846

I can't. I just can't.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] flandish@lemmy.world 123 points 1 week ago

as someone who has dealt with over 20 years of pulling victims, alive and dead, from crashes caused by drunks (am firefighter not terrible driver..) I can say this won’t help shit. Just give more data (profit) to corporations and be used in rights violating ways.

[-] cheat700000007@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

It's never actually about safety

[-] Ninjascubarex@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

Why do you think this will not help?

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

because drunks find a way to make trouble. they’ll get around the tech glitches in the imperfect deployments. they’ll be alert enough to trick it. etc. they’ll drink while driving and the system won’t see that and the impairment won’t be recognized till its too late. (i’m focused on system concerns because I am also a software engineer and know the realities of large scale tech like this.)

to counter the tech I think the punishments for impaired driving (including cell phone use) should be harsh and without kindness, if you cause another person harm. Federally. With no return of your privileges once convicted.

While I am very much anti-government, if I am not going to be allowed to “follow up” with someone who drank and ran over a family member, etc… then we might as well push the lawmakers to do their jobs with the laws we already have. Not make new ones that are clearly there to profit tech and not save lives.

[-] anotherandrew@lemmy.mixdown.ca 3 points 1 week ago

With no return of your privileges once convicted.

All that does is create the problem of driving unlicensed, so now you imprison nonviolent offenders (assuming they aren't convicted of vehicular homicide type of charges).

I understand the sentiment, but the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head here very quickly.

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

what’s nonviolent about having harmed someone while choosing to drive impaired?

also i 100% agree public transportation should be improved too.

but it’s disgusting how many times I see folks who have multiple accidents causing harm to others and are still allowed to drive.

[-] Archr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Last year I drove my parent's car which is equipped with one of these cameras that determine if the driver is distracted or dozing. And I can say for certain that it works. I honestly wish that my car had this sort of a system.

I view this tech like a padlock. Sure some people will do whatever they can to get around it, but it keeps honest people honest. If it can reduce deaths on the road from drunk and tired drivers even by a little bit then isn't that worth it?

I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to follow up... Driving drunk and killing someone is already punished harshly, and you can even follow up civilly; it's called a wrongful death suit.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Honest people don't need the government to spy on them to not drive drunk though?

[-] Archr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

What about their proposed solution requires any of this data to leave the vehicle?

[-] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 5 points 1 week ago

The law says nothing about keeping the data in the vehicle, so it will 100% be sent outside the vehicle. Most modern cars already transmit your data so why would they change anything?

[-] Archr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

You are right. Because the law says nothing about the requirements. They haven't decided on them yet. Come back when they propose something.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

And so long as they aren't proposing privacy protections, I will continue to raise a stink about it. Modern cars already share way too much of our private data.

[-] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If the law says nothing then you can 100% count on this data being sold to third parties. Again, they're already doing it. They aren't going to stop unless the government explicitly stops them.

Also, they haven't decided yet? The law was passed in 2021. It only comes into effect in 2027. This isn't a proposal, is the law right now.

[-] Archr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

The law that was passed just requires the NHTSA to create requirements. The law itself does not mandate that auto manufacturers do anything relating to this (it might have other items for them but I didn't read the full bill). The NHTSA says that the technology that they are looking at is just not ready/accurate enough to be enforced.

100% auto manufacturers are selling that data. As you said there is no law stopping them. We should fight for data privacy rights across the country. But that is not really what this article is talking about. They are talking about government surveillance which we should also fight against. But I doubt that auto manufacturers are just going to put a government backdoor in just because.

[-] munk@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

It doesn't work on everyone. These systems have trouble with certain eye shapes, eye makeup, etc.

[-] Archr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I think the NHTSA is more looking at detecting alcohol on the driver's breath passively. But yes, there will always be cases where technology does not work optimally.

[-] anotherandrew@lemmy.mixdown.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Last year I drove my parent’s car which is equipped with one of these cameras that determine if the driver is distracted or dozing. And I can say for certain that it works.

I rented two different modern (2015-2016) Mercedes SUVs. They both had systems that detected tired/inattentive driving. I was neither but after several hours on the road both vehicles would alert that it was time to take a break with a nice little coffee icon. I was conversing with a passenger, driving fine, not wandering between lanes/etc.. The first time I kind of doubted myself but subsequent notifications both the passenger and myself were agreeing that we had no idea what it was upset about.

The newer car had another sensor that would get upset if your grip on the steering wheel got too light. That was kind of neat to see how much leeway it'd give you before it got antsy.

[-] Archr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Probably because you were driving for a few hours. That makes sense. You may not feel it but driving is an active task that takes more effort than just sitting in a chair.

I would much rather have this system have false positives rather than not have it at all.

this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
846 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

84377 readers
3735 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS