12 ms·

Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill

30 points by bonyt 5y ago

WalterGR 5y ago
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 37 points, 80 comments
LanceH 5y ago
Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate. In this case it would be asked of those from MADD, "Have you installed these devices yourselves?" I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them. I was in the military when Congress banned smoking in much of the military and other federal buildings but exempted themselves. Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now? If it's a step I haven't already taken myself, I can't even conceive of mandating that everyone do it before I start, but that's just too alien a concept it seems. In a similar bit of hypocrisy, I feel the same way about drinking underage and the number of people who are perfectly ok ramping up punishments for the same "crimes" they themselves committed -- it's just the timeline in a different direction now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- version_five 5y ago
  The people who are most adamant about imposing rules on others are often those who are breaking them themselves, can't stop, and blame society for not having enough rules. See all the morality crusaders who are also secretly sexting teenagers
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    keyword "often" -- this is a popular myth among people with rampant morality problems, in my opinion as an urban US dweller
- hyperbovine 5y ago
  > I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them. Source please. Even if what you are saying is true, are you claiming that installing these devices on the cars of people who routinely drive drunk would not save lives?
  - LanceH 5y ago
    >> I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them. > Source please. Source - me. I'm sure. Please read carefully. Also, it's not like they've presented large scale trials of this working. > Even if what you are saying is true, are you claiming that installing these devices on the cars of people who routinely drive drunk would not save lives? Am I claiming that? The discussion is about putting devices on all cars, not repeat offenders, so no.
    - hyperbovine 5y ago
      > Please read carefully. Classy. > Am I claiming that? The discussion is about putting devices on all cars, not repeat offenders, so no. And yet, "cars of repeat offenders" is a subset of "all cars".
- pkulak 5y ago
  > Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now? Because me sending random cash to the federal government does absolutely nothing, and higher taxes can pay for actual programs. There's a huge difference between exempting yourself from a new mandate you enforce on everyone else, and simply waiting for a universal mandate before acting yourself.
  - curiousllama 5y ago
    Yea, it's perfectly intellectually consistent to say "I'll do it if you do it too"
    - davidw 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_game
      - the_optimist 5y ago
        There is no basis for believing that the payoff for coordination is elevated. If anything the opposite: we see that more centralized decision-making introduces larger deadweight losses. See US-Afghanistan, as enabled by the tax base, as an example.
        curiousllama 5y ago
        > There is no basis for believing that the payoff for coordination is elevated Libraries, fire stations, universal K-12 education? Certainly imperfect, but def benefit from coordination. Health care too - a lack of universal coordination makes life difficult. On the private sector side, many companies are great examples of coordination payoffs (I trade entrepreneurial risk/reward for consistent benefits).
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      But it is the height of hypocrisy to force other people to do things that neither they nor you would do in isolation. You’re not preventing a prisoner’s dilemma here because the proposed tax contribution is strictly monotonic with or without individual participation.
- frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
  >Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate. Why though? If you found out that many members of MADD had installed these devices would it change your opinion on requiring it for everyone else? If you found that someone campaigning for higher tax rates actually did make generous contributions, would it change your opinion on raising the rates? Somehow I suspect not, in fact I would hope you wouldn't be so easily swayed! So then we've not pushed the argument forward at all, just taken a detour down an irrelevant cul-de-sac in the hopes of finding a gotcha.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Those facts would not change my opinion, and as you said they alone should not change anyone's opinion. But if someone is already living by the rules they'd like imposed on me, I'm definitely more likely to listen to what they have to say.
  - LanceH 5y ago
    > If you found out that many members of MADD had installed these devices would it change your opinion on requiring it for everyone else? At least I would respect the argument. Right now I see too many people proposing the use of force to achieve something they don't believe in enough to do themselves.
    - frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
      >At least I would respect the argument. Which really just means 'no.' So like I said, just a big waste of time, the argument for or against these drunk-driving systems is about whether the good for society is worth the cost not about who's making the argument or whether you respect them.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. That would cover myself, which is annoying, but I would still gain a benefit from it would decrease my chances of someone else crashing into me while drunk. And, I should not need to tell you this, but what is stopping me from paying higher taxes right now is that that is not a thing you can do. There is no voluntary tax payment.
  - jakogut 5y ago
    A tax is a compulsory fee, so yes, you cannot voluntarily pay more taxes. You can, however, make a gift to the treasury. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
  - LanceH 5y ago
    > However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. They have the opportunity to get one person closer to "everybody" but choose not to, so instead they choose to use the government to force people to do this. You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. Then you propose using force to add up a whole lot of "too littles" to make into something. >If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves.
    - user-the-name 5y ago
      > You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. No, I argue that the benefit is zero, since I do not drive drunk, and the device will prevent exactly zero instances of drunk driving. > And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves. Please re-read my post. I explained the reasoning there already. The point is that: a) We do not know who needs to have this installed. b) That means the only way for it to be effective is to make everyone install it. c) However, I know that I am not one of those who needs it installed, therefore, there is zero benefit to me installing it on my own. All of this is perfectly non-hypocritical.
- echopurity 5y ago
  Roads have been pushed on us and they're destroying the planet. A better "mandate" would be to cease subsidizing cars in favor of public transportation.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  > Have you installed these devices yourselves? I don’t own a car, so no. But a bike is my primary means of traffic. Do I get no say in traffic safety that impacts me? > Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now? I also do this. California allows tax payers to pay taxes to a couple dozen special funds. I usually kick in extra for the rape kit tests and coastal preservation funds. BTW, arguing bothsideism is one of the least effective ways to analyze policy. Focus on the specifics. Even though I support this mandate, one of the downsides is it costs $80/month to keep ignition locks calibrated. How does the federal government plan to make this equitable?
  - throwaway2077 5y ago
    you do get a say because you also impact traffic safety - which is why that system should be installed on bikes as well
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      Perhaps, but drunk bike riders cause about as much mayhem as two drunk people fighting in a bar. Whereas drunk drivers are capable of easily killing someone without malice. I write this as someone who has both been hit by a drunk bike rider and unintentionally hurt in a bar fight that wasn’t even involving me.
      - water8 5y ago
        You've clearly never seen the damage a person can cause to the driver when hit by a car. If a person is in the road and intoxicated they can still cause injury or death.
        jdavis703 5y ago
        Yes, but they generally don’t. And yes I’ve seen a bike rider t-boned and tossed in the air before. I’m well aware of the carnage from crashes.
      - 5y ago
- melling 5y ago
  Hypocrisy is the GAME!!!! “I’ll believe in Climate Change when people stop flying in private jets” “People can always pay more taxes on their own.” “People should give up fossil fuels if they believe in climate change “ Sounds like you’ve bought into how we play politics. When we discuss inflation it’s:“Remember Jimmy Carter” No one ever discusses the Fed, etc and the causes of inflation. Oh well, at least try not to be part of the problem and understand that it’s mostly about manipulating people emotionally
- gadders 5y ago
  From what I've seen of the US, Congress exempts themselves from quite a lot legislation. I think they exempted themselves from the recent vaccine mandates.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Well come on, why should our dear leaders be expected to subject themselves to the same rules that we must follow? They are better than us.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  I stopped myself from commenting so many times, but I just can't help myself. This is the dumbest fucking point of view. Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. Now, I think cameras in our cars is something I hate and will fight against for other reasons, but your whole "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument that makes no sense and is only used to distract from practical solutions in many areas.
  - curryst 5y ago
    > Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. And we already have systems for putting these systems in people's cars after they drive drunk. This new system is specifically targeting people who haven't been caught driving drunk. As such, MADD and Congress are absolutely in the targeted demographic for this bill. Frankly, given how often congresspeople get caught driving drunk, they should be probably be the first group to get them. I would be utterly stunned if Congress isn't somehow exempt though. They'll leave a loophole for themselves, probably via not requiring the sensors to be retrofitted on imported cars or similar.
  - LanceH 5y ago
    > Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? No, I absolutely don't think they need it. Nor do I need it. But the discussion is about putting it in cars for everyone. They think I need to have a more expensive car, but they don't want to make their own cars more expensive until they can mandate that I do as well. > "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument It's not a bad faith argument, and I've tried to live my life like this. One major consideration when I left the military is that as I moved up in rank I was going to have to enforce rules that I wouldn't actually follow myself. People are very quick to use the force of law on others. > Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. I'll keep my ideology, thank you. Leadership isn't about driving the people before me.
  - 5y ago
ARandomerDude 5y ago
Nostalgia: "Kids, when I was your age YouTube didn't even exist, and you could start your car without first blowing into the breathalyzer tube."
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  > The type of technology that would be used is far from settled, with Congress stopping short of endorsing ignition lock devices like those that are often required by the courts for drunken-driving offenders and involve a breath test. Whatever the mandated tech will turn out to be, it almost certainly won't be breathalyzer interlocks.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    Give it time.
  - curryst 5y ago
    These are the specifications from the bill: (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs So breathalyzer interlocks would be a functional solution under the bill. It'll probably be the solution, because I don't hold out a lot of faith that your car will be able to analyze your driving in real time and lock you out without an absurd number of false positives.
hpoe 5y ago
And I am sure these devices will soon be connected to a network. Soon if it breaks "you tried to disable it, that's a crime." If you potentially say something someone powerful doesn't like or your social credit score drops low enough "Sorry your driving privileges have been revoked." I know it sounds good on the surface but this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned. EDIT: Better yet since it is for "saving lives" and "safety" let's just ban alcohol all together that way we completely eliminate the risk of drunk driving altogether.
- JohnWhigham 5y ago
  Yup, fuck this mandate 7 ways to Sunday. I'm already apprehensive about buying a new vehicle since they all practically have a nonnegotiable cellular data connection. There's 0 chance this breathalyzer data won't be sent back home as well.
  - EForEndeavour 5y ago
    It won't be breathalyzer data. From the article: "The type of technology that would be used is far from settled, with Congress stopping short of endorsing ignition lock devices like those that are often required by the courts for drunken-driving offenders and involve a breath test."
- user-the-name 5y ago
  > this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned They do. That is what losing your license is. They've always had this right. It is a good thing that they do.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Government doesn't have rights. It has power that the people tolerate. They've only had that power (in the US) since the late 1940s and early 1950s when licensing became a national thing. And there's a hell of a lot of procedure and safeguards that prevent them from exercising that power arbitrarily.
pueblito 5y ago
This seems like a pretty transparent effort to get everyone’s biometric data to me
- user-the-name 5y ago
  How?
rytcio 5y ago
This isn't going to work out well if there are a bunch of false-positives
BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"“We need technology to stop the nightmare on our roads,” Ms. Otte said." I think the proper term for this is pearl-clutching, but in any event I absolutely hate when activists use wanton hyperbole. Yes, drunk drivers cause casualties, but is it really such a nightmare that requires integrating breathalyzers in every new car? I'd venture the majority of Americans would say no. Additionally, I've become so disillusioned with American Democracy that I'm no longer proud of our style of government. The fact that Congress can pass such a wide-ranging law on the narrowest of majorities and each little politician can jam special interest provisions in makes me so angry. Congress has the power to operate in whatever little silly way it wants and this leads to such weird parliamentary chicanery.
- dublin 5y ago
  We would be better off to eliminate all of MADD's current "gotcha" laws, raise the drunk driving BAC back up to something sensible (like 0.12-0.15), and make THAT a felony with mandatory jail time. But that doesn't have the opportunities for graft, corruption, and enrichment of the lawyer class that the current system does, so...
  - landemva 5y ago
    Local prosecutors can start charging people for attempted homicide with a deadly weapon. If locals don't want drunks on the roads, local juries will convict.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The problem is that society has lost all ability to have rational cost benefit discussion when lives or bodily harm are involved. Imagine the classic "do we build an expensive overpass with a big span or a cheap one with a central support someone may crash into" problem that is often found in engineering ethics classes. We can't have that discussion here. It will be derailed with all sorts of BS. >but is it really such a nightmare that requires integrating breathalyzers in every new car? If the cost were zero, sure. But it's not zero. It'll cost tons of money and even more hours of needless frustration.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The glass 1/10th full side of this is that OEMs might figure out how to make the systems not suck and drive all those predatory breathalyzer companies out of business.
- water8 5y ago
  This is not a problem for about 99% of us.
jackorange 5y ago
Majority of comments here are on the headline and clearly did not read the article: - It doesnt use breathalyzers, it uses safety systems similar as those for cruise control. - It would be installed at the factory by manufacturers. - It would be mandated by 2026, no different than how other basic vehicle safety equipment has been mandated for vehicles over time: seatbelts, airbags, reverse cams, third brake light, and so on.
- emidln 5y ago
  My current driver monitoring system (Subaru Outback 2020 with whatever bells/whistles were available) was distracting and wrong so often that I had to disable it. With it on it would try distracting me with flashing messages and beeps while I was navigating 6 way intersections where I live. It was constantly unhappy that I wasn't looking exactly straight forward out the main window. The worst was probably highways where there was nothing in front of my vehicle for a quarter mile or more but I needed to look over my shoulder extensively to be able to safely change lanes out of the right-hand lane into the busier left hand lane.
  - jackorange 5y ago
    Your 2020 Subaru Outback will be at least 6 years old in 2026 when this proposed system comes out.
    - dublin 5y ago
      That's barely broken in: I expect cars to be perfectly usable for many decades, if properly maintained. I do NOT want techo-obsolescence in a few years! My personal goal is to never again own a car with a screen (especially a touchscreen), or with any kind of radio transmitter/transceiver to track and report anything back to the mfr. (And I'm an IoT guy!)
      - jackorange 5y ago
        My point isn't his car is obsolete, its that the technology he's complaining about is not the same that will be installed 5 or 6 years from now.
destitude 5y ago
One more single point of failure (hardware) preventing your vehicle from starting.
- destitude 5y ago
  I already have to deal with my car telling me my car tires are flat or missing when I switch over to snow tires every winter.
curiousllama 5y ago
How would a "passive monitoring" device differentiate impaired driving from simple bad driving? If it can't, does this law simply mandate a certain quality of driving? Potentially not a bad idea. Extending half-jokingly, if we can adequately, uniformly, and proactively enforce a certain quality of driving... would that ultimately make drunk driving ok, as long as it's good enough?
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  I'm ok if this device also rejects people driving half asleep or very distracted. Driving under the influence would still be illegal, but if you are somehow a competant drunk driver then yeah you could avoid the system triggering on you.. which seems fine? Like, it's no worse than the current system.
  - water8 5y ago
    It's way worse than the current system. It's infringing upon basic presumption of innocence our court system is founded on
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      The car isn't putting you in jail, it's just refusing to operate if you can't keep your eyes on the road.
      - water8 5y ago
        By assuming I'm intoxicated or not paying attention by its definition. Maybe I just suck at driving and have a lazy eye, is that illegal?
- tantalor 5y ago
  You are charged with drunk driving. Your defense: the car's passive monitoring system says your driving was fine (indistinguishable from sober driver).
- 5y ago
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
How in the world is a safety device supposed to detect if I'm inebriated? The article says it stops short of recommending breathalyzers be installed, but I don't see another way of doing so. How does this work when, say, we have a global pandemic and everyone starts slathering themselves with alcohol disinfectant as soon as they get in their cars? This is such a bad, stupid idea.
jrexilius 5y ago
This is the same form of false banner under which apple is deciding your photos and your phone are no longer your private property. The ultimate goal is centralized monitoring, surveillance, and control. They are barely trying to disguise it anymore.
LNSY 5y ago
They could solve a lot of drunk driving by having real mass transit in America. Cars kill more kids in America than anything else: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754#:~:text=Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%20were%20the,responsible%20for%2015%25%20of%20deaths https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754#:~:text=... I doubt these deaths are all drunk driving incidents. I wish, instead of trying to add regulation and technology to the problem, our government would look at the actual problem.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  In fact, 16% a pedestrian fatalities involve a driver with some level of intoxication
davemp 5y ago
Show me some real systems and their efficacy before we even talk about how massive of an overstep these 'tools must rat out their owners' proposals are.

30 points by bonyt 5y ago

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 37 points, 80 comments

LanceH 5y ago

Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate. In this case it would be asked of those from MADD, "Have you installed these devices yourselves?" I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them. I was in the military when Congress banned smoking in much of the military and other federal buildings but exempted themselves. Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now? If it's a step I haven't already taken myself, I can't even conceive of mandating that everyone do it before I start, but that's just too alien a concept it seems. In a similar bit of hypocrisy, I feel the same way about drinking underage and the number of people who are perfectly ok ramping up punishments for the same "crimes" they themselves committed -- it's just the timeline in a different direction now.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
version_five 5y ago
The people who are most adamant about imposing rules on others are often those who are breaking them themselves, can't stop, and blame society for not having enough rules. See all the morality crusaders who are also secretly sexting teenagers
- mistrial9 5y ago
  keyword "often" -- this is a popular myth among people with rampant morality problems, in my opinion as an urban US dweller
hyperbovine 5y ago
> I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them. Source please. Even if what you are saying is true, are you claiming that installing these devices on the cars of people who routinely drive drunk would not save lives?
- LanceH 5y ago
  >> I'm sure they haven't and I'm sure they think they don't need them. > Source please. Source - me. I'm sure. Please read carefully. Also, it's not like they've presented large scale trials of this working. > Even if what you are saying is true, are you claiming that installing these devices on the cars of people who routinely drive drunk would not save lives? Am I claiming that? The discussion is about putting devices on all cars, not repeat offenders, so no.
  - hyperbovine 5y ago
    > Please read carefully. Classy. > Am I claiming that? The discussion is about putting devices on all cars, not repeat offenders, so no. And yet, "cars of repeat offenders" is a subset of "all cars".
pkulak 5y ago
> Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now? Because me sending random cash to the federal government does absolutely nothing, and higher taxes can pay for actual programs. There's a huge difference between exempting yourself from a new mandate you enforce on everyone else, and simply waiting for a universal mandate before acting yourself.
- curiousllama 5y ago
  Yea, it's perfectly intellectually consistent to say "I'll do it if you do it too"
  - davidw 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_game
    - the_optimist 5y ago
      There is no basis for believing that the payoff for coordination is elevated. If anything the opposite: we see that more centralized decision-making introduces larger deadweight losses. See US-Afghanistan, as enabled by the tax base, as an example.
      - curiousllama 5y ago
        > There is no basis for believing that the payoff for coordination is elevated Libraries, fire stations, universal K-12 education? Certainly imperfect, but def benefit from coordination. Health care too - a lack of universal coordination makes life difficult. On the private sector side, many companies are great examples of coordination payoffs (I trade entrepreneurial risk/reward for consistent benefits).
  - the_optimist 5y ago
    But it is the height of hypocrisy to force other people to do things that neither they nor you would do in isolation. You’re not preventing a prisoner’s dilemma here because the proposed tax contribution is strictly monotonic with or without individual participation.
frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
>Whenever someone is pushing a mandate on someone else, I wish they would be called out if they are already following that mandate. Why though? If you found out that many members of MADD had installed these devices would it change your opinion on requiring it for everyone else? If you found that someone campaigning for higher tax rates actually did make generous contributions, would it change your opinion on raising the rates? Somehow I suspect not, in fact I would hope you wouldn't be so easily swayed! So then we've not pushed the argument forward at all, just taken a detour down an irrelevant cul-de-sac in the hopes of finding a gotcha.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Those facts would not change my opinion, and as you said they alone should not change anyone's opinion. But if someone is already living by the rules they'd like imposed on me, I'm definitely more likely to listen to what they have to say.
- LanceH 5y ago
  > If you found out that many members of MADD had installed these devices would it change your opinion on requiring it for everyone else? At least I would respect the argument. Right now I see too many people proposing the use of force to achieve something they don't believe in enough to do themselves.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 5y ago
    >At least I would respect the argument. Which really just means 'no.' So like I said, just a big waste of time, the argument for or against these drunk-driving systems is about whether the good for society is worth the cost not about who's making the argument or whether you respect them.
user-the-name 5y ago
If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. That would cover myself, which is annoying, but I would still gain a benefit from it would decrease my chances of someone else crashing into me while drunk. And, I should not need to tell you this, but what is stopping me from paying higher taxes right now is that that is not a thing you can do. There is no voluntary tax payment.
- jakogut 5y ago
  A tax is a compulsory fee, so yes, you cannot voluntarily pay more taxes. You can, however, make a gift to the treasury. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html
- LanceH 5y ago
  > However, I can with zero hypocrisy argue that everyone should have to do this before being allowed on the road, including myself. We can't tell who needs to have these installed, so we have to specify "everybody" for it to be effective. They have the opportunity to get one person closer to "everybody" but choose not to, so instead they choose to use the government to force people to do this. You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. Then you propose using force to add up a whole lot of "too littles" to make into something. >If I do not drink and drive, why would I pay money to install a system to detect if I drink and drive? I would be throwing money out the window for zero gain. And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    > You argue that the marginal benefit of you doing it on your own is too little for you to do it. No, I argue that the benefit is zero, since I do not drive drunk, and the device will prevent exactly zero instances of drunk driving. > And they propose to make millions of people waste this money when they don't believe in it enough to do it for themselves. Please re-read my post. I explained the reasoning there already. The point is that: a) We do not know who needs to have this installed. b) That means the only way for it to be effective is to make everyone install it. c) However, I know that I am not one of those who needs it installed, therefore, there is zero benefit to me installing it on my own. All of this is perfectly non-hypocritical.
echopurity 5y ago
Roads have been pushed on us and they're destroying the planet. A better "mandate" would be to cease subsidizing cars in favor of public transportation.
jdavis703 5y ago
> Have you installed these devices yourselves? I don’t own a car, so no. But a bike is my primary means of traffic. Do I get no say in traffic safety that impacts me? > Person saying taxes should be higher for everyone -- what's stopping them from paying more right now? I also do this. California allows tax payers to pay taxes to a couple dozen special funds. I usually kick in extra for the rape kit tests and coastal preservation funds. BTW, arguing bothsideism is one of the least effective ways to analyze policy. Focus on the specifics. Even though I support this mandate, one of the downsides is it costs $80/month to keep ignition locks calibrated. How does the federal government plan to make this equitable?
- throwaway2077 5y ago
  you do get a say because you also impact traffic safety - which is why that system should be installed on bikes as well
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    Perhaps, but drunk bike riders cause about as much mayhem as two drunk people fighting in a bar. Whereas drunk drivers are capable of easily killing someone without malice. I write this as someone who has both been hit by a drunk bike rider and unintentionally hurt in a bar fight that wasn’t even involving me.
    - water8 5y ago
      You've clearly never seen the damage a person can cause to the driver when hit by a car. If a person is in the road and intoxicated they can still cause injury or death.
      - jdavis703 5y ago
        Yes, but they generally don’t. And yes I’ve seen a bike rider t-boned and tossed in the air before. I’m well aware of the carnage from crashes.
    - 5y ago
melling 5y ago
Hypocrisy is the GAME!!!! “I’ll believe in Climate Change when people stop flying in private jets” “People can always pay more taxes on their own.” “People should give up fossil fuels if they believe in climate change “ Sounds like you’ve bought into how we play politics. When we discuss inflation it’s:“Remember Jimmy Carter” No one ever discusses the Fed, etc and the causes of inflation. Oh well, at least try not to be part of the problem and understand that it’s mostly about manipulating people emotionally
gadders 5y ago
From what I've seen of the US, Congress exempts themselves from quite a lot legislation. I think they exempted themselves from the recent vaccine mandates.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Well come on, why should our dear leaders be expected to subject themselves to the same rules that we must follow? They are better than us.
amcoastal 5y ago
I stopped myself from commenting so many times, but I just can't help myself. This is the dumbest fucking point of view. Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. Now, I think cameras in our cars is something I hate and will fight against for other reasons, but your whole "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument that makes no sense and is only used to distract from practical solutions in many areas.
- curryst 5y ago
  > Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. And we already have systems for putting these systems in people's cars after they drive drunk. This new system is specifically targeting people who haven't been caught driving drunk. As such, MADD and Congress are absolutely in the targeted demographic for this bill. Frankly, given how often congresspeople get caught driving drunk, they should be probably be the first group to get them. I would be utterly stunned if Congress isn't somehow exempt though. They'll leave a loophole for themselves, probably via not requiring the sensors to be retrofitted on imported cars or similar.
- LanceH 5y ago
  > Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? No, I absolutely don't think they need it. Nor do I need it. But the discussion is about putting it in cars for everyone. They think I need to have a more expensive car, but they don't want to make their own cars more expensive until they can mandate that I do as well. > "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument It's not a bad faith argument, and I've tried to live my life like this. One major consideration when I left the military is that as I moved up in rank I was going to have to enforce rules that I wouldn't actually follow myself. People are very quick to use the force of law on others. > Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. I'll keep my ideology, thank you. Leadership isn't about driving the people before me.
- 5y ago

ARandomerDude 5y ago

Nostalgia: "Kids, when I was your age YouTube didn't even exist, and you could start your car without first blowing into the breathalyzer tube."

EForEndeavour 5y ago
> The type of technology that would be used is far from settled, with Congress stopping short of endorsing ignition lock devices like those that are often required by the courts for drunken-driving offenders and involve a breath test. Whatever the mandated tech will turn out to be, it almost certainly won't be breathalyzer interlocks.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  Give it time.
- curryst 5y ago
  These are the specifications from the bill: (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs So breathalyzer interlocks would be a functional solution under the bill. It'll probably be the solution, because I don't hold out a lot of faith that your car will be able to analyze your driving in real time and lock you out without an absurd number of false positives.

hpoe 5y ago

And I am sure these devices will soon be connected to a network. Soon if it breaks "you tried to disable it, that's a crime." If you potentially say something someone powerful doesn't like or your social credit score drops low enough "Sorry your driving privileges have been revoked." I know it sounds good on the surface but this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned. EDIT: Better yet since it is for "saving lives" and "safety" let's just ban alcohol all together that way we completely eliminate the risk of drunk driving altogether.

JohnWhigham 5y ago
Yup, fuck this mandate 7 ways to Sunday. I'm already apprehensive about buying a new vehicle since they all practically have a nonnegotiable cellular data connection. There's 0 chance this breathalyzer data won't be sent back home as well.
- EForEndeavour 5y ago
  It won't be breathalyzer data. From the article: "The type of technology that would be used is far from settled, with Congress stopping short of endorsing ignition lock devices like those that are often required by the courts for drunken-driving offenders and involve a breath test."
user-the-name 5y ago
> this then recognizes that the government has a legitimate right to arbitrarily revoke your access to a motor vehicle that you've purchased and owned They do. That is what losing your license is. They've always had this right. It is a good thing that they do.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Government doesn't have rights. It has power that the people tolerate. They've only had that power (in the US) since the late 1940s and early 1950s when licensing became a national thing. And there's a hell of a lot of procedure and safeguards that prevent them from exercising that power arbitrarily.

pueblito 5y ago

This seems like a pretty transparent effort to get everyone’s biometric data to me

user-the-name 5y ago
How?

rytcio 5y ago

This isn't going to work out well if there are a bunch of false-positives

BitwiseFool 5y ago

>"“We need technology to stop the nightmare on our roads,” Ms. Otte said." I think the proper term for this is pearl-clutching, but in any event I absolutely hate when activists use wanton hyperbole. Yes, drunk drivers cause casualties, but is it really such a nightmare that requires integrating breathalyzers in every new car? I'd venture the majority of Americans would say no. Additionally, I've become so disillusioned with American Democracy that I'm no longer proud of our style of government. The fact that Congress can pass such a wide-ranging law on the narrowest of majorities and each little politician can jam special interest provisions in makes me so angry. Congress has the power to operate in whatever little silly way it wants and this leads to such weird parliamentary chicanery.

dublin 5y ago
We would be better off to eliminate all of MADD's current "gotcha" laws, raise the drunk driving BAC back up to something sensible (like 0.12-0.15), and make THAT a felony with mandatory jail time. But that doesn't have the opportunities for graft, corruption, and enrichment of the lawyer class that the current system does, so...
- landemva 5y ago
  Local prosecutors can start charging people for attempted homicide with a deadly weapon. If locals don't want drunks on the roads, local juries will convict.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The problem is that society has lost all ability to have rational cost benefit discussion when lives or bodily harm are involved. Imagine the classic "do we build an expensive overpass with a big span or a cheap one with a central support someone may crash into" problem that is often found in engineering ethics classes. We can't have that discussion here. It will be derailed with all sorts of BS. >but is it really such a nightmare that requires integrating breathalyzers in every new car? If the cost were zero, sure. But it's not zero. It'll cost tons of money and even more hours of needless frustration.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The glass 1/10th full side of this is that OEMs might figure out how to make the systems not suck and drive all those predatory breathalyzer companies out of business.

water8 5y ago
This is not a problem for about 99% of us.

jackorange 5y ago

Majority of comments here are on the headline and clearly did not read the article: - It doesnt use breathalyzers, it uses safety systems similar as those for cruise control. - It would be installed at the factory by manufacturers. - It would be mandated by 2026, no different than how other basic vehicle safety equipment has been mandated for vehicles over time: seatbelts, airbags, reverse cams, third brake light, and so on.

emidln 5y ago
My current driver monitoring system (Subaru Outback 2020 with whatever bells/whistles were available) was distracting and wrong so often that I had to disable it. With it on it would try distracting me with flashing messages and beeps while I was navigating 6 way intersections where I live. It was constantly unhappy that I wasn't looking exactly straight forward out the main window. The worst was probably highways where there was nothing in front of my vehicle for a quarter mile or more but I needed to look over my shoulder extensively to be able to safely change lanes out of the right-hand lane into the busier left hand lane.
- jackorange 5y ago
  Your 2020 Subaru Outback will be at least 6 years old in 2026 when this proposed system comes out.
  - dublin 5y ago
    That's barely broken in: I expect cars to be perfectly usable for many decades, if properly maintained. I do NOT want techo-obsolescence in a few years! My personal goal is to never again own a car with a screen (especially a touchscreen), or with any kind of radio transmitter/transceiver to track and report anything back to the mfr. (And I'm an IoT guy!)
    - jackorange 5y ago
      My point isn't his car is obsolete, its that the technology he's complaining about is not the same that will be installed 5 or 6 years from now.

destitude 5y ago

One more single point of failure (hardware) preventing your vehicle from starting.

destitude 5y ago
I already have to deal with my car telling me my car tires are flat or missing when I switch over to snow tires every winter.

curiousllama 5y ago

How would a "passive monitoring" device differentiate impaired driving from simple bad driving? If it can't, does this law simply mandate a certain quality of driving? Potentially not a bad idea. Extending half-jokingly, if we can adequately, uniformly, and proactively enforce a certain quality of driving... would that ultimately make drunk driving ok, as long as it's good enough?

vorpalhex 5y ago
I'm ok if this device also rejects people driving half asleep or very distracted. Driving under the influence would still be illegal, but if you are somehow a competant drunk driver then yeah you could avoid the system triggering on you.. which seems fine? Like, it's no worse than the current system.
- water8 5y ago
  It's way worse than the current system. It's infringing upon basic presumption of innocence our court system is founded on
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    The car isn't putting you in jail, it's just refusing to operate if you can't keep your eyes on the road.
    - water8 5y ago
      By assuming I'm intoxicated or not paying attention by its definition. Maybe I just suck at driving and have a lazy eye, is that illegal?
tantalor 5y ago
You are charged with drunk driving. Your defense: the car's passive monitoring system says your driving was fine (indistinguishable from sober driver).
5y ago

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

How in the world is a safety device supposed to detect if I'm inebriated? The article says it stops short of recommending breathalyzers be installed, but I don't see another way of doing so. How does this work when, say, we have a global pandemic and everyone starts slathering themselves with alcohol disinfectant as soon as they get in their cars? This is such a bad, stupid idea.

jrexilius 5y ago

This is the same form of false banner under which apple is deciding your photos and your phone are no longer your private property. The ultimate goal is centralized monitoring, surveillance, and control. They are barely trying to disguise it anymore.

LNSY 5y ago

They could solve a lot of drunk driving by having real mass transit in America. Cars kill more kids in America than anything else: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754#:~:text=Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%20were%20the,responsible%20for%2015%25%20of%20deaths https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsr1804754#:~:text=... I doubt these deaths are all drunk driving incidents. I wish, instead of trying to add regulation and technology to the problem, our government would look at the actual problem.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
In fact, 16% a pedestrian fatalities involve a driver with some level of intoxication

davemp 5y ago

Show me some real systems and their efficacy before we even talk about how massive of an overstep these 'tools must rat out their owners' proposals are.