4 ms·

Interesting to me that the comments here are so negative, but on anything with self driving cars everyone wants it now to prevent deaths. If DUIs are the #1 sou

Interesting to me that the comments here are so negative, but on anything with self driving cars everyone wants it now to prevent deaths. If DUIs are the #1 source of car deaths (per the article), why wouldn’t we want that removed?

drewcoo 5y ago
From the article, 30% of US traffic fatalities involve alcohol. I'd wager that nearly 100% of them involve humans driving. Note that neither claim actually shows cause.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
Guns cause a lot of deaths too. And it's not like gun control will be as majorly intrusive as this proposed technology will be.
- azinman2 5y ago
  I don’t understand what your point is. First, you can make legitimate claims as to why you should own a gun. That’s not the case for driving drunk. Second, as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    >as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible. Only up to a point. We don't go round putting people in bubble wrap to keep them safe. We don't expect the government to station a policeman inside every house. But the lack of gun control in the USA is ludicrous as demonstrated by every mass shooting. Back to cars, why not limit every car out there to 40 miles per hour? fatality rates would plummet.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    id rather have drunk people around than gun enthusiasts
  - tssva 5y ago
    "Second, as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible." The last 18 months have shown that a lot of people disagree with that.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    You can prevent deaths reasonably feasible by government sponsored surveillance. I'm not sure that's the world I want to live in, however.
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    Focus on heart disease and opioid problems. Can be done at the same time. For example: require an AI system at a drive through which makes a decision if you should be allowed to buy that quarter pounder with nacho cheese sause and half a gallon of Coca Cola based on your silhouette. Or have a scale in the seat of the car connecting to the drive through till…
    - vageli 5y ago
      Your joke is someone's dream.
  - Brendinooo 5y ago
    > First, you can make legitimate claims as to why you should own a gun. That’s not the case for driving drunk. Don't need to make a case for driving drunk, just need to make the case that preventative measures cause more trouble than they're worth. We had one guy try to make a shoe bomb, and now every commercial passenger has to take shoes off to fly on a plane. It's reasonable to ask where the line is, isn't it? > Second, as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible. "Reasonably" and "feasible" are subjective terms.
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      >Don't need to make a case for driving drunk, just need to make the case that preventative measures cause more trouble than they're worth. Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      Clearly you can’t universally say that. Many preventative regulations have solved or drastically improved all kinds of situations. Car in particular have seen them in terms of minimum crash test results, seatbelts, airbags, etc. Yes reasonable is a subjective term, which is exactly why I used it. Feasible is less subjective. Society always has to make trade offs over time in cost, freedom, etc. Which is to say taking an extreme position will lead to an extreme society. That’s not what we currently live in, nor would it be what most people want.
      - Brendinooo 5y ago
        > Car in particular have seen them in terms of minimum crash test results, seatbelts, airbags A crash test result and airbags make no difference in how I operate the vehicle. The only issue it causes is a higher price of the vehicle, but most people are fine with that tradeoff. Seatbelts are a better example for your argument, but it's simple and mature tech that's easy and fast to operate. I have never once been unable to operate my car because something went wrong with the seatbelt. If breathalyzers are as foolproof as seatbelts, do not reduce the privacy of people who have done nothing wrong, and don't add too much to the cost of the vehicle (both for delivery and maintenance) then I'd welcome them.
- frugalmail 5y ago
  ffs call an uber instead. You have zero rationale for driing drunk. This straw man is BS.
stefan_ 5y ago
Obligatory reminder that toy drones have killed a grand total of zero people but come with geo zones mandated by law that they will refuse to fly into. Meanwhile, you can get into your car and accelerate to 120 mph on city streets. Most of them have about 5x the engine power they could ever need and are actively marketed by their ability to speed. There is a ton of low hanging fruit in cars.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Not really a valid or interesting comparison. If my drone has a bug that prevents it from going somewhere it should be able to, I say "darn" and play with my toy elsewhere. That's not an acceptable outcome for a car, though.
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    Right, a simple speed limiter geozone is a terribly difficult system. Your car already has tons of software that just as easily can have bugs that prevent you from playing with your toy.
    - gaganyaan 5y ago
      I mean, practically speaking: No. My car has just worked for a long time for every use case I've needed it for.
ddingus 5y ago
Lessig talked about this in his book CODE Regulation of humans happens via these forces: Norms - people expressing approval / disapproval, imposing consequences and remedies similar to law, but not in a court, and not with assurances of due process, equal protection. Law - Regulates behavior using courts, process and judgement, and can impose remedies, costs, and loss of freedom, consequenses. Neither norms or law actually prevent people from doing things. They are both about accounting for things people have done. Notably the more resources one has, greater means and popularity generally mean lower costs and more moderate consequences. Physics - The rules of the world do prevent actions! If it's too heavy you can't lift it, etc... The better one understand the world, the more agency one has. Access to technology also contributes to this agency. Money - If you can't afford it, you are regulated. The more money one has, the more agency one has, generally. What is being done here is to regulate with real teeth, preventing actions, without actually making laws and going through courts. Policy becomes law in other words, and many people oppose that because it represents a direct attack on their agency, freedom and it's very difficult to hold the people responsible accountable. All Congress needs to do is weave in a little immunity and suddenly very large numbers of people experience regulation they may find expensive or undesirable and have very little they can do about it.
curryst 5y ago
For me personally, it's another 80/20 problem. We've gotten our 80% result for 20% the effort/cost and now we're into the 80% of the effort/cost for 20% of the gain territory. At least with our current level of technology. Meanwhile, I think there are other causes that haven't hit that inversion yet. 88,000 people die from diabetes each year. If we've got money that we're willing to splash on preventing deaths, why not take the easy win and have the government pay for everyone's insulin? There's no risk to privacy, no dubious "will this prevent me getting to work when I'm sober" questions, and no questions about efficacy. If the goal is to prevent death, this seems like one of the most dubious methods of getting there. There are 17 million new cars sold in the US per year. If we're conservative on pricing and say it costs $10/car to add this, that's $170,000,000/year, or roughly $17,000 per prevented death. $17,000 a lot. That's health insurance premiums for like 3 families for a year. That's nearly a 5 year supply of the most expensive insulin on the market. That's enough to send someone to rehab.
- azinman2 5y ago
  The government needs to walk and chew gum at the same time. It’s not like focusing on cars takes away from diabetes, or that they’re ever considered from the same regulatory perspective. Re diabetes, personally I’d rather see shifts in food supply and diet / offerings in the US. It’s pretty clear that fast food, soda, endless snacks, and the rest that mega food cos “innovate” is driving diabetes and a whole host of other conditions. Not an easy problem to solve under the guise of freedom to eat what you want, but we’ve been able to successfully minimize tobacco usage so why not junk food? Government providing anything medical comes with a whole pile of political culture war.

drewcoo 5y ago

From the article, 30% of US traffic fatalities involve alcohol. I'd wager that nearly 100% of them involve humans driving. Note that neither claim actually shows cause.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

Guns cause a lot of deaths too. And it's not like gun control will be as majorly intrusive as this proposed technology will be.

azinman2 5y ago
I don’t understand what your point is. First, you can make legitimate claims as to why you should own a gun. That’s not the case for driving drunk. Second, as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible.
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  >as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible. Only up to a point. We don't go round putting people in bubble wrap to keep them safe. We don't expect the government to station a policeman inside every house. But the lack of gun control in the USA is ludicrous as demonstrated by every mass shooting. Back to cars, why not limit every car out there to 40 miles per hour? fatality rates would plummet.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  id rather have drunk people around than gun enthusiasts
- tssva 5y ago
  "Second, as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible." The last 18 months have shown that a lot of people disagree with that.
- shukantpal 5y ago
  You can prevent deaths reasonably feasible by government sponsored surveillance. I'm not sure that's the world I want to live in, however.
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  Focus on heart disease and opioid problems. Can be done at the same time. For example: require an AI system at a drive through which makes a decision if you should be allowed to buy that quarter pounder with nacho cheese sause and half a gallon of Coca Cola based on your silhouette. Or have a scale in the seat of the car connecting to the drive through till…
  - vageli 5y ago
    Your joke is someone's dream.
- Brendinooo 5y ago
  > First, you can make legitimate claims as to why you should own a gun. That’s not the case for driving drunk. Don't need to make a case for driving drunk, just need to make the case that preventative measures cause more trouble than they're worth. We had one guy try to make a shoe bomb, and now every commercial passenger has to take shoes off to fly on a plane. It's reasonable to ask where the line is, isn't it? > Second, as a society we should be minimizing preventable deaths where reasonably feasible. "Reasonably" and "feasible" are subjective terms.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    >Don't need to make a case for driving drunk, just need to make the case that preventative measures cause more trouble than they're worth. Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Clearly you can’t universally say that. Many preventative regulations have solved or drastically improved all kinds of situations. Car in particular have seen them in terms of minimum crash test results, seatbelts, airbags, etc. Yes reasonable is a subjective term, which is exactly why I used it. Feasible is less subjective. Society always has to make trade offs over time in cost, freedom, etc. Which is to say taking an extreme position will lead to an extreme society. That’s not what we currently live in, nor would it be what most people want.
    - Brendinooo 5y ago
      > Car in particular have seen them in terms of minimum crash test results, seatbelts, airbags A crash test result and airbags make no difference in how I operate the vehicle. The only issue it causes is a higher price of the vehicle, but most people are fine with that tradeoff. Seatbelts are a better example for your argument, but it's simple and mature tech that's easy and fast to operate. I have never once been unable to operate my car because something went wrong with the seatbelt. If breathalyzers are as foolproof as seatbelts, do not reduce the privacy of people who have done nothing wrong, and don't add too much to the cost of the vehicle (both for delivery and maintenance) then I'd welcome them.
frugalmail 5y ago
ffs call an uber instead. You have zero rationale for driing drunk. This straw man is BS.

stefan_ 5y ago

Obligatory reminder that toy drones have killed a grand total of zero people but come with geo zones mandated by law that they will refuse to fly into. Meanwhile, you can get into your car and accelerate to 120 mph on city streets. Most of them have about 5x the engine power they could ever need and are actively marketed by their ability to speed. There is a ton of low hanging fruit in cars.

gaganyaan 5y ago
Not really a valid or interesting comparison. If my drone has a bug that prevents it from going somewhere it should be able to, I say "darn" and play with my toy elsewhere. That's not an acceptable outcome for a car, though.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  Right, a simple speed limiter geozone is a terribly difficult system. Your car already has tons of software that just as easily can have bugs that prevent you from playing with your toy.
  - gaganyaan 5y ago
    I mean, practically speaking: No. My car has just worked for a long time for every use case I've needed it for.

ddingus 5y ago

Lessig talked about this in his book CODE Regulation of humans happens via these forces: Norms - people expressing approval / disapproval, imposing consequences and remedies similar to law, but not in a court, and not with assurances of due process, equal protection. Law - Regulates behavior using courts, process and judgement, and can impose remedies, costs, and loss of freedom, consequenses. Neither norms or law actually prevent people from doing things. They are both about accounting for things people have done. Notably the more resources one has, greater means and popularity generally mean lower costs and more moderate consequences. Physics - The rules of the world do prevent actions! If it's too heavy you can't lift it, etc... The better one understand the world, the more agency one has. Access to technology also contributes to this agency. Money - If you can't afford it, you are regulated. The more money one has, the more agency one has, generally. What is being done here is to regulate with real teeth, preventing actions, without actually making laws and going through courts. Policy becomes law in other words, and many people oppose that because it represents a direct attack on their agency, freedom and it's very difficult to hold the people responsible accountable. All Congress needs to do is weave in a little immunity and suddenly very large numbers of people experience regulation they may find expensive or undesirable and have very little they can do about it.

curryst 5y ago

For me personally, it's another 80/20 problem. We've gotten our 80% result for 20% the effort/cost and now we're into the 80% of the effort/cost for 20% of the gain territory. At least with our current level of technology. Meanwhile, I think there are other causes that haven't hit that inversion yet. 88,000 people die from diabetes each year. If we've got money that we're willing to splash on preventing deaths, why not take the easy win and have the government pay for everyone's insulin? There's no risk to privacy, no dubious "will this prevent me getting to work when I'm sober" questions, and no questions about efficacy. If the goal is to prevent death, this seems like one of the most dubious methods of getting there. There are 17 million new cars sold in the US per year. If we're conservative on pricing and say it costs $10/car to add this, that's $170,000,000/year, or roughly $17,000 per prevented death. $17,000 a lot. That's health insurance premiums for like 3 families for a year. That's nearly a 5 year supply of the most expensive insulin on the market. That's enough to send someone to rehab.

azinman2 5y ago
The government needs to walk and chew gum at the same time. It’s not like focusing on cars takes away from diabetes, or that they’re ever considered from the same regulatory perspective. Re diabetes, personally I’d rather see shifts in food supply and diet / offerings in the US. It’s pretty clear that fast food, soda, endless snacks, and the rest that mega food cos “innovate” is driving diabetes and a whole host of other conditions. Not an easy problem to solve under the guise of freedom to eat what you want, but we’ve been able to successfully minimize tobacco usage so why not junk food? Government providing anything medical comes with a whole pile of political culture war.