Tackling it the wrong way

Post #439,574 by drook 8/5/21 2:11:06 PM 8/5/21 2:11:06 PM Reply	Tackling it the wrong way The problem isn't what's in your blood, the problem is how you drive. Lots of studies have shown that driving tired is as bad as driving drunk. I wonder how many of the other two-thirds of the fatal accidents are fatigue. Thing is, the observable behavior is very similar: slow blinking, weaving in or between lanes, inconsistent speed, eyes not on the road, etc. And these are all things you can detect without checking what's in the driver's body. That I'd have absolutely no problem with. -- Drew
Post #439,575 by boxley 8/5/21 4:03:11 PM 8/5/21 4:03:11 PM Reply	cell phones, dont forget cell phones "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #439,576 by Another Scott 8/5/21 4:40:14 PM 8/5/21 4:40:14 PM Reply	That's a more difficult problem, isn't it? If we want to have fewer deaths on the highways, and there's a relatively simple way to address it in the car (car detects alcohol/pot/whatever above some level, car won't start), why not do it? How much of the lack-of-sleep problem when people get in the car, and how much is people driving 12+ hours because they need to get home? How can you handle a sleepy/impaired driver without full autonomous self-driving cars? Hey, bub, you're too sleepy - we're going to pull off now until you've slept a while. Do we really want more traffic cops pulling people over for violations? Or more traffic cameras tracking us while we're out and about? (The last is probably inevitable...) Once the car is in motion, it's a much more difficult problem. Presumably there will be easy ways to defeat the sniffer, for those determined to do so... Cheers, Scott.
Post #439,697 by mmoffitt 8/23/21 8:08:51 AM 8/23/21 8:08:51 AM Reply	How about we stop ... relying on late 19th/early 20th century modes of transportation in the 21st century? Automobiles are a spectacularly stupid way to get around. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #439,703 by crazy 8/23/21 12:31:07 PM 8/23/21 12:32:57 PM Reply	Because it's not a solved problem The current point eight level on alcohol is a good approximation of effect versus amount. Little more or a little less, you know someone seriously affected unless they have a high tolerance at that level. Cannabis is all over the place. I fully accept no one should be driving for the first several hours after smoking, possibly 8 to 12 hours after an edible, the current test had no way of figuring out that timeline. They can tell if you smoked in the last 15 minutes or they can tell if you smoked in the last month. That's it. Just like there's no oxycodone level for impaired driving, simply if you have a prescription for it it is your choice to make that decision, cannabis falls in that. The difference is oxycodone is prescribed and it will be up to a cop to say if you were driving dangerously. How do you apply that logic to starting the car up? And I know there's logic or reaction puzzles you can force upon people and determine whether or not their reaction falls within reasonable guidelines. How do you force the vast majority of the population to go through that every time they start their car up? And imagine the kids screaming in the backseat as the frustrated mom is trying to do the puzzle. Edited by crazy Aug. 23, 2021, 12:32:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #439,580 by Andrew Grygus 8/5/21 11:06:18 PM 8/5/21 11:06:18 PM Reply	Sleep experts say it's worse. They say a drunk may respond to a situation too slowly, but someone in an involuntary micro-sleep will not respond at all.
Post #439,694 by CRConrad 8/23/21 1:47:22 AM 8/23/21 1:53:04 AM Reply	Nope, that's bullshit. If you're tired as fuck, having a near-miss scares you awake for a while. If you're futzing around on your phone, having a near-miss makes you drop that fucker. If you're drunk, having a near-miss doesn't sober you up. Furthermore: Drunk people can also be tired and on their phones. That's one impediment more than sober people who are tired or on their phones. "Some other shit can have the same problems as this shit that ALWAYS has those problems, so let's not stop only this shit!" is bullshit. You can always stop the other shit too, later when it becomes technically possible. That's no reason not to stop the shit now that you can stop now. -- Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi Edited by CRConrad Aug. 23, 2021, 01:53:04 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #439,698 by drook 8/23/21 8:58:03 AM 8/23/21 8:58:03 AM Reply	We can stop the others now There are already systems that actively monitor for inattentive driving. The problem, as AScott mentioned, is you need self-driving capabilities to stop the car once it detects the problem. But hey, we've got that technology, just not in all cars yet. And phones could be made to not work when they're moving more than 25 mph. Sure, that would piss off the passengers, but that's not a technology problem. But that feels like I'm playing devil's advocate, doesn't it? My real complaint is that drunk driving doesn't require an expensive technical solution. Other countries don't have the problem we do. Our real issue is that we don't take it seriously. Drive drunk once, lose your car and your license. Drive after losing a license for DUI, go to jail. Do that for a year, do it consistently, and behavior will change. -- Drew
Post #439,701 by CRConrad 8/23/21 9:48:27 AM 8/23/21 9:48:27 AM Reply	Yeah, sure. So do that TOO.
Post #439,702 by pwhysall 8/23/21 11:39:48 AM 8/23/21 11:39:48 AM Reply	That's how we do it. People do drive drunk, but they do so at a much lower rate than elsewhere, and they don't tend to do it twice. If you kill someone, you're going to be on the hook for "causing death by dangerous driving", which can put you in prison for 14 years as well as incur an unlimited fine. Hell, being what is colloquially called "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle" has the potential for three months' porridge, and that doesn't actually involve driving the car! https://www.keithmichaels.co.uk/convicted-driver-car-insurance/info/drink-driving-penalties/ But then we've also got a brutally difficult driving test and a lot of automated speed and red light enforcement. It's instructive to watch "uk bad drivers" dashcam video on youtube, and compare it to, say, a "us bad drivers" video. The former will have the average American driver going "but they're just driving? what're they honking at?" because it's all people in the wrong lane and/or minor infractions of roundabout etiquette (the bastards), and the American one is all massive smashes as people blaze through red lights. The UK road accident and fatality is less than half that of the US, by pretty much any metric you care to choose (no, the amount Americans drive doesn't mitigate; y'all suck per vehicle-kilometre too). Most of Scandahoovia is much the same.
Post #439,704 by drook 8/23/21 1:19:18 PM 8/23/21 1:19:18 PM Reply	And it puts the cost where it belongs, on the people doing it wrong -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!