●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
149803269
story
Posted
by
BeauHD
st 03, 2021 @04:20PM
from the stop-it-before-it-starts dept.
On Sunday, a bipartisan group of Senators published draft text of a massive new bipartisan infrastructure bill, proposing more than a trillion dollars in spending and a vast array of far-reaching provisions. But a little-noticed section in the bill could have significant implications in the fight against drunk driving, eventually mandating a new in-car safety technology to actively prevent Americans from driving while impaired. The Verge reports: Introduced under the heading "Advanced Impaired Driving Technology," the provision would require the Department of Transportation to set a new standard for detecting and preventing impaired driving. The bill calls on the secretary of transportation to release a standard within three years, with the requirement taking effect for new cars three years after that. The specific provisions of the standard are vague, but it would require cars to "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired" and "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation" if impairment is detected.
The specific means of creating that system are still undetermined, but advocates say much of the technology is already available. Driver monitoring systems, which track a driver's face or eyelids to ensure they are alert and actively piloting the vehicle, are already offered in some models by Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes Benz. Systems like lane detection could also be used to detect impairment, creating an alert if the driver is consistently veering outside their lane. "Twenty years ago, this technology didn't exist," says Jason Levine of the Center for Auto Safety. "[But] we have the technology available now. We can install tech in vehicles that helps to monitor whether someone is impaired and stops that person from hurting themselves or others."
Crucially, the new standard wouldn't be limited to drunk drivers. Because the systems measure impairment directly, they would be just as effective at detecting impairment from prescription drugs, emotional distress, or simple distraction. A longer-term effort would also seek to mandate passive alcohol monitoring systems, like those currently being developed by Volvo. While the provisions are aimed at creating a new mandatory requirement for automakers, such a requirement is still a long way off. Negotiations around the infrastructure bill are still in flux, and the provision could still be removed or altered by lawmakers. Even if it passes into law, the Department of Transportation will have wide leeway in how and when to implement the requirement and could easily delay it beyond the schedule set by Congress.
You may like to read:
SEC Chair Calls On Congress To Help Rein In Crypto 'Wild West'
Google Will Kill Off Very Old Versions of Android Next Month
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bystrikethree ( 811449 ) writes:
While systems like these are nice in theory, this is going to add a significant cost to the price of a vehicle. ABS, Air Bags, Seat belts, they all add to the price of a car. A car is already unaffordable... which is fine if you did not build your entire society around driving a vehicle to get anywhere. The underclass will be VERY underclass soon.
twitter
facebook
byMobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) writes:
ABS, Air Bags, Seat belts, they all add to the price of a car. A car is already unaffordable...
Prices are high cos people are paying them. General bellyaching over the cost of safety features is just a way to get you to accept that price and pay it, you likely heard about it from a PR agency hired by the Big Three.
The prices of cars follow ability to pay, not cost to manufacture.
byBoB235423424 ( 6928344 ) writes:
Profit margins are not that high. All these requirements do in fact raise the price. People are paying the prices because every make/model is going up in cost to account for these things. There isn't cheaper competition beyond older cars staying on the road longer (which statistics show is the case). Car loans have also increased from 3-4 years to 6-7 years to keep monthly costs lower. The other unmentioned impact is the cost of insurance. While all these safety features should make the cars safer and thus lower insurance costs, the costs to repair cars has gone up dramatically and rates have gone up to account for such.
Heavy handed regulation and mandates tend to lead to two classes and purge the middle class. Every time government makes things more expensive, more people move down the economic ladder and more things become only affordable to the wealthy.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
Cars have a massive amount of profit in them because of all the "standard" features you're forced to pay for.
I really don't want to hear that no-margin excuse when we blatantly see car manufacturers desperate to make sales, discount thousands off the price. 20 years ago when I wanted the bare-bones stripped down model, they literally couldn't negotiate much on price because there were no features to haggle margins with. Today, that is obviously not the case.
byChris Mattern ( 191822 ) writes:
"The prices of cars follow ability to pay, not cost to manufacture."
That would be true if there was a monopoly on cars, which of course, there is not. Ford, GM, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, BMW, Volkswagen, Fiat-Chrysler, Daimler and more. None of them can sell for a large margin over manufacturing cost because they'd get undercut by the others.
bytaustin ( 171655 ) writes:
Well, the poors should be riding a bus anyway, doncha know. Never mind whether or not there are busses from where they live to where they work for subsistence wages, or that you need to carry a towel to wipe the urine (you hope) off the seat from the homeless guy who sat there last, that's what they should be doing.
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
Well, the poors should be riding a bus anyway, doncha know. Never mind whether or not there are busses from where they live to where they work for subsistence wages, or that you need to carry a towel to wipe the urine (you hope) off the seat from the homeless guy who sat there last, that's what they should be doing.
It must be awful to live in a place like that.
When I take public transport it's usually full of teenage girls in beachwear.
(actually true...I'm not making this up)
byrickb928 ( 945187 ) writes:
"When I take public transport it's usually full of teenage girls in beachwear."
It must be awful to love in a place line that.
I live in a place where a variety of people live, young, old, working, homeless, students, well-dressed, merely fashionable, dressed somewhat raggedly, you know. something like a real world. But I miss out on public transit a lot, and when I do, I'm entertained, educated, and reminded that life in America is not nearly as hard as it could be for pretty much all of us who live here. An
byfermion ( 181285 ) writes:
A 1960s Ford Falcon, my favorite car which my family drove through most of the 1970s was $202000 dollars in todayâ(TM)s money. The 1970s Dodge Dart was around $20,000 in todayâ(TM)s dollars. The 1980 Ford Pinto, unsafe at any speed, was $15,000 in todayâ(TM)s dollars The 1989 Honda Civic was around $13,000, again in todayâ(TM)s dollars. These are all base.
Kia, Nissan, an Subaru all make highly rated very safe cars for $15-18,0000, base. You can get a used Mercedes for around $20,000
byim_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) writes:
Expensive? Not at all.
The Comma 2 driver assist system costs $1,000. It's essentially a smartphone and two cameras.
You can get a dash cam with dual cameras for about $99 today so most of the hardware is clearly about $50 except for the GPU powerful enough to run a driver assist system. In 6 years when this would go into effect a $1,000 smartphone level of Neural net inference will be easily less than $100. Especially once ARM starts including neural net dedicated silicon in their full lineup and you don't
bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
A car is already unaffordable...
Is it though? The percentage of people in the USA below the poverty line (11%) is higher than the percentage of people without access (voluntarily or otherwise) to a car (8%).
Food insecurity is higher in the USA than lack of access to transportation. I think you're very much focused on the completely wrong thing. Maybe instead of making the underclass' lives less safe you should consider paying them a livable wage.
byZ00L00K ( 682162 ) writes:
And for people wirh neurological diseases like MS?
byhambone142 ( 2551854 ) writes:
How about limiting crazy drivers? Those who do "zipper lane changing" and cut people off. Those who drive 30 MPH in a 55, the ones on cellphones that can't keep an even speed and can't keep in their lanes. Just a few ideas.
twitter
facebook
byThe MAZZTer ( 911996 ) writes:
Self driving cars are the ultimate solution for these sorts of problems. I hope for a future where cars not only can self drive, but eventually such systems are advanced enough manual driving is not only unnecessary, but disappears over time, at first becoming an optional add-on for new cars before being omitted entirely, or even being made illegal in the name of saving lives. I want to see manual driving turn into something like a sport, recreation done on designated tracks off open roads. It'll take a whi
byBerkyjay ( 1225604 ) writes:
but eventually such systems are advanced enough manual driving is not only unnecessary, but disappears over time
You understand nothing about human nature if you think this will ever happen. Yeah, there will absolutely be people who will never drive in their lives. Just like there are people today who never get a drivers license....hell my grandmother went 96 years without one. But there will also be people like myself who enjoy driving and will fight back against any restrictions on it. So those future autonomous systems better know how to deal with human drivers
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
But there will also be people like myself who enjoy driving and will fight back against any restrictions on it. So those future autonomous systems better know how to deal with human drivers
You're in the minority and the car manufacturers and politicians are going to follow the money.
Get over it.
bycayenne8 ( 626475 ) writes:
But there will also be people like myself who enjoy driving and will fight back against any restrictions on it. So those future autonomous systems better know how to deal with human drivers
You're in the minority and the car manufacturers and politicians are going to follow the money.
I have a hard time believing that.
Do you have any stats/survey's to that effect?
byBerkyjay ( 1225604 ) writes:
It's amazing how wrong you are. It's almost as if you're in some bubble that's detached from reality, as are most people pushing autonomous driving.
Just a quick google search.
https://saferoads.org/wp-conte... [saferoads.org]
https://www.theverge.com/2020/... [theverge.com]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
How about limiting crazy drivers? Those who do "zipper lane changing" and cut people off. Those who drive 30 MPH in a 55, the ones on cellphones that can't keep an even speed and can't keep in their lanes. Just a few ideas.
Yeah, but most of them are high on narcotics that are Gov-subsidized cheaper than your average McBurger, provided by Big Pharma.
So naturally, they get a pass. After all, we can't have Donor Class revenue streams impacted, no matter the cost.
bydargaud ( 518470 ) writes:
Yup, after moving to the US I had to retake my driver's license (because passports are not a valid form of ID and driver's licenses are... go figure) and I was horrified at how easy the exam was: you can even come with somebody else to help you !!! WTF.
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
What the written? The rules of the road are pretty simple. If you didn't already have a license you have to actually take a driven. Nobody is going to 'help' you when actually driving with the DMV assessor in the car.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Same way we already deal with them and the intoxicated, right? Cops.
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
Given that accidents are extremely detrimental and zipper lane changes drastically increase the risk of them while providing only the illusion of benefit with no appreciable gains to the zipping driver I doubt the net outcome is actually positive.
bydjp2204 ( 713741 ) writes:
We will have infotainment systems showering us with dashboard based ads and entertainment while this technology shuts down the car because weâ(TM)re distracted by that content. The war on the independence granted by the car continues!
A better way to handle this is to massively increase penalties for driving while impaired. First offense - permanent ban on alcohol consumption, mandatory rehab, 5 years of probation, and a $5k suspended fine. Second offense? 2 years in prison and a 10k fine plus 5 years o
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
A better way to handle this is to massively increase penalties for driving while impaired. First offense - permanent ban on alcohol consumption, mandatory rehab, 5 years of probation, and a $5k suspended fine. Second offense? 2 years in prison and a 10k fine plus 5 years of drivers license revocation with no hardship exemption. And so on.
The hell do you mean "and so on"?!? Just how many lawmakers do you plan on putting behind bars? Keep that up, and there won't be anyone left to vote on the bill.
Not to mention the Ted Kennedy Congressional Rehab Wing...goverment buildings ain't cheap ya know.
bydjp2204 ( 713741 ) writes:
If any of them are free after DUI 2 then we arenâ(TM)t extreme enough.
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
If any of them are free after DUI 2 then we arenâ(TM)t extreme enough.
Well, you would first have to arrest and charge them with that.
The Untouchables, isn't just the name of a good movie.
byJoe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) writes:
as long as it's an blood test that the state pays for or breathalyzer with full source code and full calibration logs are in court.
byIchijo ( 607641 ) writes:
A better way to handle this is to massively increase penalties for driving while impaired.
That's what states have *been* doing
LOL! No. In every state, even after committing an extreme DUI, you'll be automatically eligible to get a new license in 2 years or less.
In Germany, you'll get your license permanently revoked--that means no driving ever again--until you can prove that you no longer have a drinking problem [howtogermany.com].
byIchijo ( 607641 ) writes:
Felony DUI means 3 incidents within a certain time frame
In Germany, extreme DUI (the one that gets your license taken away forever) is 0.16% BAC on the first offense. None of this "three strikes" nonsense that puts everyone at risk.
bycoolsnowmen ( 695297 ) writes:
.16 is an insane amount of alcohol to consider driving on. And twice the limit where I live.
bycayenne8 ( 626475 ) writes:
.16 is an insane amount of alcohol to consider driving on. And twice the limit where I live.
0.1 was the level in the US for a LONG time, it was only in the mid 80's I believe, that the Feds tried to force the states to lower it to .08 which is ridiculously low.
I mean, hell...a grown man having a glass of wine or maybe 2 at a meal is dangerously close to legal levels, but I would posit is nowhere near impaired enough to be a danger driving.
bystabiesoft ( 733417 ) writes:
I don't believe that is correct. I seem to recall hearing news stories about accidents by drunk drivers with multiple DUI's on their record. Lawyers are always advertising to make it go away. The real winners are the lawyers as I think they get most the cash from drunk driving arrests. Note I say arrests, not convictions.
byTechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) writes:
>Not that fitting cars with breathalyzers in the ignition IS the solution.
The solution is to put drinking establishments within walking distance of where people live.
In the UK they're called pubs and are typically close to where people live.
In the US, they're specifically put in places far away from where most people live due to monoculture zoning.
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
What about a license to drink alcohol and / or consume narcotics - automatically given when you are 18 or whatever your legal age is in your jurisdiction - and revoked if you abuse it
Actually a good idea, one that I've proposed for years.
My system goes further and extends to other privileges as well. Act like an asshole? Lose your rights to vote, etc.
I'm sure many employers and insurance companies would love access to a central "asshole" database, too.
byGravis Zero ( 934156 ) writes:
They say, "we didn't used to have computers and now we got 'em" which is true but it still doesn't address the central idea of how in the hell they are supposed to detect an impaired driver. This sounds like a bunch of people who don't understand how computers actually work and want a magic answer.
twitter
facebook
byDontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) writes:
...and an anal probe in the chair [...] Anybody dumb enough to buy such a car is clearly impaired.
IT's still better than dealing with the airlines. /SouthPark [wikipedia.org]
byWaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
The specific means of creating that system are still undetermined, but advocates say much of the technology is already available.
Ditto for fully self driving cars and fusion reactors.
byphantomlord ( 38815 ) writes:
My car has lane detection... I was driving home last night through an area that is under highway construction and the painted lanes don't match up with where the lanes actually are right now, so twice my car popped up an error for "driver fatigue, please pull over and rest." I also get lane warnings when I swerve to avoid someone biking on the shoulder, so if you're driving through an area where a lot of people are biking or you have a lot of pedestrians walking on the shoulder, again, it could cause your impairment alert to go off. Is this system going to shut down everyone's car driving through those situations? How is the computer going to differentiate actual impairment from being alert and driving according to the current road conditions?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
Bad implementation.
byburtosis ( 1124179 ) writes:
All cars will be blow to go?
twitter
facebook
byOpportunist ( 166417 ) writes:
Effin' great, you can't get a drink but you can do blow?
What's wrong with this country?
bymark-t ( 151149 ) writes:
... does that mean that you shouldn't get a ticket for impaired driving if your alchohol level is over what might otherwise be the legal limit but you were still driving safely?
bytinkerton ( 199273 ) writes:
Actually it would be a good idea to use the technology to help you drive when somehow impaired. It would allow all those elderly to still move around where they would be forbidden to do so if there was a test for their ability.
And the same could apply to drinking really. 'with this system we allow you to drive when slightly drunk.'
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMal-2 ( 675116 ) writes:
No, blended liability is a nightmare.
But I think it would be fine for the car to say "You're drunk. I'll drive."
bytinkerton ( 199273 ) writes:
Yeah well I'd try a bit harder instead of stopping instantly because legal doesn't like it. You could introduce a rule that legally 'drunk' is treated as 'buzzed' when the driving aids are on, but intoxicated is treated the same as before. Or 'impaired' is treated as 'sober' , whatever the terminology.
Of course there is little interest in that, but there could be interest for elderly: lower standards you need to satisfy if you have the driving aids.
byPeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) writes:
What if it malfunctions when someone is trying to go vote? To help their aged parents? To urgently get to the hospital? And it will ABSOLUTELY malfunction at some point. There's a place for this type of technology, but you don't start deploying it to the masses using the assumption that everyone is guilty.
twitter
facebook
bytaustin ( 171655 ) writes:
Given the current political climate in the US, one of the very first things that will be classified as impaired driving will be not expressing the correct political ideology.
byMDMurphy ( 208495 ) writes:
I actually had a patent years ago that covered some of this. It was more for authorized driver than impaired. If you were unable to get the system let you in then you bypassed it. When bypassed speed was limited, headlights and flashers were on.
This was a thing years ago when someone thought it a bright idea to have cars fail to start if the seatbelt wasn't latched. Sounds good until the seatbelt switch fails and kills the car.
If there is test for impaired driving then I'd hope it actually does som
byTechyImmigrant ( 175943 ) writes:
An AI that can determine someone's state of mind will be sufficiently advanced that it can also drive a car. Then there is no need to limit impaired driving at that point because the car will drive your drunken arse home.
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
...There's a place for this type of technology, but you don't start deploying it to the masses using the assumption that everyone is guilty.
Sure you do! Just take a look at anti-gun laws being proposed. Every legal gun owner with a semi-auto capacity or more than 10 rounds is now a potential domestic terrorist. 300 million guns in America, but the dozen used in mass shootings are plenty of justification to label anyone who wishes to legally arm and defend themselves, a criminal.
bygTsiros ( 205624 ) writes:
EVERYONE is a "potential" domestic terrorist, whether they on a watergun, a main battle tank or an ar-15 is irrelevant.
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
EVERYONE is a "potential" domestic terrorist, whether they on a watergun, a main battle tank or an ar-15 is irrelevant.
It really is sad that the words "domestic terrorist", were not part of the everyday vernacular until recently, incited by a click-happy MSM with a business objective of go-viral-at-all-costs. And now it appears you are defending the use of it. You intend to eviscerate the 4th and 5th Amendment too?
And I'd love to see the legal argument when you're "attacked" by someone "armed" with a watergun. The fuck is a car wash to you, a potential weapon of mass destruction? Should we start putting armed guards aro
bygeekmux ( 1040042 ) writes:
Nobody needs a gun to commute to work and get their groceries. As it is, driving is far more heavily regulated than gun ownership.
If you are the all-knowing, all-seeing human who can predict when deadly violence could occur against you, then by all means remove those "heavily regulated" seat belts and air bags.
You clearly know when something bad, is heading your way at a high rate of speed.
bypiojo ( 995934 ) writes:
Yeah, this system seems like it will be great for driving someone to the hospital on empty roads at night. Or being followed by a harasser. The car will pull over to the shoulder, and someone may die because of it.
bySend it to the newts ( 6273598 ) writes:
Yeah, this system seems like it will be great for driving someone to the hospital on empty roads at night. Or being followed by a harasser. The car will pull over to the shoulder, and someone may die because of it.
These kinds of objections always strike me as rather overwrought. The type of situation you describe are rare, and better handled by the emergency services.
And, what of the lives lost every day in car crashes? Do they not figure in your arithmetic?
bycayenne8 ( 626475 ) writes:
The type of situation you describe are rare, and better handled by the emergency services.
"Emergency Services" are generally there to just take pictures of the crime scene and start and investigation....unfortunately not to prevent the crime and potential death/damage.
When seconds count, the police are only (many) minutes away.
bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
To urgently get to the hospital?
If you're using a car to urgently get to the hospital you deserve everything you get. Your lack of planning should not make you a risk to others. If you're suffering a medical condition then you can call a special car which makes a special noise for your urgent requirement.
What if it malfunctions when someone is trying to go vote?
Why not address this problem directly? The idea of having to get either a car or even public transport to go to vote is so alien to me. Do you not have legs to walk? And if your voting booths are not within a short stroll of where you liv
bycayenne8 ( 626475 ) writes:
What if it malfunctions when someone is trying to go vote?
Why not address this problem directly? The idea of having to get either a car or even public transport to go to vote is so alien to me. Do you not have legs to walk? And if your voting booths are not within a short stroll of where you live, ask the question: "why not?"
Wow...WTF do you live where everything is just a couple of blocks walk away?
Do yo also have perfect weather all the time? Lessee, here for past month, we get rain showers most e
bynightflameauto ( 6607976 ) writes:
The ultimate goal since 9/11, if not before, is safety and security at all costs. Sadly there's a large percentage of the population that clamor for it. This is pandering to the security theater fans. As are most technological "improvements" to cars.
byLarry_Dillon ( 20347 ) writes:
But nothing to make sure a driver follows the speed limit? e.g., not more than 10 MPH over..
byJasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) writes:
how does the car know the speed limit ... the solution is either horrifically expensive, or horribly unreliable ...
bygrasshoppa ( 657393 ) writes:
Yay, we all hate drunk drivers, but remember; adding complexity introduces failure points. Will the government be paying tow trucks and taxis to come get me when the device ( inevitably ) fails? Should they?
I understand if you're out on probation for a drunk driving charge and you're required to get this device, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're presuming guilt of every driver and subjecting them to inappropriate risks because of it.
byIamthecheese ( 1264298 ) writes:
...they're trying to push some serious tyranny. So how about "no"? I can't believe how many of you are saying "instead of this lets have vehicles prevent X other behavior"
Transportation is an essential liberty. It's integral to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. And in modern America walking and public transportation just won't do it. All the cities and all the public infrastructure assumes everyone has a car they can use. If you don't have a car you don't really have liberty at all. It's an easy thing, once you say, "we should restrict car usage to prevent X behavior" to use it to solve social ills. Don't even get me started on the abuse against "deadbeat dads" represented by taking away drivers licenses.
No. Let's not prevent the use of cars in the case of ANY behavior. No ignition lockouts, no driver facing cameras, no tests for impairment of any kind. Do not let the government have a say in who may drive where and DO NOT have cars check in with the government or their companies when they self drive. At the very best you're handing your car keys to an officious, self-righteous bureaucrat. At worst you're handing them to someone who wants nothing more than to socially engineer you onto the ground into a proper boot licking posture. Stop it. Stop it!
twitter
facebook
byIchijo ( 607641 ) writes:
All the cities and all the public infrastructure assumes everyone has a car they can use. If you don't have a car you don't really have liberty at all.
Yes, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. As cars became popular, cities rebuilt themselves around the car, holllowing out their urban cores [reddit.com] to build parking lots [ou.edu] and in the process increased distances between destinations and made driving the only practical way to get from A to B. (Of course the massive road subsidies [taxfoundation.org] also helped, just a little...)
It's chicken-a
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
There isn't a problem of any sort. A superior mode of transportation was developed, everyone recognized that it was superior so they bought more and more cars, and city planners had to adapt. Livery stables, hitching posts and water troughs were replaced with parking spots, and walking across the street no longer meant losing a boot in the horseshit. You can call that "hollowing out" or "gutting" if you want, but know that it doesn't make any sense to do so. The infrastructure for keeping and caring for
byaberglas ( 991072 ) writes:
That is what some people have said to the threat of Artificial Intelligence. It is just a computer, so just turn it off if it causes grief.
But long before any hyper intelligent AI is created, we will be utterly controlled by computers. Your bank loan and insurance premiums already are. Where you can drive is next. You will not even be able to open your front door without a internet connected computer allowing it.
bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
Transportation is an essential liberty.
Indeed it is. Take the bus to express your liberty if you want to be an inebriated idiot. No where in any law does it say you have a right to own or drive a car. The car is not an essential liberty.
byRequired Snark ( 1702878 ) writes:
I hope so. Texting is intrinsically distracting and contributes to a vast number of accidents.
How Many People Die From Texting And Driving? [simplyinsurance.com]
About 14% of all fatal crashes involve some sort of cell phone use.
1 out of 4 car accidents in America are caused by texting and driving.
Car insurance premiums have increased up to almost 10,000% due to distracted driving.
Back in 2011 the NTSB recommended there should be no cell phone use when driving, even hands free. Obviously the recomendation went nowhere. Thi
byPeeAitchPee ( 712652 ) writes:
Texting while driving should be a primary offense and after one warning should be treated THE SAME as a DUI. It's literally a thing now where people get on the highway, go 40 MPH in the middle lane and text away, eyes 100% on the phone and keep the wheel steady with their knees. Those assholes need to off the road, either in a mandatory no-phone-while-driving re-education class, or in jail.
bycob666 ( 656740 ) writes:
Texting while driving should be a primary offense and after one warning should be treated THE SAME as a DUI. It's literally a thing now where people get on the highway, go 40 MPH in the middle lane and text away, eyes 100% on the phone and keep the wheel steady with their knees. Those assholes need to off the road, either in a mandatory no-phone-while-driving re-education class, or in jail.
The problem is that texting in and of itself isn't the problem, the problem is being distracted while behind the wheel. There are plenty of things that drivers do that are at least as distracting as texting, such as reading a newspaper, putting on makeup, eating, turning around to yell at the kids in the back seat, et al. But the media zones in on texting because it's something that the younger generations do. I'd much rather see stricter and stricter enforcement of distracted driving rules but that does
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Makeup and reading a paper are probably as bad since they take your attention away as much and for as long. You can eat a burger with one hand, keeping your eyes on the road and other hand on the wheel. Plate of spaghetti, maybe not so much, but there aren't many fast-food pasta joints.
I don't think it has anything to do with age.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
The worst part is that is a problem that could be solved very quickly by any other driver, but they can't because sending a car spinning off the highway would endanger the innocent drivers around them even more. p
Okay, not the worst part at all, but it's frustrating.
byPPH ( 736903 ) writes:
Try driving this [staticflickr.com] while you are drunk.
byCrappySnackPlane ( 7852536 ) writes:
So now instead of just stagger to the car to coast four blocks and a right turn from the local watering hole to my apartment, I have to stagger to the car, put on sunglasses, and do the same.
Jokes aside, this is typical do-gooder shit - I'm sure it sounds really wonderful to soccer moms and their henpecked husbands, but if actually implemented, will run up so many false positives (is this driver distracted, or trying to read street signs to find their cross-street? Is this driver stressed, or do they just have twitches and tics from Tourettes? Drugged out of their mind, or just the natural physical characteristics of someone on Benzos? Remember - Joel Hodgson was never actually stoned on the set of MST3K, but try telling that to a pupil tracker) that it'll be a ludicrously massive pain in the ass for everyone and end up making both Prohibition and, more on topic, "55 Saves Lives" seem like drops in the bucket.
twitter
facebook
bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
I mean I don't see the downside. Maybe if more Americans get exposed to unreliable cars they will seek alternate forms of transportation rather than driving 200m to the gym just to use the treadmill.
Maybe that will also lead to calls for competent town planners and local governments which support the ability to make a city livable without the need to sit in the shitty tin can to do every little tiny task.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
So, you think it's good because it would hurt innocent people so badly the entire country would have to be redesigned? You know that's both stupid and tyrannical, right? Not to mention horribly dishonest. If you want to ban people from driving personal cars, say so. Don't try and slip in in the backdoor.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Yeah, sounds good to anyone who doesn't think it through, and to people who can't tell the truth about what they really want (to punish people for driving). People who are both decent and possessed of at least half a brain seem to see right through it. Which is good, because that's most Americans, but also bad, because it clearly isn't most members of Congress.
byruddk ( 5153113 ) writes:
Well, that will certainly clean up the roads with lots of space available for the lucky few. :D
good luck escaping, what's that I see, emotional distress? sorry can't drive that car to get away. :D
byAndyKron ( 937105 ) writes:
I'm keeping what I got then. Beep beep. This is the perfect video for this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
twitter
facebook
byami.one ( 897193 ) writes:
:) Ya seriously it's bang on.
That's the exact place where such brain dead regulations will take the US. Somethings like DMCA etc are already 100% in this territory.
byWaffleMonster ( 969671 ) writes:
Piling on of expensive mandates at least were done for well intentioned reasons rather than primarily a means for politicians to give back to their donors. Debbie Dingell of Michigan has raked in at least $300k from the auto industry thus far.
The inability to have a separate vote on something that to say the least is a very controversial issue such as this that affects the whole country and instead sneak it into a multi-thousand page bill speaks for itself.
As does the lack of process and public hearings on
bytechnothrasher ( 689062 ) writes:
So the lane detection system in my car that beeps at me and thinks I'm swerving because it cannot tell the difference between the straight edges of the road surface and non-straight lines of rubberized asphalt repair is now going to shut off my car on me?
twitter
facebook
bykackle ( 910159 ) writes:
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
'Problems off the top of my head: The extra initial expense, extra fuel to push that extra technology around 24/7, added repair costs, the fact that your local trusted mechanic probably won't be able to repair such systems, the systems add to the cars' failure rates, the systems will fail once in a while at dangerous times, the extra design/manufacture/disposal of these systems means more pollution plus even more energy consumed, meaning higher fuel prices and higher global temperatures for all.
Oh, and
byOtis B. Dilroy III ( 2110816 ) writes:
Big brother is driving.
byami.one ( 897193 ) writes:
We should first deploy a system to check "impaired government officer / politician" and throw them out, before ch ecking drivers
I mean their actions always affect 1000's of
people and in much worse ways than the tiny % of citizens who may be too "impaired" to drive on some day and who may then have an accident and that may result in a human getting hurt.
bydrwho ( 4190 ) writes:
This is a big honking bill full of pork and pig feces. It's complex with thousands of pages. Please, STOP THIS BILL.
I am not going to breathe into a tube to start my car. I'll either just keep an older car, or hack this crap out of this system. No, I do not drive drunk.
byRick Schumann ( 4662797 ) writes:
Aside from the hideous cost increase it would cause, there's no way they can create technology that will be reliable enough to do this without false positives and false negatives either stranding you somewhere or allowing accidents to happen.
Also even if they tried to implement such things within a matter of weeks there'd be hacks to disable all of it anyway.
It'll never get off the ground, it'll never be passed into law, it'll never see the light of day.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
I don't understand how you can recognize that and still support the people responsible. Elected Democrats are only going to see this as a good thing, that's why they did it, do it, and will keep doing it. Why keep voting for people who refuse to see such glaring flaws? You clearly don't think the way they do. Hell, you think, period. They don't, they're guided instead by feelings and don't (won't) consider the consequences you can't help but recognize.
I'm never one for saying that someone is voting
byMalays2 bowman ( 6656916 ) writes:
Crap like this was tried for many decades and each time it never got anywhere and was quickly forgotten about. They experimented a "simple simon" type game in cars way back in the 1970s to act as a barrier to prevent impared drivers from being able to start the engine.
The only real success was the breathalyzer that you get to have in your car if you go and fuck up ,but no driver who has not had a DUI conviction wants this in theirs.
Ideas like the TFA come up from time to time when a politician wants
byMitchDev ( 2526834 ) writes:
What a WASTE of time and money for those of us who don't even drink.
Better solution? Get a DUI/DWI, lose your license for a year and huge fines the first time.
Add bigger fines and jail time for more than one. et serious about punishing the a-holes causing the problem and leave the rest of us alone.
bycordovaCon83 ( 4977465 ) writes:
I call political grandstanding on this one. At best, it's an attempt to force auto-makers to include new driver assistance technology in all new models under the guise of driver safety. At worst, it's looking to push bills that are either ineffectual but look good on paper or are effectual but possibly unconstitutional. Either way, all the politicians at least look like they've made a stand to prevent impaired driving. You are against impaired driving, aren't you? Won't someone think of the children????
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Yup. Ill conceived, possibly unconstitutional, unnecessary, unfair, and guaranteed to make matters worse, not better. But none of that will blow back on whoever introduced it, so its great for the worst legislators.
bykaatochacha ( 651922 ) writes:
Me getting in car, distracted, late for a meeting.
Car: Driver, my sensors detect you are not ready to drive, please repeat the following phrase to verify attention: " She sells seashells by the seashore".
Me: What?, oh, yeah, um. "She sells seashells by the seashore"
Car: I'm sorry, that does not match, please try again. " She sells seashells by the seashore"
Me: Crap! OK, She sells...wait, She sells seashells by the seashore.
Car: I'm sorry, that does not match. Please attempt the following action: Raise
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
Is this not an artificial agent of the government you are required to pay for and house? If not, how far is it from being one?
Which is not to say that this couldn't be a violation of the 4th and 5th as well, it's just that the 3rd has never come up in a court case.
byThelasko ( 1196535 ) writes:
It seems like even for the usual political hijinks, this "infrastructure" bill is ultra-laden with things that have nothing to do with infrastructure [forbes.com]...
This is nothing new. It's straight out of Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington. [wikipedia.org]
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
It's a great trick to sneak through policies that would otherwise fail, so corrupt or otherwise dishonest legislators love it.
byJoce640k ( 829181 ) writes:
Do something to prevent people from texting and driving. This is a much more widespread and serious problem.
Or do both .
bynightflameauto ( 6607976 ) writes:
I can't believe the number supposed tech folks that believe this. Because every computer you encounter is rock solid stable and never has any issues at all, right? RIGHT?!
I feel like I'm in bizarro world.
bysabbede ( 2678435 ) writes:
You misspelled New Jersey.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
396 commentsMeta Says Llama 4 Targets Left-Leaning Bias
●
377 commentsAmericans' Junk-Filled Garages Are Hurting EV Adoption, Study Says
●
371 commentsMexico Threatens To Sue Google Over Gulf Renaming
●
363 commentsAmericans are Buying Twice as Many Hybrids as Fully Electric Vehicles. Is The Next Step Synthetic Fuels?
●
323 commentsEV Sales Keep Growing In the US, Represent 20% of Global Car Sales and Half in China
Google Will Kill Off Very Old Versions of Android Next Month
SEC Chair Calls On Congress To Help Rein In Crypto 'Wild West'
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes.
-- Mickey Mouse
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Google Will Kill Off Very Old Versions of Android Next Month
47comments
SEC Chair Calls On Congress To Help Rein In Crypto 'Wild West'
63comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...