Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousllama | Hacker News Reader

How would a "passive monitoring" device differentiate impaired driving from simple bad driving? If it can't, does this law simply mandate a certain quality of driving? Potentially not a bad idea.

Extending half-jokingly, if we can adequately, uniformly, and proactively enforce a certain quality of driving... would that ultimately make drunk driving ok, as long as it's good enough?

View on HN

I'm ok if this device also rejects people driving half asleep or very distracted.

Driving under the influence would still be illegal, but if you are somehow a competant drunk driver then yeah you could avoid the system triggering on you.. which seems fine? Like, it's no worse than the current system.

It's way worse than the current system. It's infringing upon basic presumption of innocence our court system is founded on

The car isn't putting you in jail, it's just refusing to operate if you can't keep your eyes on the road.

By assuming I'm intoxicated or not paying attention by its definition. Maybe I just suck at driving and have a lazy eye, is that illegal?

You are charged with drunk driving.

Your defense: the car's passive monitoring system says your driving was fine (indistinguishable from sober driver).

"Careless Driving" or "Reckless Driving" is the charge, and yes it already exists.

If you drive like an idiot and swerve or otherwise do things that are dangerous but otherwise not enumerated specifically (like blowing past a stoplight), you can be stopped and ticketed / charged / whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com