Hacker News Reader

Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com