5 ms·

I know that a lot of people will find this to be a little dystopian. To me, as long as it’s done in a way that’s reliably accurate with no false positives, uno

by dangus 4y ago

I know that a lot of people will find this to be a little dystopian. To me, as long as it’s done in a way that’s reliably accurate with no false positives, unobtrusive to use, and doesn’t phone the police or write a guilty-until-proven-innocent-ticket, I think it’s a great idea. Alcohol-impaired crashes are responsible for 30% of all traffic fatalities. [1] That’s huge. Way too many people casually drive drunk or buzzed. [1] https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-impaired-driving https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-alcohol-...

l72 4y ago
I remember after market versions of this in the 90s. To start the car, you had to blow. No communication and nothing more complicated than it. It seems crazy to me that we still haven't required this. We also should have lowered the legal blood alcohol limit ages ago! I also think we should require governors to limit acceleration and top speed. Since cars have had GPS for 15+ years, this could be dynamic, so no doing 55mph down at 20mph residential street! I suppose, by the time we actually implement this, it'll be moot, as we are getting closer and closer to automated cars.
The_SamminAter 4y ago
I support the idea, I only worry that there’s no way the manufacturers won’t record and transmit this information, to both themselves and ad/tracking companies.
JohnFen 4y ago
> with no false positives Not possible.
- dangus 4y ago
  Are you sure it's not possible? A whole lot of things we didn't think were possible are now known to be possible. Alas, maybe I should rephrase to "an acceptable level of accuracy and precision."
windows2020 4y ago
In a rural area, you had a few beers, you're at 0.07, and your wife has a stroke. The speed limit through nowhere is 50 and on the way you plateau at 0.09. If only the speed governor or alcohol monitor understood... Or, maybe a tornado or disaster occurs and you need to evacuate. Or, maybe you're moving your own car within your own driveway. No thanks! Rather than automated enforcement, we should teach why things are important.
- dangus 4y ago
  1. The disabling threshold could be set well above "buzzed" or "the legal limit" if that makes you feel better. Or, instead of being disabled, the car could be speed governed, hazard lights forced on, or something of that nature. Heck, if you want to teach us why things are important, implement the system without any disabling functionality and notify the driver that they're over the limit (a lot of buzzed drivers don't even know they've done something wrong in the first place). 2. Implementing a system to disable restrictions during major emergency events would be trivially complicated and inexpensive. We already have a national emergency alert system that pushes out to every cellular connection. Newly built cars very often have integrated cellular capabilities and always have some kind of software-based infotainment system. 3. It's not legal to drive drunk even on private property in a number of states, and being on private property doesn't make it any better of an idea even when it is technically legal. 4. Medical emergencies like the one you describe are more of a straw man argument than a concern with a lot of relevance to this topic. I could construct a similar argument: what if you live alone and have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving? The problem here is that rural areas have less access to fast emergency medical care in the first place, and that's just part of living in a rural area. 5. Rural areas have worse crash fatality statistics in the first place, so this system theoretically helps rural areas even more than urban ones. [1] 6. Let's say even after all this you still don't want it to be mandatory: the system could be offered as an insurance discount incentive and a lot of people would go for it. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...
- nonameiguess 4y ago
  I'm not going to come out one way or another with a declaration of exactly where the line should be drawn (keeping in mind that in my younger years, I didn't even agree with seatbelt mandates), but this sort of tradeoff occurs with any rules at all. They inevitably cause at least some harm, but if the good outweighs the harm by a large enough measure, we adopt the rule anyway. Having speed limits and traffic signals at all is an obvious example. Somebody somewhere has died at least once because they weren't in an ambulance and their driver couldn't get to the hospital fast enough. You're effectively making the Jack Bauer argument. What if a nuke is about to go off and you're absolutely certain the guy you have knows where it is and how you can stop it? Rather than blanket bans on torture, we should teach interrogators how to have good judgement. I suspect you would not accept the exact same argument in that case.
VyseofArcadia 4y ago
It is a little dystopian. On the other hand, clearly the various legal and ethical reasons to not drink and drive aren't helping as much as they could. My understanding, though, is that driver training in the US is a joke compared to other countries. Aside from a lower age requirement, it is incredibly easy to get a learner's permit and driver's license here, so much so that the latter is the primary form of ID for almost everyone. Per the NHTSA[0], > In 2020, 29% of young drivers 15 to 20 years old who were killed in crashes had BACs of .01 g/dL or higher. So teenagers are driving earlier than other countries, but then, our alcohol culture is also pretty weird. There is an expectation of teetotaling until you hit 21. In practice, this means teenagers are sneaking out, frequently by car, to drink. [1] But then you have to ask, why are teenagers sneaking out by car? Well, that's because with only a handful of very dense, urban exceptions, there is no infrastructure to get around any other way. When an American says small town, what they mean is, "a town with a small population that is suprisingly large on the map". And when they say city, what they mean is, "a town with a larger population that is still surprisingly large on the map". These places don't have buses or bike trails or even sidewalks. The whole thing is a mess of unintended consequences from top to bottom. If we had better travel options, kids wouldn't need cars to sneak around. If we had a less puritanical alcohol culture, the kids wouldn't need to sneak around at all. If we didn't have rely on cars so extensively, we could raise driving age and driver test requirements to make the roads safer all around. Maybe instead of looking for the technological easy way out we ought to 1) promote safer forms of travel than every-man-for-himself multi-ton death machines, 2) treat them like the multi-ton death machines they are instead of handing out licenses like candy, and 3) embrace reality to give kids safe outlets to do what they're going to do anyway instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending our precious little babies would never do anything bad. [0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#age-5056 https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#age-5056 [1] The responsible parents I know are the ones who provide a safe environment for teenagers to learn the effects of alcohol, law be damned.
- Budged 4y ago
  Some great points here. I live in the U.S. (Tennessee) and in this state new drivers aren’t even required to do a driving exam, just a multiple choice exam. The roads are an absolute mess as a result, I’m constantly nearly getting hit by other drivers
marssaxman 4y ago
> as long as it’s done in a way that’s reliably accurate with no false positives Well, sure - in the kind of fantasy world where such things are possible, this could be a good idea.
- dangus 4y ago
  Are you sure it's a fantasy? We have all kinds of similar tests with acceptable accuracy and precision. Like, why are you jumping to the conclusion that engineers somewhere can't implement that? Seems to me that's like saying it'll never be possible to make a phone call without a phone line.
tomcam 4y ago
> and doesn’t phone the police or write a guilty-until-proven-innocent-ticket, you're funny
- dangus 4y ago
  I don't see why the idea isn't realistic. My car doesn't phone the police or write a ticket when the seatbelt chime goes off. Just write the behavior and individual rights into a law. What physical barrier stops my healthcare provider from publishing my health records? The law does, and it works.

by dangus 4y ago

l72 4y ago

I remember after market versions of this in the 90s. To start the car, you had to blow. No communication and nothing more complicated than it. It seems crazy to me that we still haven't required this. We also should have lowered the legal blood alcohol limit ages ago! I also think we should require governors to limit acceleration and top speed. Since cars have had GPS for 15+ years, this could be dynamic, so no doing 55mph down at 20mph residential street! I suppose, by the time we actually implement this, it'll be moot, as we are getting closer and closer to automated cars.

The_SamminAter 4y ago

I support the idea, I only worry that there’s no way the manufacturers won’t record and transmit this information, to both themselves and ad/tracking companies.

JohnFen 4y ago

> with no false positives Not possible.

dangus 4y ago
Are you sure it's not possible? A whole lot of things we didn't think were possible are now known to be possible. Alas, maybe I should rephrase to "an acceptable level of accuracy and precision."

windows2020 4y ago

In a rural area, you had a few beers, you're at 0.07, and your wife has a stroke. The speed limit through nowhere is 50 and on the way you plateau at 0.09. If only the speed governor or alcohol monitor understood... Or, maybe a tornado or disaster occurs and you need to evacuate. Or, maybe you're moving your own car within your own driveway. No thanks! Rather than automated enforcement, we should teach why things are important.

dangus 4y ago
1. The disabling threshold could be set well above "buzzed" or "the legal limit" if that makes you feel better. Or, instead of being disabled, the car could be speed governed, hazard lights forced on, or something of that nature. Heck, if you want to teach us why things are important, implement the system without any disabling functionality and notify the driver that they're over the limit (a lot of buzzed drivers don't even know they've done something wrong in the first place). 2. Implementing a system to disable restrictions during major emergency events would be trivially complicated and inexpensive. We already have a national emergency alert system that pushes out to every cellular connection. Newly built cars very often have integrated cellular capabilities and always have some kind of software-based infotainment system. 3. It's not legal to drive drunk even on private property in a number of states, and being on private property doesn't make it any better of an idea even when it is technically legal. 4. Medical emergencies like the one you describe are more of a straw man argument than a concern with a lot of relevance to this topic. I could construct a similar argument: what if you live alone and have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving? The problem here is that rural areas have less access to fast emergency medical care in the first place, and that's just part of living in a rural area. 5. Rural areas have worse crash fatality statistics in the first place, so this system theoretically helps rural areas even more than urban ones. [1] 6. Let's say even after all this you still don't want it to be mandatory: the system could be offered as an insurance discount incentive and a lot of people would go for it. [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban-rural-comparison https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...
nonameiguess 4y ago
I'm not going to come out one way or another with a declaration of exactly where the line should be drawn (keeping in mind that in my younger years, I didn't even agree with seatbelt mandates), but this sort of tradeoff occurs with any rules at all. They inevitably cause at least some harm, but if the good outweighs the harm by a large enough measure, we adopt the rule anyway. Having speed limits and traffic signals at all is an obvious example. Somebody somewhere has died at least once because they weren't in an ambulance and their driver couldn't get to the hospital fast enough. You're effectively making the Jack Bauer argument. What if a nuke is about to go off and you're absolutely certain the guy you have knows where it is and how you can stop it? Rather than blanket bans on torture, we should teach interrogators how to have good judgement. I suspect you would not accept the exact same argument in that case.

VyseofArcadia 4y ago

It is a little dystopian. On the other hand, clearly the various legal and ethical reasons to not drink and drive aren't helping as much as they could. My understanding, though, is that driver training in the US is a joke compared to other countries. Aside from a lower age requirement, it is incredibly easy to get a learner's permit and driver's license here, so much so that the latter is the primary form of ID for almost everyone. Per the NHTSA[0], > In 2020, 29% of young drivers 15 to 20 years old who were killed in crashes had BACs of .01 g/dL or higher. So teenagers are driving earlier than other countries, but then, our alcohol culture is also pretty weird. There is an expectation of teetotaling until you hit 21. In practice, this means teenagers are sneaking out, frequently by car, to drink. [1] But then you have to ask, why are teenagers sneaking out by car? Well, that's because with only a handful of very dense, urban exceptions, there is no infrastructure to get around any other way. When an American says small town, what they mean is, "a town with a small population that is suprisingly large on the map". And when they say city, what they mean is, "a town with a larger population that is still surprisingly large on the map". These places don't have buses or bike trails or even sidewalks. The whole thing is a mess of unintended consequences from top to bottom. If we had better travel options, kids wouldn't need cars to sneak around. If we had a less puritanical alcohol culture, the kids wouldn't need to sneak around at all. If we didn't have rely on cars so extensively, we could raise driving age and driver test requirements to make the roads safer all around. Maybe instead of looking for the technological easy way out we ought to 1) promote safer forms of travel than every-man-for-himself multi-ton death machines, 2) treat them like the multi-ton death machines they are instead of handing out licenses like candy, and 3) embrace reality to give kids safe outlets to do what they're going to do anyway instead of burying our heads in the sand and pretending our precious little babies would never do anything bad. [0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#age-5056 https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving#age-5056 [1] The responsible parents I know are the ones who provide a safe environment for teenagers to learn the effects of alcohol, law be damned.

Budged 4y ago
Some great points here. I live in the U.S. (Tennessee) and in this state new drivers aren’t even required to do a driving exam, just a multiple choice exam. The roads are an absolute mess as a result, I’m constantly nearly getting hit by other drivers

marssaxman 4y ago

> as long as it’s done in a way that’s reliably accurate with no false positives Well, sure - in the kind of fantasy world where such things are possible, this could be a good idea.

dangus 4y ago
Are you sure it's a fantasy? We have all kinds of similar tests with acceptable accuracy and precision. Like, why are you jumping to the conclusion that engineers somewhere can't implement that? Seems to me that's like saying it'll never be possible to make a phone call without a phone line.

tomcam 4y ago

> and doesn’t phone the police or write a guilty-until-proven-innocent-ticket, you're funny

dangus 4y ago
I don't see why the idea isn't realistic. My car doesn't phone the police or write a ticket when the seatbelt chime goes off. Just write the behavior and individual rights into a law. What physical barrier stops my healthcare provider from publishing my health records? The law does, and it works.