It might work for a single driver comparing their driving to previously stored sessions. But how does it handle switching drivers? It would have to create and manage profiles on each and every person that drives the vehicle.
Comment on Followup on the vehicle "kill switch" mandated by the Infrastructure Bill
evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Thanks for looking through all of this. If I’m understanding right, it seems like Congress is asking NHTSA to do a task that is probably not possible, but they are required to at least go through the motions to try?
It seems like they just told nhtsa to use technology to fix drunk driving so they can wash their hands of the situation and claim they tried to do something, but nhtsa couldn’t figure it out. Why didn’t they tell the NIH to eliminate the cancer while they were at it.
I do believe the technology to detect BAC is too erroneous to inflict on innocent drivers, and technology that could detect impairment through driving characteristics, while possible for individual drivers could never work on a population level. There’s going to be a lot of overlap between impaired drivers and just naturally bad drivers.
brygphilomena@lemmy.world 10 months ago
evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yeah, you could detect a difference between drunk me and sober me, but where does sleepy me fit in? It’s wrong, but not exactly illegal to drive while very tired.
Plus, most laws about operating a vehicle only apply when the vehicle is on public roads.
AtmaJnana@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If you are tired enough to impair your driving, then yes it will be illegal in most jurisdictions.
DemBoSain@midwest.social 10 months ago
Exactly. There’s too much possibility of false positives in most of these technologies to be safe. There’s a section where NHTSA covers how they should handle disabling a vehicle in a dangerous situation. For example, if I’m in the middle of the woods camping and drinking, should I be able to drive my car to escape a forest fire?
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
The problem, of course, being that if an emergency override of any kind exists for such situations- then that override can always be used, making the restrictions null and void. which means all systems were simply added cost and maintenance headaches passed onto the consumer for zero net benefit.
Sure maybe they could make an always online system like onStar that would let you request an override to be reviewed by a person… but that’s fucking hilarious to think any manufacturer is going to take on that cost, they’d make it a mandatory subscription for some stupid AI override bot, and that is an even bigger pile of fucking nope.
FaceDeer@kbin.social 10 months ago
I think this whole kill switch thing is a terrible idea, but if it must happen somehow then an override that logs when it is used might be a bare minimum.
Still think it's awful, just the least awful.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Right, so then who monitors the logs? Are there punishments for excessively bypassing safety features? Because the goal of these features is to stop a crash from happening. If you can bypass them at all, a log entry isn’t going to help the crash victims. Which means the system must inherently be extremely totalitarian and strict if it is to succeed in its dtsted goal, which is not something you will get most drivers to sign on to.