4 ms·

Driving is a privilege, not a right. I'm not particularly unhappy about getting certain drivers off the roads.

by matsemann 3y ago

Retr0id 3y ago
Driving on public roads might be a privilege, but I don't think you can say the same about private roads.
- ponector 3y ago
  On private road you can drive whatever vehicle you want. This law wouldn't limit you.
  - Retr0id 3y ago
    People with street-legal cars should still have the right to drive them on private roads if they want to. This law restricts that.
    - shortcake27 3y ago
      So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?
      - Retr0id 3y ago
        You already have the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road.
        shortcake27 3y ago
        I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way. Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?
        Retr0id 3y ago
        Your question is simply not relevant, that isn't the choice being made here.
        shortcake27 3y ago
        Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.
        Retr0id 3y ago
        Typically, the person responding to a question gets to decide their response. I hope that clears things up for you. I disagree with your conclusion, but yes, I will refuse to engage further.
      - hiatus 3y ago
        This is a false dichotomy. There are myriad ways to prevent drunk driving that are not this technology.
    - ponector 3y ago
      But how? You can do whatever you want with your car on private road. Cut off the system which limits you and go forward. Would you complain that you couldn't reach speed greater than 20mph on stock electric scooter?
      - hiatus 3y ago
        > You can do whatever you want with your car on private road. Surprisingly, but absolutely, not true. For instance, in most places in the US at least, you can be prosecuted for DWI on a private road on your own property (as it is about operation of a motor vehicle regardless of place).
- namdnay 3y ago
  If it’s being driven on private roads your vehicle doesn’t need to be registered and so doesn’t need to respect any regulations being discussed
- matsemann 3y ago
  Then you could also drive a non-road-legal car on those roads and don't care about rules for cars used on public roads. I.e. I don't see how the existence of private roads is relevant to this issue.
LgWoodenBadger 3y ago
Driving is most certainly a right, just like your ability to post on the internet is a right. The fact that people think it’s a privilege graciously given by the government to a grateful people is a big part of the problem.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  I doubt most people would agree that you have a right to drive no matter how much you have had to drink.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Driving is a privilege, not a right. In the US, the ability to drive commonly determines other abilities such as working, buying food and keeping scheduled appointments - inc medical ones and ones mandated by governments. For a sizable % of the population: Driving is a privilege in the same way that being housed, eating, keeping needed health and not suffering persistent government penalties are all privileges.
Aurornis 3y ago
> I'm not particularly unhappy about getting certain drivers off the roads. Why are you so convinced this technology will never false positive flag yourself? I’m baffled that so many HN commenters look at a bill written by lawmakers and assume that 100% perfect, no false-positive drunk driving detection technology can be produced and shipped in a couple years and that it will never, ever trigger on themselves. Only the bad people.
- TheCoelacanth 3y ago
  I think it's reasonable to assume a very low rate of false positives given that the manufacturers have a very strong incentive to prefer false negatives over false positives. A manufacturer that makes their detector too aggressive won't sell any cars, while there are no penalties in the law for making the detector too weak.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. I'm not particularly unhappy about getting certain drivers off the roads.

Retr0id 3y ago

Driving on public roads might be a privilege, but I don't think you can say the same about private roads.

ponector 3y ago
On private road you can drive whatever vehicle you want. This law wouldn't limit you.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  People with street-legal cars should still have the right to drive them on private roads if they want to. This law restricts that.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?
    - Retr0id 3y ago
      You already have the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road.
      - shortcake27 3y ago
        I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way. Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?
        Retr0id 3y ago
        Your question is simply not relevant, that isn't the choice being made here.
        shortcake27 3y ago
        Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.
        Retr0id 3y ago
        Typically, the person responding to a question gets to decide their response. I hope that clears things up for you. I disagree with your conclusion, but yes, I will refuse to engage further.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      This is a false dichotomy. There are myriad ways to prevent drunk driving that are not this technology.
  - ponector 3y ago
    But how? You can do whatever you want with your car on private road. Cut off the system which limits you and go forward. Would you complain that you couldn't reach speed greater than 20mph on stock electric scooter?
    - hiatus 3y ago
      > You can do whatever you want with your car on private road. Surprisingly, but absolutely, not true. For instance, in most places in the US at least, you can be prosecuted for DWI on a private road on your own property (as it is about operation of a motor vehicle regardless of place).
namdnay 3y ago
If it’s being driven on private roads your vehicle doesn’t need to be registered and so doesn’t need to respect any regulations being discussed
matsemann 3y ago
Then you could also drive a non-road-legal car on those roads and don't care about rules for cars used on public roads. I.e. I don't see how the existence of private roads is relevant to this issue.

LgWoodenBadger 3y ago

Driving is most certainly a right, just like your ability to post on the internet is a right. The fact that people think it’s a privilege graciously given by the government to a grateful people is a big part of the problem.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I doubt most people would agree that you have a right to drive no matter how much you have had to drink.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> Driving is a privilege, not a right. In the US, the ability to drive commonly determines other abilities such as working, buying food and keeping scheduled appointments - inc medical ones and ones mandated by governments. For a sizable % of the population: Driving is a privilege in the same way that being housed, eating, keeping needed health and not suffering persistent government penalties are all privileges.

Aurornis 3y ago

> I'm not particularly unhappy about getting certain drivers off the roads. Why are you so convinced this technology will never false positive flag yourself? I’m baffled that so many HN commenters look at a bill written by lawmakers and assume that 100% perfect, no false-positive drunk driving detection technology can be produced and shipped in a couple years and that it will never, ever trigger on themselves. Only the bad people.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago
I think it's reasonable to assume a very low rate of false positives given that the manufacturers have a very strong incentive to prefer false negatives over false positives. A manufacturer that makes their detector too aggressive won't sell any cars, while there are no penalties in the law for making the detector too weak.