Hacker News Reader

Comment by spuz | Hacker News Reader

The claim that those fact-checking websites are "gaslighting" is itself gaslighting. If you actually read the statements they make, it's clear they are debunking the claim that the law requires a kill-switch that can be activated remotely. They correctly state that the law requires a switch that can disable the car when it detects an impaired driver. Just because not everyone is as up in arms about the law as the author of this article, doesn't mean they are misinformed.

View on HN

Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise.

But not only is this article imprecise in its criticism of the law, it sounds to me like the law (which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? How well has that technology been going lately?

The article may be bad, but the law also sounds bad. This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill, but deserves some discussion on its own.

> which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist.

The technology exists.

The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... .

The definition is:

    In this section:
            (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention 
        technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving 
        prevention technology'' means a system that--
                    (A) can--
                          (i) passively monitor the performance of a 
                      driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify 
                      whether that driver may be impaired; and
                          (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation 
                      if an impairment is detected;
                    (B) can--
                          (i) passively and accurately detect whether 
                      the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a 
                      motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the 
                      blood alcohol concentration described in section 
                      163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and
                          (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation 
                      if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal 
                      limit is detected; or
                    (C) is a combination of systems described in 
                subparagraphs (A) and (B).

In the findings:

            (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 
        advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can 
        prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities 
        annually; and

That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... .

"""Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented."""

Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation.

> You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that?

See the DADSS link.

See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ).

See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues.

> And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over?

The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement.

> This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill

This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade.

Nothing seems wrong with the law.

Air sampling in the cabin might make sense for a fleet vehicle on a job site where nobody is supposed to have consumed alcohol, but it is a terrible idea for a privately owned passenger car. Imagine you're the designated driver after a night out: you haven't had a drop of alcohol to drink, but your passengers have, and because you're all breathing the same air you'll trip the sensor.

Yes, quoting the risks paper, "policy makers must define performance criteria for these devices".

What amount of error rate is low enough?

Even air bags "occasionally fail to deploy in higher speed crashes or deploy at lower speeds than anticipated, resulting in injuries and deaths that would otherwise not be expected".

A quick look at the literature says DADSS tests your scenario. In "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – PILOT FIELD OPERATIONAL TESTS (PFOT) VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION AND INTEGRATION OF DADSS TECHNOLOGY" at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/26/26ESV-000262.pd...

> After comprehensive research that investigated optimal sensor placement in numerous locations within the vehicle, the sensor was adapted for installation in the DADSS research vehicles in four different positions: above the steering column, above the glove box, in the passenger’s door panel and in the driver’s door panel. These positions improved analysis of the impact of cabin air flow and the driver’s position on alcohol measurements as well as optimized performance. It also allows a sober driver to operate the vehicle while a dosed passenger can provide samples for analysis.

and in proposed field testing:

> Drivers will not be permitted to consume alcohol and only alcohol-free measurements will be obtained from the driver side sensors. Passengers will be asked to consume two different amounts of alcohol, approaching a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.02-0.03% and 0.04-0.05%, respectively.

> a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle.

How can you detect the driver's blood-alcohol content by measuring ambient air in a vehicle that might include passengers? Should a taxi get blocked from transporting drunk passengers? And how does this work in a convertible with open top?

I don't think it can be passive. I think the driver is going to have to blow into a breathalyzer before they can start the engine.

The law specifically calls for passive sensors as part of "Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology". A breathalyzer that you blow into is an active sensor, and as it's been around for decades is not that advanced.

You can Google Scholar the DADSS citations yourself about how the technology works.

The regulations haven't been created yet. This bill says the experts need to figure out those details, and if it isn't possible, to let Congress know.

Well, I'm very skeptical about whether it's possible to do this passively. Analyzing driving behaviour seems unreliable, and more importantly, it's too late. Analyzing ambient air in the vehicle includes passengers in the test and won't work with open-topped vehicles. You need something that singles out the driver before the car starts driving.

Maybe, if the car requires a button press to start, that button press can also be used to analyze the blood somehow?

I'm skeptical too, but section 24218 (e) makes it clear that it may take 10 or more years to be put into place. (If it has been delayed by 10 years then Congress needs a special report.)

Most cars aren't convertibles. If a convertible has its roof down, then maybe there will be a special clause.

Furthermore, breath and blood were only the first two methods I tracked down, from DADSS. The text I quoted earlier mentions technology from Volvo, which https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23363673/volvo-ex90-elect... says is in the EX90. ("Volvo’s EX90 electric SUV will have laser sensors and cameras that can detect drunk driving.")

The law is clearly written to allow that alternative, which would work for convertibles.

There appears to be a lot of research on the topic, and I have (checks watch) a total of 75 minutes knowledge of it.

That's also what I got out of reading the linked fact checks vs. the article here. They are talking about two different things, a local-only thing that analyzes driving patterns vs a remote killswitch. Those are substantially different - however both are quite misguided IMO.

If they were being honest, or at least more complete in their debunking description, the law doesn't need to require a kill switch as car computers can already disable your vehicle.

Any number of sensors on the car can trigger the computer to disable the vehicle. The law is only needing to require a new type of data collection and software kill switch trigger.

I agree with the OP, that it is a form of gaslighting. I haven't read the fact checking websites in a while, but seeing them now it's clear that they exhibit political bias just like most news organizations these days while having the veneer of being unbiased; such a shame. For example, here is the article headline on PolitiFact:

  The 2021 infrastructure bill requires all new vehicles to have kill switches that will stop vehicle operation and alert law enforcement when drivers are impaired.

Which is rated "Mostly False." Why isn't it rated "Half True?" Literally one half of the statement is true and the other false according to their own article. Their first section is titled:

  In-vehicle technology is coming to stop impaired drivers, but it does not involve law enforcement

and the TL;DR is:

  * The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 mandated that within three years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration must create in-vehicle technology to hinder people who are under the influence from driving. But third parties, including law enforcement, will not have access to the in-vehicle systems or be able to see drivers’ results. 

  * The administration partnered with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety to create the technology that is expected to monitor drivers’ alcohol levels using sensors and infrared lights in vehicles. If the system detects a blood alcohol level above 0.08%, the vehicle will not move.

This isn’t advanced math. A AND B is false if either A or B is false.

Please constructively add to the conversation rather than trotting out poorly reasoned quips.

Clearly, natural language is not formal logic [1]. And even if it was, the statement doesn't necessarily translate into formal logic so straightforwardly [2].

[1]: https://www.argumentninja.com/view/courses/vl-principles-of-... [2]: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/2359592

The problem with claiming the law mandates a ‘kill switch’ is that most people on reading that claim will assume it means a remote kill switch. The law does not mandate - or even contemplate - a remote kill switch. So saying this is a ‘kill switch’ law is misleading. If you want to call it something snappy, a less emotive word like ‘lockout’ might be appropriate.

People choosing to call this a kill switch are making an emotive, inaccurate word choice to advance an agenda. That is precisely the kind of behavior fact checking is intended to correct.

People have object permanence and see "local, for now" kill switches and cars having cellular modems and the security state in the last two decades and put it all together.

Ah. Paranoia and the slippery slope. Always a compelling argument.

The requirement does not apply to all new vehicles right way, nor even after the NHTSA requirement goes into place, but between 2-3 years after that requirement.

And the requirement can be pushed back a few years if needed.

A safety interlock is not a kill switch.

The bill does not require a kill switch nor safety interlock! It says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". The "or" is important.

From the risk paper I linked to earlier at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd..., "Depending on the intended use of the device, a range of outcomes might occur; the car could be prevented from being put in gear, could be limited to lower top speed using a “limp mode,” or the driver could simply be given a warning."

The first two of those would definitely "limit motor operation" as required by the law, but the middle is not meaningfully described as a kill switch.

The details of how it should work are yet to be decided.

I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure. That said to me when a law requires kill switch if it detects drunk driving - that would seem to me as qualifing as "true" any statement that says "the law requires a kill switch." This also applies for good laws requiring a kill switch.

I think your statement "up in arms" suggests the conclusion, these fact checkers are rating it as false because they are not in arms about the law. But being up in arms is not relevant to whether a statement is true or false.

I think if the fact checkers were being genuine, they would rate it as true and give an explanation about the benefits of the law

> I think this bill is a good idea and a good safety measure

I’m curious: Do you also think that automakers can produce good drunk driver detection and ship it in a couple years?

Are you willing to have a car that some times false positive flags you as drunk and shuts down?

Or are you assuming the technology is so perfect that it can’t possibly ever apply to you?

well all tech is imperfect, you can't have perfect tech or anything that works 100% of the time. The question is what is the false positive rate. If getting a false positive or break in the tech once a year or less dramatically reduces drunk driving, it's worth it to me. We already have sensors that help cars release less pollutants which can sometimes fail and cause the car not to drive properly. I don't see why this tech should be treated any different

Indeed. My first thought when I read this article's description of the law was "where's the _switch_?". Not literally a switch of course, but there's not even a figurative switch IMO. It's a something else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com