Certainly I never insinuated he/she supports drunk driving, etc.
I’m also not arguing that the government and other entities don’t waste money. Of course they do. On the other end of that spectrum, I think it’s a ridiculous argument to make that no money should be spent to try and develop these kind of breakthroughs. Again, that’s how, in large part, technology advances. Certainly there can be an argument made one way or another for the approach/vehicle for that funding.
There’s that strawman again.
The argument was that money slipped into a larger bill with poorly defined goals shouldn’t be spent to try and develop those kinds of things.
It isn’t that money should never be used to do those things, it’s that this is an ineffective way to do so.
It does mean that you are not going to be funding fireworks displays as the means of fighting cancer. Funding distracted driving technology research and drunk driving prevention are two very different things. One is kind of sort of doable to some extent. The other stops with a simple question, can we detect alcohol levels without touching the person. Do we have even an inkling of how to do it. You don’t think airlines, trucking companies, and many other industries are very interested in ability to remotely detect alcohol?
On the other hand, NHTSA is not approving a ton of pending technology because they are backlogged. Technology that can be had today and start saving lives today.
They are ancillary issues. Of course they have more in common than cancer and fireworks. I understand that you disagree with the funding/vehicle. That’s not the viewpoint I take on it.
As I mentioned earlier, some of this technology is already being researched and developed.
If the private industry is doing this, with specific implementations, what is the need to have a generic bucket of money out there to investigate if this is possible as part of an infrastructure bill?
Good point, but I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive. Below is an article that sums it up much better than I could. While the feds aren’t immune from this, I don’t think this is a case of just throwing a bunch of money up in the air and hoping to come up with a solution. It sounds like they’re researching very concrete ideas and technology that’s on the cusp. Obviously the challenge will be how to make it reliable and cost effective.
Obviously what Volvo is doing refutes the argument that some of that technology hasn’t already advanced past only utilizing breathalyzers and BAC. As the article mentions, other automakers are developing similar technology. Nissan is working on a system that would use several different methods to see if an impaired driver is behind the wheel. Multiple sensors detect alcohol in cabin air. A camera atop the instrument cluster looks for facial cues signaling the driver is inebriated, and the vehicle itself looks for driving patterns suggesting an impaired driver.
So they’re spending tax payer money researching technology that already exists and is being covered by the private sector? Why are we blowing money in the name of saving lives to recreate work that’s already going on? If the goal is to find new solutions, playing catch up doesn’t do it.
How does slipping funding into a bill meant for other purposes to research work already being done further the goal of saving lives? It sounds like the definition of a boondoggle slipped in to pad someone’s pocket to me.
Seems like a far more efficient use of money would be to wait and see what the private sector does and then spend that money to purchase/license the patents for the developed IP and offer that cross market.
I think, in part, the funding is to come up with something easier to use and more affordable if it’s to be eventually mandated on new vehicles.
Do you think pharmaceutical companies and the government aren’t both funding cancer research?
I think your argument that it may not be the most efficient way to research/fund the topic is valid. But I don’t think anyone is trying to slip it in, it’s a topic that’s getting a ton of attention, it’s certainly no secret they’re trying to include it in this bill.
Additionally, I don’t view “infrastructure” with narrow lenses either. To me, it’s applicable as roadway safety is a component of vital infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, etc. As a taxpayer, I’d be equally as upset that drunk driving is estimated to have an annual societal cost of at least $210 billion according to the IIHS.
Why not? They do that crap all the time
I know they do, I work in public policy. To me, “slipping it in” implies that it’s a secret. There’s nothing secretive about it. Maybe that’s just semantics on my end though.
It happens with probably every bill, it’s called Pork Barrel.
Again, I understand that. I’ve worked in some form of government/public policy for nearly two decades. I’m just talking about this specific example.
I consider it “slipping it in”, as it’s something that is ancillary to the core goal of the bill, and it is loosely defined, but full of hyperbole. But yes, I agree, it could be done in a much more secretive manner.
Again, I would disagree with that. But that’s fine, we have differing viewpoints on it.
Does it really matter if we consider it snuck in or not? It’s still an inefficient use of funds going towards an ancillary, nebulous goal that’s being pushed on the tax payer with lots of hyperbole and very little substance.
If the gov wants to fund that kind of work, fine. Put forth a bill for that.
That’s not what i was inferring on my last post. I meant that I have a different viewpoint than you on the substance of this conversation. I don’t think it’s an…
I honestly couldn’t read the whole thread and stopped maybe halfway through, but THIS was funny.
Because you think it’s “PR fluff”, with nothing to back that up, it is?? Volvo literally stated they’re nearing implementation of it in their cars.
Adding what you think are clever memes, doesn’t make your argument more valid.
