Hacker News Reader

Comment by Clubber | Hacker News Reader

>Unfortunately, this proposal will never happen. I know parts of it are extreme, but I don't see an alternative for fixing such a systemic problem which isn't extreme.

It also won't work. People will do what they want regardless of how many laws we try to pass and how much we try to control them. See: drug war, prohibition, minimum age laws, sin taxes, traffic violations, DUI laws, longer prison terms, etc. I don't know why people don't realize that, even with all the historical evidence.

The only thing that works to curb behavior is education. See: Truth commercials, "Now You Know" campaigns on TV in the 80s, MTV's Teen Mom, etc. I think you are attempting education but it smells a lot like authoritarianism. People don't react well to forced education either.

View on HN

Almost all education is forced. Realistically, the problem you're describing also extends to educating people.

My proposal attempts to activate a level of empathy and self-preservation. A tolerable amount of trauma is induced in potential drivers to get them to treat it as a necessary evil, not a rite of passage, a right or an enjoyable activity.

I think I understand what you mean when you say it sounds authoritarian, but I disagree. It's not authoritarian, it's just a more stringent set of rules on a gating function which already exists. I guess I would agree it sounds dystopian because of the VR simulations that would be involved. But then, it's a measure intended to curb tens of thousands of deaths each year, thousands of which are due to distracted driving in particular.

So take your idea out a few steps. We now have to buy, install and maintain VR setups for all the DMVs all over the country, then we have to train a bunch of DMV employees not only how to use it, but they in turn must teach citizens how to use it. I'd guess there are about 120 million drivers, so that's 120 million VR "experiences," and that's just the stuff off the top of my head. It doesn't sound very practical, and we don't even know it's effectiveness.

I would think we could save a ton of money just buying commercial spots explaining the physics, the statistics and a video of what a wreck looks like in totality.

Maybe even better, give companies tax incentives for domestic remote employment that replaces people coming into the office. That would probably hit the 80/20 rule right there.

Your proposal also sounds good, and probably more reasonable. We could probably implement both on a small scale for a pilot study to see which has better outcomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com