22 ms·

NTSB Calls for Alcohol Detection Systems in All New Vehicles

54 points by williamsmj 4y ago

superkuh 4y ago
A handful of years back the NHTSA announced that all new cars would have to have a vehicle to vehicle 5.7-5.9 GHz system for announcing vehicle position, velocity, and cryptographically signed ID. Luckily the dates just came and went and the manufacturers didn't do it. The NHTSA folded and eventually the FCC gave that ~hundreds MHz of 5 GHz band back to wifi. Hopefully that's what will happen here. The NTSB only recommends things to the NHTSA. So this proposal hasn't even gotten as far as the above example.
- theknocker 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ozfive 4y ago
  Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both? I’m against a system that refuses to let me drive because it thinks I’m drunk. Or a system that would prevent me from breaking the speed limit, at my discretion, e.g. in an emergency.
    - Pet_Ant 4y ago
      I'm against disabling cars, but all for automatically notifying 911.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > against disabling cars, but all for automatically notifying 911 Depending on the system's accuracy, this could be a fair compromise. Alternatively: a black box record in case something goes wrong. Less preventative. But deterring and reasonable.
    - williamsmj 4y ago
      Are you saying that anyone should be allowed to drive whatever speed they like, based on their "discretion"? If so, is that different from getting rid of speed limits?
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        Distinguish "anyone should be capable of driving whatever speed they like" vs. "it should be legal for anyone to drive whatever speed they like".
        lamontcg 4y ago
        Most people aren't capable of driving as fast as a trained emergency responder, much less driving like a psycho in a panic because they're dealing with a medical emergency and are completely emotionally unprepared for it. I've been involved in an situation that resulted in a fatality and trying to rescue the victim and for an untrained responder your ability to think and process gets chopped down to around 25% of what it is normally. That is probably worse if the victim is someone you know. Now you want to argue that those people should be driving 100 mph through the streets blowing through red lights and whatever at their own discretion like that solves problems. People need to call 911 and get the ambulance, which can stabilize the patient, to come to them. They can run code red and are trained in how to run red lights and get around traffic safely. They do it for a living and they're emotionally detached from the emergency. Not to mention that the tires on the average vehicle shouldn't be driven that fast and they're probably nearly bald due to lack of maintenance.
        sattoshi 4y ago
        Waiting for an ambulance is not a viable strategy everywhere. In Canada, you’ll be lucky to see one show up at all. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-woman-stroke-answers-1.6574074 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-woman-str...
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    > Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both? Your strawman is naked. You should dress him in some plausible deniability. There's nothing in the comment you are replying to to suggest in the slightest way that he is in favor of those things. Just because he's against the flavor of Skynet(TM) you want doesn't mean he's in favor of whatever random "bad thing" you want to paint him as in favor of.
  - voldacar 4y ago
    I'm for cars which behave correctly. A correctly designed car, like any tool, does exactly what I command it to.
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      That would be fine if you weren't driving on public roads.
      - 1shooner 4y ago
        Then why not modify the roads rather than the cars?
    - kiliantics 4y ago
      this incorrectly designed car refuses to make me a sandwich
  - rubatuga 4y ago
    Driving on the 401 in Toronto, cars are usually going 130 km/he in a 100 km/hr zone. People get to their destinations safely. The unnecessary complexity and price of a speed limiter is not worth it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- superkuh 4y ago
  Since some people don't believe this happened here is an overview of how the the requirement which once seemed inevitable, never happened: https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-car-tech-forgotten-by-automakers-is-still-1849475361 https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-car-tech-forgotten-by-auto... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p... >Assuming a final rule is issued in 2019, this would mean that the phase-in period would begin in 2021, and all vehicles subject to that final rule would be required to comply in 2023. See also, https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/contributed-blogs/archive/communiqu/article/21178589/electronic-design-whatever-happened-to-dsrc-and-cv2x https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/contributed-blogs/arc... And here's is my 2017 post on alt.cyberpunk about the ruling and a link to an articles about it back then, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.cyberpunk/c/YpRasEtoOwA https://groups.google.com/g/alt.cyberpunk/c/YpRasEtoOwA , https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/06/21/killing-car-privacy-by-federal-mandate/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/06/21/killing-car-privacy... and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/danger-ahead-governments-plan-vehicle-vehicle-communication-threatens-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/danger-ahead-governmen...
Someone1234 4y ago
They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB is proposing here? They have those "breathe into" systems (interlocks), but they have hygiene and maintenance limitations. Unclear how driver monitoring systems can determine if someone is DUI (in particular when you look at edge cases, like disabled drivers that move atypically while still be authorized to drive). PS - I suspect, but cannot show data, that existing upcoming safety technology may decrease DUI caused fatalities in particular "driverless" automations like lane centering, automatic lane-changes, and autonomous navigation. While I don't consider this technology mature, it may still be safer than an inebriated driver.
- plasticchris 4y ago
  Even worse the only way to get them to raise limits (at least in parts of the USA) is to show that everyone dives over the limit In a section of road.
- Anx2k 4y ago
  On first blush I thought the same thing - what, you're going to have to blow into some tube to start your car? I can understand this for people who have been convicted of drunk driving, but for everyone? But looking around it appears they have some mechanism by which they can determine with some degree of accuracy via touch, and it's integrated into the ignition button on a car: https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology They also appear to have other approaches as well, but this one seems like it would be almost transparent to the operation of the car. Honestly I have zero objection to something that worked in this fashion - I suspect it would save a ton of lives. I think the knee jerk reaction that it's somehow a big brother kind of thing is a bit disingenuous, like saying "The government shouldn't interfere with my ability to drive drunk and potentially hurt people". I think this is much more akin to when wearing seat belts became the law - people moaned and complained but at the end of the day it's better for both themselves and others in the vehicle. The speeding thing is completely unrelated and really shouldn't be mixed into this - how about solving one problem at a time well, instead of lumping a bunch together and solving none. I've had friends badly injured by drunk drivers, and in all the cases the drunk driver wasn't exceeding the posted speed limit. In one they just smashed into a parked car and hit them on the sidewalk, in one they swerved into oncoming traffic and collided head on, and the last drove into a store at full speed. Thankfully these were three different people I know, and not one incredibly unlucky person. ;)
pwinnski 4y ago
So-called "self-driving" systems, or the more-accurately-named lane-keeping and distance-keeping systems, may or may not be safer than human drivers driving equivalent cars, but they are much safer than alcohol-impaired drivers. The idea of having to blow into a tube every time I start my car seems outrageous, of course, but so many deaths every year in the US are due to alcohol-impaired driving that I'd almost be willing to support it. Of course, given that they're only calling for new cars to be so equipped, we'd be looking at a very long period of time in which people prone to driving under the influence would refuse to buy newer cars, justifying it by saying that the systems don't understand how their alcohol tolerance works.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
  To be clear: this article is about passive detection systems that use e.g. infrared and touch sensors; it's not the blow-in-a-tube kind of system a judge might order to be installed in the car of a habitual DUI driver.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    I missed that, thanks for the call-out. Now I'm curious about how well these systems work, whether they are able to tell the difference between someone inebriated and someone sick, etc. Making a note for a future rabbit hole.
StrictDabbler 4y ago
The text of this law is nonsensical. > The passage defining what Congress actually wants describes 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." This is only half of the proposed system, though. The other half specifically references blood alcohol content, saying the technology must "passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and... prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected." The first half is impossible in a car that has assistance features. You can't use machine learning to figure out if a driver using lane-assistance and radar cruise control on a highway is drunk because they're hardly driving at all. There are no inputs to analyse. The second half is literally impossible. You cannot passively detect a driver's blood alcohol. You can actively detect it by having interlocks in the car but they have to be calibrated regularly and it's not passive at all. This is a Timmy Turner wish, not a law.
- fomine3 4y ago
  For the first half, it's possible by requiring manual drive for a few minutes before auto cruise. It's enough to handle most cases unless driver drink alcohol in the car.
  - troon-lover 4y ago
- scottshamus 4y ago
  I think the passive system will likely using steering wheel sensors and driving-facing cameras to detect if a person is paying attention similar to Teslas requirement for FSD
imglorp 4y ago
Once again, the actions of a few are hurting everyone else. Why not target the few? There's a solid connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths. We've all heard of crashes involving someone with multiple DUI arrests. These offenders need identifying, help, supervision, and maybe removing their driving privileges. https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/ https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/
- londons_explore 4y ago
  An obvious middle ground is that anyone convicted of DUI must [for some long period of time] have an alcohol detection system installed in any car they wish to drive. Perhaps then mandate that cars be compatible with some standard for such systems to try to bring the cost of them down - the actual alcohol sensor is mere cents, but integrating it into todays cars aftermarket is often very costly.
  - vuln 4y ago
    The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installed on and only start the car a couple times a month to log the minimum amount of starts required for compliance which is checked monthly for an additional fee.
    - dTal 4y ago
      Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive? That's perverse.
      - landemva 4y ago
        If people don't like it, they can choose to instead do the jail time.
nerpderp82 4y ago
Nice! Can't come soon enough.
spoonjim 4y ago
Instead of treating everyone like a drunk driver they should just better enforce the current laws. Make a single DUI a ten-year loss of license and a DUI leading to a fatality an automatic life without parole and you will see a lot fewer people doing it.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  I like that idea, but we just have to figure out a way to prevent unlicensed people from driving that isn't also a terrible idea. I don't want to have to scan my driver license just to start my car.
  - namibj 4y ago
    Making it so they don't have to drive, and then threatening them with severe punishment if they are ever caught driving without holding (regardless of possession) a license, should be feasible. However, that requires making it so they don't have to drive. Nothing's gonna stop them it they have no alternative.
prirun 4y ago
Phones are worse than alcohol according to an article I mentioned earlier on the same subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902090
ninefathom 4y ago
But then... what would our elected officials drive?
- jonas-w 4y ago
  Exclusive Oldtimers which won't be impacted by this system.
sparker72678 4y ago
> a northbound pickup truck, which was occupied by an adult driver and seven passengers, ranging in age from 6 to 15 years old (Additional information about the crash indicates that only 5 of the 8 passengers in the pickup were restrained) So eight people were crammed into a pickup, 3 weren't wearing seatbelts.
jrnichols 4y ago
Perhaps if our media wasn't constantly peppering people with advertisements about alcohol and we weren't constantly trying to equate alcohol with social status, things here might be a whole lot different. But no, we sell t-shirts with phrases like "Chardonnay all Day" and "mommy needs wine" and have beer ads equating drinking with a good happy life, and then we wonder why people are experiencing alcoholism at a skyrocketing rate. instead a Gov agency says that we all now need to jump through a hoop because of drunk drivers. Great. Just great.
- tsol 4y ago
  It doesn't help that culturally people get extremely defensive about alcohol as well. Even if you bring up its huge negatives people will do everything to deny it
TotoHorner 4y ago
Why stop there? Why not also have vehicles auto-check for speeding? Have them report if the vehicle was near a hit & run. Imagine the compliance.
PaulHoule 4y ago
Looks like a plan to keep the value of old vehicle high.
newaccount2021 4y ago
quantified 4y ago
So, can't wear gloves? Or have an intoxicated passenger messing up the air? Suppose it decides you're intoxicated after you've hit highway speed? Will it store its findings, to be retrieved later?
armchairhacker 4y ago
Honestly I think this is a really good thing. I expect a huge backlash but when you look at it, there's really no good arguments against. What about freedoms? Unlike speech, you don't have a Constitutional right to drive drunk. I think even hard libertarians would balk at arguing "people should have the right to down 8 beers and then tear up 70mph on the highway". Because unlike freedom of expression drunk driving really does impact others, it's one of the leading causes of death and "I drive completely fine when drunk" is something nobody can say confidently. What if the BAC fails when you're not drunk? After all BACs aren't 100% accurate. Now this really is a serious issue. But it's also something I really don't see happening. Because false positives in the BAC hurt sales, so auto manufacturers are going to skew towards false negatives. Capitalism is a really strong force, and capitalism says you don't want to prevent people from starting their car unless they are definitely drunk, because that generates bad coverage which ultimately hurts sales. Especially because the regulations are going in effect three years the earliest, so there's plenty of time to device better easier tests, so consumers aren't compelled to ditch your car for one with no BAC or a more reliable BAC. Ok, but what if I'm drunk and there's a huge tornado or someone's chasing me and the only option is to drive recklessly? This is also an issue. But perhaps in that case there could be some emergency override which notifies law enforcement. Ok, but what about speeding? The NTSB is not having vehicles check for speeding and they will not any time soon. Everyone speeds, on certain roads you actually put yourself in danger by driving under the speed limit, and speed limits are ultimately widely regarded as dumb. DUI laws are widely regarded as not dumb. The bottom line is, unless there are really exceptional circumstances, you should not be driving drunk. And nobody is arguing that you should be allowed to drive drunk. So I think something which physically prevents you from driving drunk and breaking a near universally-accepted law, despite limiting your freedoms, is fine.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  There are two good arguments against this that you didn't address at all. The first is on principle: things that you own shouldn't enforce laws against you. The second is practical: unless the machine always says "negative", false positives will happen, and you provide no solution for when they do.
4oo4 4y ago
Really looking forward to being convicted of a DUI for using mouthwash just before leaving the house. I'm pretty sure orange juice can do it too.
- noSyncCloud 4y ago
  Certain breads too. Lots of things.
  - 4oo4 4y ago
    That reminds me of Auto Brewery Syndrome: https://www.palmpartners.com/auto-brewery-syndrome-body-produces-alcohol/ https://www.palmpartners.com/auto-brewery-syndrome-body-prod... It's interesting that those that are diagnosed don't have driving restrictions like people with epilepsy since they are actually intoxicated by it, but that might just be because it's so rare that most people don't know or refuse to believe it exists. They'll have it the worst if this actually gets mandated and deployed.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  I remember seeing a TV news segment a long time ago about how juices caused false positives. Here are more examples: https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-breathalyzer-test/ https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-br...
- madamelic 4y ago
  Wait until they use the driver-facing cameras to (try to) detect cannabis intoxication and the cameras think everyone with squinting eyes is intoxicated.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
pcaharrier 4y ago
"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.
- Forge36 4y ago
  We could try reducing miles driven. Add more pubic transit.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Not more, a lot more! Public transit is about the entire system. To make a difference we need a lot more transit. A small extension is generally not enough to be useful to anyone, but a large extension could actually be useful. Running transit only during rush hour is useless, as it running transit every hour, you really should aim to run every line every 5 minutes all day (and every half hour late nights) - if you don't cars are not that expensive and so well worth the convenience. The republicans are right when they say most transit funding is just throwing good money after bad. Most transit projects spend far too much on making things look nice and often have been given bad routes that will never result in anything useful. The first paragraph is useful for every country. The second is obviously US specific.
- a2tech 4y ago
  'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.
  - flenserboy 4y ago
    Big Sister is always much, much worse than Big Brother, and he's bad.
throwaway0asd 4y ago
Fantastic. This is a huge win for everybody. After midnight more than 1 in 8 drivers on the road are legally intoxicated (in the US). Driving is a liberty, not a right. I can understand why this would be limited to alcohol (at least starting out) as alcohol leaves the body rapidly and the diminished capacity leaves with the alcohol. Eventually I would like to see this applied to a variety of intoxicants.
0xB31B1B 4y ago
This is good. Also would like max 85mph speed governors and tighter limits on car dimensions to limit the massive truck hood heights
- kiliantics 4y ago
  yes, scooters and bicycles with electric motors are held to higher standards than cars when it comes to speed/power and it makes no sense
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Scooters and bicycles have absolutely zero crush zone and have way more potential for serious injuries.
    - whyenot 4y ago
      isn't that also true for motorcycles, which aren't held to the same standard?
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        Motorcycles (usually) have regular tech checkups, proper lights and turn indicators, powerful brakes and other accident-avoidance technology. Additionally, unlike e-scooters and e-bikes, you need a license to ride them, further reducing the likelihood of incidents, and at least here in Europe you have two different license categories - higher powered motorcycles are only available at the age of 20 or later.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Cars should be limited to .5g forward acceleration, and .5g/s change of acceleration, and you should need the full stroke of the accelerator to get those figures. In other words, all throttle maps stuck in “eco” mode forever. No more twitchy aggressive throttles. Then we won’t have so many drivers murdering school kids in crosswalks because oopsie I tapped the wrong pedal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
madamelic 4y ago
The story buries the lede, the real win for them is driver-facing cameras. Can't wait until they install a printer so they can just print the tickets out right into my car.
- vidanay 4y ago
  I swear I saw this in a movie. Demolition Man? Judge Dredd?
  - resizeitplz 4y ago
    Fifth Element
  - djoldman 4y ago
    Fifth Element.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chucksta 4y ago
    There is the auto-fine thing in demolition man for swearing
  - manuelmoreale 4y ago
    Demolition man. Iconic scene where he gets a bunch of tickets for using profanity as a substitute for toilet paper. What a bizarre movie and what a bizarre idea of a future that was.
    - dbsmith83 4y ago
      Bizarre? Sounds like you don't know how to use the 3 shells
- fnord123 4y ago
  Printing tickets? You guys need to decide is the US is ahead of the world or decades behind. What's next, being pulled over for speeding?
nottorp 4y ago
Hmm. How will they check for alcohol? Would you still be able to drive home a car full of drunks while sober? Only with all windows open?
- Forge36 4y ago
  It's a solved problem today. See Interlock Breathalyzer.
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    Do they still give false positives? https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-breathalyzer-test/ https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-br...
    - Forge36 4y ago
      More reason against requiring it in all cars.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    Solved as in it actually works? Or it works like the gas detector in my kitchen that alerts when we cook meat with a bit of wine in the oven? :)
- msh 4y ago
  Its a solved problem, you can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device
  - deburo 4y ago
    Requires a starting sample and samples at random times afterward. It’s very intrusive.
    - nottorp 4y ago
h2odragon 4y ago
Older cars that can be legally driven without all the nanny state crap are going to be worth bank for a while; until they get outlawed. Theme music: "Red Barchetta" by Rush
- fdewrewrewf 4y ago
  There'll be another Cash for Clunkers type program, and there won't be any cheap, reliable old cars.
- erellsworth 4y ago
  Just wait until you can't even own a car anymore, but only subscribe to one.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  When most cars have auto braking, you'll just see a new car, walk out, it will immediately stop and any car without tech in it will slam in to the back of the new car. So there will soon be no old cars left.
oneplane 4y ago
Instead of mostly attempting symptom mitigation, wouldn't it be a much better improvement for society if the relation (some?) Americans have with alcohol was repaired?
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  Coming from an European country: 16 year olds can openly buy beer in the supermarket and consume it on their way home from school. Driving licenses start at age 18, but there's two years of special probation that punish DUIs more extensively (and have a significantly lower limit). Police enforcement of these driving rules at times when young people celebrate is high. This also means they do not start binge-drinking AFTER they got their driving license, they know their limits by then. Doesn't mean we don't have drunk drivers, but maybe less drunk ones. We've had around 13500 alcohol-induced accidents with human casualties (of 306000 altogether) in 2021, but only about 2600 deaths overall, so probably less than 300 alcohol-related deaths in traffic.
- eluketronic 4y ago
  This seems akin to trying to change our nations attitude towards guns and semi automatic weapons instead of improving gun control legislation. According to the 2020 figures in the article > 10,000 people are dying every year from alcohol-related accidents. If there’s something tangible that can be done to reduce that death count, I’m all for it. As wonderful as it would be to reform the national attitude towards alcohol and excessive drinking, the alcohol lobby and our stubbornness as a culture would probably make it very challenging to effect any meaningful change. It’ll be interesting to see how far this gets from a technical standpoint and, if it does actually make it into new vehicles, how many work-arounds people come up with.
  - mwint 4y ago
    > If there’s something tangible that can be done to reduce that death count, I’m all for it. If we just put everyone in jail, there would be many fewer DUI deaths. Yeah, it’d come at the cost of some liberty, but apparently that’s no big deal anymore.
- 4y ago
PostOnce 4y ago
Maybe they can also have GPS, so we can track who visits an abortion clinic. Or maybe we should just test for HCG along with alcohol and report HCG drops to the govt.
- ellisv 4y ago
  > Maybe they can also have GPS You mean OnStar or Ford Sync?
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  Many cars nowadays already have GPS that can be remotely accessed by the automaker. A few years back, I worked on a telematics integration that accessed GPS data on cars and retrieved my own vehicle's location data from a service run by my automaker that I never explicitly opted into.
millzlane 4y ago
I'm surprised they regulated backup cameras before this.
nemo44x 4y ago
This has no chance of being extended to not allow you to drive because your social score has dropped below a threshold. I don’t need or want life management built into my vehicle. I don’t want Minority Report inspired crime prevention. A government camera pointed directly at me isn’t even a 1984 metaphor anymore. The management class is literally saying that’s what they want to do - they don’t even pretend to hide it.
jscipione 4y ago
The “infrastructure bill” Democrats passed already mandates breathalyzers in all cars by 2026. https://time.com/6086981/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-breathalyzers/ https://time.com/6086981/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-brea...
bluejekyll 4y ago
If the NTSB truly wanted to reduce traffic deaths, they’d focus on speed. Speed limiters (overridable) that discouraged the driver from going over the speed limit would do more more to save lives of all road users than just focusing on alcohol. Yes, alcohol is bad, but it’s still the car that’s dangerous, but these systems would only target a subset of drivers, and wouldn’t do anything to improve overall safety of cars.
Freeaqingme 4y ago
Would it not be way more useful if the NTSB focused on road design? As someone from Europe I oftentimes see very wide roads in the USA with a maximum speed of 15 mph or something, their design does not stop one from driving 50+ mph, however. In Europe, you often see that if there's a lower maximum speed, the width of the road is reduced, and obstacles are placed to ensure you actually can't drive significantly faster than allowed. Also, smaller streets will typically lead to less distracted drivers, because it requires a certain level of concentration to navigate these streets. Oh, and something about enormous SUV's that won't make traffic any safer...
- TrueGeek 4y ago
  I don't know that I've ever seen a road in the USA with a limit as low as 15. The road my house is on has a limit of 25, no sidewalks although children attempt to walk on it since the community swimming pool is at the end, and people regularly drive 35+. The road it connects to has a limit of 45 and no shoulder (although, amazingly I've still seen people attempting to walk on it too!) and I've seen people that must have been going 90 mph. As you say, the roads in Europe are much different. The speed limits are MUCH lower and the roads are designed such that you really can't go much faster. If we invested in safer roads and public transportation a lot of our problems with cars would solve themselves.
- aeharding 4y ago
  Yup. This drunk driving detection is just a symptom of the larger problem: car dependency. You don’t need alcohol detection in cars if everyone can just walk or bus safely to their neighborhood bar or friends. Virtually nobody wants to drive drunk, but it’s basically encouraged by the way we design our cities.
  - wink 4y ago
    Dunno, we had a lot of drunk driving here in the past, especially in the 70s and 80s when I believe my parents' stories. This is in a European city that's not a huge sprawl and with public transport. Yes, it's worse on the countryside, but I think it has gone down enough that it's not JUST a symptom of mainly car dependency.
baggachipz 4y ago
What happens if Level 5 Self-Driving is solved? "Sorry Michael, your two glasses of wine at dinner prevent me from driving you home"
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Just make them smaller, slower, and lighter rather than bigger, faster, and heavier. Then we don't need any of this garbage. Have a special more restrictive license for anything over 400kg and 40km/h and actually enforce existing dui laws by existing mechanisms rather than giving bars parking minimums.
BowBun 4y ago
Always interesting to see HN's take on regulation vs. liberties. Everyone here has benefited from regulations in various industries, so why are you complaining for this one? Cameras aside, I don't see what 'personal liberty' you lose by not being able to drive while drinking. You don't have a right to drive, it's a privilege. If I can encourage technology and regulation to get people who unnecessarily put my life in danger off the roads, then I'm all for it.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Everyone here has benefited from regulations in various industries, Yes, all regulations are the same. Literally no difference between any of them.
devmor 4y ago
Why don't we try actively enforcing and severely punishing drunk drivers instead of giving them back their licenses after a slap on the wrist? Why is the default here to go the overcomplicated solution and reduce everyone's privacy by pointing cameras at them in their personal vehicles instead? This smacks of the same uninformed decision making that leads to some startup reinventing the bus as an idea for an app every other year. Furthermore it continues to ignore any solution that hinges on addressing the real issue (alcohol abuse) and burdens the millions of Americans that don't even drink.
foxyv 4y ago
To be honest, you would solve so many of these DUI problems by just adding a driver's license interlock that requires the person to be a licensed driver to move the vehicle. So many people are driving on suspended licenses right now. Usually without registration or insurance. It would be cool to be able to use my DL to unlock and drive my car anyhow. However, the obvious solution is to make it so people DON'T NEED A CAR TO DO EVERYTHING! Public transportation, cycling infra, pedestrian friendly design! All of these reduce drunk driving.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  An amusing idea would be having bars check all IDs on entry/exit, perhaps some automated tech here, and then it locks the license from driving for x hours.
  - foxyv 4y ago
    I don't think we need anything super complicated. Just when you suspend someone's license, punch out the chip with a hole punch. No servers, no data breaches, etc...
kkfx 4y ago
A day I think some will bring to court all involved in such "evolution" because a day due to a "for safety" automatism someone else die because the automatism works well in most cases but not in all. Like emergency braking that prevent a car crush a small fence on purpose to avoid a tanker full of gas, refuse to start when someone have to go to first aid very quickly etc. When this will happen I home some judges decide to sentence not compensation but exemplar punishments to those who decide a procedure, an automatism is better than single human being and so must prevail on them. Not differently from companies those call-centers are powerless because of some automated business software procedure designed by some "manager", but different for the impact on human life.
FunnyBadger 4y ago
Yet another reason why I drive 20 yo cars and have zero interest in buying anything new.

54 points by williamsmj 4y ago

A handful of years back the NHTSA announced that all new cars would have to have a vehicle to vehicle 5.7-5.9 GHz system for announcing vehicle position, velocity, and cryptographically signed ID. Luckily the dates just came and went and the manufacturers didn't do it. The NHTSA folded and eventually the FCC gave that ~hundreds MHz of 5 GHz band back to wifi. Hopefully that's what will happen here. The NTSB only recommends things to the NHTSA. So this proposal hasn't even gotten as far as the above example.

theknocker 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ozfive 4y ago
Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both? I’m against a system that refuses to let me drive because it thinks I’m drunk. Or a system that would prevent me from breaking the speed limit, at my discretion, e.g. in an emergency.
  - Pet_Ant 4y ago
    I'm against disabling cars, but all for automatically notifying 911.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > against disabling cars, but all for automatically notifying 911 Depending on the system's accuracy, this could be a fair compromise. Alternatively: a black box record in case something goes wrong. Less preventative. But deterring and reasonable.
  - williamsmj 4y ago
    Are you saying that anyone should be allowed to drive whatever speed they like, based on their "discretion"? If so, is that different from getting rid of speed limits?
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Distinguish "anyone should be capable of driving whatever speed they like" vs. "it should be legal for anyone to drive whatever speed they like".
      - lamontcg 4y ago
        Most people aren't capable of driving as fast as a trained emergency responder, much less driving like a psycho in a panic because they're dealing with a medical emergency and are completely emotionally unprepared for it. I've been involved in an situation that resulted in a fatality and trying to rescue the victim and for an untrained responder your ability to think and process gets chopped down to around 25% of what it is normally. That is probably worse if the victim is someone you know. Now you want to argue that those people should be driving 100 mph through the streets blowing through red lights and whatever at their own discretion like that solves problems. People need to call 911 and get the ambulance, which can stabilize the patient, to come to them. They can run code red and are trained in how to run red lights and get around traffic safely. They do it for a living and they're emotionally detached from the emergency. Not to mention that the tires on the average vehicle shouldn't be driven that fast and they're probably nearly bald due to lack of maintenance.
        sattoshi 4y ago
        Waiting for an ambulance is not a viable strategy everywhere. In Canada, you’ll be lucky to see one show up at all. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-woman-stroke-answers-1.6574074 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-woman-str...
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  > Not really sure what you're arguing for here. Are you for drunk driving or excessive speed driving or both? Your strawman is naked. You should dress him in some plausible deniability. There's nothing in the comment you are replying to to suggest in the slightest way that he is in favor of those things. Just because he's against the flavor of Skynet(TM) you want doesn't mean he's in favor of whatever random "bad thing" you want to paint him as in favor of.
- voldacar 4y ago
  I'm for cars which behave correctly. A correctly designed car, like any tool, does exactly what I command it to.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    That would be fine if you weren't driving on public roads.
    - 1shooner 4y ago
      Then why not modify the roads rather than the cars?
  - kiliantics 4y ago
    this incorrectly designed car refuses to make me a sandwich
- rubatuga 4y ago
  Driving on the 401 in Toronto, cars are usually going 130 km/he in a 100 km/hr zone. People get to their destinations safely. The unnecessary complexity and price of a speed limiter is not worth it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
superkuh 4y ago
Since some people don't believe this happened here is an overview of how the the requirement which once seemed inevitable, never happened: https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-car-tech-forgotten-by-automakers-is-still-1849475361 https://jalopnik.com/self-driving-car-tech-forgotten-by-auto... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.pdf https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-12/pdf/2016-31059.p... >Assuming a final rule is issued in 2019, this would mean that the phase-in period would begin in 2021, and all vehicles subject to that final rule would be required to comply in 2023. See also, https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/contributed-blogs/archive/communiqu/article/21178589/electronic-design-whatever-happened-to-dsrc-and-cv2x https://www.electronicdesign.com/blogs/contributed-blogs/arc... And here's is my 2017 post on alt.cyberpunk about the ruling and a link to an articles about it back then, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.cyberpunk/c/YpRasEtoOwA https://groups.google.com/g/alt.cyberpunk/c/YpRasEtoOwA , https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/06/21/killing-car-privacy-by-federal-mandate/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/06/21/killing-car-privacy... and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/danger-ahead-governments-plan-vehicle-vehicle-communication-threatens-privacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/danger-ahead-governmen...

Someone1234 4y ago

They're also recommending speed limiters that essentially force you to follow the limits. I wonder if we'd see speed limits increase if everyone followed them as-posted? Because right now there seems to be this assumption from both sides that everyone is speeding, so they post 70 because they want 80, or 25 because they want 30, etc. While DUI is a legitimate problem, it isn't clear to me though what exactly the NTSB is proposing here? They have those "breathe into" systems (interlocks), but they have hygiene and maintenance limitations. Unclear how driver monitoring systems can determine if someone is DUI (in particular when you look at edge cases, like disabled drivers that move atypically while still be authorized to drive). PS - I suspect, but cannot show data, that existing upcoming safety technology may decrease DUI caused fatalities in particular "driverless" automations like lane centering, automatic lane-changes, and autonomous navigation. While I don't consider this technology mature, it may still be safer than an inebriated driver.

plasticchris 4y ago
Even worse the only way to get them to raise limits (at least in parts of the USA) is to show that everyone dives over the limit In a section of road.
Anx2k 4y ago
On first blush I thought the same thing - what, you're going to have to blow into some tube to start your car? I can understand this for people who have been convicted of drunk driving, but for everyone? But looking around it appears they have some mechanism by which they can determine with some degree of accuracy via touch, and it's integrated into the ignition button on a car: https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology https://www.dadss.org/touch-technology They also appear to have other approaches as well, but this one seems like it would be almost transparent to the operation of the car. Honestly I have zero objection to something that worked in this fashion - I suspect it would save a ton of lives. I think the knee jerk reaction that it's somehow a big brother kind of thing is a bit disingenuous, like saying "The government shouldn't interfere with my ability to drive drunk and potentially hurt people". I think this is much more akin to when wearing seat belts became the law - people moaned and complained but at the end of the day it's better for both themselves and others in the vehicle. The speeding thing is completely unrelated and really shouldn't be mixed into this - how about solving one problem at a time well, instead of lumping a bunch together and solving none. I've had friends badly injured by drunk drivers, and in all the cases the drunk driver wasn't exceeding the posted speed limit. In one they just smashed into a parked car and hit them on the sidewalk, in one they swerved into oncoming traffic and collided head on, and the last drove into a store at full speed. Thankfully these were three different people I know, and not one incredibly unlucky person. ;)

pwinnski 4y ago

So-called "self-driving" systems, or the more-accurately-named lane-keeping and distance-keeping systems, may or may not be safer than human drivers driving equivalent cars, but they are much safer than alcohol-impaired drivers. The idea of having to blow into a tube every time I start my car seems outrageous, of course, but so many deaths every year in the US are due to alcohol-impaired driving that I'd almost be willing to support it. Of course, given that they're only calling for new cars to be so equipped, we'd be looking at a very long period of time in which people prone to driving under the influence would refuse to buy newer cars, justifying it by saying that the systems don't understand how their alcohol tolerance works.

hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
To be clear: this article is about passive detection systems that use e.g. infrared and touch sensors; it's not the blow-in-a-tube kind of system a judge might order to be installed in the car of a habitual DUI driver.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  I missed that, thanks for the call-out. Now I'm curious about how well these systems work, whether they are able to tell the difference between someone inebriated and someone sick, etc. Making a note for a future rabbit hole.

StrictDabbler 4y ago

The text of this law is nonsensical. > The passage defining what Congress actually wants describes 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." This is only half of the proposed system, though. The other half specifically references blood alcohol content, saying the technology must "passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and... prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected." The first half is impossible in a car that has assistance features. You can't use machine learning to figure out if a driver using lane-assistance and radar cruise control on a highway is drunk because they're hardly driving at all. There are no inputs to analyse. The second half is literally impossible. You cannot passively detect a driver's blood alcohol. You can actively detect it by having interlocks in the car but they have to be calibrated regularly and it's not passive at all. This is a Timmy Turner wish, not a law.

fomine3 4y ago
For the first half, it's possible by requiring manual drive for a few minutes before auto cruise. It's enough to handle most cases unless driver drink alcohol in the car.
- troon-lover 4y ago
scottshamus 4y ago
I think the passive system will likely using steering wheel sensors and driving-facing cameras to detect if a person is paying attention similar to Teslas requirement for FSD

imglorp 4y ago

Once again, the actions of a few are hurting everyone else. Why not target the few? There's a solid connection between DUI enforcement and reduction in deaths. We've all heard of crashes involving someone with multiple DUI arrests. These offenders need identifying, help, supervision, and maybe removing their driving privileges. https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/ https://www.safehome.org/resources/dui-statistics/

londons_explore 4y ago
An obvious middle ground is that anyone convicted of DUI must [for some long period of time] have an alcohol detection system installed in any car they wish to drive. Perhaps then mandate that cars be compatible with some standard for such systems to try to bring the cost of them down - the actual alcohol sensor is mere cents, but integrating it into todays cars aftermarket is often very costly.
- vuln 4y ago
  The high cost, installation/electrical issues (while in use and after it is uninstalled.), annd inconvenience is part of the intended punishment. I’ve seen people do interesting things to avoid getting interlocks installed. In that state if you owned a business an interlock must be installed in all company vehicles. People will sign over vehicles to family members. Some buy a beater car to have the interlock installed on and only start the car a couple times a month to log the minimum amount of starts required for compliance which is checked monthly for an additional fee.
  - dTal 4y ago
    Wait, minimum number of starts? So if you're convicted of a DUI you're legally required to drive? That's perverse.
    - landemva 4y ago
      If people don't like it, they can choose to instead do the jail time.

nerpderp82 4y ago

Nice! Can't come soon enough.

spoonjim 4y ago

Instead of treating everyone like a drunk driver they should just better enforce the current laws. Make a single DUI a ten-year loss of license and a DUI leading to a fatality an automatic life without parole and you will see a lot fewer people doing it.

MerelyMortal 4y ago
I like that idea, but we just have to figure out a way to prevent unlicensed people from driving that isn't also a terrible idea. I don't want to have to scan my driver license just to start my car.
- namibj 4y ago
  Making it so they don't have to drive, and then threatening them with severe punishment if they are ever caught driving without holding (regardless of possession) a license, should be feasible. However, that requires making it so they don't have to drive. Nothing's gonna stop them it they have no alternative.

prirun 4y ago

Phones are worse than alcohol according to an article I mentioned earlier on the same subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32902090

ninefathom 4y ago

But then... what would our elected officials drive?

jonas-w 4y ago
Exclusive Oldtimers which won't be impacted by this system.

sparker72678 4y ago

> a northbound pickup truck, which was occupied by an adult driver and seven passengers, ranging in age from 6 to 15 years old (Additional information about the crash indicates that only 5 of the 8 passengers in the pickup were restrained) So eight people were crammed into a pickup, 3 weren't wearing seatbelts.

jrnichols 4y ago

Perhaps if our media wasn't constantly peppering people with advertisements about alcohol and we weren't constantly trying to equate alcohol with social status, things here might be a whole lot different. But no, we sell t-shirts with phrases like "Chardonnay all Day" and "mommy needs wine" and have beer ads equating drinking with a good happy life, and then we wonder why people are experiencing alcoholism at a skyrocketing rate. instead a Gov agency says that we all now need to jump through a hoop because of drunk drivers. Great. Just great.

tsol 4y ago
It doesn't help that culturally people get extremely defensive about alcohol as well. Even if you bring up its huge negatives people will do everything to deny it

TotoHorner 4y ago

Why stop there? Why not also have vehicles auto-check for speeding? Have them report if the vehicle was near a hit & run. Imagine the compliance.

PaulHoule 4y ago

Looks like a plan to keep the value of old vehicle high.

newaccount2021 4y ago

quantified 4y ago

So, can't wear gloves? Or have an intoxicated passenger messing up the air? Suppose it decides you're intoxicated after you've hit highway speed? Will it store its findings, to be retrieved later?

armchairhacker 4y ago

Honestly I think this is a really good thing. I expect a huge backlash but when you look at it, there's really no good arguments against. What about freedoms? Unlike speech, you don't have a Constitutional right to drive drunk. I think even hard libertarians would balk at arguing "people should have the right to down 8 beers and then tear up 70mph on the highway". Because unlike freedom of expression drunk driving really does impact others, it's one of the leading causes of death and "I drive completely fine when drunk" is something nobody can say confidently. What if the BAC fails when you're not drunk? After all BACs aren't 100% accurate. Now this really is a serious issue. But it's also something I really don't see happening. Because false positives in the BAC hurt sales, so auto manufacturers are going to skew towards false negatives. Capitalism is a really strong force, and capitalism says you don't want to prevent people from starting their car unless they are definitely drunk, because that generates bad coverage which ultimately hurts sales. Especially because the regulations are going in effect three years the earliest, so there's plenty of time to device better easier tests, so consumers aren't compelled to ditch your car for one with no BAC or a more reliable BAC. Ok, but what if I'm drunk and there's a huge tornado or someone's chasing me and the only option is to drive recklessly? This is also an issue. But perhaps in that case there could be some emergency override which notifies law enforcement. Ok, but what about speeding? The NTSB is not having vehicles check for speeding and they will not any time soon. Everyone speeds, on certain roads you actually put yourself in danger by driving under the speed limit, and speed limits are ultimately widely regarded as dumb. DUI laws are widely regarded as not dumb. The bottom line is, unless there are really exceptional circumstances, you should not be driving drunk. And nobody is arguing that you should be allowed to drive drunk. So I think something which physically prevents you from driving drunk and breaking a near universally-accepted law, despite limiting your freedoms, is fine.

josephcsible 4y ago
There are two good arguments against this that you didn't address at all. The first is on principle: things that you own shouldn't enforce laws against you. The second is practical: unless the machine always says "negative", false positives will happen, and you provide no solution for when they do.

4oo4 4y ago

Really looking forward to being convicted of a DUI for using mouthwash just before leaving the house. I'm pretty sure orange juice can do it too.

noSyncCloud 4y ago
Certain breads too. Lots of things.
- 4oo4 4y ago
  That reminds me of Auto Brewery Syndrome: https://www.palmpartners.com/auto-brewery-syndrome-body-produces-alcohol/ https://www.palmpartners.com/auto-brewery-syndrome-body-prod... It's interesting that those that are diagnosed don't have driving restrictions like people with epilepsy since they are actually intoxicated by it, but that might just be because it's so rare that most people don't know or refuse to believe it exists. They'll have it the worst if this actually gets mandated and deployed.
MerelyMortal 4y ago
I remember seeing a TV news segment a long time ago about how juices caused false positives. Here are more examples: https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-breathalyzer-test/ https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-br...
madamelic 4y ago
Wait until they use the driver-facing cameras to (try to) detect cannabis intoxication and the cameras think everyone with squinting eyes is intoxicated.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

pcaharrier 4y ago

"43,000 people were killed last year, the greatest number in 16 years" True, but there were also 250 billion more miles traveled than 16 years ago and a population of roughly 40 million more people. So though the raw number is higher, the traffic fatalities per mile traveled and per capita is actually lower than it was back then.

Forge36 4y ago
We could try reducing miles driven. Add more pubic transit.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
- bluGill 4y ago
  Not more, a lot more! Public transit is about the entire system. To make a difference we need a lot more transit. A small extension is generally not enough to be useful to anyone, but a large extension could actually be useful. Running transit only during rush hour is useless, as it running transit every hour, you really should aim to run every line every 5 minutes all day (and every half hour late nights) - if you don't cars are not that expensive and so well worth the convenience. The republicans are right when they say most transit funding is just throwing good money after bad. Most transit projects spend far too much on making things look nice and often have been given bad routes that will never result in anything useful. The first paragraph is useful for every country. The second is obviously US specific.
a2tech 4y ago
'Safety' is going to be the thing that kills personal liberty in this country.
- flenserboy 4y ago
  Big Sister is always much, much worse than Big Brother, and he's bad.

throwaway0asd 4y ago

Fantastic. This is a huge win for everybody. After midnight more than 1 in 8 drivers on the road are legally intoxicated (in the US). Driving is a liberty, not a right. I can understand why this would be limited to alcohol (at least starting out) as alcohol leaves the body rapidly and the diminished capacity leaves with the alcohol. Eventually I would like to see this applied to a variety of intoxicants.

0xB31B1B 4y ago

This is good. Also would like max 85mph speed governors and tighter limits on car dimensions to limit the massive truck hood heights

kiliantics 4y ago
yes, scooters and bicycles with electric motors are held to higher standards than cars when it comes to speed/power and it makes no sense
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Scooters and bicycles have absolutely zero crush zone and have way more potential for serious injuries.
  - whyenot 4y ago
    isn't that also true for motorcycles, which aren't held to the same standard?
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Motorcycles (usually) have regular tech checkups, proper lights and turn indicators, powerful brakes and other accident-avoidance technology. Additionally, unlike e-scooters and e-bikes, you need a license to ride them, further reducing the likelihood of incidents, and at least here in Europe you have two different license categories - higher powered motorcycles are only available at the age of 20 or later.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Cars should be limited to .5g forward acceleration, and .5g/s change of acceleration, and you should need the full stroke of the accelerator to get those figures. In other words, all throttle maps stuck in “eco” mode forever. No more twitchy aggressive throttles. Then we won’t have so many drivers murdering school kids in crosswalks because oopsie I tapped the wrong pedal.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

madamelic 4y ago

The story buries the lede, the real win for them is driver-facing cameras. Can't wait until they install a printer so they can just print the tickets out right into my car.

vidanay 4y ago
I swear I saw this in a movie. Demolition Man? Judge Dredd?
- resizeitplz 4y ago
  Fifth Element
- djoldman 4y ago
  Fifth Element.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chucksta 4y ago
  There is the auto-fine thing in demolition man for swearing
- manuelmoreale 4y ago
  Demolition man. Iconic scene where he gets a bunch of tickets for using profanity as a substitute for toilet paper. What a bizarre movie and what a bizarre idea of a future that was.
  - dbsmith83 4y ago
    Bizarre? Sounds like you don't know how to use the 3 shells
fnord123 4y ago
Printing tickets? You guys need to decide is the US is ahead of the world or decades behind. What's next, being pulled over for speeding?

nottorp 4y ago

Hmm. How will they check for alcohol? Would you still be able to drive home a car full of drunks while sober? Only with all windows open?

Forge36 4y ago
It's a solved problem today. See Interlock Breathalyzer.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  Do they still give false positives? https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-breathalyzer-test/ https://www.columbusdefensefirm.com/causes-false-positive-br...
  - Forge36 4y ago
    More reason against requiring it in all cars.
- nottorp 4y ago
  Solved as in it actually works? Or it works like the gas detector in my kitchen that alerts when we cook meat with a bit of wine in the oven? :)
msh 4y ago
Its a solved problem, you can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device
- deburo 4y ago
  Requires a starting sample and samples at random times afterward. It’s very intrusive.
  - nottorp 4y ago

h2odragon 4y ago

Older cars that can be legally driven without all the nanny state crap are going to be worth bank for a while; until they get outlawed. Theme music: "Red Barchetta" by Rush

fdewrewrewf 4y ago
There'll be another Cash for Clunkers type program, and there won't be any cheap, reliable old cars.
erellsworth 4y ago
Just wait until you can't even own a car anymore, but only subscribe to one.
Gigachad 4y ago
When most cars have auto braking, you'll just see a new car, walk out, it will immediately stop and any car without tech in it will slam in to the back of the new car. So there will soon be no old cars left.

oneplane 4y ago

Instead of mostly attempting symptom mitigation, wouldn't it be a much better improvement for society if the relation (some?) Americans have with alcohol was repaired?

DocTomoe 4y ago
Coming from an European country: 16 year olds can openly buy beer in the supermarket and consume it on their way home from school. Driving licenses start at age 18, but there's two years of special probation that punish DUIs more extensively (and have a significantly lower limit). Police enforcement of these driving rules at times when young people celebrate is high. This also means they do not start binge-drinking AFTER they got their driving license, they know their limits by then. Doesn't mean we don't have drunk drivers, but maybe less drunk ones. We've had around 13500 alcohol-induced accidents with human casualties (of 306000 altogether) in 2021, but only about 2600 deaths overall, so probably less than 300 alcohol-related deaths in traffic.
eluketronic 4y ago
This seems akin to trying to change our nations attitude towards guns and semi automatic weapons instead of improving gun control legislation. According to the 2020 figures in the article > 10,000 people are dying every year from alcohol-related accidents. If there’s something tangible that can be done to reduce that death count, I’m all for it. As wonderful as it would be to reform the national attitude towards alcohol and excessive drinking, the alcohol lobby and our stubbornness as a culture would probably make it very challenging to effect any meaningful change. It’ll be interesting to see how far this gets from a technical standpoint and, if it does actually make it into new vehicles, how many work-arounds people come up with.
- mwint 4y ago
  > If there’s something tangible that can be done to reduce that death count, I’m all for it. If we just put everyone in jail, there would be many fewer DUI deaths. Yeah, it’d come at the cost of some liberty, but apparently that’s no big deal anymore.
4y ago

PostOnce 4y ago

Maybe they can also have GPS, so we can track who visits an abortion clinic. Or maybe we should just test for HCG along with alcohol and report HCG drops to the govt.

ellisv 4y ago
> Maybe they can also have GPS You mean OnStar or Ford Sync?
thr0wawayf00 4y ago
Many cars nowadays already have GPS that can be remotely accessed by the automaker. A few years back, I worked on a telematics integration that accessed GPS data on cars and retrieved my own vehicle's location data from a service run by my automaker that I never explicitly opted into.

millzlane 4y ago

I'm surprised they regulated backup cameras before this.

nemo44x 4y ago

This has no chance of being extended to not allow you to drive because your social score has dropped below a threshold. I don’t need or want life management built into my vehicle. I don’t want Minority Report inspired crime prevention. A government camera pointed directly at me isn’t even a 1984 metaphor anymore. The management class is literally saying that’s what they want to do - they don’t even pretend to hide it.

jscipione 4y ago

The “infrastructure bill” Democrats passed already mandates breathalyzers in all cars by 2026. https://time.com/6086981/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-breathalyzers/ https://time.com/6086981/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-brea...

bluejekyll 4y ago

If the NTSB truly wanted to reduce traffic deaths, they’d focus on speed. Speed limiters (overridable) that discouraged the driver from going over the speed limit would do more more to save lives of all road users than just focusing on alcohol. Yes, alcohol is bad, but it’s still the car that’s dangerous, but these systems would only target a subset of drivers, and wouldn’t do anything to improve overall safety of cars.

Freeaqingme 4y ago

Would it not be way more useful if the NTSB focused on road design? As someone from Europe I oftentimes see very wide roads in the USA with a maximum speed of 15 mph or something, their design does not stop one from driving 50+ mph, however. In Europe, you often see that if there's a lower maximum speed, the width of the road is reduced, and obstacles are placed to ensure you actually can't drive significantly faster than allowed. Also, smaller streets will typically lead to less distracted drivers, because it requires a certain level of concentration to navigate these streets. Oh, and something about enormous SUV's that won't make traffic any safer...

TrueGeek 4y ago
I don't know that I've ever seen a road in the USA with a limit as low as 15. The road my house is on has a limit of 25, no sidewalks although children attempt to walk on it since the community swimming pool is at the end, and people regularly drive 35+. The road it connects to has a limit of 45 and no shoulder (although, amazingly I've still seen people attempting to walk on it too!) and I've seen people that must have been going 90 mph. As you say, the roads in Europe are much different. The speed limits are MUCH lower and the roads are designed such that you really can't go much faster. If we invested in safer roads and public transportation a lot of our problems with cars would solve themselves.
aeharding 4y ago
Yup. This drunk driving detection is just a symptom of the larger problem: car dependency. You don’t need alcohol detection in cars if everyone can just walk or bus safely to their neighborhood bar or friends. Virtually nobody wants to drive drunk, but it’s basically encouraged by the way we design our cities.
- wink 4y ago
  Dunno, we had a lot of drunk driving here in the past, especially in the 70s and 80s when I believe my parents' stories. This is in a European city that's not a huge sprawl and with public transport. Yes, it's worse on the countryside, but I think it has gone down enough that it's not JUST a symptom of mainly car dependency.

baggachipz 4y ago

What happens if Level 5 Self-Driving is solved? "Sorry Michael, your two glasses of wine at dinner prevent me from driving you home"

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Just make them smaller, slower, and lighter rather than bigger, faster, and heavier. Then we don't need any of this garbage. Have a special more restrictive license for anything over 400kg and 40km/h and actually enforce existing dui laws by existing mechanisms rather than giving bars parking minimums.

BowBun 4y ago

Always interesting to see HN's take on regulation vs. liberties. Everyone here has benefited from regulations in various industries, so why are you complaining for this one? Cameras aside, I don't see what 'personal liberty' you lose by not being able to drive while drinking. You don't have a right to drive, it's a privilege. If I can encourage technology and regulation to get people who unnecessarily put my life in danger off the roads, then I'm all for it.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Everyone here has benefited from regulations in various industries, Yes, all regulations are the same. Literally no difference between any of them.

devmor 4y ago

Why don't we try actively enforcing and severely punishing drunk drivers instead of giving them back their licenses after a slap on the wrist? Why is the default here to go the overcomplicated solution and reduce everyone's privacy by pointing cameras at them in their personal vehicles instead? This smacks of the same uninformed decision making that leads to some startup reinventing the bus as an idea for an app every other year. Furthermore it continues to ignore any solution that hinges on addressing the real issue (alcohol abuse) and burdens the millions of Americans that don't even drink.

foxyv 4y ago

To be honest, you would solve so many of these DUI problems by just adding a driver's license interlock that requires the person to be a licensed driver to move the vehicle. So many people are driving on suspended licenses right now. Usually without registration or insurance. It would be cool to be able to use my DL to unlock and drive my car anyhow. However, the obvious solution is to make it so people DON'T NEED A CAR TO DO EVERYTHING! Public transportation, cycling infra, pedestrian friendly design! All of these reduce drunk driving.

Gigachad 4y ago
An amusing idea would be having bars check all IDs on entry/exit, perhaps some automated tech here, and then it locks the license from driving for x hours.
- foxyv 4y ago
  I don't think we need anything super complicated. Just when you suspend someone's license, punch out the chip with a hole punch. No servers, no data breaches, etc...

kkfx 4y ago

A day I think some will bring to court all involved in such "evolution" because a day due to a "for safety" automatism someone else die because the automatism works well in most cases but not in all. Like emergency braking that prevent a car crush a small fence on purpose to avoid a tanker full of gas, refuse to start when someone have to go to first aid very quickly etc. When this will happen I home some judges decide to sentence not compensation but exemplar punishments to those who decide a procedure, an automatism is better than single human being and so must prevail on them. Not differently from companies those call-centers are powerless because of some automated business software procedure designed by some "manager", but different for the impact on human life.

FunnyBadger 4y ago

Yet another reason why I drive 20 yo cars and have zero interest in buying anything new.