2 ms·

I think those laws are designed for places with working emergency services. If there is an emergency, call an ambulance. Don't drive drunk. Yes, sometimes ambu

by theamk 5y ago

I think those laws are designed for places with working emergency services. If there is an emergency, call an ambulance. Don't drive drunk. Yes, sometimes ambulances are not very convenient - but if I had a choice of a person having to waste a few hours because ambulance took them to wrong hospital vs them driving quickly while drunk and nervous, I would choose former. I am sorry, your convinience is not worth the extra risks to bystanders.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Laws should always take into account a possibility of a non-standard situation. No one on Earth is exempt from hard to predict crises. For example, even in places where emergency services are usually good, Covid peaks strained their capacities quite seriously. The same can happen during a mass casualty event. If a plane crashes with a lot of survivors, there may not be an ambulance available for your spouse who just went down with a heart attack.
anfilt 5y ago
Which is just bad policy, not everywhere is urban. Even in an urban area with generally good emergency services that is not a guarantee 100% of the time. For instance some reason 911 could be down. Ambulances could be short if there is some other event is going on that is occupying them all or made them not operational. There are numerous examples of things happening like this in cities where normally they are operational. A vehicle that has the potential to not operate either due to false positive or not handling a legal exception that a lot states have on their books. Is not a vehicle you want to rely on for emergencies. It even becomes more risky if one lives in area that does not have responsive emergencies services. This is even before we consider possible privacy issues and concerns depending on how this is implemented. Let alone legal and moral considerations of essentially monitoring and scanning of people who have not committed a crime to try and prevent some people from breaking the law.
throwaway55421 5y ago
Drunk driving is not _that_ dangerous. Even at quite a high BAC level you end up around 10-100x more likely to have an accident. I believe that, at least in terms of personal risk, unless you're ten drinks in it's more dangerous to ride a motorcycle sober. It's restricted because in aggregate or when done repeatedly it would be a disaster (particularly when drunk driver A interacts with drunk driver B), not because doing it once in an emergency would be problematic. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433627/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433627/ (at 0.08% BAC fatal accident risk is 13x - what's the risk of waiting ten minutes for an ambulance if your friend is dying?)

by theamk 5y ago

inglor_cz 5y ago

Laws should always take into account a possibility of a non-standard situation. No one on Earth is exempt from hard to predict crises. For example, even in places where emergency services are usually good, Covid peaks strained their capacities quite seriously. The same can happen during a mass casualty event. If a plane crashes with a lot of survivors, there may not be an ambulance available for your spouse who just went down with a heart attack.

anfilt 5y ago

Which is just bad policy, not everywhere is urban. Even in an urban area with generally good emergency services that is not a guarantee 100% of the time. For instance some reason 911 could be down. Ambulances could be short if there is some other event is going on that is occupying them all or made them not operational. There are numerous examples of things happening like this in cities where normally they are operational. A vehicle that has the potential to not operate either due to false positive or not handling a legal exception that a lot states have on their books. Is not a vehicle you want to rely on for emergencies. It even becomes more risky if one lives in area that does not have responsive emergencies services. This is even before we consider possible privacy issues and concerns depending on how this is implemented. Let alone legal and moral considerations of essentially monitoring and scanning of people who have not committed a crime to try and prevent some people from breaking the law.

throwaway55421 5y ago

Drunk driving is not _that_ dangerous. Even at quite a high BAC level you end up around 10-100x more likely to have an accident. I believe that, at least in terms of personal risk, unless you're ten drinks in it's more dangerous to ride a motorcycle sober. It's restricted because in aggregate or when done repeatedly it would be a disaster (particularly when drunk driver A interacts with drunk driver B), not because doing it once in an emergency would be problematic. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433627/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3433627/ (at 0.08% BAC fatal accident risk is 13x - what's the risk of waiting ten minutes for an ambulance if your friend is dying?)