4 ms·
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 bu
by 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 agoDo 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 agoIt 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