.7 million dollars in cost for every one life saved. I commend NHTSA for their hard work, but I can't help but feel government safety mandates in cars are now scraping the bottom of the barrel in cost-effective life saving measures. If I had to offer an alternative, SAMHSA, the government org focused on substance abuse seems to be under-funded and highlights numerous ways additional dollars can save lives. So rather than scrape the bottom of barrel on making cars safer, perhaps we can instead spend that money on substance abuse interventions with youth and college age students that lead to alcoholism, binge drinking, and drunk driving. Maybe we would get more bang for our buck. Unless this part of the bill isn't actually about saving lives, but then I'd have to ask why a Representative from Michigan would have an incentive to make cars more expensive other can wanting to save lives.
- mmastrac 5y agoBackup cameras probably saved the economy from an insane amount of damages. I've never had an accident at speed, but I do have one insurance claim from reversing into a vehicle (sadly totaled another car because I had a Blazer with brutal rear visibility).
- stuaxo 5y agoExactly, 5.7 millions is probably nothing compared to a years worth of reversing based accidents.
- 988747 5y agoI understood it as "5.7 million per life saved" so you need to mulltiply that number by few thousands.
- mmastrac 5y agoI found a stat that suggested ~100 [1] (another stat says 500 and 15,000 injuries (!) [2] and there's a 3rd between them [3]), so say 600 million. Given the insurance cost of replacing vehicles, that would only be 30k accidents prevented to pay for itself. FWIW, I've heard anecdotally that the insurance companies pushed for backup cameras more than anyone else, but given the benefits to lower insurance (arguable, but in theory), less deaths and less injuries, it seems like a win. The technology will also get cheaper over the years. [1] https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/ https://www.theregreview.org/2012/05/30/30-rowell-camera/ [2] https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehicle-backing-safety-fact-sheet.pdf https://safetyresourcesblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vehi... [3] https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back-over-acciden/ https://kelleyuustal.com/rear-view-cameras-reduce-90-of-back...
- exabrial 5y agoThis bill keeps getting worse with all the wreckage that is getting included. Please please, start including the names of the reps pushing these idiotic measures as it's the only way to stop them. And before someone accuses me of "not wanting to stop drunk driving", of course I do. The way to do that is to address the underlying causes of alcoholism, not patching the symptoms.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoYou can address causes til you're blue in the face. We've already tried a dozen ways - state-run liquor stores, therapy programs, breath testing, prohibition and on and on. It may be time for something different. Maybe just stop a car cold that's behaving erratically. Nobody has the right to endanger strangers on the highway, for any reason. The right bill will be important. But its not idiotic, to try to save lives with technology. Nor is it far away from a workable solution.
- pythonaut_16 5y agoThat's the exact problem with the bill. Of course a car that refuses to be driven drunk sounds like a great way to stop drunk driving. But the technology to feasibly and reliably do that does not exist.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoAgreed. But its not crazy to imagine it could soon exist, and could be a good idea to deploy at that time.
- jihodl 5y agoJust do away with the legal limit altogether, drop it to zero. If you've had anything at all to drink then you should not be operating a motor vehicle on puclic roadways. If you get caught DUI then your license should be permanently revoked. I wonder how drastically improved the alcohol related traffic fatality statistics would be with that law. The regulation currently up for consideration clearly violates the fourth amendment.
- oxymoran 5y agoLook, I know that drunk driving is a serious issue, but based on what I see on the roadway, NOBODY is paying any damn attention out here anymore. Whether it is phones or giant screened infotainment systems, the amount of distractions is staggering. If we are going to go the route of overreach and “nanny state”, why not find a way to disable certain features of the drivers phone and do away with the large screen infotainment systems altogether.
- ryandrake 5y agoUsed to commute on one of those double decker tech busses down a few Interstate highways in the Bay Area, and from those you can get a good view into the cabins of other commuters’ cars. Every day you can see about 50% of drivers playing with their phones while driving. And it’s not just people occasionally glancing at their phones in their cup holder. They are holding the phone in their hand, scrolling through god-knows-what, typing/texting, watching videos. It’s totally insane! At least half of drivers are doing this. What can possibly be this important on Instagram that you’re willing to risk your life for?
- tomjen3 5y agoIf I could get 10% of the fine, I could quit my job, stand by the road and record all the drivers who did that. I would make bank. Around here the fee for talking with a handheld phone is more than twice what a headset costs + points off your license. Yet people still do it all the time.
- ryandrake 5y agoAccording to [1], in California, total out of pocket for a first time cell phone violation is ~$150, total out of pocket for a subsequent offense is ~$250. Let's conservatively assume that for 75% of drivers, it's a first time violation. Average fine is $175. According to random internet search [2], the saturation flow of a lane of traffic is about 1900 vehicles per hour. Let's assume a 4 lane highway at rush hour is about 80% of saturation, which yields 6,000 vehicles per hour. Assume 50% are offending, and you can positively catch/convict 10% of those, so 300 vehicles x $175 = $262,500 in fines per hour. At 10% finder's fee, you could make $2,625 PER HOUR just sitting by the side of the road with a camera. Not bad! 1: https://www.drivinglaws.org/sb1613.php https://www.drivinglaws.org/sb1613.php 2: http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-should-know/ http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-...
- avsteele 5y agoPeople also forget that these measures, taken together, significantly increase the costs of cars.
- igetspam 5y agoAs someone who has convicted of DUI twice in my youth, I'm 100% in support of keeping people off the road if they're drunk. The two times I got caught are just that: the times I was caught. I deserved many many more. We can't stop people from thinking it's okay to drive when they're drunk because they're drunk. Driving is not a right. Keep people like my younger self from making potentially deadly decision.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThis means driver facing cameras and (likely) black boxes.