7 ms·

The actual law says that all cars after a certain date should have a system that can: "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accu

The actual law says that all cars after a certain date should have a system that can: "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" There is an OR for detecting high blood alcohol level. There are a few years to get input, come up with preliminary rules, get more input, finalize the rules and give time for manufacturers to implement them. This could save 10,000 lives per year and tens of billions of dollars per year. The law says "prevent or limit operation". That is pretty broad. If it is a breathalyzer, or a speed limiter when you are swerving over a 2 minute period, I am fine with that. If it shuts you down for going over the speed limit for 10 seconds, or make an emergency maneuver, then I am not so happy. But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations.

jrsj 5y ago
Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? False positives are an inevitability; the best you can do is make them infrequent. Still, I would prefer to not have the system in my vehicle since I don’t drink and am at no risk of driving drunk.
- ohazi 5y ago
  It doesn't matter, because you won't be given a choice. If you need a car, eventually these will be the only options available. Tampering with or removing these misfeatures will eventually be classified as a felony, and suspicion that you may have done so will eventually be used to justify violence against you from the police.
- ryukoposting 5y ago
  > Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? I drive a 20-year-old car because I can't stand the tiny windows, high hoods, giant A-pillars, and high seating positions on new cars. Modern safety regulations mean that I can't buy a new car with my preferred seating position and good forward visibility. The bad news is, time exists. My car is 22 years old, but in 10 years it'll be 32 years old. All the other sedans with good forward visibility will be 30+ years old, too. Old cars get rusty and dry-rotted, and eventually they get scrapped. The government doesn't need to force you into a car that takes away your privacy and agency- time will do the job for them.
water8 5y ago
How many lives would surrendering all our freedoms save?
- rytcio 5y ago
  Well the covid lockdowns showed us that
- yongjik 5y ago
  As many lives as (gasp) using hyperboles would, as they slide down a slippery slope.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
"But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations." Unless, you know, your representative doesn't listen to you. Or you've had a felony. Or you are 17. Or you live overseas. Or you are an immigrant (Some places allow immigrants to vote in local elections).
- jevoten 5y ago
  Immigrants can vote in their home countries, so they do have input. A nation is not obligated to give you democratic power over itself, just because they let* you visit. You may as well complain you don't have democratic input if you're a US citizen and can't vote in Mexican elections. *Or, increasingly, they did not let you visit, but your co-ethnics in border states are impeding immigration enforcement so that you can stay regardless.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    Are you sure immigrants can all vote in their home countries if they don't live there? I am American, and can vote in local elections in Norway because I've lived here, legally, at least 3 years. This isn't uncommon, and I find it fair since these are the things that impact me the most. I cannot vote in national elections. Also fair. On the other hand, the American voting forms for me make sure to ask if I ever intend on living there again. I have limited voting in the US, and I sure as heck don't expect any politician to do anything for me unless it'd look good for propaganda. This is all besides the point: the original post was talking about folks that cannot participate in the democracy they live in. I'm not even sure what you were trying to say with the last comment. Could you please explain it?
    - jevoten 5y ago
      What is there to explain? It's common knowledge that states with large immigrant populations demand of their representatives to hinder federal immigration law. Those representatives listened, and have passed laws to that effect: https://www.fairus.org/issue/sanctuary-policies/do-you-live-1-11-sanctuary-states https://www.fairus.org/issue/sanctuary-policies/do-you-live-...
Accujack 5y ago
>"passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" The second part of this is straightforward but can be disabled by the car's owner. The first part may well be completely impossible. We can't even instruct humans in how to definitively determine impairment except in limited circumstances, and even then it's only a diagnostic test that has to be confirmed by an invasive medical test. I don't like this law at all or how it made its way into the bill so quietly... but in reality this isn't going to happen in practical terms for a few decades, because it's going to take that long to develop an AI that can do this.
bleuchase 5y ago
Read the 10th amendment to the constitution and try again. Government has no business dictating the conditions under which personal property can be used.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Except they already do. Seatbelts for starters. Driving is not a right in the US, but a privilege - it’s why you need a license to operate one.
  - bleuchase 5y ago
    > Except they already do. Using that logic you support slave labor and genital mutilation. Because people already do it, right? > Seatbelts for starters. There are no federal seatbelt laws. Because they would likely be unconstitutional. States get to decide on their own. Only part of the discussion. > Driving is not a right in the US, but a privilege - it’s why you need a license to operate one. Supreme Court disagrees https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/ https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-ne...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
dublin 5y ago
In many rural parts of the country (say, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, where towns are quite scarce, roads are flat and straight, and there's nothing to hit in between), even grandmotherly drivers regularly exceed 100 MPH just to get there in a reasonable time. I don't want any cars monitoring drivers for conformance to silly laws. The fact that it took us a decade to kill the silly and counterproductive nationally-mandated 55-MPH speed limit should act as proff that the government frequently gets these things wrong. It's important that people have the ability to simply not comply, rather than having their technology force them into it. If they actually do this, I'm predicting a run on old pre-controlled cars and trucks, and a thriving black market in circumvention technologies!
inkeddeveloper 5y ago
I’m not happy with any of it. The government doesn’t need that much power. It’s insane that this is even a discussion.

jrsj 5y ago

Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? False positives are an inevitability; the best you can do is make them infrequent. Still, I would prefer to not have the system in my vehicle since I don’t drink and am at no risk of driving drunk.

ohazi 5y ago
It doesn't matter, because you won't be given a choice. If you need a car, eventually these will be the only options available. Tampering with or removing these misfeatures will eventually be classified as a felony, and suspicion that you may have done so will eventually be used to justify violence against you from the police.
ryukoposting 5y ago
> Why would I ever willingly buy a vehicle that I’m not fully in control of and that can force me to pull over whenever it wants? I drive a 20-year-old car because I can't stand the tiny windows, high hoods, giant A-pillars, and high seating positions on new cars. Modern safety regulations mean that I can't buy a new car with my preferred seating position and good forward visibility. The bad news is, time exists. My car is 22 years old, but in 10 years it'll be 32 years old. All the other sedans with good forward visibility will be 30+ years old, too. Old cars get rusty and dry-rotted, and eventually they get scrapped. The government doesn't need to force you into a car that takes away your privacy and agency- time will do the job for them.

water8 5y ago

How many lives would surrendering all our freedoms save?

rytcio 5y ago
Well the covid lockdowns showed us that
yongjik 5y ago
As many lives as (gasp) using hyperboles would, as they slide down a slippery slope.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

"But that is why we have a representative form of government, and input on regulations." Unless, you know, your representative doesn't listen to you. Or you've had a felony. Or you are 17. Or you live overseas. Or you are an immigrant (Some places allow immigrants to vote in local elections).

jevoten 5y ago
Immigrants can vote in their home countries, so they do have input. A nation is not obligated to give you democratic power over itself, just because they let* you visit. You may as well complain you don't have democratic input if you're a US citizen and can't vote in Mexican elections. *Or, increasingly, they did not let you visit, but your co-ethnics in border states are impeding immigration enforcement so that you can stay regardless.
- Broken_Hippo 5y ago
  Are you sure immigrants can all vote in their home countries if they don't live there? I am American, and can vote in local elections in Norway because I've lived here, legally, at least 3 years. This isn't uncommon, and I find it fair since these are the things that impact me the most. I cannot vote in national elections. Also fair. On the other hand, the American voting forms for me make sure to ask if I ever intend on living there again. I have limited voting in the US, and I sure as heck don't expect any politician to do anything for me unless it'd look good for propaganda. This is all besides the point: the original post was talking about folks that cannot participate in the democracy they live in. I'm not even sure what you were trying to say with the last comment. Could you please explain it?
  - jevoten 5y ago
    What is there to explain? It's common knowledge that states with large immigrant populations demand of their representatives to hinder federal immigration law. Those representatives listened, and have passed laws to that effect: https://www.fairus.org/issue/sanctuary-policies/do-you-live-1-11-sanctuary-states https://www.fairus.org/issue/sanctuary-policies/do-you-live-...

Accujack 5y ago

>"passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected" The second part of this is straightforward but can be disabled by the car's owner. The first part may well be completely impossible. We can't even instruct humans in how to definitively determine impairment except in limited circumstances, and even then it's only a diagnostic test that has to be confirmed by an invasive medical test. I don't like this law at all or how it made its way into the bill so quietly... but in reality this isn't going to happen in practical terms for a few decades, because it's going to take that long to develop an AI that can do this.

bleuchase 5y ago

Read the 10th amendment to the constitution and try again. Government has no business dictating the conditions under which personal property can be used.

colejohnson66 5y ago
Except they already do. Seatbelts for starters. Driving is not a right in the US, but a privilege - it’s why you need a license to operate one.
- bleuchase 5y ago
  > Except they already do. Using that logic you support slave labor and genital mutilation. Because people already do it, right? > Seatbelts for starters. There are no federal seatbelt laws. Because they would likely be unconstitutional. States get to decide on their own. Only part of the discussion. > Driving is not a right in the US, but a privilege - it’s why you need a license to operate one. Supreme Court disagrees https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-necessary-to-drive-automobile-on-public-highwaysstreets/ https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-ne...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

dublin 5y ago

In many rural parts of the country (say, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, where towns are quite scarce, roads are flat and straight, and there's nothing to hit in between), even grandmotherly drivers regularly exceed 100 MPH just to get there in a reasonable time. I don't want any cars monitoring drivers for conformance to silly laws. The fact that it took us a decade to kill the silly and counterproductive nationally-mandated 55-MPH speed limit should act as proff that the government frequently gets these things wrong. It's important that people have the ability to simply not comply, rather than having their technology force them into it. If they actually do this, I'm predicting a run on old pre-controlled cars and trucks, and a thriving black market in circumvention technologies!

inkeddeveloper 5y ago

I’m not happy with any of it. The government doesn’t need that much power. It’s insane that this is even a discussion.