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
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.