5 ms·

It's easy to find out if someone is driving as though they are impaired, less easy to find out if they actually are. Medical emergencies spring to mind as somet

It's easy to find out if someone is driving as though they are impaired, less easy to find out if they actually are. Medical emergencies spring to mind as something that will be hard to distinguish. How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth?

pinkgolem 3y ago
I mean.. is it not more helpful if those people wait on the side of the road for 10-15 minutes till an ambulance/helicopter is there? If they are driving like a drunk driver I would assume the same risks are included...
- sethammons 3y ago
  I have lived the majority of my life in Southern California and the fastest emergency personnel could get to my home is 25 minutes, speeding. I assume you are unfamiliar with rural living, a common shortsightedness I see on this forum.
  - pinkgolem 3y ago
    My city has a whopping 500 people, if it's something urgent... They send out an helicopter. Would be very surprised if there are places further away then 15 minutes from a helicopter where you can reach any sensibel healthcare infrastructure faster by car A women having early contractions, most likely would not qualify even for emergency lights.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > If they are driving like a drunk driver This is the core problem: If we assume that the drunk driving protection is 100% accurate and there are never any false positives under any conditions, the bill seems more reasonable. But I’m struggling to understand why people on HN of all places are assuming this drunk driving protection will be absolutely perfect and never trigger unless absolutely justified. Anyone who works with technology doing fuzzy classification or detection tasks knows how impossible it is to get the accuracy being implied in this thread.
matsemann 3y ago
That "pregnant wife in backseat" argument is so stupid, and is always being used to excuse all kinds of dangerous driving. The amount of lives saved by someone speeding with a pregnant wife is minuscule compared to the amount of lives being saved by not making driving like a lunatic possible.
- mcny 3y ago
  I think this kill switch does not belong in the US. Firstly, I've seen people who have DWI get a special license to drive to work and to get groceries. We simply do not have the public transit infrastructure. Come back with this when we have decent coverage of public transit. Secondly, we don't have universal health care. You could end up with thousands in just ambulance expenses if you are out of network. If I am not imminently dying (how can I judge that?), we are driving ourselves. Thirdly, this likely makes cars more expensive. See first point. We can't do that without decent public transit coverage. Yes, we have a lot of people die on the roads in the US. No, the solution isn't as easy as adding a kill switch.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > Firstly, I've seen people who have DWI get a special license to drive to work and to get groceries. Do they get a licence to drive while intoxicated? Or people with a history of driving while intoxicated are bared from general driving, but get a special licence so they can drive but only to work and to get groceries?
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      The latter.
      - krisoft 3y ago
        In that case how is this an argument against the type of kill switch described?
orwin 3y ago
If it's an emergency and you're far enough that this is an issue, waiting for the emergency vehicle is probably faster (they also have access to meds that will slow down contractions or make them less painful). (edit: I don't have a strong opinion on the original subject, but I think you're right. I just don't like your example, hence my comment)
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth? What would be the problem with that? If you don't make it to the hospital before giving birth, you don't need to go to the hospital at all. The reason you might want to be in a hospital while in labor is in case something goes wrong that prevents you from successfully giving birth.
paulmd 3y ago
If someone is driving so sleepy or having such a medical crisis that they can’t keep the car on the road, they shouldn’t be driving even if they’re sober. The harm to others doesn’t go away just because it’s “medical”, you are still just as dead if grandpa falls asleep and crosses the centerline. And it is still a crime to do so - you can be arrested for driving too sleepy already. Much like CSAM, this is one where there not clear daylight between the advertised situation and other similar situations (why would you want to stop pedos but leave mass shooters able to communicate?) other than the targeted class being particularly villainized by society at large. People should really have the faith of their convictions and discuss this as a generalized thing, “what is the benefit of having killswitches in all our cars for impaired drivers” and not just pretend that it’s only alcoholics who are dangerous on the road. This will eventually be coming for anyone who displays dangerous driving even if it’s “medical” and should really be viewed in that context. I’m not saying that’s entirely a bad thing either. Maybe we’d all be safer if our cars spied on us 24/7. But people are generally repulsed at that idea because I’m not a filthy drunk driver, how dare you treat me like one. It was never about road safety at all, it was about getting one up on the underclass who we’ve socially determined it’s ok to scorn and hate. If you think that’s not the case, contrast our social attitudes towards using a cellphone, which is equally dangerous to other drivers, and equally willful, and is so broadly accepted that people get upset about new laws to stop it. Clearly with some of these medical issues, it’s not because of the harm per se but because of the social villianization - it’s okay to hate drunk drivers or fat people, and we don’t have that radicalization 24/7 against these other (equally if not more dangerous) behaviors. https://journalistsresource.org/economics/cell-phones-and-driver-performance/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/cell-phones-and-dr... Also, reminder that alcoholism is a medical problem too, not sure how that take gets started in the first place. But overweight and alcoholism are definitely villianized because of the perception that it’s “your fault” whereas not getting enough sleep last night is not your fault at all! It’s quite difficult to talk about some of these topics for a lot of people because “drunk driving bad”… but in a harms sense it’s no more harmful than grandpa getting behind the wheel and crossing the centerline because he’s 75 and not a good driver anymore. And both individuals do consciously make that choice. And if grandpa or a narcoleptic have a right to drive to work because that’s what our society requires of them… so does the alcoholic. It’s weird to give people a “drive while impaired” pass when the idea is supposedly about harm reduction - again, you’re just as dead if grandpa crosses the centerline as if a drunk driver did it.
masklinn 3y ago
> It's easy to find out if someone is driving as though they are impaired, less easy to find out if they actually are. Medical emergencies spring to mind as something that will be hard to distinguish. For the average medical emergency, everyone would probably be better off with the car stopping by the roadside: heart attack, stroke, confusion, … are not improved by hitting other cars, buildings, pedestrians. > How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth? I would say if this is anything more than a movie trope it would be solved better by fixing your medical system, and not having to drive dangerously and illegally in the first place. Planted into a tree is not a great way to give birth.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > For the average medical emergency, everyone would probably be better off with the car stopping by the roadside: heart attack, stroke, confusion, … are not improved by hitting other cars, buildings, pedestrians. Why are you assuming the person with the problem is driving? That’s not what anyone is talking about. The point was that someone driving a passenger to the hospital would be in a justifiable rush. > I would say if this is anything more than a movie trope it would be solved better by fixing your medical system, and not having to drive dangerously and illegally in the first place. Planted into a tree is not a great way to give birth. It’s not a movie trope, rushing sick people to the hospital is a real thing that happens. It’s not a problem with the medical system. It takes longer for an ambulance to drive all the way to your location first and then to drive to the hospital than it would for someone to put you in their car and leave for the hospital immediately in most cases. You’re taking the most bad-faith interpretations of what people are suggesting, but you’re really just setting up straw man arguments and missing the point.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    > Why are you assuming the person with the problem is driving? Because it's what the average "medical emergency" involving "driving as though impaired" is. > That’s not what anyone is talking about. The point was that someone driving a passenger to the hospital would be in a justifiable rush. No, the point was "medical emergency", and "driving as though impaired". > It’s not a movie trope, rushing sick people to the hospital is a real thing that happens. It absolutely is a movie trope, having to endanger everyone because you need to drive like a maniac due to a medical emergency is a rounding error occurrence in the real world. > It’s not a problem with the medical system. Of course it is, the fact that you entertain is as a genuine possibility very much speaks to a lack of pregnancy care and access to emergency services and medical care. > You’re taking the most bad-faith interpretations of what people are suggesting, but you’re really just setting up straw man arguments and missing the point. Medical emergencies at the wheel are anything but a strawman, it's a daily occurrence in the US. Even more so in the context of "driving as though they are impaired". If we're talking strawman, that is absolutely what "rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife who otherwise won't make it" is, it's a nonsense movie scenario entirely made up to pull on heartstrings.
hnbad 3y ago
Either the American medical system is in even worse shape than I thought or you're far too credulous when it comes to Hollywood tropes. Labor rarely works like it does in the movies and unless you live in extremely remote places (in which case you should probably have a midwife on call) you should have ample time to drive to a hospital. Often the mere act of going somewhere else (i.e. leaving the house) can "reset" labor. If you're already in the actual process of giving birth, you definitely shouldn't be in a car going anywhere. The last thing you want to do with a pregnant person in labor is drive recklessly and endanger the lives of everyone involved including passengers of other vehicles and pedestrians. If you have a medical emergency, you should call an ambulance. You're not a trained emergency vehicle driver. You're stressed and potentially in shock. You're not safe to drive. If you drive in such a reckless way that you're indistinguishable from a drunk driver, you're not safe to drive and you're a danger to yourself and everyone else.

pinkgolem 3y ago

I mean.. is it not more helpful if those people wait on the side of the road for 10-15 minutes till an ambulance/helicopter is there? If they are driving like a drunk driver I would assume the same risks are included...

sethammons 3y ago
I have lived the majority of my life in Southern California and the fastest emergency personnel could get to my home is 25 minutes, speeding. I assume you are unfamiliar with rural living, a common shortsightedness I see on this forum.
- pinkgolem 3y ago
  My city has a whopping 500 people, if it's something urgent... They send out an helicopter. Would be very surprised if there are places further away then 15 minutes from a helicopter where you can reach any sensibel healthcare infrastructure faster by car A women having early contractions, most likely would not qualify even for emergency lights.
Aurornis 3y ago
> If they are driving like a drunk driver This is the core problem: If we assume that the drunk driving protection is 100% accurate and there are never any false positives under any conditions, the bill seems more reasonable. But I’m struggling to understand why people on HN of all places are assuming this drunk driving protection will be absolutely perfect and never trigger unless absolutely justified. Anyone who works with technology doing fuzzy classification or detection tasks knows how impossible it is to get the accuracy being implied in this thread.

matsemann 3y ago

That "pregnant wife in backseat" argument is so stupid, and is always being used to excuse all kinds of dangerous driving. The amount of lives saved by someone speeding with a pregnant wife is minuscule compared to the amount of lives being saved by not making driving like a lunatic possible.

mcny 3y ago
I think this kill switch does not belong in the US. Firstly, I've seen people who have DWI get a special license to drive to work and to get groceries. We simply do not have the public transit infrastructure. Come back with this when we have decent coverage of public transit. Secondly, we don't have universal health care. You could end up with thousands in just ambulance expenses if you are out of network. If I am not imminently dying (how can I judge that?), we are driving ourselves. Thirdly, this likely makes cars more expensive. See first point. We can't do that without decent public transit coverage. Yes, we have a lot of people die on the roads in the US. No, the solution isn't as easy as adding a kill switch.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > Firstly, I've seen people who have DWI get a special license to drive to work and to get groceries. Do they get a licence to drive while intoxicated? Or people with a history of driving while intoxicated are bared from general driving, but get a special licence so they can drive but only to work and to get groceries?
  - actionfromafar 3y ago
    The latter.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      In that case how is this an argument against the type of kill switch described?

orwin 3y ago

If it's an emergency and you're far enough that this is an issue, waiting for the emergency vehicle is probably faster (they also have access to meds that will slow down contractions or make them less painful). (edit: I don't have a strong opinion on the original subject, but I think you're right. I just don't like your example, hence my comment)

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth? What would be the problem with that? If you don't make it to the hospital before giving birth, you don't need to go to the hospital at all. The reason you might want to be in a hospital while in labor is in case something goes wrong that prevents you from successfully giving birth.

paulmd 3y ago

If someone is driving so sleepy or having such a medical crisis that they can’t keep the car on the road, they shouldn’t be driving even if they’re sober. The harm to others doesn’t go away just because it’s “medical”, you are still just as dead if grandpa falls asleep and crosses the centerline. And it is still a crime to do so - you can be arrested for driving too sleepy already. Much like CSAM, this is one where there not clear daylight between the advertised situation and other similar situations (why would you want to stop pedos but leave mass shooters able to communicate?) other than the targeted class being particularly villainized by society at large. People should really have the faith of their convictions and discuss this as a generalized thing, “what is the benefit of having killswitches in all our cars for impaired drivers” and not just pretend that it’s only alcoholics who are dangerous on the road. This will eventually be coming for anyone who displays dangerous driving even if it’s “medical” and should really be viewed in that context. I’m not saying that’s entirely a bad thing either. Maybe we’d all be safer if our cars spied on us 24/7. But people are generally repulsed at that idea because I’m not a filthy drunk driver, how dare you treat me like one. It was never about road safety at all, it was about getting one up on the underclass who we’ve socially determined it’s ok to scorn and hate. If you think that’s not the case, contrast our social attitudes towards using a cellphone, which is equally dangerous to other drivers, and equally willful, and is so broadly accepted that people get upset about new laws to stop it. Clearly with some of these medical issues, it’s not because of the harm per se but because of the social villianization - it’s okay to hate drunk drivers or fat people, and we don’t have that radicalization 24/7 against these other (equally if not more dangerous) behaviors. https://journalistsresource.org/economics/cell-phones-and-driver-performance/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/cell-phones-and-dr... Also, reminder that alcoholism is a medical problem too, not sure how that take gets started in the first place. But overweight and alcoholism are definitely villianized because of the perception that it’s “your fault” whereas not getting enough sleep last night is not your fault at all! It’s quite difficult to talk about some of these topics for a lot of people because “drunk driving bad”… but in a harms sense it’s no more harmful than grandpa getting behind the wheel and crossing the centerline because he’s 75 and not a good driver anymore. And both individuals do consciously make that choice. And if grandpa or a narcoleptic have a right to drive to work because that’s what our society requires of them… so does the alcoholic. It’s weird to give people a “drive while impaired” pass when the idea is supposedly about harm reduction - again, you’re just as dead if grandpa crosses the centerline as if a drunk driver did it.

masklinn 3y ago

> It's easy to find out if someone is driving as though they are impaired, less easy to find out if they actually are. Medical emergencies spring to mind as something that will be hard to distinguish. For the average medical emergency, everyone would probably be better off with the car stopping by the roadside: heart attack, stroke, confusion, … are not improved by hitting other cars, buildings, pedestrians. > How many people rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife in the back will no longer make it before giving birth? I would say if this is anything more than a movie trope it would be solved better by fixing your medical system, and not having to drive dangerously and illegally in the first place. Planted into a tree is not a great way to give birth.

Aurornis 3y ago
> For the average medical emergency, everyone would probably be better off with the car stopping by the roadside: heart attack, stroke, confusion, … are not improved by hitting other cars, buildings, pedestrians. Why are you assuming the person with the problem is driving? That’s not what anyone is talking about. The point was that someone driving a passenger to the hospital would be in a justifiable rush. > I would say if this is anything more than a movie trope it would be solved better by fixing your medical system, and not having to drive dangerously and illegally in the first place. Planted into a tree is not a great way to give birth. It’s not a movie trope, rushing sick people to the hospital is a real thing that happens. It’s not a problem with the medical system. It takes longer for an ambulance to drive all the way to your location first and then to drive to the hospital than it would for someone to put you in their car and leave for the hospital immediately in most cases. You’re taking the most bad-faith interpretations of what people are suggesting, but you’re really just setting up straw man arguments and missing the point.
- masklinn 3y ago
  > Why are you assuming the person with the problem is driving? Because it's what the average "medical emergency" involving "driving as though impaired" is. > That’s not what anyone is talking about. The point was that someone driving a passenger to the hospital would be in a justifiable rush. No, the point was "medical emergency", and "driving as though impaired". > It’s not a movie trope, rushing sick people to the hospital is a real thing that happens. It absolutely is a movie trope, having to endanger everyone because you need to drive like a maniac due to a medical emergency is a rounding error occurrence in the real world. > It’s not a problem with the medical system. Of course it is, the fact that you entertain is as a genuine possibility very much speaks to a lack of pregnancy care and access to emergency services and medical care. > You’re taking the most bad-faith interpretations of what people are suggesting, but you’re really just setting up straw man arguments and missing the point. Medical emergencies at the wheel are anything but a strawman, it's a daily occurrence in the US. Even more so in the context of "driving as though they are impaired". If we're talking strawman, that is absolutely what "rushing to the hospital with a pregnant wife who otherwise won't make it" is, it's a nonsense movie scenario entirely made up to pull on heartstrings.

hnbad 3y ago

Either the American medical system is in even worse shape than I thought or you're far too credulous when it comes to Hollywood tropes. Labor rarely works like it does in the movies and unless you live in extremely remote places (in which case you should probably have a midwife on call) you should have ample time to drive to a hospital. Often the mere act of going somewhere else (i.e. leaving the house) can "reset" labor. If you're already in the actual process of giving birth, you definitely shouldn't be in a car going anywhere. The last thing you want to do with a pregnant person in labor is drive recklessly and endanger the lives of everyone involved including passengers of other vehicles and pedestrians. If you have a medical emergency, you should call an ambulance. You're not a trained emergency vehicle driver. You're stressed and potentially in shock. You're not safe to drive. If you drive in such a reckless way that you're indistinguishable from a drunk driver, you're not safe to drive and you're a danger to yourself and everyone else.