Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
As have I, and specifically train software. It's a bitch to work with but not impossible to create a safe product.
The language of the bill states that "identifies whether they may be impaired and prevents or limits motor vehicle operation", so a full power cut isn't a requirement. Like I said in my other comment, a speed limit might be the end result of this (at least to me it makes the most sense).
So there is a difference between a shitty bumpy road an erratic driving. Even the most grotesquely maintained path will have the majority of the jostling kept to the vertical and roll axis. The constant vertical change and rotational change would make it pretty clear it's just a terrible road, so a system only really looking at the yaw axis wouldn't care. And with some other sensors to provide context, such as one to measure the length the vehicle's shocks are at, could rule out bad roads.
I have a device in my car from my car insurance company to monitor my driving. I don't go on shitty roads much, but when it detects me making too sharp of a turn, or too sudden braking/acceleration, usually it's justified. If I make them a whole lot in a short period of time, then it would be justified for the car to self-speed limit.
This is probably the worst case scenario, but not entirely the end of the world if the system has a backup, and an error code for one of the sensors going out.
I agree with you on this. It should be open source and well documented.
Lmao, checks out that you're just welcoming in the surveillance stare with open arms
My car company is not a part of the state, and I am cheap ass. I am a good driver and I want my insurance rates to reflect that.
I get good insurance rates, and I told them to stuff it when they "offered" to spy on me wherever i go.
And lmao that you actually think "good driving" and "driving favored by insurance actuaries" are even remotely the same.
I never said they are the same. But there is enough overlap to get me a decent discount.
Unless you just had your rates in the absolute shitter beforehand, you have very low standards for what a decent discount is, especially when you consider that you're normalizing them taking an overwhelming amount of data about you to create future insurance profiles for everyone.
Oh no!
If you've ever driven out in a field or in the boonsticks, that's just not always the case.
In some places, you simply have to swerve to avoid the worst of it because otherwise your tires and/or direction just won't survive. Like, you're not bouncing up and down through potholes, you're dodging ditches, roots, pits, divots, rocks.
Sure you could drive 10kph, but sometimes it's not that good of an idea, like say, in an emergency with your passenger bleeding out.
Is it somewhat of an exception? Sure, but something that you can't disable and takes some measure of control away from you isn't something I'm excited about.
In theory, that could be nice in some cases, but that seems dangerous.
If you're having to avoid that, it sounds like you were either already going slow, or were going straight over those obstacles. In either case a good system would be able to tell you're going a low speed and it's safe, or it's just a bumpy road.
What about a comprimise of vehicles containing such a device being subsidized? You have the choice, and a safer car is made to be the better more competitive choice. But for those who really worry about an edge case they still have an option.
No to both.
You seem stuck on the vertically of this scenario, and a trained software would likely make the same assumptions, yet they'd be wrong in some cases.
I did specifically mention swerving and not merely bumpy, from an actual real life scenario that I remember quite vividly.
I wasn't driving over any of these obstacles, because the car would have simply been destroyed, we'd have crashed and both died.
I wasn't driving that slow either, because my passenger was bleeding the fuck out.
The doc said it was a matter of minutes.
Software works fine for things where the driver's intent can be determined more clearly, like traction assist. I got no issue with that.
In this limit/kill-switch, driver intent cannot always be determined reliably because some factors depend on things there cannot be a sensor for.
I fail to see what problem this solution is supposed to address other than giving more power and data to companies and governments. Odds of this being a transparent, properly audited, open source solution are nil.
If it merely flagged you for review or something, maybe?
I'd have no issue with such a system if it merely tried to wake the driver up when it thinks you've fallen asleep.
If it takes control away from you, possibly in some fringe case emergency that's not accounted for in whatever software, it can fuck off.
Drunk drivers would either not opt-in, or bypass them illegally... like they already drive drunk, without licenses or plates illegally.
In Canada, we already have alcotest machines mandated in cars for people that have DUI infractions, maybe this technology could complement that.
For the general populace, it's not something I'd be excited about.
Fair enough.
Drunk driving
I don't disagree with you there, but just because it might end up being closed source and such doesn't mean it will be connected to the internet and giving your info to companies/the government. The bill specifies that it should be a passive system.
I wouldn't have a problem with either of those two options.
I don't think it is that clear cut. Drunk driving isn't exactly a premeditated crime. It's one that generally happens on a whim. Sure, some people know they have a habit of doing it and would find a way to opt out, but it would still help address other drunk drivers.
I would be open to that as well.
If we are really being honest, the easiest solution is to stop having car dependent cities and transportation networks. Nobody is gonna drive drunk when the train/subway/bus/sidewalk can get you home safely, quickly, cheaply, and easily.
Take a look at Japan's drunk driving fatalities. They have almost none. Part of that is their 'draconian' laws/low legal alcohol limits, and also probably culture. But they have fantastic public transportation, and it's a great option for drunks to get home.