8 ms·

Your next car may refuse to start if it thinks you've had a drink

25 points by Bostonian 5y ago

speedgoose 5y ago
The author of the article seems to be against a device that will save a lot of lifes and improve the quality of life to even more people to save $300.
- cmaggiulli 5y ago
  That is a straw man argument if I ever heard one. The author is claiming the system won’t work
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  I'm against a device that may or may not record me or take my health stats and report them to a central database every time I get into a vehicle. I don't trust this not to be used as yet another automated surveillance tool for the government. if there is one thing I don't trust the government with, it's visibility at scale. If we had guts, we would ban bars from selling anyone more than three drinks, and ban bars from serving anyone who has had a drink anywhere else that day. (or something, I'm brainstorming).
  - zip1234 5y ago
    It is widely accepted that driving a dangerous machine that endangers the lives of others is a privilege and responsibility that comes with restrictions.
  - stopagephobia 5y ago
    Meh, prohbiition dont work, we tried it. We cant even keep kids from drinking. Theres already a cultural shift away from as much heavy drinking, a lot more of the young people I know dont drink at all or drink only a bit and are more accepting of people who don't drink. Also how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database.
    - unethical_ban 5y ago
      >how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database. Holding bars accountable. TABC (Texas bar regulator) tells all bartenders TODAY that you cannot serve someone to excess (above 0.08% BAC) and cannot serve someone who is already drunk. I guarantee you that every single bartender in Texas has violated this regulation. When the regulations step in with reality, and are enforced, maybe fewer people would be overserved.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  I'm just surprised this is coming before verifying license and insurance status before allowing the car to start. Seems like that'd be easier (and equally undesirable).
josefresco 5y ago
Probably not your next car, or the car after that. From what I gather, this is a "maybe" kind of thing, 10 years out. And even with that, auto manufacturers can and will drag their feet like they have other regulation (back seat child detection) https://www.thedrive.com/news/43086/new-cars-will-have-to-detect-drunk-drivers-as-early-as-2026 https://www.thedrive.com/news/43086/new-cars-will-have-to-de... "The text later on in this section of the bill alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward."
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  > alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward Government: oh god, if we don't implement this thing in 10 years, then maybe this other branch of the government is going to maybe explain why and provide steps we can maybe take.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  This reminds me of the requirement in the 2012 infrastructure bill that all electronic toll collection systems must be interoperable by 2016. It's 2021, further from the deadline than the deadline itself was from the signing of the legislation, and the only major movement in this regard is that a few more systems have joined EZPass (North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota), and that North Carolina, Georgia and Florida created their own interoperability set.
dionidium 5y ago
People conceptualize cars as an extension of themselves, their own private pod that they control entirely, but as automation technology improves I think they're going to have to start thinking of it more like boarding a train or an airplane. Increasingly, we'll have tech to make decisions for drivers that are much better than the decisions they make for themselves (even before we get to full automation). This includes stuff like breaking for obstacles, but it might also include things like speed governors or GPS-enabled traffic-law enforcement. I don't see any way around it. Once you have the tech to prevent an automobile from exceeding the speed limit in a school zone it's obscene to manufacture cars that respond only to the input of the driver's foot on the accelerator, with no other considerations. At some point, "I have decided to drive 130 mph down a residential street, because that's what I've decided to do in this exact moment and I have a right to be in control of my own car" just isn't good enough. You have all these other inputs and, what, you're just going to ignore them?
- Steltek 5y ago
  Oh God yes. Computers don't get impatient, don't let their temper spiral out of control, don't "bravely" try to get to work on 3 hours of sleep, don't display crab-bucket jerk moves, etc. Cars bring out the worst in people and it comes with life altering consequences for innocent people. Cars are not freedom on four wheels, it's simply one method, among many, for you go to work and buy groceries.
  - stopagephobia 5y ago
    Not true. Maybe you are a foreigner? It is worth explaining how we see cars. Ever since especially 40s and later they represent the ability for any person to go wherever desired without conforming to somebody else's schedule. We see them as "freedom on four wheels" and will work to keep them that way even if you think they shouldn't be.
    - dionidium 5y ago
      We can make a car so that it knows it's raining, it can tell the tires are getting poor traction, it knows its location, it knows it's in a school zone, it knows the prevailing speed limit, it has cameras and can see there are children crossing the street ahead, internal cameras sense that the driver isn't paying attention, the stereo is loud, and yet -- the car should ignore every one of those inputs, because if the driver presses their foot on the accelerator pedal, then that means it should increase its speed, without any other consideration, because of "freedom?" It's absurd. Why would you manufacture a means of conveyance that behaves that way? You certainly wouldn't ever allow one on a public street, not when you have all the tech I described above. That's a bad product. I mean, it might describe an ATV or something -- a vehicle you use for fun off of public thoroughfares. But it's not a serious vehicle that meets the standards for operating on public rights of way.
stopagephobia 5y ago
WTF. I remember when I was younger and driving maybe not drunk but heavily buzzed was more accepted, glad it's not any more. This is stupid though, I dont want a machine that thinks it knows better than me. Subtitle on the article is accurate, this is nanny state bullshit. I also hate stuff like this because "Computers don't argue": https://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133 https://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133 Computer says you're drunk so tough shit, you cant drive to work. Try again tomorrow. Edit: people downvoting are supporting an increase police state. We shouldnt make people prove their not committing a crime to do normal stuff. This is like stop and frisk but automotive.
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  "Open the door halcohol".. "Im afraid i cant do that.." "Why not hal?" "Your colone is to rich in ethanol. And so is the window-cleaning fluid and the stuff they spilled over your shirt." "But im not drunk. Let me proof it."
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    "Only a drunk would argue with a robot-"
- jorams 5y ago
  > I dont want a machine that thinks it knows better than me. I'm against requiring something like this universally, but drunk driving is such a big problem because intoxicated people feel overconfident in their driving abilities. That's definitely a case where the machine would know better than you.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    I don't think so. If my car told me that I had a too high BAC, I would either think "WTF car, I had a beer yesterday and that is it", or "shit, fuck, what the hell I was certain I could drive now". The trouble comes when the car won't let me override the controls. My tire preasure warning has been going on for little under a week now, but there is no reason for it, so I will reset it soonish. I do appreciate my car warning me though - it took only a few minutes to check.
bally0241 5y ago
Next up, your car may refuse to start if you haven't had your most recent booster shot!
- stopagephobia 5y ago
  You're downvoted but i could legit see a scenario where it refused to take you certain places if there was a lockdown order. Since some countries are leaving those in place for people not vaccinated, its possible.
  - exsmelliarmus 5y ago
    The downvotes would be because that argument is a slippery slope fallacy.
  - bally0241 5y ago
    Sure, it could happen (doesn't make it legitimate). Maybe the system could even get over the air updates curtailing your movement if you happened to vote for the wrong party in the last election, or said something naughty on twitter. So much for freedom, was a nice experiment while it lasted.
thrower123 5y ago
If they start putting breathalyzer interlocks in all cars, they had better be more accurate and less fiddly than the ones that they force some DUI offenders to have installed.
- falcolas 5y ago
  3rd party interlocks (of any kind) are always going to work far worse than 1st party. They’re generic and make assumptions about the vehicle that are wrong more often than not.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    3rd party interlocks suck because everybody who uses one is forced to do so or otherwise be subject to state violence. Every breakdown nets these companies hundreds in service and calibration fees. Auto companies who want to make it not suck for their customer will do far better.
falcolas 5y ago
Alright, good. Drunk driving is prevalent and deadly - and typically not to the drunk driver, but to innocents in other cars or even buildings. Keep those idiots off the road. Can the mechanism break? Of course. But so can your wireless key. So can any one of dozens of computers or sensors required to run your engine. Nothing new here. The nanny state argument was old when people were protesting seat belts.
- stopagephobia 5y ago
  Broken seat belt will not stop cars from running. Nanny state argument I think still applies to seat belt for an individual person, just requiring that kids wear them is okay though. When did we decide government got to stop ppl from doing stupid shit?
- alistairSH 5y ago
  A broken wireless key doesn't generally render the vehicle inoperable. Most/all cars have a physical backup key.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    My vehicles do not (and the instructions for most "keyless" starting mechanisms is the same). They will emit an active RF signal to read the key as a backup to a dead battery, but if the chip is dead the car won't start. The backup key is for opening the door.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      But isn't that failure mode almost unheard of, or at least as uncommon as a physical key breaking apart?
- drewg123 5y ago
  It might be old, but its still true. I'm not anti seat belt (I track cars, and I understand safety), I'm anti seat belt laws, since it gives the police a ready made excuse to pull you over for yet another reason. I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident.
karlkloss 5y ago
That's the price of freedom. You're free to buy as much alcohol as you want, and have a drink whenever you want. Unless you endanger and hurt other people. For this bill you can thank the many assholes who abuse that freedom. As always.
silicon2401 5y ago
- Go to someone's place after a nice date last week - Have a few drinks - They turn out to be dangerous and you fear for your safety - You run to your car to escape while they're in the bathroom - "Your BAC percentage is above the legal limit. Please try again in 30 minutes"
- yread 5y ago
  Good thing is that if you run they would have to run behind you as they are also drunk. So it equals out
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Unless it's a case of date rape or something. One of Dahmer's victims got away and was so drugged that the cops returned him to Dahmer who proceeded to eat him.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  A future episode of CSI: "Why didn't the victim just drive away?" "I found trace remnants of Jack Daniels on her clothing, the killer must've asked her to roll down the window, splashed it inside the car..."
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    A future episode of Friday night at your local ER: "If you had gotten here sooner we wouldn't have to amputate your <insert extremity here>" "yeah well nobody on scene could start their car and EMS took 30min to arrive".
sys_64738 5y ago
We'd need a dashboard indicator to indicate that it refused to start due to alcohol. After all, it might just be broken down independent of the driver's alcoholic state at that point.
whoomp12342 5y ago
good but, what if there is a medical emergency? how about instead cops do a better job pulling people over and we actually do a better job treating?
- tomjen3 5y ago
  To be honest, if it is a an emergency call 911. I don't want you to kill me.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
whoomp12342 5y ago
what if the AI is racist?
DrSiemer 5y ago
My wife is about to give birth while a slasher horror antagonist is revving up his chainsaw, but I've had two beers so I guess that's that.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  This is a contrived and very unlikely scenario. Maybe we should prioritize for the far more common scenario of people killing and maiming others and themselves while DUI
  - DrSiemer 5y ago
    Obviously I used an extreme example, but we shouldn't let machines make decisions that could easily be overruled in an argument with a human arbiter. How we deal with known offenders is another discussion, but adding these kinds of preemptive limitations to our hardware is unwanted overreach, that sets a bad precedent. Something about a slippery slope.
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      Yes, I don't want ML deciding I am not fit to drive tomorrow, maybe I am not fit to have custody of my kids in one week according to the model. But, detecting etanol levels in blood is a fairly well established set of processes that rely on well understood electrochemical reactions. I don't see too much risk of arbitrary unfair decisions from a dumb interlocking device.
josephcsible 5y ago
For anyone who drives a car and thinks this is a good idea, why not go right now and voluntarily get a breathalyzer retrofitted in your current car? If you don't want to do that, then you should really rethink your position.
- speedgoose 5y ago
  The system presented in the article doesn't require any action from the driver. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone's car could detect drunk drivers.
bradlys 5y ago
If you’re into this then you should also be into not allowing you to go above the speed limit at any time. You should also like that your car won’t turn unless you’ve properly signaled for the correct amount of time. I don’t drink and I’m against this. I don’t think it’s something I should have to pay for. Punish drunk drivers with life in jail and they’ll stop. As it is, the punishments for a DUI are too low - that and many people in the US drink and drive because they are low-key suicidal and completely fine if they die while driving drunk. Very common way for men in the military to die - happens every holiday.
- leed25d 5y ago
  I was in Finland once in the mid 1970s. At the time, the drunk driving laws were very strict. I seem to remember someone telling me that if you get caught driving while impaired a second time then you lose your license for the rest of your life. There is no pass if your work depends on your ability to drive, no pass if it is a hardship in your life. No pass. Period.
dang 5y ago
Recent and related: Congress mandates anti-drunk driving technology for cars - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198086 - Nov 2021 (7 comments) US infrastructure bill includes law that aims to end drunk driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198055 - Nov 2021 (43 comments) Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188260 - Nov 2021 (96 comments) Congress' new mandate to carmakers: Figure out a way to stop drunk driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 - Nov 2021 (86 comments) Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183374 - Nov 2021 (4 comments) Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29178229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29178229 - Nov 2021 (2 comments) Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169239 - Nov 2021 (1 comment)
t0mbstone 5y ago
And it'll be easily blocked by someone wearing a face mask and sunglasses

25 points by Bostonian 5y ago

The author of the article seems to be against a device that will save a lot of lifes and improve the quality of life to even more people to save $300.

cmaggiulli 5y ago
That is a straw man argument if I ever heard one. The author is claiming the system won’t work
unethical_ban 5y ago
I'm against a device that may or may not record me or take my health stats and report them to a central database every time I get into a vehicle. I don't trust this not to be used as yet another automated surveillance tool for the government. if there is one thing I don't trust the government with, it's visibility at scale. If we had guts, we would ban bars from selling anyone more than three drinks, and ban bars from serving anyone who has had a drink anywhere else that day. (or something, I'm brainstorming).
- zip1234 5y ago
  It is widely accepted that driving a dangerous machine that endangers the lives of others is a privilege and responsibility that comes with restrictions.
- stopagephobia 5y ago
  Meh, prohbiition dont work, we tried it. We cant even keep kids from drinking. Theres already a cultural shift away from as much heavy drinking, a lot more of the young people I know dont drink at all or drink only a bit and are more accepting of people who don't drink. Also how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    >how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database. Holding bars accountable. TABC (Texas bar regulator) tells all bartenders TODAY that you cannot serve someone to excess (above 0.08% BAC) and cannot serve someone who is already drunk. I guarantee you that every single bartender in Texas has violated this regulation. When the regulations step in with reality, and are enforced, maybe fewer people would be overserved.
notreallyserio 5y ago
I'm just surprised this is coming before verifying license and insurance status before allowing the car to start. Seems like that'd be easier (and equally undesirable).

josefresco 5y ago

Probably not your next car, or the car after that. From what I gather, this is a "maybe" kind of thing, 10 years out. And even with that, auto manufacturers can and will drag their feet like they have other regulation (back seat child detection) https://www.thedrive.com/news/43086/new-cars-will-have-to-detect-drunk-drivers-as-early-as-2026 https://www.thedrive.com/news/43086/new-cars-will-have-to-de... "The text later on in this section of the bill alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward."

armchairhacker 5y ago
> alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward Government: oh god, if we don't implement this thing in 10 years, then maybe this other branch of the government is going to maybe explain why and provide steps we can maybe take.
jcranmer 5y ago
This reminds me of the requirement in the 2012 infrastructure bill that all electronic toll collection systems must be interoperable by 2016. It's 2021, further from the deadline than the deadline itself was from the signing of the legislation, and the only major movement in this regard is that a few more systems have joined EZPass (North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota), and that North Carolina, Georgia and Florida created their own interoperability set.

dionidium 5y ago

People conceptualize cars as an extension of themselves, their own private pod that they control entirely, but as automation technology improves I think they're going to have to start thinking of it more like boarding a train or an airplane. Increasingly, we'll have tech to make decisions for drivers that are much better than the decisions they make for themselves (even before we get to full automation). This includes stuff like breaking for obstacles, but it might also include things like speed governors or GPS-enabled traffic-law enforcement. I don't see any way around it. Once you have the tech to prevent an automobile from exceeding the speed limit in a school zone it's obscene to manufacture cars that respond only to the input of the driver's foot on the accelerator, with no other considerations. At some point, "I have decided to drive 130 mph down a residential street, because that's what I've decided to do in this exact moment and I have a right to be in control of my own car" just isn't good enough. You have all these other inputs and, what, you're just going to ignore them?

Steltek 5y ago
Oh God yes. Computers don't get impatient, don't let their temper spiral out of control, don't "bravely" try to get to work on 3 hours of sleep, don't display crab-bucket jerk moves, etc. Cars bring out the worst in people and it comes with life altering consequences for innocent people. Cars are not freedom on four wheels, it's simply one method, among many, for you go to work and buy groceries.
- stopagephobia 5y ago
  Not true. Maybe you are a foreigner? It is worth explaining how we see cars. Ever since especially 40s and later they represent the ability for any person to go wherever desired without conforming to somebody else's schedule. We see them as "freedom on four wheels" and will work to keep them that way even if you think they shouldn't be.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    We can make a car so that it knows it's raining, it can tell the tires are getting poor traction, it knows its location, it knows it's in a school zone, it knows the prevailing speed limit, it has cameras and can see there are children crossing the street ahead, internal cameras sense that the driver isn't paying attention, the stereo is loud, and yet -- the car should ignore every one of those inputs, because if the driver presses their foot on the accelerator pedal, then that means it should increase its speed, without any other consideration, because of "freedom?" It's absurd. Why would you manufacture a means of conveyance that behaves that way? You certainly wouldn't ever allow one on a public street, not when you have all the tech I described above. That's a bad product. I mean, it might describe an ATV or something -- a vehicle you use for fun off of public thoroughfares. But it's not a serious vehicle that meets the standards for operating on public rights of way.

stopagephobia 5y ago

WTF. I remember when I was younger and driving maybe not drunk but heavily buzzed was more accepted, glad it's not any more. This is stupid though, I dont want a machine that thinks it knows better than me. Subtitle on the article is accurate, this is nanny state bullshit. I also hate stuff like this because "Computers don't argue": https://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133 https://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133 Computer says you're drunk so tough shit, you cant drive to work. Try again tomorrow. Edit: people downvoting are supporting an increase police state. We shouldnt make people prove their not committing a crime to do normal stuff. This is like stop and frisk but automotive.

OneTimePetes 5y ago
"Open the door halcohol".. "Im afraid i cant do that.." "Why not hal?" "Your colone is to rich in ethanol. And so is the window-cleaning fluid and the stuff they spilled over your shirt." "But im not drunk. Let me proof it."
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  "Only a drunk would argue with a robot-"
jorams 5y ago
> I dont want a machine that thinks it knows better than me. I'm against requiring something like this universally, but drunk driving is such a big problem because intoxicated people feel overconfident in their driving abilities. That's definitely a case where the machine would know better than you.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  I don't think so. If my car told me that I had a too high BAC, I would either think "WTF car, I had a beer yesterday and that is it", or "shit, fuck, what the hell I was certain I could drive now". The trouble comes when the car won't let me override the controls. My tire preasure warning has been going on for little under a week now, but there is no reason for it, so I will reset it soonish. I do appreciate my car warning me though - it took only a few minutes to check.

bally0241 5y ago

Next up, your car may refuse to start if you haven't had your most recent booster shot!

stopagephobia 5y ago
You're downvoted but i could legit see a scenario where it refused to take you certain places if there was a lockdown order. Since some countries are leaving those in place for people not vaccinated, its possible.
- exsmelliarmus 5y ago
  The downvotes would be because that argument is a slippery slope fallacy.
- bally0241 5y ago
  Sure, it could happen (doesn't make it legitimate). Maybe the system could even get over the air updates curtailing your movement if you happened to vote for the wrong party in the last election, or said something naughty on twitter. So much for freedom, was a nice experiment while it lasted.

thrower123 5y ago

If they start putting breathalyzer interlocks in all cars, they had better be more accurate and less fiddly than the ones that they force some DUI offenders to have installed.

falcolas 5y ago
3rd party interlocks (of any kind) are always going to work far worse than 1st party. They’re generic and make assumptions about the vehicle that are wrong more often than not.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  3rd party interlocks suck because everybody who uses one is forced to do so or otherwise be subject to state violence. Every breakdown nets these companies hundreds in service and calibration fees. Auto companies who want to make it not suck for their customer will do far better.

falcolas 5y ago

Alright, good. Drunk driving is prevalent and deadly - and typically not to the drunk driver, but to innocents in other cars or even buildings. Keep those idiots off the road. Can the mechanism break? Of course. But so can your wireless key. So can any one of dozens of computers or sensors required to run your engine. Nothing new here. The nanny state argument was old when people were protesting seat belts.

stopagephobia 5y ago
Broken seat belt will not stop cars from running. Nanny state argument I think still applies to seat belt for an individual person, just requiring that kids wear them is okay though. When did we decide government got to stop ppl from doing stupid shit?
alistairSH 5y ago
A broken wireless key doesn't generally render the vehicle inoperable. Most/all cars have a physical backup key.
- falcolas 5y ago
  My vehicles do not (and the instructions for most "keyless" starting mechanisms is the same). They will emit an active RF signal to read the key as a backup to a dead battery, but if the chip is dead the car won't start. The backup key is for opening the door.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But isn't that failure mode almost unheard of, or at least as uncommon as a physical key breaking apart?
drewg123 5y ago
It might be old, but its still true. I'm not anti seat belt (I track cars, and I understand safety), I'm anti seat belt laws, since it gives the police a ready made excuse to pull you over for yet another reason. I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident.

karlkloss 5y ago

That's the price of freedom. You're free to buy as much alcohol as you want, and have a drink whenever you want. Unless you endanger and hurt other people. For this bill you can thank the many assholes who abuse that freedom. As always.

silicon2401 5y ago

- Go to someone's place after a nice date last week - Have a few drinks - They turn out to be dangerous and you fear for your safety - You run to your car to escape while they're in the bathroom - "Your BAC percentage is above the legal limit. Please try again in 30 minutes"

yread 5y ago
Good thing is that if you run they would have to run behind you as they are also drunk. So it equals out
- nickthemagicman 5y ago
  Unless it's a case of date rape or something. One of Dahmer's victims got away and was so drugged that the cops returned him to Dahmer who proceeded to eat him.
willcipriano 5y ago
A future episode of CSI: "Why didn't the victim just drive away?" "I found trace remnants of Jack Daniels on her clothing, the killer must've asked her to roll down the window, splashed it inside the car..."
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  A future episode of Friday night at your local ER: "If you had gotten here sooner we wouldn't have to amputate your <insert extremity here>" "yeah well nobody on scene could start their car and EMS took 30min to arrive".

sys_64738 5y ago

We'd need a dashboard indicator to indicate that it refused to start due to alcohol. After all, it might just be broken down independent of the driver's alcoholic state at that point.

whoomp12342 5y ago

good but, what if there is a medical emergency? how about instead cops do a better job pulling people over and we actually do a better job treating?

tomjen3 5y ago
To be honest, if it is a an emergency call 911. I don't want you to kill me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

whoomp12342 5y ago

what if the AI is racist?

DrSiemer 5y ago

My wife is about to give birth while a slasher horror antagonist is revving up his chainsaw, but I've had two beers so I guess that's that.

elzbardico 5y ago
This is a contrived and very unlikely scenario. Maybe we should prioritize for the far more common scenario of people killing and maiming others and themselves while DUI
- DrSiemer 5y ago
  Obviously I used an extreme example, but we shouldn't let machines make decisions that could easily be overruled in an argument with a human arbiter. How we deal with known offenders is another discussion, but adding these kinds of preemptive limitations to our hardware is unwanted overreach, that sets a bad precedent. Something about a slippery slope.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Yes, I don't want ML deciding I am not fit to drive tomorrow, maybe I am not fit to have custody of my kids in one week according to the model. But, detecting etanol levels in blood is a fairly well established set of processes that rely on well understood electrochemical reactions. I don't see too much risk of arbitrary unfair decisions from a dumb interlocking device.

josephcsible 5y ago

For anyone who drives a car and thinks this is a good idea, why not go right now and voluntarily get a breathalyzer retrofitted in your current car? If you don't want to do that, then you should really rethink your position.

speedgoose 5y ago
The system presented in the article doesn't require any action from the driver. I personally wouldn't mind if everyone's car could detect drunk drivers.

bradlys 5y ago

If you’re into this then you should also be into not allowing you to go above the speed limit at any time. You should also like that your car won’t turn unless you’ve properly signaled for the correct amount of time. I don’t drink and I’m against this. I don’t think it’s something I should have to pay for. Punish drunk drivers with life in jail and they’ll stop. As it is, the punishments for a DUI are too low - that and many people in the US drink and drive because they are low-key suicidal and completely fine if they die while driving drunk. Very common way for men in the military to die - happens every holiday.

leed25d 5y ago
I was in Finland once in the mid 1970s. At the time, the drunk driving laws were very strict. I seem to remember someone telling me that if you get caught driving while impaired a second time then you lose your license for the rest of your life. There is no pass if your work depends on your ability to drive, no pass if it is a hardship in your life. No pass. Period.

dang 5y ago

Recent and related: Congress mandates anti-drunk driving technology for cars - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198086 - Nov 2021 (7 comments) US infrastructure bill includes law that aims to end drunk driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198055 - Nov 2021 (43 comments) Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188260 - Nov 2021 (96 comments) Congress' new mandate to carmakers: Figure out a way to stop drunk driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 - Nov 2021 (86 comments) Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183374 - Nov 2021 (4 comments) Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29178229 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29178229 - Nov 2021 (2 comments) Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169239 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169239 - Nov 2021 (1 comment)

t0mbstone 5y ago

And it'll be easily blocked by someone wearing a face mask and sunglasses