Hacker News Reader

Comment by 87329868723 | Hacker News Reader

The theory that the "system will prevent a person from losing their life or becoming disabled for life because of a drunk driver" is just as much of a "what if" as anything they said. I would say it's more likely to be abused and malfunction than it is to work as advertised.

View on HN

Vehicle cashes are one of the primary causes of death for certain age groups. Tens of thousands of Americans died from them each year. Countless thousands more are injured. Drunk driving isn’t a “what if”, it is a regular occurrence that causes a significant fraction of these crashes

The comment I replied to said that the various ways this technology/regulation could have harmful effects were theoretical "what if" scenarios. I pointed out that the ways it could have beneficial effects are also theoretical "what if" scenarios. I'm not saying that people dying because of drunk driving is "what if", I'm saying that this technology/regulation preventing drunk driving is just as much of a "what if" as it doing anything else. Just because something is advertised as having certain effects by its proponents doesn't mean it actually has those effects.

>I pointed out that the ways it could have beneficial effects are also theoretical "what if" scenarios.

It is not, because the technology exists, and it works. Unless you are doubting that it actually works, which you seem reluctant to commit to.

there are multiple comments in this thread attesting to the fact that these detection systems often don't work.

And how would you back up what you say?

Presumably the same way you would back up the assumption that it will work, preconceived notions on the effects of regulations in general?

You don't think that these technologies actually work? Is that what you are saying?

I think it may be theoretically possible, but I don't think it will be implemented in a way that will work when it's mandated by law. Betting against regulations fulfilling their advertised purpose is usually a good bet. I think the most likely outcome of this is that it will make no difference to any driver, but that cars will be a little more expensive and collect more data that can be used for harmful purposes. Regardless, if we shouldn't assume that it will be harmful, we also shouldn't assume that it will be helpful.

EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.

These technologies already exist, I don't know why you talk about them as a hypothetical.

Do you not think that the existing technology that is deployed in real cars is actually working?

Some technologies work and some don't, although I can't think of anything that works and was mandated before it was already in widespread use. In any case, this is much more involved and fuzzy than normal safety technologies. Additionally, see the edit to my previous comment, the state having a remote backdoor into cars is incredibly dangerous.

You original post was doubting that this would save people from drunk drivers. You still haven't explained why you think it wouldn't do that.

Making driving illegal for everybody would certainly save people from drunk drivers too. Do you think that's a good idea?

Sure, why not?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com