Hacker News Reader

Comment by kryogen1c | Hacker News Reader

> You shouldn't be driving. Period.

what a stunningly pretentious and ignorant thing to say.

reasons to be tired and drive: rotating shiftwork, working multiple jobs, caring for a newborn, caring for the sick. that covers millions of people, off the top of my head, without doing any research. and those are only the most black-and-white examples. more ambiguous cases include: driving from physical activity like OP mentioned, long drives to visit friends/family, events like weddings.

if you want to make the argument that sleepy driving is more dangerous than we give it credit for, then we can talk - but thats not what you said. "You should never get behind the wheel if there's a chance you'll fall asleep!" is an absurd thing to say.

View on HN

> what a stunningly pretentious and ignorant thing to say.

It's not. We're talking about people's lives.

I've felt tired before and you know what I do? I nap in the parking lot. Because the remote chance I kill or maim myself or someone else is not worth the momentary discomfort. It's not fun, and sometimes people harass you, but it's far better than driving drowsy.

> reasons to be tired and drive: rotating shiftwork, working multiple jobs, caring for a newborn, caring for the sick.

None of that is an excuse to get behind a many thousand pound piece of equipment and not be able to control it.

> "You should never get behind the wheel if there's a chance you'll fall asleep!" is an absurd thing to say.

I stand behind my assertion and hope you'll come around.

The problem here is structural.

> None of that is an excuse to get behind a many thousand pound piece of equipment and not be able to control it.

The choice many people are presented with is: Get in car while tired vs miss a day of work and get fired.

That's it. They have no option of public transportation, walking, no other option. It is pretty obvious what action people are going to choose. So the solution here is to make sure that people aren't put into that position. We could talk about autonomous vehicles, work from home, flex hours, etc. But the fact is that when you present people with this choice you should expect them to choose driving while tired. This does not mean that it is safe or what they should do. This is not condoning the action. This is just saying that we should expect people to make that choice.

> I've felt tired before and you know what I do? I nap in the parking lot.

and this is exactly my point. you think being tired is exceptional, something you just "nap" and solve. you have clearly never been exhausted for months on end. I have. I have nodded off on highways, and worked with people that fell asleep at stoplights. not everyone gets to have 9 hours of sleep and then work 8 hours in a chair.

> None of that is an excuse to get behind a many thousand pound piece of equipment and not be able to control it.

i'm glad youre so concerned about public safety, but those people are probably more concerned about eating and paying rent (or their infant, or dying parent, etc).

> I stand behind my assertion and hope you'll come around.

this isnt about me or my opinion. there are literal millions of people that simply cannot do what you propose (and millions more that will not because they dont share your opinion in the grayer areas), despite your objection that "None of that is an excuse". you seem to be confused about what options people have.

I agree -- it seems like many of the responders here are unaware of just how much privilege they have. (Or maybe they're just not in the US.) You can't just take a nap you need to pick a child up or the boss expects you at the next shift or you'll end up with DSS/Police at your door, or unemployed. Is this right? No, of course not, but it's reality. Hell, many people are driving vehicles that are very unsafe, which also poses a risk to others, for the same reason -- they have no choice.

I empathize, but this is still rationalization.

Having children is a choice, and sometimes people back themselves into untenable situations. You can't use children as an excuse to put the lives of others at risk. Realize what you're saying here.

People driving cars they can't afford to upkeep are also risking themselves and others.

Yes, it sucks. I empathize. I shouldn't be throwing stones. But if I'm a juror on a vehicular homicide case I'm not going to think less of deaths that were caused because the defendant had children to take to school. It would be more compelling than a DUI case, but it doesn't bring people back to life.

Almost no one should have children then, as very few of us have sufficient resources to guarantee we can support a child for 18+ years. Just having a child in the car is distracting and puts others at risk, but we accept that. And once the child is there, and it becomes a struggle to meet the schedule, then what? Give them up?

Obviously this line of thought has devolved pretty far from the original point as someone who can afford a car with driver drowsiness detection can probably afford to make different choices. It's just the idea that no one should ever drive when they have even a slight risk of falling asleep seems quite unrealistic, at least in the US.

Personally, I can find myself a bit tired by the end of the day. I've never felt at risk of falling asleep while driving, but I'm human, so can't say with certainty that it will never happen. Maybe a driver aid will lull some into driving when they know they shouldn't, but I still think it will be a net win (just like seat belts).

Don't try to normalize this behavior or generate sympathy for these idiots. People like you make my blood boil. I have had multiple family members almost killed (one suffered horrific brain damage) because of drunk/drowsy drivers. Seriously, screw you, bigly.

>this isnt about me or my opinion. there are literal millions of people that simply cannot do what you propose

What so we're in some kind of hunger games now? "I have to kill your family so that I can feed mine"?.

Some options: Stay home, stay hungry, get fired, take a lower paying job, go on welfare, go live in the jungle if you have to, Just.. don't kill my family.

> "You should never get behind the wheel if there's a chance you'll fall asleep!" is an absurd thing to say.

No it isn't? We expect drivers to be able to react to situations that can arise when your driving a ton of metal and plastic. 24 hours w/o sleep is equivalent to having a BAC ~0.1%; well above the legal limit. Sure; most people aren't staying up 24 hours and going for a cross-country road trip, but you need to be aware of what affect is has on your ability to operate (https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/about_sleep/drowsy_driving.html)

It is a sensible request but an absurd demand.

Unless we first institute livable wages with sane working hours and paid commute time along with free childcare.

So that survival does not demand that people abuse their bodies with lack of sleep.

agreeing that externalities like house work, parenting, commuting exist, have cost, and need to be considered in a viable economy could be a great step.

Doughnut economics is one such approach.

https://www.ted.com/talks/kate_raworth_a_healthy_economy_sho...

I totally agree; there should never be a situation where an individual is required to put their life and limb on the line to provide for their families.

It still does not justify placing the life and limbs of all other people on the road in jeopardy.

But that's the system we've put in place, and people have to live within it. They have to provide for their families, and that may end up placing them or those around them at risk.

It may not be justified, but it's reality.

> reasons to be tired and drive

What? You have provided a long list of reasons not to drive. It's the law and a moral requirement that you don't go out and kill other people or yourself due to incapacitation.

People drive with varying levels of alertness, yes. But if there is a reasonable, foreseeable chance you might FALL ASLEEP, then no, of course you ABSOLUTELY should not be driving and I'm sad but not surprised that this needs to be pointed out.

> what a stunningly pretentious and ignorant thing to say.

You might want to brush up on the HN guidelines. Talking like that to people is never OK here, nowhere near it.

If you're for some reason drunk and one of these reasons to drive comes up, does the logic still apply? I'd say not. So why would it apply to being tired?

what a stunningly pretentious and ignorant thing to say.

It is not, and just to be absolutely clear, none of the scenarios you mentioned justifies doing it either.

Driving while tired is comparable in effect to driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs or while distracted by devices such as phones. It can easily cause sufficient delay in reaction or error in judgement to lead to a serious accident that was entirely avoidable.

Driving while tired enough to actually fall asleep is a matter of life and death. Unless you are literally doing so in order to avoid an imminent and even greater likelihood of death -- and if you are, then I humbly suggest that it is extremely unlikely that you are truly in danger of falling asleep at the wheel yourself anyway -- you are risking the lives of everyone around you, as well as your own, and you should be treated accordingly in the eyes of the law for their benefit as well as your own. In my country, that would potentially mean multiple years in jail, a driving ban and being forced to take an extended test to demonstrate your competence again before being allowed back behind the wheel. And that's if you were lucky and got pulled over before you caused an actual accident.

The 'you shouldn't be driving' commenters are people who are are either living in a privileged high-income bubble and don't understand what real life is like for most of the population, or are logical purists thinking about this issue in isolation without considering what real life is like for most of the population. Neither of those demographics has considered that their 'you shouldn't be driving, period' policy would cause a lot more damage than it would mitigate, when considered at a societal scale.

The fact that this kind of policy would do net negative damage is trivial to arrive at, and is exactly why no country has ever stopped people with this issue from driving even though the issue itself is well known. The 'shouldn't be driving' mindset is tunnel visioning and swatting a fly in your house with a nuclear missile.

The fact that anyone going against that viewpoint is getting downvoted makes it pretty clear that HN is trending towards reddit where downvotes have become an 'I disagree' button. It's been pretty sad watching this trend play out over the last couple of years.

There's a big difference between driving when you are knowingly on the verge of falling asleep, and driving while slightly under-rested.

Exactly how have you established what the commenters have or haven't considered? To me, its silly to make this about class or economic status. Also, this is not just a made up "policy" . Its the law (well, in most countries). If you want to relax the laws so that drowsy/reckless driving is accepted, you are welcome to present an actual argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com