7 ms·
What if cars could stop you from driving drunk?
- jondwillis 5y agoInstead of regressing, “What if cars could drive you when you’re drunk?”
- Gibbon1 5y agoSh*t Tier: Driving drunk Bad Tier: Car that stops you from driving drunk Good Tier: Car that drives you around drunk God Tier: Bar you can stagger home from.
- latexr 5y agoText version: https://text.npr.org/1065246981/ https://text.npr.org/1065246981/
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 5y agoAnd what happens when the car thinks you're drunk but you're actually sober?
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoIt will be fixed with the next OTA update. /s
- jevoten 5y agoCan they stop you from speeding? Breaking quarantine? Driving without a license? Violating parole? Driving onto a private road? Violating curfew? Once you open the door to mandating that "our" possessions disobey us, there's really no bottom to this slippery slope. But that's a logical fallacy, and surely this time it'll stop at the first step.
- morsch 5y agoCan they stop you from speeding? They can and I wish they would.
- rad_gruchalski 5y agoThere are valid safety reasons why you’d go faster than allowed in an area with a speed limit. They’re emergencies but those situations do exist. And let me be honest with you - I find the speed limiter the most useful button in my car. Let’s not conflate speeding with reckless driving.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- carnitas 5y ago
- h2odragon 5y agoWhat if cars included a short range cell phone jamming system? How about we just make it so phones won't light up or make noise if they're moving at say, more than 10mph... Distracted Driving is a scourge too, innit? We could end car theft by having every vehicle require a DNA sample and a match to a central database before it would allow entry (or exit!). Think of all the wonderful social benefits we could harvest with that database in place.
- HarryHirsch 5y agoWhy are we outsourcing drunk driving prevention to car manufacturers? We have the police and the courts, that's enough tools in the toolbag, they just need to be used! (Yes, I know, the cops are corrupt and let their friends off, and if you kill someone while under the influence you'll get a slap on the wrist. Shouldn't that worry you?)
- andrewclunn 5y agoAll mechanical (no computer) motorcycles and electric assist bikes are going to get really popular when people realize that self-driving and automation in vehicles was never about freeing them from the drudgery of traffic, but instead controlling and limiting their freedom to travel.
- throwawaysea 5y agoI am definitely against drunk driving but I am more against the introduction of such technologies, whether compelled by legislation as in this case, or voluntarily built by car manufacturers. People need to have a high degree of choice and agency over their lives, and they need to be able to make decisions for themselves. For example, lots of people drive their cars after having a beer or wine at a meal and are totally safe to do so. Will they be prevented by such technology? What about false positives? What about the additional cost to all car owners - why does a small number of deaths (10000 a year per this article) need to compel hundreds of millions of people into paying hundreds more for such technology? The introduction of this technology is also going to normalize this type of intrusion into our lives and private spaces more broadly. Slippery slopes may be a logical fallacy in that one decision does not automatically compel another, but such changes sure do make it much more politically expedient to broaden this type of statist expansionism. Why can't the tools we own just be the things we own, instead of being hijacked to not perform the tasks we need them to? We see incremental legislative changes like this all the time - for example a new tax that might start at a low rate and is slowly increased. Why do we think this will be any different?
- salawat 5y agoBecause you aren't hiring people to sit on legislators 24/7 and drive agendas, and industry is. That's why. Is it any surprise the only ones who seem to lose out in this game is the consumer?
- allears 5y agoCars should not be in the business of deciding who can or cannot drive them. Period. What if I've had a few drinks, and my companion all of a sudden has a serious accident or illness and needs to be driven to the hospital? How would you weigh my somewhat greater probability of having a driving mishap against my companion's serious and immediate need for treatment? I'm sure other similar scenarios could be imagined. This is a wrong-headed application of nanny technology.
- MerelyMortal 5y agoI agree, and my state's criminal code even specificies that "Necessity" is a legal defense. > A defense that permits a person to act in a criminal manner when an emergency situation, not of the person's own creation compels the person to act in a criminal manner to avoid greater harm from occurring. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/necessity-and-duress/ https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/necessity-and-dur...
- jevoten 5y agoJust like fair use, these kinds of rights will disappear once enforcement is automated.
- scotty79 5y agoAll scenarios can be imagined. But you need to look at actual probability of these scenarios. For one person saved by driving drunk thousands must be killed by drunk driving.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- inglor_cz 5y agoThe scenario that tends to be omitted from the deliberations is the scenario where 100 % of cars get an alco-lock, even though 95 % of the drivers have never driven drunk, but the manufacturer of the alco-lock has a nice racket producing them. Even more if some kind of certification is needed and only the Senator's cousin's firm was somehow able to be certificated in Sleepy Hollow state. The quest for security is potentially endless and endlessly expensive.
- KingMachiavelli 5y agoCameras/behavior monitoring which will produce interesting results. The system will either have to be sensitive enough to produce 'false' alerts due to tired & distracted drivers while it will certainly allow a chronic drinker and alcoholics drive well above the legal BAC. Measuring passive cabin air seems nearly impossible. A highly intoxicated passenger would easily produce false positives. One option I guess is to measure the BAC at every single seat to establish a baseline. I still don't see how this could work if the windows are down. There are a few other options such as measuring sweat (doesn't work if you wear gloves or some skin conditions), thermal/blood flow imaging (inconsistent between individuals and would have race/genetic biases), etc. IMO anything beyond detecting erratic movements of the steering wheel and accelerator is going to have a lot of problems.
- zo1 5y agoDon't mean to detract or go off topic, but the first thing that popped into my mind reading the title: "What if cars could stop you from driving as C19 positive?"
- tacocataco 5y agoWhat if we took the unused school buses sitting around at night and had a school bus at every bar to take everyone home?
- kelseyfrog 5y agoThis solution doesn't reward enough money to service providers, it doesn't put enough personal responsibility on individuals, and it doesn't involve enough punishment for people to take it seriously. It would also be too much fun riding the booze bus home and we can't have that.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y agoOnce in Montreal I had parked my car behind a friend’s place for the night and we were all about 8 beer deep when… the landlord called us to move our car out of the parking lot so the plow could get in. I edged around the block (passed by a cop car!!!) at about 15km/h until the plow was out. Not sure how that situation would have resolved itself with a drunk-proofed car. I never EVER drive drunk otherwise; if I’ve had a drink I’m only travelling under my own power or getting a lift except in extreme circumstances like this.
- literallyaduck 5y ago[flagged]
- errantmind 5y agoDystopian. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I will not purchase a vehicle with big-brother spyware like this installed.