Re:NTSB wants alcohol detection systems installed in all new...
by dangus on Saturday September 24, 2022 @10:56PM
(#32968553)
1. The disabling threshold could be set well above "buzzed" or "the legal limit" if that makes you feel better. Or, instead of being disabled, the car could be speed governed, hazard lights forced on, or something of that nature. Heck, if you want to teach us why things are important, implement the system without any disabling functionality and notify the driver that they're over the limit (a lot of buzzed drivers don't even know they've done something wrong in the first place).
2. Implementing a system to disable restrictions during major emergency events would be trivially complicated and inexpensive. We already have a national emergency alert system that pushes out to every cellular connection. Newly built cars very often have integrated cellular capabilities and always have some kind of software-based infotainment system.
3. It's not legal to drive drunk even on private property in a number of states, and being on private property doesn't make it any better of an idea even when it is technically legal.
4. Medical emergencies like the one you describe are more of a straw man argument than a concern with a lot of relevance to this topic. I could construct a similar argument: what if you live alone and have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving? The problem here is that rural areas have less access to fast emergency medical care in the first place, and that's just part of living in a rural area.
5. Rural areas have worse crash fatality statistics in the first place, so this system theoretically helps rural areas even more than urban ones. [1]
6. Let's say even after all this you still don't want it to be mandatory: the system could be offered as an insurance discount incentive and a lot of people would go for it.
2. Implementing a system to disable restrictions during major emergency events would be trivially complicated and inexpensive. We already have a national emergency alert system that pushes out to every cellular connection. Newly built cars very often have integrated cellular capabilities and always have some kind of software-based infotainment system.
3. It's not legal to drive drunk even on private property in a number of states, and being on private property doesn't make it any better of an idea even when it is technically legal.
4. Medical emergencies like the one you describe are more of a straw man argument than a concern with a lot of relevance to this topic. I could construct a similar argument: what if you live alone and have a medical emergency that prevents you from driving? The problem here is that rural areas have less access to fast emergency medical care in the first place, and that's just part of living in a rural area.
5. Rural areas have worse crash fatality statistics in the first place, so this system theoretically helps rural areas even more than urban ones. [1]
6. Let's say even after all this you still don't want it to be mandatory: the system could be offered as an insurance discount incentive and a lot of people would go for it.
[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/urban...