I'm against a device that may or may not record me or take my health stats and report them to a central database every time I get into a vehicle. I don't trust this not to be used as yet another automated surveillance tool for the government. if there is one thing I don't trust the government with, it's visibility at scale.
If we had guts, we would ban bars from selling anyone more than three drinks, and ban bars from serving anyone who has had a drink anywhere else that day. (or something, I'm brainstorming).
Meh, prohbiition dont work, we tried it. We cant even keep kids from drinking. Theres already a cultural shift away from as much heavy drinking, a lot more of the young people I know dont drink at all or drink only a bit and are more accepting of people who don't drink.
Also how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database.
>how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database.
Holding bars accountable.
TABC (Texas bar regulator) tells all bartenders TODAY that you cannot serve someone to excess (above 0.08% BAC) and cannot serve someone who is already drunk. I guarantee you that every single bartender in Texas has violated this regulation.
When the regulations step in with reality, and are enforced, maybe fewer people would be overserved.
It is widely accepted that driving a dangerous machine that endangers the lives of others is a privilege and responsibility that comes with restrictions.
I'm just surprised this is coming before verifying license and insurance status before allowing the car to start. Seems like that'd be easier (and equally undesirable).
Probably not your next car, or the car after that. From what I gather, this is a "maybe" kind of thing, 10 years out. And even with that, auto manufacturers can and will drag their feet like they have other regulation (back seat child detection)
"The text later on in this section of the bill alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward."
> alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward
Government: oh god, if we don't implement this thing in 10 years, then maybe this other branch of the government is going to maybe explain why and provide steps we can maybe take.
This reminds me of the requirement in the 2012 infrastructure bill that all electronic toll collection systems must be interoperable by 2016.
It's 2021, further from the deadline than the deadline itself was from the signing of the legislation, and the only major movement in this regard is that a few more systems have joined EZPass (North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota), and that North Carolina, Georgia and Florida created their own interoperability set.
People conceptualize cars as an extension of themselves, their own private pod that they control entirely, but as automation technology improves I think they're going to have to start thinking of it more like boarding a train or an airplane. Increasingly, we'll have tech to make decisions for drivers that are much better than the decisions they make for themselves (even before we get to full automation). This includes stuff like breaking for obstacles, but it might also include things like speed governors or GPS-enabled traffic-law enforcement.
I don't see any way around it. Once you have the tech to prevent an automobile from exceeding the speed limit in a school zone it's obscene to manufacture cars that respond only to the input of the driver's foot on the accelerator, with no other considerations. At some point, "I have decided to drive 130 mph down a residential street, because that's what I've decided to do in this exact moment and I have a right to be in control of my own car" just isn't good enough. You have all these other inputs and, what, you're just going to ignore them?
Oh God yes. Computers don't get impatient, don't let their temper spiral out of control, don't "bravely" try to get to work on 3 hours of sleep, don't display crab-bucket jerk moves, etc. Cars bring out the worst in people and it comes with life altering consequences for innocent people.
Cars are not freedom on four wheels, it's simply one method, among many, for you go to work and buy groceries.
Not true. Maybe you are a foreigner? It is worth explaining how we see cars. Ever since especially 40s and later they represent the ability for any person to go wherever desired without conforming to somebody else's schedule. We see them as "freedom on four wheels" and will work to keep them that way even if you think they shouldn't be.
We can make a car so that it knows it's raining, it can tell the tires are getting poor traction, it knows its location, it knows it's in a school zone, it knows the prevailing speed limit, it has cameras and can see there are children crossing the street ahead, internal cameras sense that the driver isn't paying attention, the stereo is loud, and yet -- the car should ignore every one of those inputs, because if the driver presses their foot on the accelerator pedal, then that means it should increase its speed, without any other consideration, because of "freedom?"
It's absurd.
Why would you manufacture a means of conveyance that behaves that way? You certainly wouldn't ever allow one on a public street, not when you have all the tech I described above. That's a bad product. I mean, it might describe an ATV or something -- a vehicle you use for fun off of public thoroughfares. But it's not a serious vehicle that meets the standards for operating on public rights of way.
Please do not mock freedom. The freedom to push on the accelerator pedal even when The Computer thinks I should not means I can get me and my kid out of a dangerous situation the computer doesn't know about. Freedom is control over your own body, life, and property. There is a lot of responsibility that comes with this control. Sorry if I don't want to out source control over my person to a computer or parts of society with whom I share no values.
This is the "extension of yourself" part I opened with. You're still talking about the car likes it's an extension of youself. It isn't. It's just a tool. And it doesn't limit your freedom in any way that we require this particular tool to meet certain operational standards in order to be allowed on a public road. I reject the notion that there's even a freedom component here at all.
We already regulate practically every aspect of driving. You're just used to those things, so they seem invisible.
This sounds a lot like gun control. In likelyhood you are going to hurt yourself more than prevent harm from happening... but banning guns does mean that on the off chance a gang of bank robbers storms into your house your are powerless.
I believe there was a car in the 80's that would not start the ignition if the driver's seatbelt wasn't on. One day a women was trying to flee from an attempted rapist and was too panicked to buckle in... and well he got to her, and she sued.
The tradeoffs between general benefits and particular harms have lots of nuance and really plug into deep personal values.
And maybe I can trace my family back to the 1600's? Thanks for your "explanation". I know exactly how people see cars. My great-grandfather, a Boston driver if there ever was, raged against stop lights when they were introduced: "Ain't no machine going to tell me when to stop and go!" People love their "shortcuts" that go down neighborhood streets at 20 over and which aren't actually any faster.
That "freedom" comes at the cost of people's homes that made way for highways, fortunes spent on a car that became necessary to hold a job, and lives because "oh it was just an _accident_". It seems more like slavery to me.
> And maybe I can trace my family back to the 1600's?
This is totally off topic, but I recently came across a bunch of information about my family tree that totally changed my perception of this. By the time you get back this far you're talking about literally tens of thousands of living ancestors. I had always heard my family came here at the end of the 19th century, but it turns out some of them were already here in the 17th, because, again, this far back you're talking maybe 20,000 people. It's not the, like, 8-10 ancestors whose names you know from 1900.
All it takes is for one of those thousands to have set up here and at some point for one of their descendants to have procreated with somebody in your ancestral line, who maybe came here much later for it to be true that your ancestry here technically goes back to whenever they first got here.
I won't want to buy a car that makes sub optimal decisions for me. I want emergency breaks and blind spot warnings, I want cruise control and an awesome radio, but I won't buy a car I don't control, unless I can get one that is driverless and where I can still set it to aggressive mode, and select the route.
Can you buy a car without seatbelts? It doesn't really matter if you think a car with seatbelts is suboptimal for any reason. They don't sell cars without seatbelts.
Something similar is eventually going to happen with a bunch of this other stuff.
The problem is that it is federal overreach. I'm fine with doing it on a state by state basis, but this has no business being in the purview of the federal govt.
WTF. I remember when I was younger and driving maybe not drunk but heavily buzzed was more accepted, glad it's not any more. This is stupid though, I dont want a machine that thinks it knows better than me. Subtitle on the article is accurate, this is nanny state bullshit.
Edit: people downvoting are supporting an increase police state. We shouldnt make people prove their not committing a crime to do normal stuff. This is like stop and frisk but automotive.
> I dont want a machine that thinks it knows better than me.
I'm against requiring something like this universally, but drunk driving is such a big problem because intoxicated people feel overconfident in their driving abilities. That's definitely a case where the machine would know better than you.
I don't think so. If my car told me that I had a too high BAC, I would either think "WTF car, I had a beer yesterday and that is it", or "shit, fuck, what the hell I was certain I could drive now".
The trouble comes when the car won't let me override the controls.
My tire preasure warning has been going on for little under a week now, but there is no reason for it, so I will reset it soonish. I do appreciate my car warning me though - it took only a few minutes to check.
My brother-in-law had to travel for work and left his car with us. It's a 2020 Honda Civic.
The tire pressure warning light came on when I drove it a week ago. I checked the tires, only 1 was 2 PSI low. I filled it up in my garage and then drove it to run some errands, thinking that it would detect the correct pressure and reset the warning light. Nope.
I check the manual and there is some tire pressure monitoring system in play that requires an arcane sequence of button presses on the touchscreen display to start the reset process and then the car is required to be driven around for up to an hour between 55 and 60 miles per hour.
I can't believe that people accept this sort of shit. Who has time for this sort of shit? I know that these sorts of systems aren't new but this is much worse than the last time I encountered one of these "drive at X speed for Y minutes/miles" systems. And this isn't preventing operation of the vehicle, it's just annoying.
My concern is that at least 70%-80% of the population of the country doesn't even consume enough alcohol to be legally drunk in the first place [0]. What happens when this machine decides those people are drunk and can't safely operate their vehicle?
You're downvoted but i could legit see a scenario where it refused to take you certain places if there was a lockdown order. Since some countries are leaving those in place for people not vaccinated, its possible.
Sure, it could happen (doesn't make it legitimate). Maybe the system could even get over the air updates curtailing your movement if you happened to vote for the wrong party in the last election, or said something naughty on twitter. So much for freedom, was a nice experiment while it lasted.
If they start putting breathalyzer interlocks in all cars, they had better be more accurate and less fiddly than the ones that they force some DUI offenders to have installed.
3rd party interlocks (of any kind) are always going to work far worse than 1st party. They’re generic and make assumptions about the vehicle that are wrong more often than not.
3rd party interlocks suck because everybody who uses one is forced to do so or otherwise be subject to state violence. Every breakdown nets these companies hundreds in service and calibration fees.
Auto companies who want to make it not suck for their customer will do far better.
Alright, good. Drunk driving is prevalent and deadly - and typically not to the drunk driver, but to innocents in other cars or even buildings. Keep those idiots off the road.
Can the mechanism break? Of course. But so can your wireless key. So can any one of dozens of computers or sensors required to run your engine. Nothing new here.
The nanny state argument was old when people were protesting seat belts.
Broken seat belt will not stop cars from running. Nanny state argument I think still applies to seat belt for an individual person, just requiring that kids wear them is okay though. When did we decide government got to stop ppl from doing stupid shit?
My vehicles do not (and the instructions for most "keyless" starting mechanisms is the same). They will emit an active RF signal to read the key as a backup to a dead battery, but if the chip is dead the car won't start.
It might be old, but its still true. I'm not anti seat belt (I track cars, and I understand safety), I'm anti seat belt laws, since it gives the police a ready made excuse to pull you over for yet another reason.
I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident.
Removing seat belt laws will not curb police abuse of power. It's treating a symptom, not a cause.
Accepting a philosophy of withholding medical care in cases like that would lead to a society of cripples and dead. I don't see how that's desirable or an improvement.
Health Insurance and medical care are too completely separated things.
Denying health insurance would just ensure medical bankruptcy and financial woes for anyone who was believed to have been seatbeltless, regardless of proof, since this isn't a court of law, but a "private company" decision.
> I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident.
Ultimately that just means we as a society pay for it, since they're still going to get emergency treatment but won't be able to pay the bill.
IMO any of these approaches are unlikely to do much, because most people don't consider the potential consequences when they're assuming something won't happen to begin with. Or IE. If people aren't wearing seat belts, they're already assuming they won't get in a crash, so the potential financial consequences don't matter. If they were actually considering such things they would probably be wearing their seat belt, since the potential risk of death or being maimed is always there regardless of your insurance policy ;)
Also FWIW I'm pretty sure the police cannot pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, they have to be pulling you over for some other reason (Not saying it's not still a problem, but there's some nuance there).
In the dead of winter, you’re traveling at night along a road with no cell service. The outside temperature on your dash reads -20F. Brrr. It’s a good thing the car is nice and warm. Just another 15 miles and you’ll be rolling into town to that ski chalet.
You’re thirsty, so you pick up your favorite—-a nice can of Coke. Suddenly a chime from the dash and the engine power drops. ‘DRUNK DRIVING DETECTED” flashes as the car pulls itself over to the side of the road and cuts the engine. A swirl of snow passes over the hood. You push the start button again, but now “INTOXICATED DRIVER DETECTED. WAIT 8 HOURS BEFORE STARTING” appears on the screen. The chill from outside rapidly permeates the cabin as “NO SERVICE” glares ominously from your phone. It’s only another 9 miles to town… maybe you can make it…
Alcohol detection from your breath isn't some new, untested thing, it's been around for over half a century. And it's going to mistake a coke for a beer. Or rather, it's as likely to make that mistake as your exhaust sensor is to break, rendering your car equally "dead".
- Go to someone's place after a nice date last week
- Have a few drinks
- They turn out to be dangerous and you fear for your safety
- You run to your car to escape while they're in the bathroom
- "Your BAC percentage is above the legal limit. Please try again in 30 minutes"
We'd need a dashboard indicator to indicate that it refused to start due to alcohol. After all, it might just be broken down independent of the driver's alcoholic state at that point.
This is a contrived and very unlikely scenario. Maybe we should prioritize for the far more common scenario of people killing and maiming others and themselves while DUI
Obviously I used an extreme example, but we shouldn't let machines make decisions that could easily be overruled in an argument with a human arbiter.
How we deal with known offenders is another discussion, but adding these kinds of preemptive limitations to our hardware is unwanted overreach, that sets a bad precedent. Something about a slippery slope.
For anyone who drives a car and thinks this is a good idea, why not go right now and voluntarily get a breathalyzer retrofitted in your current car? If you don't want to do that, then you should really rethink your position.
If you’re into this then you should also be into not allowing you to go above the speed limit at any time. You should also like that your car won’t turn unless you’ve properly signaled for the correct amount of time.
I don’t drink and I’m against this. I don’t think it’s something I should have to pay for. Punish drunk drivers with life in jail and they’ll stop. As it is, the punishments for a DUI are too low - that and many people in the US drink and drive because they are low-key suicidal and completely fine if they die while driving drunk. Very common way for men in the military to die - happens every holiday.
I was in Finland once in the mid 1970s. At the time, the drunk driving laws were very strict.
I seem to remember someone telling me that if you get caught driving while impaired a second time then you lose your license for the rest of your life.
There is no pass if your work depends on your ability to drive, no pass if it is a hardship in your life. No pass. Period.
73 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadIf we had guts, we would ban bars from selling anyone more than three drinks, and ban bars from serving anyone who has had a drink anywhere else that day. (or something, I'm brainstorming).
Also how would you prevent other bars from selling to people without a centralized database.
Holding bars accountable.
TABC (Texas bar regulator) tells all bartenders TODAY that you cannot serve someone to excess (above 0.08% BAC) and cannot serve someone who is already drunk. I guarantee you that every single bartender in Texas has violated this regulation.
When the regulations step in with reality, and are enforced, maybe fewer people would be overserved.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/43086/new-cars-will-have-to-de...
"The text later on in this section of the bill alludes to this possibility, stating that if 10 years have passed and this mandate hasn't been implemented, the Secretary of Transportation is gonna have to explain why and provide some possible steps forward."
Government: oh god, if we don't implement this thing in 10 years, then maybe this other branch of the government is going to maybe explain why and provide steps we can maybe take.
It's 2021, further from the deadline than the deadline itself was from the signing of the legislation, and the only major movement in this regard is that a few more systems have joined EZPass (North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota), and that North Carolina, Georgia and Florida created their own interoperability set.
I don't see any way around it. Once you have the tech to prevent an automobile from exceeding the speed limit in a school zone it's obscene to manufacture cars that respond only to the input of the driver's foot on the accelerator, with no other considerations. At some point, "I have decided to drive 130 mph down a residential street, because that's what I've decided to do in this exact moment and I have a right to be in control of my own car" just isn't good enough. You have all these other inputs and, what, you're just going to ignore them?
Cars are not freedom on four wheels, it's simply one method, among many, for you go to work and buy groceries.
It's absurd.
Why would you manufacture a means of conveyance that behaves that way? You certainly wouldn't ever allow one on a public street, not when you have all the tech I described above. That's a bad product. I mean, it might describe an ATV or something -- a vehicle you use for fun off of public thoroughfares. But it's not a serious vehicle that meets the standards for operating on public rights of way.
We already regulate practically every aspect of driving. You're just used to those things, so they seem invisible.
I believe there was a car in the 80's that would not start the ignition if the driver's seatbelt wasn't on. One day a women was trying to flee from an attempted rapist and was too panicked to buckle in... and well he got to her, and she sued.
The tradeoffs between general benefits and particular harms have lots of nuance and really plug into deep personal values.
That "freedom" comes at the cost of people's homes that made way for highways, fortunes spent on a car that became necessary to hold a job, and lives because "oh it was just an _accident_". It seems more like slavery to me.
This is totally off topic, but I recently came across a bunch of information about my family tree that totally changed my perception of this. By the time you get back this far you're talking about literally tens of thousands of living ancestors. I had always heard my family came here at the end of the 19th century, but it turns out some of them were already here in the 17th, because, again, this far back you're talking maybe 20,000 people. It's not the, like, 8-10 ancestors whose names you know from 1900.
All it takes is for one of those thousands to have set up here and at some point for one of their descendants to have procreated with somebody in your ancestral line, who maybe came here much later for it to be true that your ancestry here technically goes back to whenever they first got here.
Exponential growth surprises, yet again.
Something similar is eventually going to happen with a bunch of this other stuff.
I also hate stuff like this because "Computers don't argue": https://www.atariarchives.org/bcc2/showpage.php?page=133 Computer says you're drunk so tough shit, you cant drive to work. Try again tomorrow.
Edit: people downvoting are supporting an increase police state. We shouldnt make people prove their not committing a crime to do normal stuff. This is like stop and frisk but automotive.
"Im afraid i cant do that.."
"Why not hal?"
"Your colone is to rich in ethanol. And so is the window-cleaning fluid and the stuff they spilled over your shirt."
"But im not drunk. Let me proof it."
I'm against requiring something like this universally, but drunk driving is such a big problem because intoxicated people feel overconfident in their driving abilities. That's definitely a case where the machine would know better than you.
The trouble comes when the car won't let me override the controls.
My tire preasure warning has been going on for little under a week now, but there is no reason for it, so I will reset it soonish. I do appreciate my car warning me though - it took only a few minutes to check.
The tire pressure warning light came on when I drove it a week ago. I checked the tires, only 1 was 2 PSI low. I filled it up in my garage and then drove it to run some errands, thinking that it would detect the correct pressure and reset the warning light. Nope.
I check the manual and there is some tire pressure monitoring system in play that requires an arcane sequence of button presses on the touchscreen display to start the reset process and then the car is required to be driven around for up to an hour between 55 and 60 miles per hour.
I can't believe that people accept this sort of shit. Who has time for this sort of shit? I know that these sorts of systems aren't new but this is much worse than the last time I encountered one of these "drive at X speed for Y minutes/miles" systems. And this isn't preventing operation of the vehicle, it's just annoying.
[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/think...
Auto companies who want to make it not suck for their customer will do far better.
Can the mechanism break? Of course. But so can your wireless key. So can any one of dozens of computers or sensors required to run your engine. Nothing new here.
The nanny state argument was old when people were protesting seat belts.
The backup key is for opening the door.
I think the proper way to encourage seat belt use would have been to allow insurance companies to not cover injuries to insured motorists who were found to not be wearing seat belts at the time of the accident.
Accepting a philosophy of withholding medical care in cases like that would lead to a society of cripples and dead. I don't see how that's desirable or an improvement.
Denying health insurance would just ensure medical bankruptcy and financial woes for anyone who was believed to have been seatbeltless, regardless of proof, since this isn't a court of law, but a "private company" decision.
Ultimately that just means we as a society pay for it, since they're still going to get emergency treatment but won't be able to pay the bill.
IMO any of these approaches are unlikely to do much, because most people don't consider the potential consequences when they're assuming something won't happen to begin with. Or IE. If people aren't wearing seat belts, they're already assuming they won't get in a crash, so the potential financial consequences don't matter. If they were actually considering such things they would probably be wearing their seat belt, since the potential risk of death or being maimed is always there regardless of your insurance policy ;)
Also FWIW I'm pretty sure the police cannot pull you over for not wearing your seat belt, they have to be pulling you over for some other reason (Not saying it's not still a problem, but there's some nuance there).
You’re thirsty, so you pick up your favorite—-a nice can of Coke. Suddenly a chime from the dash and the engine power drops. ‘DRUNK DRIVING DETECTED” flashes as the car pulls itself over to the side of the road and cuts the engine. A swirl of snow passes over the hood. You push the start button again, but now “INTOXICATED DRIVER DETECTED. WAIT 8 HOURS BEFORE STARTING” appears on the screen. The chill from outside rapidly permeates the cabin as “NO SERVICE” glares ominously from your phone. It’s only another 9 miles to town… maybe you can make it…
Alcohol detection from your breath isn't some new, untested thing, it's been around for over half a century. And it's going to mistake a coke for a beer. Or rather, it's as likely to make that mistake as your exhaust sensor is to break, rendering your car equally "dead".
You're free to buy as much alcohol as you want, and have a drink whenever you want.
Unless you endanger and hurt other people.
For this bill you can thank the many assholes who abuse that freedom. As always.
One of Dahmer's victims got away and was so drugged that the cops returned him to Dahmer who proceeded to eat him.
"Why didn't the victim just drive away?"
"I found trace remnants of Jack Daniels on her clothing, the killer must've asked her to roll down the window, splashed it inside the car..."
"If you had gotten here sooner we wouldn't have to amputate your <insert extremity here>"
"yeah well nobody on scene could start their car and EMS took 30min to arrive".
How we deal with known offenders is another discussion, but adding these kinds of preemptive limitations to our hardware is unwanted overreach, that sets a bad precedent. Something about a slippery slope.
But, detecting etanol levels in blood is a fairly well established set of processes that rely on well understood electrochemical reactions.
I don't see too much risk of arbitrary unfair decisions from a dumb interlocking device.
I personally wouldn't mind if everyone's car could detect drunk drivers.
I don’t drink and I’m against this. I don’t think it’s something I should have to pay for. Punish drunk drivers with life in jail and they’ll stop. As it is, the punishments for a DUI are too low - that and many people in the US drink and drive because they are low-key suicidal and completely fine if they die while driving drunk. Very common way for men in the military to die - happens every holiday.
I seem to remember someone telling me that if you get caught driving while impaired a second time then you lose your license for the rest of your life.
There is no pass if your work depends on your ability to drive, no pass if it is a hardship in your life. No pass. Period.
Congress mandates anti-drunk driving technology for cars - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198086 - Nov 2021 (7 comments)
US infrastructure bill includes law that aims to end drunk driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29198055 - Nov 2021 (43 comments)
Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29188260 - Nov 2021 (96 comments)
Congress' new mandate to carmakers: Figure out a way to stop drunk driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183613 - Nov 2021 (86 comments)
Drunken-Driving Warning Systems Would Be Required for New Cars Under U.S. Bill - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29183374 - Nov 2021 (4 comments)
Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29178229 - Nov 2021 (2 comments)
Congress mandates new car technology to stop drunken driving - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29169239 - Nov 2021 (1 comment)