What, for example, if you're living in a rural area, then your wife goes into labor (or there is any kind of other emergency) and the car thinks your somewhat "erratic" driving style, due to the stress of the situation, warrants killing the engine? It only talks about detecting "impairment" which may mean a lot of things. Or maybe you had a beer and then the emergency happens, and the car detects "passively and accurately" your BAC.
Banning drunk, drugged and impaired driving is good. But every rule has exceptions, and software is generally too rigid to account for every possible exceptional case.
There won't be a "It's an emergency" button (because a lot of drunks would just press it), nor a "I am lawfully driving on my own private property" or a "I am not actually impaired, I had to drive 'erratic' a moment ago not because I am drunk or fell asleep, but because a kid ran into a street and I had to do an evasive maneuver" one.
That is assuming the software is working "correctly" in the first place. Which I am very doubtful about here, because they aren't trying to model something deterministic, but model something that will use some kind of "learning" to spit out some probabilities.
That aside, the privacy implications look pretty real to me. Once you have a system that monitors your driving proficiency, BAC or both, a lot of companies will get curious about that. Insurers may start to politely ask for the data if you want lower premiums, or a contract at all. No more car leases unless you can provide a "positive" driving score. Judges will sign warrants for such data. And so on.
I kept getting warnings of 'erratic' driving from my VW and I couldn't figure out what was going on. I finally figured it out. The car was seeing asphalt repair patches on the road, which are by their nature wiggly lines. It clearly figures the line is straight and the car is swerving all over the place.
It also wants to hit the brakes any time the car in front is braking and my foot is on the throttle. Ok, but this fails constantly in two situations. First is if the car in front is turning left and I'm moving around it on the right. Second is if I'm far enough back that I'm ok with light throttle even though the car in front is braking.
So, yes, I have less than full confidence that a drunk driving detection system won't fail. The question really becomes whether the net benefit outweighs the potential failures. With the VW applying the brakes, I accepted the annoyances the first time it saved me from plowing into the car in front of me when they unexpectedly hit the brakes on a highway on-ramp and I was watching the traffic on the highway instead of the car in front.
How else is a manufacturer supposed to get feedback?
Writing to or calling the manufacturer may be effective for small companies, or companies with a good track record in ethics. Otherwise, let the sales do the talking.
This will only work out for you (and others) if there are other manufacturers that don't add features like this at all. And since you haven't provided feedback to anyone about what you don't like, other manufacturers won't hear about this either, and may also add these sorts of features.
I agree that one person providing feedback isn't going to do much. But that's why everyone needs to do so. It's like voting: your individual vote usually won't change anything, but the votes of everyone can. Refusing to provide feedback (or vote) because your individual action won't change anything on its own doesn't solve anything, and just gives those in charge less data to work with to figure out what people actually do want.
And then the VW software team managers say "Look how great Tesla's are selling. It's because they have more autodrive features. Give me more money to add more features." Note, that was "add features" not "improve features".
That is: their test results should be providing them with all the feedback they need. We're not talking about a broken UI on a shopping website. Broken "smarts" in a car is like broken brakes; it's not OK to just wait for users to find out for you.
If they "did the wrong thing" with car safety, then they shoun't be allowed to sell cars until the problem is fixed.
You can either stick your fingers in your ears and keep yelling "this can't happen!", or acknowledge that it does and try to do something about it.
"I categorize this software as 'safety' related, so it must be perfect on the first try and never need any improvements"
Existientialism is bad for your mental health, friend.
Making incorrect generalizations is bad for your health too.
I did not write that, thus they are not "contained in (my) comment."
There's an intersection near my house where they repaved the road this summer. The lane markings on one side of the intersection are about 2 feet offset from the other side of the intersection after they repainted them, and it trips the lane detection about 50% of the time even when I'm actively trying to compensate. I suspect that intersection will become a graveyard of bricked cars once the law comes to pass.
There's an oft-posted meme of a barely accessible country trail in a field with a 100km/h speed sign but this is actually quite common there.
But I can imagine how this is super dangerous. I don't want my car second-guessing me constantly either especially if it can do something dangerous. In rural Ireland in summer you'd often be meeting a tourist coach on a bridge with centimetres to spare. Really not the time for my car to suddenly pull at the wheel.
I think instead of mandating this stuff we should just focus on full self driving. If the car knows so much better let it handle the driving and let me do with my time what I wish as a passenger.
It also takes a whole of complexity in terms of driver/car interaction out of the equation.
I got a new car a couple of months ago that has this, and was experiencing similar issues on rural Texas farm roads. I just had to look up where mine was and turn it off temporarily.
I also have a Subaru - turning it off or on requires three levels of menu navigation, and you have to use the center console touch screen.
I suppose they do their testing and validation in drastically different environments!
It's already working like that. Some insurance companies sell you products including a physical "monitor" (GPS based, I believe) that will evaluate your driving: the price of insurance will differ.
https://www.intact.ca/qc/en/personal-insurance/vehicle/car/m...
I introduced him to the defense of "necessity" while in jail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)
My point is.. the driver might well have died if the car had totally refused to function because he was over the limit.
An emergency override button can mitigate this problem, but then you have to weigh how often that override will be abused, and what to do about that.
Okay, on paper, yes, it exists but then you have:
- "Hardship" exceptions for going to work/groceries, which are totally abused.
- Driving on a suspended license anyway. When you get caught, nothing happens. Perhaps the suspension is extended.
- As a shitty driver, you plead your case before a jury and the decision is reversed because most people are shitty drivers and they sympathize with other shitty drivers.
Source: I was hit in my grandmother's driveway by a driver with a suspended license. Went to court. Nothing happened other than insurance paying for the damage.
> If you are convicted for driving with a suspended license, you will be charged with a first degree misdemeanor. This entails a maximum of 6 months in jail and up to $1,000 in fines
Basically it will just become a side channel for revenue just like everything else about drunk driving already is.
The stakes are very high with impaired driving. In many states your first impaired driving charge can be felonious even if there is no injury or accident. In about half of all states your second impaired driving is automatically a felony despite no injury or accident. Society has a right to protect its roadways. However, we also need to be very careful about wanton criminalization. The penal system in the USA is backwards and barbaric
This is just like the majority of gun control laws that do little more than infringe the rights of the law abiding gun owner.
Please, add nuance when making such an assertion. It completely depends on the state you're in and which factors the state considers when refusing. For example; In Florida it may result in the suspension of your license for one year, which can be appealed.
1. Require an electronic drivers license that stores data on your driving skills, reaction time, and some metadata about solving problems.
2. When you get into the car, you have to solve a medium complexity puzzle. Eg hit a certain color in a row on a touchpad - think simple simon. Or a math, quiz, something.
3. If you can't solve it, the car won't start. Or have an emergency button that allows you to start the car, but then it turns on the hazards and honks the horn while your driving (showing that you haven't proven that your reflexes are up to par). This allows everyone to watch out for you, and can bring the attention to LE.
Eek. This is just captcha for driving. I don't like it. But it might save lives!
Having a different class of license effect the cars performance is interesting tho. I guess you'd want to rely on biometrics so that high-skilled-drivers don't become a target to steal their license. Probably need a way to revoke licenses, which means the car will need to stay online at all times. Brings to mind those rental cars that won't unlock if they're in an underground garage or out in the woods.
IMO it's all too much complexity to rely on, a car should be a machine that goes when you hit the gas. If you want to save lives, more public transport and slower speeds + roundabouts is the answer.
- Hasn't had their covid-19 vaccination/booster?
- Immigration visa expired?
Yeah, it's a slippery slope argument. But the track record of the government taking advantage of such openings is bad.
If you are driving that irresponsible you shouldn't be putting your wife and unborn child's life in danger in the first place.
(Then again, in the case of childbirth, it certainly could be safer in some cases to allow the birth to happen at home, rather than drive dangerously to a hospital a half hour away. Hard to say, and a spouse is usually not in a great position to evaluate the risk of staying at home.)
It is not, because the technology exists, and it works. Unless you are doubting that it actually works, which you seem reluctant to commit to.
EDIT: I have now read the article and would like to retract my guess that it will make no difference. It says that this will "require that the system be 'open' to remote access by 'authorized' third parties at any time". That's absolutely catastrophic and will almost certainly kill people.
Do you not think that the existing technology that is deployed in real cars is actually working?
Furthermore, the habitual drunks who actually pose a danger to public health are already playing the "drive a $1k car registered in someone else's name without a license" game so this won't affect them for ~20yr even if it's implemented tomorrow and based on the legislation it looks like it'll be years before anything actually gets implemented in new cars.
The point really wasn't that we should allow drunk drivers because wives might give birth: It was pointing out that software won't be able to tell the difference between impaired driving and fairly normal reasons for driving erratically. In other words, they won't know if you are getting a police escort to the hospital (like my parents did when my sister was born) or driving impaired.
Wait, you have to pay for an emergency ambulance in the US?!
Same thing happened to my wife and I asked why I couldn't just put her in a wheelchair and push her across the parking lot. Since she hadn't been discharged, she was still in their care so if anything happened, they would be legally liable. However, either insurance took care of it somehow, or the hospital never charged for it because it didn't show up on the bill.
It's disgusting.
You'd be shocked at the condition in which people will drive themselves to the emergency department.
No, that's not ethical reasoning at all.
That said, the false-negatives of people really being chased by serial killers is probably worth it compare to all real victims of dangerous or drunk drivers that could be saved.
So shoot the sensor and it'll detect a malfunction and allow you to drive!
That is precisely what a killswitch is. The circumstances and/or requirements of the activation of the killswitch are irrelevant to whether or not it's a killswitch. Is it a good idea? Maybe. Will I, as a teetotaler, be ripping this out of my future car on sheer principle? Yes.
And about «ripping [modules] out»: are you sure that will be possible, also technically? It's not an independent bolt, but probably an integrated component.
I don't understand how this is relevant to the point of something being or not being a killswitch.
>> also teetotalers can get tired
>>> I don't understand how this is relevant to the point
You mentioned that you are a teetotaler. This appears relevant to your point in that it assumes that this proposed module, acting as intended, would never prevent you from driving.
mdp2021 points out that the first guideline targets impaired drivers (not drunk drivers) and would, by intention, prevent you from driving if you were tired enough to be impaired.
Having just watched "No Time to Die," Rami Malek's character has a classic vilian diatribe in which he says:
The thing that no one wants to admit is that most people want things to happen to them. We tell each other lies about the fight for free will and independence, but we don't really want that. We want to be told how to live and then die when we're not looking.
It strikes me that perhaps storywriters keep adding lines like this to movies, books, etc because it's actually true for a significant amount of people. And that's really saddening.
You just repeated what the title says: they want to implement a mandatory kill switch in your car.
The fact that you believe it will be used for good, and will be "accurate" is certainly up for debate. I don't want them to be able to lock down my car and prevent it from being used. That scenario is unimaginable to me.
Here these kinds of devices already exist but you have to be a convicted drunk driver to get one mandated. It sounds pretty severe to have this for everyone.
(*A critical system with modules that promote unreliability, including potential security issues.)
How would this work for being a designated driver? The drunkards in your car would setoff whatever sensors "monitoring" for alcohol.
This is a stupid law that has no right to be included.
This functionality is not requested and is working against the user (and it is pretty unlikely for such a feature to be done completely locally on the car, and even if it was, it will almost certain have Over-The-Air updates creating what is colloqially referred to as a backdoor.
Which part of this do you disagree with?
And it's not mandatory. It may become mandatory in several-to-many years. The law is about exploring the possibility, just like OP said. This article is Facebook garbage that somehow made it's way onto HN.
What would you propose as the definition of a backdoor that does not include the above?
You are free not to buy.
> I don't want my car thinking because it can't see the fucking lines on the road
If you drive outside of "safe drive envelope" it does not matter if you're drunk or road conditions are dangerous. Safety systems should prevent accident in both cases.
The "you are free to not buy" argument is not valid if it's a regulation for all new cars. Eventually all viable road legal car stock will contain the regulated device.
Same as sudden acceleration or breaking. Don't buy car like this.
My elderly parent has bought a car with some of these features second hand, it will be great fun figuring out what is working as designed when a heavy vehicle has lost control and is lurching towards us at high speed.
https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/vulnerable-r...
https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/driver-atten...
https://howsafeisyourcar.com.au/safety-features/lane-keep-as...
So how exactly would that work, given that there will be no options?
Consider as well that the US has built a society heavily based around personal car usage, towns and cities are built around it, jobs and education expect it of you. So you are born into a car-first society, but then given the ultimatum of tracking and monitoring or reduced freedom of movement.
Apparently here we have different understanding. Everyone by default is excluded from driving. Driving a vehicle is not a right, it is a privilege, granted only to those who are willing to receive training, are able to pass test and are ready to operate vehicle that conforms to regulations.
If vehicle is not within regulations limit it may not leave private property.
Just imagine it. Machine learning algorithms deciding whether you're drunk or not, and stopping your car from moving if it thinks you are. What could possibly go wrong?
Car would stop in the middle of the Death Valley and will refuse to start or to open the doors.
In more realistic scenario, the system would notify the driver and the police which have an option to send someone to actually check the driver condition. This allows to deal with stuck driving and to improve algorithm accuracy.
You can vote or you can leave.
There do already exist pieces of legislation that cripple the acceptability not of one vehicle, but whole categories of vehicles (and practically potentially all of them). One such is the "E-call" in Europe.
Hardly. It's a mandate for the car manufacturers.
If someone (or yourself) needs medical attention, call an ambulance. If somebody is in danger, call the police. If you need to go somewhere, call a taxi. If none are available you can also ask someone else to drive.
I am aware that there are some situations where there is no other option than driving yourself. But trying to justify the ability to drive intoxicated, just for that once-in-a-lifetime emergency seems selfish to me.
Your wife is bleeding out and every second counts? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call an ambulance if you need help. The nearest one will take 15 minutes to arrive and another 10 to get to the hospital.
Pissed off a bear? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call the forestry service if you need help. The nearest ranger is an hour away.
Your town is flooding and you need to get out by any means possible? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call FEMA if you need help. They'll be here in a few days.
Caught in a blizzard with the wrong tires and are sliding around as you limp your car home so as not to freeze to death? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. Call roadside service, but don't hold your breath; there's a killer snowstorm out there!
In critical danger but your phone is dead? Sorry, citizen, you are driving too erratically. Killswitch. You should have planned ahead and charged your phone.
Etc, etc...
Oh the horror flicks are gonna have a field day with this trope.
But again, my comment wasn't about this system, but drunk driving in general.
I acknowledge that situations exist where drunk driving is the only option (like with the flood/tornado/vulcano examples mentioned in other posts). But for most scenarios there is often a better solution that doesn't involve drunk driving.
I like living in snowy places. I could see this being a real problem, just like snowy conditions mean self-driving won’t work for me for many years in my only vehicle.
I don't want a computer making the decision as to whether I can drive the car I paid for or not.
Maybe when society finally makes its final swirl down the toilet and we're finally not allowed to use private vehicles on public infrastructure, being forced to use government/corporate sponsored vehicles - maybe then they can tell me how to use _THEIR_ vehicle.
It's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime emergency because you couldn't get away and died. Had a beer in the evening and at night heavy flooding comes in? Better run really quickly!
I did try to explain that, obviously, some situations exist where you have no other option. A sudden flood after a night of drinking, and nobody else is sober to drive, then yes, I'd do the same.
My point was that whenever a topic about drunk driving comes up, many people will instantly jump to the "but what about an emergency!?" scenario. All I was trying to explain is that there often (but not always) is a better option than drunk driving.
For instance alcohol sensors used by cops need to be recalibrated every so often. Even less sophisticated systems like tire pressure on modern cars work well most of the time, but will fail and need repair at some point. These sensors used to check your intoxication status will fail and you might not be able to drive your car to the repair shop. Or worst case scenario they fail because you are in problematic situation that triggers the false alarm and you’re double stuck there.
Overall I don’t see a track record that warrants us to be optimistic about this working as well as we want to…
I know many of us here live in California, New York and other more populated areas so it is understandable we don't know what life is like in other areas.
Some people live in rural areas where it is not practical to just wait for a cop or ambulance. You would die if you did. Some small towns don't even have taxis.
What fraction of those is an acceptable death/disability rate as compared with the rate of drunk-driver caused fatalities and disability?
And "impaired" is a word that is significantly more far reaching in its meaning than "legally intoxicated":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impaired
> Definition of impaired
> : being in an imperfect or weakened state or condition: such as
> a : diminished in function or ability : lacking full functional or structural integrity
> b : unable to function normally or safely (as when operating a motor vehicle) because of intoxication by alcohol or drugs
While part (b) above does note a "because of alcohol or drugs" part (a) of the definition leaves the law open to a wide range of "impairments" that are not "drunk" or "high" such as "had a long day, and am quite tired and a little sleepy". Which would result in an "impairment" of your driving as compared to "got a good nights sleep, feel refreshed just now" when getting behind the wheel.
This is a very difficult problem to solve. A breathalyzer before engine ignition is likely what will be installed in every car starting in 2026.
How does it 'passively' monitor a user's BAC? How does it deal with false positives from things like hand sanitizer? Will I have to blow into a tube every time I start my car running errands because I'm keeping myself safe from rona or the flu? This is idiotic.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684...
Making non-drinkers pay to install a system (that can fail, and require maintenance) to prevent drunk drivers is not fair otherwise.
1. "passively monitor the performance of a driver... to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired... and prevent or limit [car] operation if an impairment is detected."
2. "passively and accurately" detect whether someone's BAC exceeds the Federal limit, and prevent or limit car operation if it's detected.
3. Both.
This will apply only after the DOT finalizes a rule describing what all those things actually mean in terms of manufacture. The law requires that the Secretary publish this rule within the next three years, unless they think it can't be done, in which case they can push it out another three years. That rule must give car manufactures at least another two years to implement the requirement. It also gives the DOT an out to say that it can't be done, in which case in 2031, they need to write a report to Congress to say why it can't be done.
In software terms, this is a user story that was just submitted for development. It's Congress asking the executive branch to do some work, but not actually forcing them to do so.