6 ms·

The claim that those fact-checking websites are "gaslighting" is itself gaslighting. If you actually read the statements they make, it's clear they are debunkin

by spuz 3y ago

The claim that those fact-checking websites are "gaslighting" is itself gaslighting. If you actually read the statements they make, it's clear they are debunking the claim that the law requires a kill-switch that can be activated remotely. They correctly state that the law requires a switch that can disable the car when it detects an impaired driver. Just because not everyone is as up in arms about the law as the author of this article, doesn't mean they are misinformed.

jdiez17 3y ago
That's also what I got out of reading the linked fact checks vs. the article here. They are talking about two different things, a local-only thing that analyzes driving patterns vs a remote killswitch. Those are substantially different - however both are quite misguided IMO.
mrmanner 3y ago
Indeed. My first thought when I read this article's description of the law was "where's the _switch_?". Not literally a switch of course, but there's not even a figurative switch IMO. It's a something else.
mcv 3y ago
Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise. But not only is this article imprecise in its criticism of the law, it sounds to me like the law (which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? How well has that technology been going lately? The article may be bad, but the law also sounds bad. This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill, but deserves some discussion on its own.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. The technology exists. The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... . The definition is: In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- (i) 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 (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B). In the findings: (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-could-prevent-more-than-a-fourth-of-u-s-road-fatalities https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... . """Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented.""" Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technology-be-in-u-s-cars-and-trucks/ https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation. > You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? See the DADSS link. See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ). See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues. > And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement. > This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade. Nothing seems wrong with the law.
_heimdall 3y ago
If they were being honest, or at least more complete in their debunking description, the law doesn't need to require a kill switch as car computers can already disable your vehicle. Any number of sensors on the car can trigger the computer to disable the vehicle. The law is only needing to require a new type of data collection and software kill switch trigger.
nsagent 3y ago
I agree with the OP, that it is a form of gaslighting. I haven't read the fact checking websites in a while, but seeing them now it's clear that they exhibit political bias just like most news organizations these days while having the veneer of being unbiased; such a shame. For example, here is the article headline on PolitiFact: The 2021 infrastructure bill requires all new vehicles to have kill switches that will stop vehicle operation and alert law enforcement when drivers are impaired. Which is rated "Mostly False." Why isn't it rated "Half True?" Literally one half of the statement is true and the other false according to their own article. Their first section is titled: In-vehicle technology is coming to stop impaired drivers, but it does not involve law enforcement and the TL;DR is: * The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 mandated that within three years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must create in-vehicle technology to hinder people who are under the influence from driving. But third parties, including law enforcement, will not have access to the in-vehicle systems or be able to see drivers’ results. * The administration partnered with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety to create the technology that is expected to monitor drivers’ alcohol levels using sensors and infrared lights in vehicles. If the system detects a blood alcohol level above 0.08%, the vehicle will not move.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  This isn’t advanced math. A AND B is false if either A or B is false.
  - nsagent 3y ago
    Please constructively add to the conversation rather than trotting out poorly reasoned quips. Clearly, natural language is not formal logic [1]. And even if it was, the statement doesn't necessarily translate into formal logic so straightforwardly [2]. [1]: https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-argument-analysis/44942-how-to-think-about-the-logical-connectives-in-propositional-logic/129977-the-difference-between-natural-languages-and-formal-languages https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-... [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592 https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592
- 3y ago
vivekd 3y ago
I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure. That said to me when a law requires kill switch if it detects drunk driving - that would seem to me as qualifing as "true" any statement that says "the law requires a kill switch." This also applies for good laws requiring a kill switch. I think your statement "up in arms" suggests the conclusion, these fact checkers are rating it as false because they are not in arms about the law. But being up in arms is not relevant to whether a statement is true or false. I think if the fact checkers were being genuine, they would rate it as true and give an explanation about the benefits of the law
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure I’m curious: Do you also think that automakers can produce good drunk driver detection and ship it in a couple years? Are you willing to have a car that some times false positive flags you as drunk and shuts down? Or are you assuming the technology is so perfect that it can’t possibly ever apply to you?
  - vivekd 3y ago
    well all tech is imperfect, you can't have perfect tech or anything that works 100% of the time. The question is what is the false positive rate. If getting a false positive or break in the tech once a year or less dramatically reduces drunk driving, it's worth it to me. We already have sensors that help cars release less pollutants which can sometimes fail and cause the car not to drive properly. I don't see why this tech should be treated any different

by spuz 3y ago

jdiez17 3y ago

That's also what I got out of reading the linked fact checks vs. the article here. They are talking about two different things, a local-only thing that analyzes driving patterns vs a remote killswitch. Those are substantially different - however both are quite misguided IMO.

mrmanner 3y ago

Indeed. My first thought when I read this article's description of the law was "where's the _switch_?". Not literally a switch of course, but there's not even a figurative switch IMO. It's a something else.

mcv 3y ago

Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise. But not only is this article imprecise in its criticism of the law, it sounds to me like the law (which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? How well has that technology been going lately? The article may be bad, but the law also sounds bad. This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill, but deserves some discussion on its own.

eesmith 3y ago
> which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. The technology exists. The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... . The definition is: In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- (i) 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 (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B). In the findings: (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-could-prevent-more-than-a-fourth-of-u-s-road-fatalities https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... . """Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented.""" Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technology-be-in-u-s-cars-and-trucks/ https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation. > You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? See the DADSS link. See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ). See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues. > And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement. > This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade. Nothing seems wrong with the law.

_heimdall 3y ago

If they were being honest, or at least more complete in their debunking description, the law doesn't need to require a kill switch as car computers can already disable your vehicle. Any number of sensors on the car can trigger the computer to disable the vehicle. The law is only needing to require a new type of data collection and software kill switch trigger.

nsagent 3y ago

I agree with the OP, that it is a form of gaslighting. I haven't read the fact checking websites in a while, but seeing them now it's clear that they exhibit political bias just like most news organizations these days while having the veneer of being unbiased; such a shame. For example, here is the article headline on PolitiFact: The 2021 infrastructure bill requires all new vehicles to have kill switches that will stop vehicle operation and alert law enforcement when drivers are impaired. Which is rated "Mostly False." Why isn't it rated "Half True?" Literally one half of the statement is true and the other false according to their own article. Their first section is titled: In-vehicle technology is coming to stop impaired drivers, but it does not involve law enforcement and the TL;DR is: * The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 mandated that within three years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must create in-vehicle technology to hinder people who are under the influence from driving. But third parties, including law enforcement, will not have access to the in-vehicle systems or be able to see drivers’ results. * The administration partnered with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety to create the technology that is expected to monitor drivers’ alcohol levels using sensors and infrared lights in vehicles. If the system detects a blood alcohol level above 0.08%, the vehicle will not move.

amanaplanacanal 3y ago
This isn’t advanced math. A AND B is false if either A or B is false.
- nsagent 3y ago
  Please constructively add to the conversation rather than trotting out poorly reasoned quips. Clearly, natural language is not formal logic [1]. And even if it was, the statement doesn't necessarily translate into formal logic so straightforwardly [2]. [1]: https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-argument-analysis/44942-how-to-think-about-the-logical-connectives-in-propositional-logic/129977-the-difference-between-natural-languages-and-formal-languages https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-... [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592 https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592
3y ago

vivekd 3y ago

I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure. That said to me when a law requires kill switch if it detects drunk driving - that would seem to me as qualifing as "true" any statement that says "the law requires a kill switch." This also applies for good laws requiring a kill switch. I think your statement "up in arms" suggests the conclusion, these fact checkers are rating it as false because they are not in arms about the law. But being up in arms is not relevant to whether a statement is true or false. I think if the fact checkers were being genuine, they would rate it as true and give an explanation about the benefits of the law

Aurornis 3y ago
> I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure I’m curious: Do you also think that automakers can produce good drunk driver detection and ship it in a couple years? Are you willing to have a car that some times false positive flags you as drunk and shuts down? Or are you assuming the technology is so perfect that it can’t possibly ever apply to you?
- vivekd 3y ago
  well all tech is imperfect, you can't have perfect tech or anything that works 100% of the time. The question is what is the false positive rate. If getting a false positive or break in the tech once a year or less dramatically reduces drunk driving, it's worth it to me. We already have sensors that help cars release less pollutants which can sometimes fail and cause the car not to drive properly. I don't see why this tech should be treated any different