And when the sensor fails, your car is a brick. Gee. I wonder what the markup on replacement sensors is gonna be. I wonder how intentionally failure-prone the sensor is gonna be too.
Even worse, let's say you are having a weather based emergency like what happened in Texas last winter... And the winter before and will probably happen again this winter... You've hooked up your vehicle as an emergency generator. But you can't turn it on because of this sensor.
You're not even trying to drive, you're just trying to get some power to your HVAC system so you don't freeze to death.
Sure, that's just one example and it doesn't happen every day, but this thing could prevent successful outcomes in multiple emergency situations.
We're better off investing in proper public transit rather than this shit.
Investing in public transit may accidentally help the poors, and they can't have that upon their conscience.
I’d like to know how the sensor will ensure the driver is sober when they’re the responsible designated driver trying to bring home a carload full of plastered friends… I have at least one friend that I know would think it’s hilarious (at the time) if he was a drunk passenger and could make the car stop by breathing on the driver etc.
A camera could focus on the drivers seat, but I feel like that would be lousy at this sort of thing… Is the driver drunk, is he shivering because it’s cold out? Does he have a cold, or even just a lazy eye or suffer from tremors of some sort?
Any sort of breath or touch sensor is going to need to be smart enough to distinguish between driver & passengers. And if it’s a touch sensor in the steering wheel does that mean no more gloves on a cold winter day?
The law requires a technology safety standard by November 2024 if the technology is ready.
The technology will never be ready. The accuracy required for such a thing to not be universally despised is absurd.
The technology will never be ready
I think you are right, I hope they don't push it in a half assed state.
Achieving the accuracy is not the major problem here, but keeping it accurate. You have to make it robust enough so it doesn't fail at random (sensors in general are a bitch in this regard) and it has to hold a perfect calibration for long enough (a assume chemical detection sensor, which again, are a super-bitch regarding calibrations), while also making it at least a bit hard to bypass. The other problem is the privacy nightmare this can be, analyzing fluids or cameras pointing to your face... are they gonna sell this data to insurance companies (just as an example, it could be other companies, your employer..)? Of course they are!
The only thing I would expect from this is a lot of people pissed or worst because of malfunctions while all the drunktards stay on the road by simply filling a ballon before they start drinking.
Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Aaaand of course this is been pushed by some Puritan-Americans lol
Tldr I rant at hypothetical, you can safely skip this
If I have a sensor, it's getting removed. If there's a camera or some such thing connecting to anywhere, it's either removed or I simply won't buy that car. Anything mandated by law for the end-user is getting bypassed and removed until there's some sort of inspection for it.
I don't drink, at all. Never could stand the taste of alcohol. So anything mandated by law to make sure I'm not drinking and driving is simply an inconvenience, another barrier between a person and what is necessity to do anything in this country (no I don't care that some people can personally get to your work, the store, and family with a 10 minute bus ride, that simply isn't reality for anyone outside dense cities) and I'm pretty biased against government agencies raising the bar for things that mostly only affect poorer people.
A rich dude will never need to worry about replacing a bad sensor, or what if the broken sensor trips again and I can't drive to work again.
The single mother of 3 in a rusting minivan, however, isn't so lucky.
"There are too many drunk drivers! It must be because we don't have any way to stop every car in case someone drunk sits in the driver's seat!" "What if we increased public transportation so people could take that instead if they'd been drinking?" "There must be a way to disable these cars!"
I don't think the current level of drunk driving is large enough to violate everyone's privacy to catch the very few drivers who drank too much. I'm much more worried about road rage drivers than drunk drivers. Road ragers are actively trying to hurt or kill people.
I worry a lot more about road rage and distracted drivers than drunks. Last week in the nearby large-ish city a woman was run off the side of a bridge and her car fell 60ft and landed on it's roof in the river bed. She will be OK, but still yikes.
In 2021... The law requires a technology safety standard by November 2024 if the technology is ready.
Still, NHTSA must be assured the technology works before it can require it, and then give automakers at least three years to implement it once it finalizes rules.
“If it’s [only] 99.9% accurate, you could have a million false positives,” Carlson said. “Those false positives could be somebody trying to get to the hospital for an emergency.”
The article title is too much optimistic, not going to happen in the next few years
Despite the laundry list of privacy and personal property infringements being an issue here this will also cause an issue for poorer people that cant afford the new markup for trash tech they dont need, and will create a new reason to be harassed. Cops will start pulling over and bothering every car that is made before this mandate. They can use this as an excuse to accuse people of intoxication and get real loose with their rights when they get rightfully angry.
I'm so glad my car doesnt have any onstar or cameras or any of this crap.
Yes, the entire point of this is to give kickbacks to whichever businesses provide this tech. Every additional feature added to a car raises the price more than what the feature costs to add.
The US is a joke.
“If it’s [only] 99.9% accurate, you could have a million false positives,” Carlson said. “Those false positives could be somebody trying to get to the hospital for an emergency.”
Tess Rowland, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), said the group was “very pleased” with NHTSA’s launch.
Fuck these people, they don’t give a fuck about lives, only their incredibly specific use-case.
Soon enough you'll need a blood and stool sample to start your car ... and of course all the information will be sold to advertisers.
Something has gone wrong if we've crossed universes where South Park is making predictions instead of The Simpsons.
I foresee a huge drop in new car sales in conjunction with a huge spike in used/pre-owned car sales.
Every time something like this pops up, I'm reminded of a line from a silly book I read as a kid:
"When technology advances, the technology to outsmart it advances too."
The people making these regulations don't understand car people. That cute little mandatory device will be defeated, and a workaround will be sold, within the first year. The same thing happened with diesel trucks - EPA mandated emissions controls were built in the sloppiest possible fashion by engine manufacturers, and when these expensive trucks started needing thousands of dollars of work with fewer than 100,000 miles, people started disabling the emissions controls.
The same thing will happen with this regulation. It will be implemented in the cheapest, most failure prone way possible to save Ford or whoever $5 per unit. Drivers will start having problems with their whiz-bang fancy electronic DUI detector bricking their car, and boom, now there's a market for disabling or removing the devices.
Also, just to attract more downvotes - there doesn't seem to be any similar regulation being pushed for motorcycles. Consider a Goldwing instead of an Accord?
Classic cars are about to be huge.
Dude, 13000 deaths are approximately 28% of the total traffic death toll for 2021. Even if I take the data for 2014, with the all-time low of 1.17 fatalities per 100m mi driven, that 28% is more than the 0.12 total fatalities in Germany (1.9 per bn km, 2018). Maybe the government could start fixing driver's ed and make sure vehicles are actually road safe.
Some sentences for driving under the influence require those convicted to install a breathalyzer in their cars that prevent them from starting the vehicle if alcohol is detected, though regulators said it’s unlikely future ubiquitous technology would be as intrusive as requiring a puff every time.
So instead they want to install cameras to continuously monitor the driver...
I think we all know what's the only foolproof solution here is: anal probe. It would be integrated into driver's seat and make a measurement every couple minutes. Yes, I know, it could be defeated by sitting on sober person's lap while you drive but I don't actually think it's a big security issue. If you have someone who can sit in driver's seat the whole trip they can probably also drive. Also it would be very uncomfortable for everyone and very easy to spot by police. Any other solution is stupid and wouldn't work. It's so obvious I don't think it even merits a serious discussion. Anal probe is the only way: it doesn't depend on some shitty AI face recognition BS that will fail randomly or won't work at all for some people, you can't cheat it by having someone else start your car, you can't cheat it by having the passenger blow into something or give his blood sample and it's compatible with every driver
I knew a guy that had an interlock device in his Tahoe because of two DUIs. I watched him drink a beer while driving it. He figured out somehow that if he drank enough water with his beer, it would fool the device and let him keep driving. This was 20 years ago, so they may be better now.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.