Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

Technically the wording is vague enough that they could be referring to anything, but the article specifically highlights distracted driving systems that scan drivers’ eyes:

> Among the systems that have been studied are ones that monitor a driver for signs of distracted, impaired or fatigued driving. One uses sensors that scan drivers’ eyes for signs that are similar to ones that police officers look for when they suspect impairment during traffic stops.

Even breathalyzers aren’t as fool-proof as they sound. Apparently eating certain meals right before using a breathalyzer can trigger false positives. Even breathalyzers have not insignificant numbers of false positives they would become a huge problem if forced upon the entire driving population.

So even with breathalyzers, it’s still about magical thinking about technology’s ability to monitor people’s behavior.

View on HN

Indeed the wording is vague, and the response to a positive sensor detection is not specified at all. So maybe it’s premature to worry too much about the amount of damage it might do, since we don’t even know what it will do, and it hasn’t passed yet?

Do you think the goal is worth pursuing? Imagine we could achieve zero false positives, would you be in favor of it then? Would it depend on what the system does with a positive detection? If we could have perfect detection of drink driving, should we? Or, said another way, should it be anyone’s right to choose whether they drive drunk?

It’s worth remembering that it was argued that mandatory seatbelts were also terrible overreach, as well as other mandatory safety measures like airbags, child seats, mandatory motorcycle helmets, etc, despite the fact that the safety results are unequivocally positive. It seems like in the US we tend to have a problem with things that are mandatory, regardless of the benefits or outcomes.

I see it as an issue of convenience vs actual benefits. Create a system that can tell if I am drunk with near-perfect accuracy from just me being in a vehicle and I am ok with it.

However the current systems we have imply that I'd have to blow into something every time to start my car, that straw thing would get full of saliva, and on top of that there could be false positives so it's obviously a big no.

The difference is between this and say mandatory seatbelts is that the car won't refuse to start if it thinks that someone isn't buckled. I would refuse to buy a car that did try that, as that's just asking for inconvenient sensor failures that leave you stranded.

> I would refuse to buy a car that did

ok, but if it's mandated that means you'll do without a car

There are enough used cars available today that I'm pretty sure I could just buy used for the rest of my life and not have to worry about that.

I don't think I will have to worry about it though because if such legislation ever passed, it wouldn't be long before someone got stranded in the middle of nowhere and died next to a perfectly functional car that refused to start up, the media would make a big deal about it, and the legislation would be reverted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com