You may have misunderstood me. Researching something that is possible, fine. Let’s take seatbelt.
Problem:
people seem to fly out the windshield during collision.
Proposed solution:
have people restrained in their seats
Proposed devices
bar
belt
harness
Research, testing, conclusion.
What we have here is this.
Problem
idiots driving drunk
Proposed solution
cameras - can’t detect alcohol
sensors for vehicle control - can’t detect alcohol
you see the pattern right.
If this whole thread was how to eliminate distracted driving, that would have been a different thing, although I would still be severely against shoving it into this bill and the fact that all car manufacturers already working on this tech and it wouldn’t require special provision in the bill to accomplish.
Omnibus or other wide ranging spending bills have been popular for decades across administrations. For example, something I am working on right now, federal employees got maternity and paternity leave in last minute spending bill to avert a shutdown that Trump signed in 2020. A dramatic policy change slipped in at the last minute without much discussion.
Why? Because the minority party, whether led by pelosi or McConnell won’t work with the opposing President even on issues that poll well.on a bipartisan basis (like maternity leave for feds or increasing tax enforcement against rich tax cheats)
Have you not read any of the research discussed earlier in this thread?? Technology developed or that’s being worked on can detect patterns associated with drunk driving or can actually detect alcohol in cabin air particles. Sure there are nuances, and it might not be the most accurate now, hence additional funding and research. The idea that this is all some far fetched reality, just isn’t true.
Unfortunately, we have a system that has developed a taste of leveraging pet projects as pawns in larger discussions. Just because it exists and gets used doesn’t make it an efficient way of doing business or deserving of support.
I know that response isn’t directed at me. While I don’t necessarily disagree with your argument, it’s largely irrelevant to the actual merits of the specific policy discussion. It’s more procedural. That is unless you think it could be vetted more via a standalone bill, which maybe that’s true.
You’re literally responding without having any concrete knowledge of the intricacies of the actual policy discussion. If you would have taken the time to read up on it, you’d see the part of the proposed funding is going towards that specific concern.
“But one concern is that the system could be triggered by drunk passengers, even with a sober, designated driver.
The federal government is funding research through the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program. Several possible solutions are being studied, including one similar to a Breathalyzer. It would measure alcohol in the air around the driver, however, rather than requiring a motorist to blow into a tube every time they want start their vehicle. Like Nissan’s system, the challenge is to avoid false positives from an inebriated passenger.”
It’s an unfortunate reality that standalone bills don’t always get the traction that one would want, so admittedly, it’s a somewhat faulty argument on my part. The point that I was trying to make though is that if your goal was actually to solve these issues, this isn’t how you would do it.
I work on the tech development side of gov funding (hell, I used to do a bunch of work in the building where airbags were developed). These kinds of generic white papers always seem to end up just lighting a bunch of money on fire.
I don’t disagree that the federal government is good at wasting money, but I also think that sometimes funding important issues pays off. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out.
It’s not a concern, it’s not doable. End of conversation, research or not. The only way to detect alcohol and verify that it’s a driver is with a camera + breathalizer or start poking people with needles. There is no way in hell this will not be sued into oblivion if they decide to put a breathalizer into every car.
Sure, which I believe it is in this instance. I get that you don’t. We just have a differing of opinions on this substantive issue, more specifically how they’re going about it.
And I’m done responding to you…no point in arguing with the person, who I’m assuming has no in-depth knowledge of this, let alone has studied this for years. Sure, there might be some “PR fluff” coming out of Nissan, Volvo, and the feds. But I’m much more apt to believe actual researchers and scientists than someone on the internet that says it’s not possible just because it’s not possible. There are literally already early examples of it.
Yes, absolutely, which is why that funding and research is occurring. I guess you could make the argument that we should put all of our eggs into that basket. Not necessarily opposed it it. Personally, I think distracted driving is way more of a concern than drunk driving.
Early examples that don’t work because there is no way for them to work. Unlike your 20 years of public policy, all of my experience is from technology, so I have a tendency to believe actual knowledge, research and technology over bullshit.
I had the same arguments with people about HW1 in Tesla, and was made fun of, and what do I know, the whole scenario is very familiar to me and made me have thick skin, but we’ll see in a few years how this is not going to work.
