24 ms·

> It's totally plausible to me that this kind of nudge will save a lot of lives. I think an in-car breathalyzer which gates the ignition would also save a lot

> It's totally plausible to me that this kind of nudge will save a lot of lives. I think an in-car breathalyzer which gates the ignition would also save a lot of lives. Most people agree that kind of manufactured paternalism is an overreach and would be against its introduction. Other people say the same about the diverted driving detector, and I imagine others said the same about the seatbelt sensor. The intersection of personal freedom and personal safety is an interesting topic, I don't think there's a right answer and it's ultimately pretty subjective.

Gigachad 3mo ago
It only sounds like overreach because we have become numb to an incredible amount of killing from distracted drivers.
- mattrighetti 3mo ago
  Did a quick research and saw that in 2024 there were around 12k deaths in which one or more drunk drivers were involved. Doesn’t seem like much for a country with around 350 million people. In comparison, drug causes 7x those deaths. Cancer and heart diseases even more.
  - Gigachad 3mo ago
    That's already a huge number. But it's ignoring the much larger issue of distracted drivers, usually on their phone.
  - Klathmon 3mo ago
    I feel like we have the technology to prevent a car from starting if the driver is significantly impared, but "solving" addiction, cancer, and heart disease are much harder problems. Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but I personally would be more than fine blowing into a tube to start my car if it meant saving 12k lives a year with a very low false positive rate. That being said I know it would never be implemented in a sane way in the US, and you would probably have situations like your car insurance automatically increasing due to a faulty sensor, so I'm ultimately against it unless a lot of other stuff changes. But it's still much more possible than "preventing drug addiction"
    - mattrighetti 3mo ago
      > Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but I personally would be more than fine blowing into a tube to start my car if it meant saving 12k lives a year with a very low false positive rate. I can already see two issues with these devices: - They can’t reliably identify the actual driver. Criminals might simply ask someone else to blow into the device. - With every car equipped with this safety feature, people might assume everyone driving isn’t drunk. I’m not sure. It seems like this will only add extra hassle for law-abiding citizens while those for whom it was designed will likely find workarounds.
      - zeratax 3mo ago
        i think of those 12k only a tiny minority would go that far. like at the point you are involving other people, why not just ask them to drive you home? like yea people will always find workarounds, but a solution doesnt have to be perfect to be effective.
  - ryantgtg 3mo ago
    Every car safety post on HN has "guy who thinks 12k deaths is maybe not too bad." Thanks, guy! You really put things in perspective there.
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      Guy probably doesn't personally know any of those 12k...
    - mattrighetti 3mo ago
      I was simply suggesting that perhaps this level of overreach isn’t justified. Of course, any road death is regrettable.
      - ryantgtg 3mo ago
        Most every road death is the outcome of a poor decision made by a human. It's too much responsibility for many people, given the propensity to make choices that increase the chance of death and serious injury to others.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    Cancer & heart disease you're counting basically all natural causes.
  - ajnin 3mo ago
    12k is obviously a large number of preventable deaths, especially, and it's a huge difference with diseases, when you consider that some of those deaths are people getting killed by drunk drivers. I don't think there is any acceptable number of people that did absolutely nothing wrong getting killed by a drunk or inattentive driver.
    - oalae5niMiel7qu 3mo ago
      If you simply lock everyone up for their whole lives, you can prevent all kinds of deadly accidents. Eventually, somebody will argue that we are all morally obliged to accept being locked up for this reason.
  - basisword 3mo ago
    I'm sure if you were one of those 12k your loved ones wouldn't be saying "what's 12k in a country of 350m?".
- lettergram 3mo ago
  > incredible amount of killing from distracted drivers > 1.10 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-department-announces-record-low-traffic-deaths-fatality-rates https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transpor... For reference, fatalities on bikes: > 9.32 fatalities per 100 million cyclist miles (6 deaths per 100M kilometers) https://www.calbike.org/urban-transportation-research-bike-fatalities/ https://www.calbike.org/urban-transportation-research-bike-f...
  - Gigachad 3mo ago
    The first link is a propaganda website so not really much use, and for the second one, pretty much all fatalities on bikes are the result of being killed by distracted drivers. >The US has eight times as many pedestrian deaths per mile as Germany. Clearly the US is unusually bad for distracted driving.
    - lettergram 3mo ago
      The stats come from the government agency in the US which tracks driver fatalities. Here's the source document: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813800 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... Regarding "distracted driving" causing cyclist fatalities, my point was more that bicyclists have a higher risk rate. If we're already going down this path for safety, banning bicycling would have a higher impact than reducing fatalities ~10% which is what the EU claimed it could prevent. Regarding the claim that "pretty much all fatalities on bikes are the result of being killed by drivers", that's simply not true. It also largely depends on laws and location. https://www.bikeattorney.com/bike-accident-common-causes.html https://www.bikeattorney.com/bike-accident-common-causes.htm... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/1364622...
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - 3mo ago
- oalae5niMiel7qu 3mo ago
  What we've become numb to is the massive amount of overreach that has already happened.
throw2ih020 3mo ago
> I think an in-car breathalyzer which gates the ignition would also save a lot of lives. > Most people agree that kind of manufactured paternalism is an overreach and would be against its introduction. Congress already passed a law in 2021 to start the process of requiring alcohol impairment detection in new cars around 2030 - the HALT Drunk Driving Act. It had broad, bipartisan support. I would say "most people agree" does not appear to be the case.
- hparadiz 3mo ago
  I have a hard time believing that the public at large is gonna be okay with having to blow into a hose anytime they turn on their cars.
  - awakeasleep 3mo ago
    The law only specifies the outcome (alcohol detection) not the implementation (hose blowing)
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      Maybe transdermal alcohol monitor could be put on the wheel
  - throw2ih020 3mo ago
    No need. There are now sensors which can passively detect the presence of alcohol on anyone's breath within the cabin, and sensors which can detect BAC when you put your finger on them. if alcohol_detected_in_cabin: promptDriverForFingerprint() The same cameras used to monitor if the driver is falling asleep can also check for cheating.
    - hparadiz 3mo ago
      That's nice. You can pay for it. I won't be.
austin-schick 3mo ago
I think I'd consider this kind of technology at the intersection of personal freedom and _public_ safety. Drunk or distracted driving puts others at risk, not just you.
CalRobert 3mo ago
Personal freedom to drive a two tonne battering ram at deadly speeds where others are walking, biking, etc should be heavily regulated.
oalae5niMiel7qu 3mo ago
There is no limit to how much paternalism most people will accept. Therefore, we're bound to lose all of our personal freedom eventually, "for your protection."

Gigachad 3mo ago

It only sounds like overreach because we have become numb to an incredible amount of killing from distracted drivers.

mattrighetti 3mo ago
Did a quick research and saw that in 2024 there were around 12k deaths in which one or more drunk drivers were involved. Doesn’t seem like much for a country with around 350 million people. In comparison, drug causes 7x those deaths. Cancer and heart diseases even more.
- Gigachad 3mo ago
  That's already a huge number. But it's ignoring the much larger issue of distracted drivers, usually on their phone.
- Klathmon 3mo ago
  I feel like we have the technology to prevent a car from starting if the driver is significantly impared, but "solving" addiction, cancer, and heart disease are much harder problems. Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but I personally would be more than fine blowing into a tube to start my car if it meant saving 12k lives a year with a very low false positive rate. That being said I know it would never be implemented in a sane way in the US, and you would probably have situations like your car insurance automatically increasing due to a faulty sensor, so I'm ultimately against it unless a lot of other stuff changes. But it's still much more possible than "preventing drug addiction"
  - mattrighetti 3mo ago
    > Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but I personally would be more than fine blowing into a tube to start my car if it meant saving 12k lives a year with a very low false positive rate. I can already see two issues with these devices: - They can’t reliably identify the actual driver. Criminals might simply ask someone else to blow into the device. - With every car equipped with this safety feature, people might assume everyone driving isn’t drunk. I’m not sure. It seems like this will only add extra hassle for law-abiding citizens while those for whom it was designed will likely find workarounds.
    - zeratax 3mo ago
      i think of those 12k only a tiny minority would go that far. like at the point you are involving other people, why not just ask them to drive you home? like yea people will always find workarounds, but a solution doesnt have to be perfect to be effective.
- ryantgtg 3mo ago
  Every car safety post on HN has "guy who thinks 12k deaths is maybe not too bad." Thanks, guy! You really put things in perspective there.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    Guy probably doesn't personally know any of those 12k...
  - mattrighetti 3mo ago
    I was simply suggesting that perhaps this level of overreach isn’t justified. Of course, any road death is regrettable.
    - ryantgtg 3mo ago
      Most every road death is the outcome of a poor decision made by a human. It's too much responsibility for many people, given the propensity to make choices that increase the chance of death and serious injury to others.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  Cancer & heart disease you're counting basically all natural causes.
- ajnin 3mo ago
  12k is obviously a large number of preventable deaths, especially, and it's a huge difference with diseases, when you consider that some of those deaths are people getting killed by drunk drivers. I don't think there is any acceptable number of people that did absolutely nothing wrong getting killed by a drunk or inattentive driver.
  - oalae5niMiel7qu 3mo ago
    If you simply lock everyone up for their whole lives, you can prevent all kinds of deadly accidents. Eventually, somebody will argue that we are all morally obliged to accept being locked up for this reason.
- basisword 3mo ago
  I'm sure if you were one of those 12k your loved ones wouldn't be saying "what's 12k in a country of 350m?".
lettergram 3mo ago
> incredible amount of killing from distracted drivers > 1.10 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transportation-department-announces-record-low-traffic-deaths-fatality-rates https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/trumps-transpor... For reference, fatalities on bikes: > 9.32 fatalities per 100 million cyclist miles (6 deaths per 100M kilometers) https://www.calbike.org/urban-transportation-research-bike-fatalities/ https://www.calbike.org/urban-transportation-research-bike-f...
- Gigachad 3mo ago
  The first link is a propaganda website so not really much use, and for the second one, pretty much all fatalities on bikes are the result of being killed by distracted drivers. >The US has eight times as many pedestrian deaths per mile as Germany. Clearly the US is unusually bad for distracted driving.
  - lettergram 3mo ago
    The stats come from the government agency in the US which tracks driver fatalities. Here's the source document: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813800 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... Regarding "distracted driving" causing cyclist fatalities, my point was more that bicyclists have a higher risk rate. If we're already going down this path for safety, banning bicycling would have a higher impact than reducing fatalities ~10% which is what the EU claimed it could prevent. Regarding the claim that "pretty much all fatalities on bikes are the result of being killed by drivers", that's simply not true. It also largely depends on laws and location. https://www.bikeattorney.com/bike-accident-common-causes.html https://www.bikeattorney.com/bike-accident-common-causes.htm... https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/136462246/when-bikes-and-cars-collide-whos-more-likely-to-be-at-fault https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/05/20/1364622...
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 3mo ago
oalae5niMiel7qu 3mo ago
What we've become numb to is the massive amount of overreach that has already happened.

throw2ih020 3mo ago

> I think an in-car breathalyzer which gates the ignition would also save a lot of lives. > Most people agree that kind of manufactured paternalism is an overreach and would be against its introduction. Congress already passed a law in 2021 to start the process of requiring alcohol impairment detection in new cars around 2030 - the HALT Drunk Driving Act. It had broad, bipartisan support. I would say "most people agree" does not appear to be the case.

hparadiz 3mo ago
I have a hard time believing that the public at large is gonna be okay with having to blow into a hose anytime they turn on their cars.
- awakeasleep 3mo ago
  The law only specifies the outcome (alcohol detection) not the implementation (hose blowing)
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    Maybe transdermal alcohol monitor could be put on the wheel
- throw2ih020 3mo ago
  No need. There are now sensors which can passively detect the presence of alcohol on anyone's breath within the cabin, and sensors which can detect BAC when you put your finger on them. if alcohol_detected_in_cabin: promptDriverForFingerprint() The same cameras used to monitor if the driver is falling asleep can also check for cheating.
  - hparadiz 3mo ago
    That's nice. You can pay for it. I won't be.

austin-schick 3mo ago

I think I'd consider this kind of technology at the intersection of personal freedom and _public_ safety. Drunk or distracted driving puts others at risk, not just you.

CalRobert 3mo ago

Personal freedom to drive a two tonne battering ram at deadly speeds where others are walking, biking, etc should be heavily regulated.

oalae5niMiel7qu 3mo ago

There is no limit to how much paternalism most people will accept. Therefore, we're bound to lose all of our personal freedom eventually, "for your protection."