Hacker News Reader

Comment by vegetablepotpie | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately the legislation that exists requires surveillance tech be installed on new vehicles.

https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becom...

I think the only problem may be how it's phrased. I don't mind technology checking if I'm alive and awake while operating a two tonne ballistic bullet in publicml.

I do mind, however, if the data is not immediately discarded, once it does its real-time safety purpose.

That’s weird wording, it’s not live-streaming the DMS camera feed… is it?

There's no actual rule yet, they're still working on it. [1]

tldr; Impairment detection methods are currently too inaccurate to use (both false positive and false negative).

And then if anything is ever accurate enough they'll have to create testable standards that car manufacturers can easily implement.

And NHTSA is concerned with security and privacy issues as well. They'll keep updating congress on progress once a year.

My take is it's very possible the rule may never get made.

[1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-t...

Just because it's a camera based system doesn't mean it will be surveillance.

Except in mid to high end luxury cars, automakers will probably design the sensor to be completely self-contained and merely provide a "driver present, attentive" or "driver distracted" or "no driver." In high end cars they'll use it to switch driver profiles, like what Lucid already does.

Both you and that author need to go look at the massive amount of data that has been getting collected in cars, including location data, for close to two decades in any vehicle that even had the option for telematics and GPS navigation.

Also the issue is not so much the camera system, but the "OS" the car is running. A ton of vehicles now have Google's Android OS running on them and that is also a privacy dumpster fire in and of itsel.

Also, a nationwide network of license plate reading cameras is far more of a privacy threat, too.

Yep, which is why I'll never buy another car without an ashtray.

That is the only solution unless something radically changes.

For me, I will never own a car with any kind of screen on the dash.

You can do that just be aware that you will eventually be spending more than just buying a new car just to keep the current one in good repair. Car collectors get around this because they use have a different car as the daily driver, and their collected car is repaired and only used in parades and such.

You are also turning away a lot of the advances in electric vehicles. Paying for gas in your old car, could be more than payments on a brand new electric car. (that would require a lot of driving.)

You are also increasing your risk of death or serious injury. New cars are far safer in a collision than cars made 15-20 years ago.

Are they though? Have there been any major breakthroughs in the engineering that make a 2026 car more structurally secure than one from 2011? I thought the main improvements were made in software, like lane assist and whatever else. But my assumption is that you need to go back considerably more than 15 years ago to see vehicles that are meaningfully less structurally safe.

An example is airbag safety. With modern airbags, they have more sensors, and are able to inflate faster, causing less whiplash, etc.

Parts availability can be a problem, but especially if you drive a once popular model and are willing to do work yourself, the mileage you can get out of junkyard parts is significant.

> You can do that just be aware that you will eventually be spending more than just buying a new car just to keep the current one in good repair.

I'm pretty sure you haven't run the numbers on this assertion. That would be essentially impossible.

Average new car price in the US is near $50,000:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2025/10/13/ave...

The absolute cheapest new cars in the US are around $24,000:

https://www.cars.com/articles/here-are-the-10-cheapest-new-c...

$24K buys you an astonishing amount of maintenance! Unless you're talking doing a restoration on a collectible car, it's basically impossible to spend that much.

I like old cars so I know. I drive one car from the 70s, one from the 80s, two from the 90s, one from the 00s and one from 2010s (pre-screen era). All those cars put together I haven't spent $20K in maintenance over the last decade.

If a new car makes you happy and you can afford the depreciation, get one. But if the criteria is saving money, get an old car and maintain it forever.

Yeah. For fifty grand I'm pretty sure you can keep a 2010 Tacoma running until the heat death of the universe.

Car collectors are not the same thing as drivers of old cars. Collectors don't want to put miles on their collectables because they want the cars to maintain (or increase) their value. It's not a question of cost. Older cars are simpler, particularly pre-electronic ignition, and easier to repair.

Just as a random example, you can get a rebuilt automatic transmission for a '69 Ford Mustang for about $350 on ebay. The cheapest transmission (not rebuilt, just taken from a wreck) you'll find for a 2020 Mustang is about $540.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com