4 ms·

>"“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 h

>"“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.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  Do we know what the cost is? Seems to me that would depend on a lot of factors, such as how expensive the equipment is, how expensive it is to repair/replace, what the false positive rates are, what the consequences of a false positive are, what other additional burdens/inconveniences it imposes on the driver, etc. If it's cheap enough (after considering all of the above) then yeah, maybe something like this could make sense. I do feel like it should be up to the ones proposing the legislation to prove that though before any new regulations are passed. Unfortunately, I suspect the fact that this measure is being bundled together with a trillion dollar spending package makes that unlikely.
  - water8 5y ago
    It also depends on a ton of intangible factors like how much has drunk driving had and effect on your life. For some it will be huge for others it will be none
shkkmo 5y ago
"Pearl-clutching" is a rather un-HN term to use since it implies a deliberate overreaction. Drunk driving is a significant factor in road safety and based on the numbers for 2019, accounts for over 1/4 of the traffic fatalities in the US. When you consider the number of people who have lost friends and family to drunk drivers, it is absolutely reasonable that there are a lot of people for whom this is a legitimately emotional topic. I am not familiar enough with the details of this proposal to know if it is a good idea. I do know enough to see that you also seem to be unclear as to what this proposal actually consists of; it absolutely doesn't push for integrating breathalyzers in every car or even in every new car. One of the issues I see in American Democracy is that people are insufficiently interested in getting their facts straight.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  >"Pearl-clutching" is a rather un-HN term to use since it implies a deliberate overreaction." I genuinely believe this is indeed a deliberate overreaction on the part of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I see their statements as catastrophizing. >"I do know enough to see that you also seem to be unclear as to what this proposal actually consists of; it absolutely doesn't push for integrating breathalyzers in every car or even in every new car." This is one of the hazards of vaguely worded laws crammed into pass-or-die reconciliation bills. We really have no idea how to satisfy this now that it is codified into law. It might just be nothing, or it could be something intrusive. I doubt Congress will go back and pass a new law or amend this because of all the gridlock.
darkerside 5y ago
The "nightmare" is actually long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer horror. If you are in an accident caused by a drunk driver (or caused by anyone really, including yourself), it would indeed be a literal waking nightmare. What's so horrible about a breathalyzer in every car? People get used to losing unimportant freedoms very quickly and easily. The seatbelt was initially viewed the same way.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  There is a big difference between passing a law that requires people to wear a seatbelt and integrating an electronic device that prevents your car from operating normally when it 'detects' the presence of alcohol. Edit: In addition, detecting the level of alcohol is a much more difficult and non-straightforward problem then checking if a seatbelt is plugged in. With a seatbelt you can have a simple circuit that gets completed when you plug the metal into the socket. But how will a breathalyzer work? Can it tell that I the driver am sober when my passenger(s) are heavily intoxicated? If there isn't a tube I have to blow into, I assume it passively scans the cabin air? I vaguely remember a push to install a part into cars that prevented you from driving if the seatbelt was not fastened. It caused a lot of problems and now we just have a warning light and a pestering beep instead.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    There's an enormous difference. All I'm doing is pointing out one potential similarity in the user acceptance curve. I'm arguing against the lack of vision in being unable to imagine a world where people accept this restriction, not claiming it is technically feasible. Anyway, a blow tube that triggers an annoying beep seems like a meaningful positive step to me. It at least removes the excuse of, "I thought I was fine to drive".
francisofascii 5y ago
Yes, drunk drivers are a nightmare. For many of us, dying or getting severely injured on our roadways is the number one risk we face every day.
- water8 5y ago
  You live a pretty comfortable life then.
- curryst 5y ago
  They're not. It's not even close. You're more likely to kill yourself than get killed in traffic. You're actually more likely to be killed by a sober driver than a drunk one (due to the populations). I'm not saying it's a good situation, but if getting hit by a drunk driver is the number one risk you face, you have a remarkably safe existence and I'd be curious how you eliminated the risk of heart attack or suicide.

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.

Ajedi32 5y ago
Do we know what the cost is? Seems to me that would depend on a lot of factors, such as how expensive the equipment is, how expensive it is to repair/replace, what the false positive rates are, what the consequences of a false positive are, what other additional burdens/inconveniences it imposes on the driver, etc. If it's cheap enough (after considering all of the above) then yeah, maybe something like this could make sense. I do feel like it should be up to the ones proposing the legislation to prove that though before any new regulations are passed. Unfortunately, I suspect the fact that this measure is being bundled together with a trillion dollar spending package makes that unlikely.
- water8 5y ago
  It also depends on a ton of intangible factors like how much has drunk driving had and effect on your life. For some it will be huge for others it will be none

shkkmo 5y ago

"Pearl-clutching" is a rather un-HN term to use since it implies a deliberate overreaction. Drunk driving is a significant factor in road safety and based on the numbers for 2019, accounts for over 1/4 of the traffic fatalities in the US. When you consider the number of people who have lost friends and family to drunk drivers, it is absolutely reasonable that there are a lot of people for whom this is a legitimately emotional topic. I am not familiar enough with the details of this proposal to know if it is a good idea. I do know enough to see that you also seem to be unclear as to what this proposal actually consists of; it absolutely doesn't push for integrating breathalyzers in every car or even in every new car. One of the issues I see in American Democracy is that people are insufficiently interested in getting their facts straight.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
>"Pearl-clutching" is a rather un-HN term to use since it implies a deliberate overreaction." I genuinely believe this is indeed a deliberate overreaction on the part of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I see their statements as catastrophizing. >"I do know enough to see that you also seem to be unclear as to what this proposal actually consists of; it absolutely doesn't push for integrating breathalyzers in every car or even in every new car." This is one of the hazards of vaguely worded laws crammed into pass-or-die reconciliation bills. We really have no idea how to satisfy this now that it is codified into law. It might just be nothing, or it could be something intrusive. I doubt Congress will go back and pass a new law or amend this because of all the gridlock.

darkerside 5y ago

The "nightmare" is actually long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer horror. If you are in an accident caused by a drunk driver (or caused by anyone really, including yourself), it would indeed be a literal waking nightmare. What's so horrible about a breathalyzer in every car? People get used to losing unimportant freedoms very quickly and easily. The seatbelt was initially viewed the same way.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
There is a big difference between passing a law that requires people to wear a seatbelt and integrating an electronic device that prevents your car from operating normally when it 'detects' the presence of alcohol. Edit: In addition, detecting the level of alcohol is a much more difficult and non-straightforward problem then checking if a seatbelt is plugged in. With a seatbelt you can have a simple circuit that gets completed when you plug the metal into the socket. But how will a breathalyzer work? Can it tell that I the driver am sober when my passenger(s) are heavily intoxicated? If there isn't a tube I have to blow into, I assume it passively scans the cabin air? I vaguely remember a push to install a part into cars that prevented you from driving if the seatbelt was not fastened. It caused a lot of problems and now we just have a warning light and a pestering beep instead.
- darkerside 5y ago
  There's an enormous difference. All I'm doing is pointing out one potential similarity in the user acceptance curve. I'm arguing against the lack of vision in being unable to imagine a world where people accept this restriction, not claiming it is technically feasible. Anyway, a blow tube that triggers an annoying beep seems like a meaningful positive step to me. It at least removes the excuse of, "I thought I was fine to drive".

francisofascii 5y ago

Yes, drunk drivers are a nightmare. For many of us, dying or getting severely injured on our roadways is the number one risk we face every day.

water8 5y ago
You live a pretty comfortable life then.
curryst 5y ago
They're not. It's not even close. You're more likely to kill yourself than get killed in traffic. You're actually more likely to be killed by a sober driver than a drunk one (due to the populations). I'm not saying it's a good situation, but if getting hit by a drunk driver is the number one risk you face, you have a remarkably safe existence and I'd be curious how you eliminated the risk of heart attack or suicide.