26 ms·

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 anyo

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".

26 ms·

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 anyo

by darkerside 5y ago

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".