3 ms·

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 idiot

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.
- Steltek 5y ago
  Removing seat belt laws will not curb police abuse of power. It's treating a symptom, not a cause. Accepting a philosophy of withholding medical care in cases like that would lead to a society of cripples and dead. I don't see how that's desirable or an improvement.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    Health Insurance and medical care are too completely separated things. Denying health insurance would just ensure medical bankruptcy and financial woes for anyone who was believed to have been seatbeltless, regardless of proof, since this isn't a court of law, but a "private company" decision.
- DSMan195276 5y ago
  > 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. Ultimately that just means we as a society pay for it, since they're still going to get emergency treatment but won't be able to pay the bill. IMO any of these approaches are unlikely to do much, because most people don't consider the potential consequences when they're assuming something won't happen to begin with. Or IE. If people aren't wearing seat belts, they're already assuming they won't get in a crash, so the potential financial consequences don't matter. If they were actually considering such things they would probably be wearing their seat belt, since the potential risk of death or being maimed is always there regardless of your insurance policy ;) Also FWIW I'm pretty sure the police cannot pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, they have to be pulling you over for some other reason (Not saying it's not still a problem, but there's some nuance there).
throwaway946513 5y ago
A seat belt unbuckled won't prohibit the car from driving. It'll just constantly beep and annoy the hell out of you.
- falcolas 5y ago
  And an unbuckled seat belt will kill you, not others sharing the road with you.
teeray 5y ago
In the dead of winter, you’re traveling at night along a road with no cell service. The outside temperature on your dash reads -20F. Brrr. It’s a good thing the car is nice and warm. Just another 15 miles and you’ll be rolling into town to that ski chalet. You’re thirsty, so you pick up your favorite—-a nice can of Coke. Suddenly a chime from the dash and the engine power drops. ‘DRUNK DRIVING DETECTED” flashes as the car pulls itself over to the side of the road and cuts the engine. A swirl of snow passes over the hood. You push the start button again, but now “INTOXICATED DRIVER DETECTED. WAIT 8 HOURS BEFORE STARTING” appears on the screen. The chill from outside rapidly permeates the cabin as “NO SERVICE” glares ominously from your phone. It’s only another 9 miles to town… maybe you can make it…
- falcolas 5y ago
  What a load of shit. Alcohol detection from your breath isn't some new, untested thing, it's been around for over half a century. And it's going to mistake a coke for a beer. Or rather, it's as likely to make that mistake as your exhaust sensor is to break, rendering your car equally "dead".

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.

Steltek 5y ago
Removing seat belt laws will not curb police abuse of power. It's treating a symptom, not a cause. Accepting a philosophy of withholding medical care in cases like that would lead to a society of cripples and dead. I don't see how that's desirable or an improvement.
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  Health Insurance and medical care are too completely separated things. Denying health insurance would just ensure medical bankruptcy and financial woes for anyone who was believed to have been seatbeltless, regardless of proof, since this isn't a court of law, but a "private company" decision.
DSMan195276 5y ago
> 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. Ultimately that just means we as a society pay for it, since they're still going to get emergency treatment but won't be able to pay the bill. IMO any of these approaches are unlikely to do much, because most people don't consider the potential consequences when they're assuming something won't happen to begin with. Or IE. If people aren't wearing seat belts, they're already assuming they won't get in a crash, so the potential financial consequences don't matter. If they were actually considering such things they would probably be wearing their seat belt, since the potential risk of death or being maimed is always there regardless of your insurance policy ;) Also FWIW I'm pretty sure the police cannot pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, they have to be pulling you over for some other reason (Not saying it's not still a problem, but there's some nuance there).

throwaway946513 5y ago

A seat belt unbuckled won't prohibit the car from driving. It'll just constantly beep and annoy the hell out of you.

falcolas 5y ago
And an unbuckled seat belt will kill you, not others sharing the road with you.

teeray 5y ago

In the dead of winter, you’re traveling at night along a road with no cell service. The outside temperature on your dash reads -20F. Brrr. It’s a good thing the car is nice and warm. Just another 15 miles and you’ll be rolling into town to that ski chalet. You’re thirsty, so you pick up your favorite—-a nice can of Coke. Suddenly a chime from the dash and the engine power drops. ‘DRUNK DRIVING DETECTED” flashes as the car pulls itself over to the side of the road and cuts the engine. A swirl of snow passes over the hood. You push the start button again, but now “INTOXICATED DRIVER DETECTED. WAIT 8 HOURS BEFORE STARTING” appears on the screen. The chill from outside rapidly permeates the cabin as “NO SERVICE” glares ominously from your phone. It’s only another 9 miles to town… maybe you can make it…

falcolas 5y ago
What a load of shit. Alcohol detection from your breath isn't some new, untested thing, it's been around for over half a century. And it's going to mistake a coke for a beer. Or rather, it's as likely to make that mistake as your exhaust sensor is to break, rendering your car equally "dead".