this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
68 points (87.0% liked)

News

23295 readers
5390 users here 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 55 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] BeanGoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ThankYouVeryMuch@kbin.social 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 14 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

But man will they be able to spend a whole bunch of money trying to get there....

[–] formergijoe@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

"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!"

[–] uservoid1@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (43 children)

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

load more comments (43 replies)
[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 29 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Road rage is bigger than just drivers. Most violent crime is committed by young men. Ideally, these people would have better access to jobs and free mental health care.

Yes, some counselling would help. Just talking to someone who isn't related to you or in a relationship with you can be enlightening.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CreativeShotgun@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] chitak166@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

“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.

[–] theKalash@feddit.ch 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Something has gone wrong if we've crossed universes where South Park is making predictions instead of The Simpsons.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (6 children)

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?

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Duct tape over the sensors. This one isn't even hard.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 10 months ago

Classic cars are about to be huge.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 6 points 10 months ago

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

[–] renormalizer@feddit.de 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] Wilibus@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

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...

load more comments
view more: next ›