[HN Gopher] Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves d...
___________________________________________________________________
Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded
in the US
Author : speckx
Score : 142 points
Date : 2026-03-23 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| nekusar wrote:
| I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this.
|
| People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks
| on their vehicles. They're 100% court mandated, as a punishment
| for, usually, drunk driving.
|
| This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and
| worse as a never-ending punishment. So what 150k people cant use
| their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the
| usual motto in the USA.
|
| Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
| bombcar wrote:
| "Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know -
| _you can agree to punishments that the government couldn 't
| impose_ as part of a plea deal.
|
| So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison,
| you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that
| infringes on your third amendment rights.
|
| This can even occur in a civil case.
| chuckadams wrote:
| I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers
| being quartered in your home.
| bombcar wrote:
| It's a humorous example, but violations of the 1st, 2nd,
| and 4th are common.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| They aren't violations if you are being punished. People
| who don't take the deal and get sent to jail or put on
| probation typically lose those rights as well.
| toast0 wrote:
| The soldiers in my home only have bill acceptors, not coin
| slots, so it's legal.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private
| companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something
| that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month
| for some of the poorest people in society.
|
| Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They
| have a dual morality where lawbreaking is _wrong_ , but
| profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory
| prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation
| services, and for-profit jails are _fine_.
|
| Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was
| a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).
| astura wrote:
| Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a
| DUI.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you
| get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private
| companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice
| system though.
| nekusar wrote:
| How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional
| protections against "cruel and unusual punishment".
|
| Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty
| of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long?
| Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd
| party company-owned device? What terms? What is
| reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in
| mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle
| nation, with poor to non-existent public transit.
|
| Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are?
| Pro-tip: it already does.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by
| the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if
| they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be
| approved.
| AngryData wrote:
| Why not? The minimum court fines and fees and programs are
| often outrageously priced themselves. A 3 hour "Dont drive
| impaired" program with 30 people on it can be up to $1000
| per person. What other service can justify a $10,000 an
| hour price tag?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| It is $80-90/month in Kentucky, with a $40 starting fee
| paid to the Kentucky's DUV. So you assume incorrectly;
| their "approved" vendors are the same as most other states.
|
| I'm legitimately quite confused about this reply in
| general, why did you assume I wouldn't be talking about a
| state like Kentucky? Did you consider that most
| states/courts mandate approved vendors?
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| I like to not share roads with drunks
| calgoo wrote:
| Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US
| is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost
| becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the
| country without a car.
| doubled112 wrote:
| Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that
| rule stopped them. Why would this rule?
|
| I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's
| my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much.
|
| Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and
| driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will
| magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't
| have a license? Really?
| jasonlotito wrote:
| Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without
| a driver's license. I don't think magic would be
| involved.
|
| You are free to backup your claim that magically
| _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain
| from driving becasue they don't have a license.
| irishcoffee wrote:
| > Yes. I think there are people who would not drive
| without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be
| involved.
|
| That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That
| isn't very nice.
|
| I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very
| provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about
| driving without a license.
|
| > You are free to backup your claim that magically
| _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain
| from driving becasue they don't have a license.
|
| I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up
| and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a
| good-faith conversation. Take care.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| This is an anecdote. My experience working adjacent to
| criminal justice gives me the feeling it's indicative of
| a given mind-set. It certainly would be interesting to
| see what kind of statistics exist for recidivism
|
| On 2019-04-19 my wife's car was struck, while she was
| driving, by a driver who was driving under suspension.
| The driver had a bench warrant out for their arrest for
| failure to appear in court on a previous driving under
| suspension violation.
|
| I searched my local court database and found this driver
| had driving under suspension or driving in violation of
| restriction charges on: 1999-07-12, 2000-01-27,
| 2000-02-03, 2000-02-14, 2000-05-03, 2001-07-23,
| 2011-07-13, 2013-07-10, 2013-10-24, 2016-03-10,
| 2016-05-23, 2016-08-15, 2016-09-09, 2018-04-09,
| 2018-05-03, and 2019-04-19 (when my wife was struck).
|
| The driver has since had additional driving under
| suspension charges on: 2019-08-15, 2022-04-29,
| 2022-08-18, and 2025-10-21.
|
| The driver had served jail time for some of these
| violations, too.
|
| I tend to think a significant fraction of people who
| don't respect the law prior to conviction don't begin to
| respect the law after conviction.
|
| (My wife wasn't injured, fortunately. The other driver
| was also driving without the state minimum required
| liability insurance, so we ended up eating the cost of
| the crash, too. This also seems to be indicative of a
| general disrespect for the law.)
| BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote:
| Here in Canada a Family Protection clause is common in
| insurance policies which covers you and your family in
| the case of hit and run, uninsured or under insured up to
| your liability limit.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| We'd actually paid for an "uninsured motorist coverage"
| endorsement but discovered that it really didn't cover
| anything material. Shame on me for not digging into the
| details when I added the endorsement. I've become a more
| savvy insurance consumer.
| jMyles wrote:
| I have no problem sharing the roads with drunks. It's the
| cars that scare me.
| tosti wrote:
| Okay, so don't go outside?
| jMyles wrote:
| You're right - but of course it's telling that "don't go
| outside" is the only prescription to respond to qualms
| about terraforming the entire planet in service of one
| industry's (statistically quite dangerous) product.
|
| ...but even though it's impractical to avoid these
| machines entirely, in many parts of the world it's
| possible (and enjoyable) to simply choose a bike instead.
| chromacity wrote:
| > This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse
| and worse as a never-ending punishment.
|
| Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if
| it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use
| it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many
| parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism
| is pretty off-base.
| benatkin wrote:
| The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the
| sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the
| sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is
| justified? Where would you draw the line?
|
| If the people of the country were more constitution minded,
| they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no
| additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe,
| even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including
| those who do it and don't get caught).
| astura wrote:
| Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are
| making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't
| start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short
| period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
| benatkin wrote:
| No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in
| the article, where the interlock devices didn't function
| as intended.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be
| a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of
| DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an
| individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These
| interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to
| people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already
| proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when
| allowed to operate vehicles.
| benatkin wrote:
| I might agree with you, but I struggle to think of it in
| isolation from the move towards self driving cars. Also
| we already have a quite harsh consequence of not being
| able to visit Canada for 10 years that a lot of rich
| people can get out of by paying a lawyer to keep them
| from getting a DUI. If only deterrents worked better. Is
| the problem with an interlock device that they can drive
| when they can pass the interlock test, or is the
| technology not needed, and what technology would you
| propose for preventing drunk driving convicts from
| driving illegaly?
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| I'm not sure there's a technological solution to a social
| problem. The problem is decision making when intoxicated.
| The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from
| those who misuse it.
|
| Consider guns. A felon cannot be in possession of guns
| legally, and the doctrine of constructive possession
| means that a prohibited person can be charged with
| unlawful possession of a firearm if a lawful owner in a
| household leaves a gun accessible to the prohibited
| person.
|
| Perhaps it should be a serious crime for a convicted
| drunk driver to be in or around a car where the ignition
| device could be in the prohibited person's possession.
| fragmede wrote:
| The technological solution is to make it so the addict
| doesn't need to drive to go about their lives. I know at
| least one alcoholic that moved to an apartment with a bar
| within walking distance, so they could walk home from the
| bar instead of driving home drunk.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| The other technological fix is naloxone, which helps with
| alcohol use disorder just like it does with other
| substance use disorders. We have many options if we as a
| society decide to take these problems seriously.
| benatkin wrote:
| > The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away
| from those who misuse it.
|
| My technological ideas were along those lines. Basically
| allowing them to continue to own their automobile, but
| not to drive, and perhaps not to buy one, because forcing
| them to sell their cars is hard to implement (though
| maybe worth it). And also preventing them from operating
| cars owned by other people that are stored in their
| residence or workplace.
| AngryData wrote:
| Because the DUI laws aren't designed to protect people, they
| are designed to extract money out of citizens for the courts
| and their buddies providing 3rd party services. Someone blows
| exactly the limit that is within the error range of the
| breathalyzer? Still get charged just as hard for a DUI
| because that is literally thousands of dollars the court will
| receive. Oh sure if you got $10K to drop on a lawyer it will
| go away easily, but for anyone that has a public defender
| they are shit out of luck. Defending yourself in court with a
| public defender is just increasing the risk and liability
| because if they lose the case they now have to pay thousands
| of dollars more for court costs, which pushes people to
| taking shitty plea deals.
|
| Oh sure there are plenty of people who are guilty and have a
| problem, they get caught too, but the courts want money so
| they aren't just going after the problem, they are charging
| any and every person possible. Some people get charged DUIs
| for annoying a cop or being tired, and even if their blood
| work comes up clean, do they drop the case? No. They just
| argue they were high on some other drug that they didn't test
| for.
| chromacity wrote:
| > Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error
| range of the breathalyzer?
|
| I hate to say this, but how about... not drinking and
| driving? Drunk driving is a massive problem in the US and
| accounts for a good proportion of all driving fatalities.
| And your attitude sounds precisely like what causes this
| issue: unless the penalties are painful, people keep trying
| their luck in hopes of blowing "exactly the limit".
| stronglikedan wrote:
| >> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives
| worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.
|
| > your criticism is pretty off-base
|
| In my experience, and the experience of my friends, that
| criticism was spot-fucking-on. Once you get into the system,
| you'll be lucky to ever truly get out. Every step is designed
| to keep you paying into the system in perpetuity unless you
| walk a very, very thin tightrope. Anyone that thinks we rehab
| our criminals is pretty off-base.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer
| interlocks on their vehicles
|
| N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a
| lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they
| were going to choose the car lock.
| applfanboysbgon wrote:
| If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be
| stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe
| this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
| sumeno wrote:
| Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a
| bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged.
| Interlock devices are not given to random people for no
| reason.
| nekusar wrote:
| It is not so dissimilar.
|
| Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail
| to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The
| threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges,
| and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these
| terms".
|
| And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can
| include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to
| ask for on sentencing.
|
| Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that
| those with more money can afford better lawyers. And
| those with less money get public defenders, who are well
| known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to
| keep from being investigated by the Bar.
|
| The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting
| with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any
| sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a
| money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party
| companies predating on your socio-economic class.
| lesuorac wrote:
| > So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something
| wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA.
|
| Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that
| people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to
| use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ...
|
| > Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
|
| You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a
| warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually
| would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does
| seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars
| responsibly to use cars with provided software without a
| warranty.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair
| that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't
| allowed to use a vehicle.
|
| Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't
| that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is
| the disruption in what they are allowed to do and
| software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for
| them, but others as well.
|
| And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are
| allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to
| use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with
| certain conditions. Just like you and me.
| nekusar wrote:
| Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using
| public defenders.
|
| The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can
| charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile
| of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year
| of a breathalyzer in your car"
|
| The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state
| and 'business partners' (private companies) via more
| suffering.
|
| And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager
| that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but
| are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal
| of rights with tenuous due process at best.
|
| The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished
| most of public transit to go all in on the personal
| vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for
| vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have
| good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a
| significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US
| domestic car production and oil/gas production.
| nemomarx wrote:
| I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like
| this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious
| matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to
| just taking away your license, right?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| More effective, too.
|
| An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a
| license pretty frequently does nothing.
| kube-system wrote:
| I don't think most people realize just how few people in
| the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast
| majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
| cucumber3732842 wrote:
| This but replace Germans and British with Americans above
| and below some fairly fuzzy income level.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo
| ghastmaster wrote:
| I have a friend who would like to do it voluntarily, however,
| just having one on the vehicle increases your insurance cost.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| You think USA punishes criminals too much?!?!
|
| You mean like this?
|
| https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah...
|
| Or like that??
|
| https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed...
|
| Or maybe this?
|
| https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197
| FireBeyond wrote:
| These are your examples?
|
| In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure
| Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is
| entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed
| security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for
| the rest of his life.
|
| So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is
| getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison?
|
| That first case? There's something missing there, there's
| zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the
| conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article.
| "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it
| was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one
| more of corruption...
| dmitrygr wrote:
| It is the "potentially" that is the problem. Remove that
| and i am 100% onboard
| hedora wrote:
| We need to legally mandate a single physical switch that disables
| all vehicles radios, and a second that factory resets everything
| but the odometer and vehicle fault logs / black box.
| bilekas wrote:
| That's an extremely attractive attack surface. How about we
| just have keys to turn on the engine?
| uxp100 wrote:
| Well, in this case because drunks keep murdering people.
| bilekas wrote:
| If you're drink driving you are not mature enough to drive
| and therefore you should lose your license. Simple.
| Spivak wrote:
| I would agree with you if the state took up the
| responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses
| around or making public transportation reliable enough
| for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with
| this as the compromise.
| bilekas wrote:
| I agree with public transport but that's basic. I don't
| see why the government should babysit you and drive you
| around because you drank and drove. Driving is a
| privilege not a right.
| Spivak wrote:
| I consider it to be the same as the state having to
| provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare
| while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability
| to provide those things for yourself and so now it's
| their job to do it. In cities with shit public
| transportation that isn't going to be invested in any
| time soon the state took away your ability to provide for
| your own transportation and I think it's on them to
| shoulder the cost.
|
| Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock
| are ways to punish that still let people provide for
| themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be
| babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments
| that turn adults into babies.
| bri3d wrote:
| Irrelevant to this issue - the devices didn't get bricked over
| the air, but rather they have a "calibration" time lock which
| must be reset at a service center and the service centers are
| ransomwared.
| kube-system wrote:
| > a single physical switch that disables all vehicles radios
|
| Disabling _all_ of them would have silly consequences, and
| wouldn 't be compatible with other safety regulations.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| I feel like a lot of you are commenting without reading the
| article. Vehicles are not being remotely disabled.
|
| The computer systems which perform the calibration on the
| device (usually done at a mechanic or auto electrician) are
| under attack. The vehicle will get locked out of this
| calibration is not performed monthly. There is no remote attack
| on the vehicle.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| I once helped someone get their car home after one of these was
| installed. Their license would not be returned until it was
| installed, but they weren't allowed to leave it on the lot.
| Someone else drove it there, and then I got to experience the
| breathalyzer to drive it home.
|
| The interesting part is how bad the interlock was. First off, it
| can apparently randomly not work, so you get three tries. Worse
| yet, per the official documentation, apparently they can
| misdetect an ignition while driving at speed, and when that
| happens you have to pull over and blow within thirty seconds.
| Now, this is not something you can do while driving, as you have
| to look at the camera while you do it, on top of needing to have
| a deep breath. There's no motivation to improve this, because the
| customer is the legal system, not the person who has to have it
| installed
| SilverElfin wrote:
| Isn't there a proposed law to install these into every single
| new car?
| bri3d wrote:
| Not really the same. There are proposals to require OEMs to
| install driver monitoring, but it's usually IR camera based
| rather than blow in a tube fuel cell based. These systems are
| probably going to be a mess but the technology isn't really
| comparable to DUI interlock devices and the unreliability of
| those systems is orthogonal.
| astura wrote:
| No, the 2021 infrastructure bill required automakers to
| install passive technology (passive meaning not requiring any
| specific actions from the driver) to prevent drunk driving by
| some future date. However, such technology doesn't really
| exist yet.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Eh, with lane keeping features I don't think it'd be hard
| to at least detect someone swerving a lot. Granted, I don't
| think that would detect people that aren't super drunk, but
| it's something.
|
| I might be wrong on that assumption - I don't drink,
| myself.
| volkl48 wrote:
| As is commonly commented on by cartoonists: In plenty of
| places driving consistently within the lines might be the
| actual sign you're drunk. Because the roads/potholes are
| bad enough that you shouldn't be, if you value your
| suspension.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| Nothing specific yet, but the legal groundwork has been laid
| both in the US and in the EU. Starting in July, all new cars
| sold in the EU will need to be able to fit after-market
| alcohol interlocks. In the US, interlocks are already
| mandatory for convicted DUIers in most states, but new cars
| will also have to come with factory installed drunk driving
| prevention technology in the coming years. We just don't know
| how far that mandate will go eventually.
| pas wrote:
| obviously it will require an age verification, also you
| need to tell Google that you want to go somewhere 24 hours
| in advance, and Apple gets 30% of the revenue that gas
| stations make.
| londons_explore wrote:
| There is no security protocol though. It will be trivial to
| buy an interlock which always returns 'ok to drive'.
| overfeed wrote:
| Manufacturers are now encrypting Canbus traffic,
| voluntarily on current and future models.
|
| Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is
| already illegal - trivial or not. If a driver gets a DUI
| and possess a NOOP interlock, they are getting an
| additional charge, and get to help am investigation into
| the illicit device supply chain.
| m3047 wrote:
| > Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is
| already illegal - trivial or not.
|
| I'm curious how this will play out. The "John Deer"
| exemption from the DMCA comes to mind, not sure if it's
| strictly for farm equipment or still in effect.
| kube-system wrote:
| There is no proposal to require these janky ass aftermarket
| units, nor require any type of interlock at all.
|
| NHTSA was directed to write some guidelines/rules around the
| implementation of passive impairment detection as OEM
| features. They have yet to do so, probably because it is
| flaky technology.
|
| My guess is that the final rule implementation will be
| similar to the distracted driver detection that is already in
| many new vehicles.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| Old cars sound better and better every year now.
| nslsm wrote:
| They'll just make it illegal for you to drive them.
| mothballed wrote:
| Meanwhile in much of the USA registration laws aren't
| enforced. The last time my car was totaled (hit and run)
| the police didn't even show up for that either so my
| insurance company just ate the whole cost. DUI laws
| themselves are largely only enforced to the extent the
| accused consents to bothering to show up to court.
| iso1631 wrote:
| Its illegal to drive under the influence now. "Just
| making something illegal" doesn't work
| wildzzz wrote:
| Having to blow while you're already driving is supposed to be a
| feature. It's to dissuade people from successfully turning on
| their car, immediately drinking, and then driving.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| 30 seconds seems a bit fast to force that though, no? There's
| not always a safe place to pull over.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| If it only kicks in at 45 or lower (i.e., not the highway)
| then there's always a safe place to pull over. I have no
| idea how it actually does work though, thankfully.
| lazide wrote:
| Stuck in stop and go traffic on the freeway doesn't sound
| like a good place to me, but I've never had a DUI so meh?
| shimman wrote:
| Is this comment a joke or do you not understand how dangerous
| it is to ask a driver to blow into a breathalyzer while
| operating a vehicle?
|
| All this seems to be is a company collecting corporate
| welfare while doing the bare minimum. Such companies should
| both be sanctioned and have their leadership investigated for
| potential fraud.
|
| If you receive public dollars to function, the public should
| expect some modicum of sensibility and accountability.
| KumaBear wrote:
| I think they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
| Suspend DL for one year and move on.
| mothballed wrote:
| Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not
| enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping
| their license is the only thing the judicial branch can
| do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without
| being able to order the executive branch to change.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with
| suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if
| systems like these didn't exist.
|
| Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving
| on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a
| cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she
| wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.
| ourmandave wrote:
| _Especially in rural areas_
|
| Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving
| his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and
| found out later from someone he had a suspended license.
|
| They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he
| stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official
| roadway.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| My wife used to tend bar at a place where one of the
| regulars would drive there on a tractor for a similar
| reason.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| The person I mentioned in my story upthread had the one-
| year suspension followed by the interlock requirement for
| another year
| londons_explore wrote:
| Someone who drives drunk ought to drive with the
| interlock for life.
|
| Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... And
| that can come back anytime, and killing bystanders is
| clearly a worse outcome.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction....
|
| No it is not.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Repeatedly driving drunk absolutely is.
|
| You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol
| intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes
| with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets
| the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely
| points to a deeper one.
| MisterTea wrote:
| The wording used did not indicate they were taking about
| a repeat offender.
| Ntrails wrote:
| Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial
| number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the
| bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It
| was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive,
| the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
|
| On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out
| and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi
| (assuming you can get one to come).
| cwmoore wrote:
| As long as bars still have parking lots and there are sin
| taxes, it's another state-sponsored racket.
| ryandrake wrote:
| You can get a DUI without drinking[1][2], and you can get
| a DUI without driving[3].
|
| 1: https://www.duilexington.com/blog/2020/september/can-
| you-be-...
|
| 2: https://www.carscoops.com/2026/01/tennessee-highway-
| patrol-s...
|
| 3: https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/can-you-
| get-a-...
| array_key_first wrote:
| The main problem is that, in a lot of parts of the US,
| your options are "drive or be homeless".
|
| The ideal solution is needing less driving overall. But
| excessively punishing people doesn't fix the problem.
| They're still gonna drive, most likely.
| sublinear wrote:
| This is obviously untrue.
|
| It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory
| and they'd just suspend your license.
|
| I am actually curious now whether that was more effective
| since the offender had to endure the judgment of the
| person in their life giving them a ride to work.
| array_key_first wrote:
| I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we
| have any reason to believe that those people didn't
| just... continue to drive with a suspended license?
|
| Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the
| 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get
| away with it.
| helterskelter wrote:
| I knew somebody with an interlock and if they were around too
| much car exhaust in a relatively enclosed space, the ethanol in
| the air would trip the detector apparently.
| profdevloper wrote:
| I was the DD for my friend's bachelor party and as we were
| leaving the bar, I saw this older gentleman struggling to start
| his vehicle. I had a hard time making out what he was telling
| me, but it looked like he had one of these devices on his car.
| Being the Good Samaritan that I am, I blew into the device, his
| car started, and he went happily on his way.
| joachimma wrote:
| I assume you're joking, Either way. One morning when I took
| the bus to work the bus driver had repeated problems getting
| the bus to start due to the breathalyser. I heard him
| complain to the passenger behind him, about it
| malfunctioning. The passenger volunteered to test this
| theory, by also blowing into the device. The driver handed
| him the hose, the passenger gave it a go, the bus started,
| and the driver shrugged his shoulders, and off we went, only
| slightly delayed.
|
| I'm not sure if this is preventable.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| If it's as flaky as my experience upthread suggests, maybe
| it was just that. At least, that's what I hope, for the
| sake of those on the bus
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Why does the bus have a breathalyzer rather than a damn
| manager who can fire the worker who smells of booze?
| donkey_brains wrote:
| Dunno where the parent comment was referring to, but
| different countries have different standards. In Colombia
| the bus transit stations all have breathalyzer stations
| and the drivers have to pass the breathalyzer before
| starting their shifts. It was pretty wild to see as an
| outsider but completely unremarkable to everyone else.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Guess your joke about bypassing breath interlocks didn't go
| over too well.
| DANmode wrote:
| Lots of troll-only accounts, recently (flagged this comment
| for this reason).
|
| Is an email the best way to report these?
| ashwinnair99 wrote:
| The fragility of putting ignition control behind a third party
| cloud service was always going to end like this. Someone had to
| find out the hard way.
| bri3d wrote:
| The issue here is not an OTA thing, for what it's worth. That is
| to say, it's not that these devices phoned home directly and a
| cloud server is down; rather, these devices require periodic
| "calibration" (due to a combination of regulation, legitimate
| technical need, and grift) at a service center and the service
| centers are out of commission, presumably due to ransomware.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything
| to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and
| broken that they will do some Rube Goldberg stunt before they
| even consider taking cars away from alcoholics.
| c22 wrote:
| Wouldn't it be better to take the alcohol away?
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| LOL, exactly! The underlying problem is people's addiction to
| drugs, not all the symptoms that come from those addictions.
| volkl48 wrote:
| We tried that once. It caused a lot of other problems.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Nobody suggested banning alcohol altogether.
| ativzzz wrote:
| The US tried this in 1920 and rolled it back a decade later -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat.
| ..
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from
| _everyone_ , they were responding to the idea of taking
| away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away
| alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a
| condition of their release from prison. We do it already in
| a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite
| a lot.
| bluGill wrote:
| Nobody in human rights would allow that. Take away the car and
| people cannot live.
|
| The above is sadly serious. It is almost impossible to find a
| job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each
| other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well
| make it not feasible for most people. Taking away someone's car
| is cruel and usual punishment that cannot be accepted.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can
| afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be
| things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for
| most people
|
| This is exactly what the parent meant by designing the
| country in a 'car-brained' fashion. It's not true in
| many/most other countries.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > It's not true in many/most other countries.
|
| Europe may not drive as much as America, but it's still
| about half. Cars are popular worldwide for a reason, and it
| is not American corporations magically convincing everyone
| how useful they are.
|
| It's also entirely moot, as we're not redesigning the
| country in the short term to cut down on DUIs.
| sobjornstad wrote:
| Yeah, but there's a big difference between having a car
| because you can afford it and it's often more convenient,
| and it being completely impractical to not have one. Or
| even to go have a beer without having to drive home.
| cesarb wrote:
| > Take away the car and people cannot live. [...] It is
| almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in
| walking distance of each other,
|
| As a Brazilian, that statement feels bizarre. Yeah, my job
| and my home are not in walking distance of each other. I
| simply take the bus. Sure, some jobs are not within reach of
| the bus (or the ferry, or the metro, or the light tram, etc),
| and some jobs need a car (for instance, it would be hard for
| a HVAC technician to take all their equipment on a bus), but
| saying it's "almost impossible" to find a job?
|
| > demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well
| make it not feasible for most people.
|
| That also sounds bizarre to my ears. Most places I've known
| have small grocery shopping places on nearly every corner.
| You just have to walk.
| showerst wrote:
| Unfortunately that just isn't true in large parts of the
| US. Many cities have no public transit, and no accessible
| grocery stores.
|
| Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to
| (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized
| college towns.
|
| The city of about 50,000 I'm from not only has no public
| transit and limited sidewalks, it doesn't even have
| crosswalks across the two main 6-lane roads that divide the
| city, so you can't safely walk more than about a mile even
| if you wanted to.
| bluGill wrote:
| Even in cities with public transit often it is so bad
| that isn't reasonable to expect someone to use it.
| Reasonable transit must run 24x7/365, at least every half
| an hour. Miss a day and someone can't get someplace they
| might want to. More than half an hour between bus/trains
| and it isn't reasonable. Miss the over night - maybe you
| can do this if you have taxi service for the same price
| (which might be cheaper overall for the few people who
| want to ride at 3am). Half hour is the minimum, it is
| possible to plan your life around that level of service
| and not be impacted too badly, but you will hate it
| (particularly when the line is a little longer than you
| expected: you miss your bus and so your ice cream melts
| by the time the next comes)
| linhns wrote:
| Not just the US, it's like that everywhere. Private
| transport will always be necessary as people need to go
| on routes with low demand. Only counterexample I can
| think of is Singapore, which has a vast network of buses
| and trains that go to everywhere.
| iso1631 wrote:
| I'm trying to think of a city of 50,000 people in western
| europe with no public transport, do you have one in mind?
| bluGill wrote:
| Even in cities with public transit cars have a very high
| mode share in rich countries. Some of it is 'trades' that
| need to carry tools and parts with them, but a lot could
| take transit but don't for unknown reasons
| iso1631 wrote:
| "Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to
| (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized
| college towns"
|
| I live in the UK (hardly a bastion of public transport)
| in a town of under 10k, and have a car. The main
| requirement for a car is to take my youngest to Drama
| club in the next town where it finishes at 9pm, well
| after buses have stopped. There is a drama club in the
| town, but as we only just moved we didn't want to move
| him. Likewise we're driving him to his old school until
| the end of July as he'll move school then.
|
| I used to live in a village of 300 people, and sure you
| need a car there.
|
| Sure it was nice to drive the 4 miles to the garden
| centre at the weekend rather than take the hourly bus,
| but it's not a requirement.
|
| For a town of 10,000 people, let alone 50,000, to say you
| _can 't_ live car free is nonsense.
|
| Of course America is different. Their towns are far less
| dense, they don't even have "sidewalks", they are
| consciously built so you have to drive everywhere, but
| that's unique to the time American towns were built.
|
| So again, what towns in Europe with a population of
| 50,000 have no public transport.
| bluGill wrote:
| As an American I can report there are sidewalks nearly
| everywhere. They are used for exercise only: getting
| anywhere is frusterating but if you just need to run (or
| walk the dog) they are great.
| kube-system wrote:
| 45% of Americans have zero access to any public transport
| of any kind.
|
| And the other 55% may have access but often it doesn't meet
| people's needs (it may not go when/where they need to go)
|
| Only 11% of Americans use public transit at all on a weekly
| basis.
|
| 3.5% of Americans use public transit to commute.
| inkcapmushroom wrote:
| Where I live I would half to walk about a half day to get
| to the nearest place that sells any kind of food and back,
| which is a 7/11 gas station. To get to a real grocery store
| and return would require a full day's travel on foot (just
| checked google maps, 4.5 hours one-way to the closest one).
| There is no public transportation option at all, the only
| buses are school buses until you get much closer to a major
| city. Driving is a necessity in such places.
|
| I live in a well populated East Coast state, so it's not
| like I'm even really far out in the sticks too, there are
| many places which are even worse off in these regards.
| array_key_first wrote:
| There are no buses to take here, and the distances are
| looooong. Your job or grocery store could be 15 miles away,
| and that's in an urban-ish area. Rural, it's much worse.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| If "car brained" means recognizing how great cars are for
| improving our lives, by letting us get to places quickly, then
| I don't see anything cowardly or broken about it. Just seems
| rational.
| jeffbee wrote:
| If by "quickly" you mean reaching a far-away destination in
| much more time and with higher variance in arrival time than
| it would have taken if the origin and destination had been
| sensibly placed closer together, then sure.
| genthree wrote:
| I once read a claim that once you remove the distance that
| exists between places _because of cars_ (large set-backs,
| unusable "green space", wide freeways including the medians
| and buffer around them, giant parking lots, et c.) cars are
| only an improvement for most car owners for day to day travel
| _before_ a city adjusts to widespread car ownership, and adds
| all that stuff. Add in the time you spend working just to pay
| for the car (depreciation, fuel, insurance) and it 's not a
| great deal at all. After that, it's only consistently a
| benefit if you can afford a driver. For most, it's a wash
| with bicycling, if not worse (in the hypothetical world that
| hadn't bloated way apart to account for tons of cars) except
| now you also need to schedule separate time to work out to
| stay healthy.
|
| This seemed implausible, so I ran the numbers for my
| situation at the time that involved car costs and a commute
| distance that were both _below_ median for my city, plus well
| above-median household income.
|
| Sure enough! It worked out just the way they claimed, if only
| barely. For the median worker in my city though, it was
| _very_ true.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > For most, it's a wash with bicycling
|
| When I hear people suggest that, I wonder if they live
| somewhere fairly flat, with mild mostly dry weather and
| high population density. Maybe this is why there is so much
| disagreement on the topic.
| genthree wrote:
| Yes, it's different if you live in the actual country.
| "For _most_ "
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It's actually an easy problem to solve, some places have done
| it with great success. You can't effectively stop DUI by taking
| the car away. The problem is the drinking. You make someone
| test every morning and if they've been drinking they get the
| slammer for the day. You don't need to take away their
| transportation.
| jeffbee wrote:
| That seems fair, yet even less likely to happen in America.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| It's called 24/7 sobriety, and I think there are places in
| America that have already implemented it. E.g.
| https://www.waspc.org/24-7-sobriety-program
| longislandguido wrote:
| People need cars to get to work.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to
| happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any
| product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails
| impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be
| stopped. We don't allow this kind of behavior with the electrical
| or building code. Hell, we don't even allow mattresses to be sold
| without adding fire resistance. The software that is critical to
| people's lives needs mandatory minimum specifications, failure
| resistance, testing, and approval. It is unacceptable to strand
| 150,000 people for weeks because a software company was lazy
| (just like it was unacceptable to strand millions when
| CrowdStrike shit the bed). In addition to approvals, there should
| be fines to ensure there are consequences to not complying.
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| I have no idea why you'd been downvoted. Everything you said is
| common sense. I guess this is a case of "it's hard to get a man
| to understand something if his paycheck depends upon him not
| understanding it."
| coryrc wrote:
| Or maybe it's "the NFPA doesn't need to prevent against your
| wires suddenly becoming aluminum because somebody discovered
| new math" like "DSA encryption has been broken" affects
| software.
| pas wrote:
| EU has the NIS2 directive, the CRA (cybersecurity resiliency
| act), and a few sector specific ones (DORA for financial,
| MDR/IVDR for medical/diagnostical, and there's probably a
| bunch more)
|
| these are slowly but surely pushing
| manufacturers/sellers/distributors to try to do the right
| things
|
| it requires transparency about support period commitment, a
| bug tracker program, issuing updates (I guess in case there's
| a CVE), doing risk assessment during development, etc., and
| requirements kick in based on turnover (or headcount).
|
| and it seems like the correct approach, these are already
| things good products come with
| knollimar wrote:
| It's great to assert "we need" but I implore you to consider
| the downsides first.
|
| I work for an electrical contractor and I don't think being
| annoyed by shitty UI is nearly the same problem as electrical
| fires. Why govern the whole set of software with 1 set of
| rules?
|
| Software isn't safety critical until it is, but we already have
| code to regulate software on electrical equipment, planes, etc.
| Why do you recommend software have a code? I'd much rather each
| individual thing that's safety critical have regulations around
| software in place than have to learn a 4000 page manual that
| changes every time you cross a jurisdiction, where enforcement
| varies, etc.
|
| Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as is.
|
| Imo, put the code around the safety critical thing (e.g. cars,
| planes, buildings). Restricting "critical" software will only
| get abused the way essential workers did during covid.
|
| Also keep in mind the way buulding code gets enforced: you get
| an inspection upon completion or milestones. Software has a
| tendency to evolve and need maintenance or add features after;
| I don't want to trust this to a bureacrat. I don't like google
| or apple getting involved on "their platform" and I certainly
| don't want an incompetent government getting involved.
|
| Before we have a software code, let's make and adopt some
| guidelines we can agree to. In construction, plenty of builders
| have their own sets of internal rules that are de facto codes.
| When one of those gets popular enough for life safety software,
| let's consider pushing for that.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| The solar power industry was born, rolled out products,
| learned from their failures, and implemented electrical and
| building code changes, in a third of the time that the
| software industry has existed.
|
| We already know what the failures are. We already know what
| the solutions are. We know it because people have been born
| and died in the span of time we have been dealing with these
| same problems. There is no need to assemble guidelines (that
| no company would follow anyway without being forced to).
|
| > Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as
| is.
|
| I'm not talking about "best practice"; I'm talking about,
| before you ship a build to customers, you must at least _run
| it once_ to look for errors. This is kid stuff, yet the
| companies don 't do it, and subsequently half the flights in
| the USA are delayed for weeks. There is no need to argue
| about this, there is no question that there are basic
| practices that should be considered malpractice not to do. We
| must make this law or they will continue to disregard these
| basic practices and we will continue to suffer for it.
|
| > Software has a tendency to evolve and need maintenance or
| add features after
|
| That is a flaw in business practice, it has nothing to do
| with software itself. I can run a suite of Perl programs
| today that I wrote 20 years ago, and they run flawlessly. No
| need for maintenance, it just works. The reason is, we just
| happened to treat this one language as something that should
| not break, and should last a long time. No reason we couldn't
| treat other software the same way. The fact that other
| software doesn't is a _choice_ by a lazy industry and
| uncaring business models, and this choice needs to be
| challenged, the way every industry has had to be challenged
| by codes (the reason codes exist is industry cannot be
| trusted to "do the right thing", they need to be forced).
|
| But despite this, codes change all the time. The electrical
| code changes as solar progresses. Building codes change as we
| learn new things or new materials are introduced. The codes
| do change slowly, precisely so the work is well thought-out,
| coordinated, and safe, which nobody can say about modern
| software. The time _for move fast and break things_ needs to
| end.
| knollimar wrote:
| >That is a flaw in business practice, it has nothing to do
| with software itself
|
| I don't think it's a flaw and throwing this away isn't
| worth a quarter of the hassle that comes with any
| enforcment implementation I can conceive of. Please think
| about what testing, safety, security is "enough", how you
| test it, and if it's worth the tradeoffs.
|
| Who is at fault for code violations? The scope of software
| is generally too big that prearchitected designs don't work
| and you must assign life safety faults to a PE. Software
| doesn't work like that, it's not singularly done. You
| shouldn't need to file a permit for expansion to add a
| feature or plug a security hole.
|
| You point to solar, but solar is less complicated than the
| things most of this website would deride as simple in
| software. The electrical codes. It has hardly changed at
| all since it's inception, and only inspired a handful (<12)
| of changes since the 2008 NEC. Most jurisdictions only
| update every 2 cycles or so, so we're talking 3 updates.
|
| Move fast and break things is fine when it's okay to break
| things; software is fundamentally different than physical
| infrastructure and you paint with really broad strokes here
| when you just assert "need" and "right".
|
| I work with building code every day and I fundamentally
| disagree that writing a "critical software code" would be
| net beneficial.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Software doesn't work like that, it's not singularly
| done.
|
| This is definitely a business practice problem, and not
| some intrinsic quality of software.
|
| And even if your business decides that software is never
| done, nothing stops you from getting a particular build
| inspected and certified. It's physically possible. The
| problems are mostly cultural and in other areas:
| Governments are generally hesitant to regulate business.
| Software companies lobby extensively to keep it that way.
| Vendors and customers are generally not willing to pay
| the increased cost of software inspections. Developers
| don't like the idea of being held to a quality standard.
| chasil wrote:
| The two long-term existing environments are Misra-C and ADA.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MISRA_C
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
|
| ADA is particularly strong in aviation.
|
| https://www.adacore.com/industries/avionics
|
| Rust would also be a contender, but it's "the new kid on the
| block."
| MisterTea wrote:
| Ada is a name, not an all cap abbreviation.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| There are lots of "software building codes" IEC-62304, MISRA,
| DO-178C, etc. Problem is that the vast majority of software
| doesn't fit into those categories. And as you mention, since
| you can build any product with software, you would _have_ to
| have categorization for any new standards to make sense.
| bilsbie wrote:
| That's the wrong lesson. Rather we should control things we own
| and not them control us.
| M95D wrote:
| I think a better ideea would be that software should not have
| disclaimers. Authors should assume full responsibility in court
| if their work misbehaves.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Why do people drink drive?
| bitwank wrote:
| There are no beds in most bars and nightclubs.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| Addiction, mental illness, a defacto requirement to drive to
| get around low-density towns where walking is often extremely
| dangerous due to lack of sidewalks and fast roads.
|
| Alcohol abuse has been around about as long as we've been
| human. We've just constructed a society where Alcohol abuse is
| far more likely to pick up collateral damage.
| vkou wrote:
| We've also become a lot better at distilling high-proof
| alcohol, and at making it cheap enough that most people have
| the budget to get absolutely wasted on the regular.
|
| Most people don't do that, but the option is there for anyone
| looking to make their life and the lives of people around
| them significantly worse.
| AngryData wrote:
| Alcohol has never been expensive enough or hard enough to
| produce to prevent alcoholism. 3000 years ago average
| people were drinking alcohol daily.
| kube-system wrote:
| Alcohol inhibits people's decision making skills
| wildzzz wrote:
| Either they are alcoholics who can't control themselves or
| simply just think they are still under control of their ability
| to drive despite being impaired. Many people just don't know
| what 0.08 BAC feels like. In college, I got the opportunity to
| blow on a breathalyzer (not because I was arrested) and found
| that despite not feeling drunk, I was over the 0.08 limit.
| tristor wrote:
| The 0.08 BAC limit also has no basis in reality for what
| impairment is. It's a political reality, not a scientific
| one. MADD and other organizations lobbied to make this a
| legal limit across the US and many other jurisdictions around
| the world followed suit.
|
| That's not to say that anyone should drive after drinking,
| but the basic reality is that impairment is often individual,
| and cannot be directly measured by blood alcohol content.
| Many people are impaired with a lower BAC than 0.08, and in
| many states you can now be charged and convicted of DUI even
| if your BAC is not beyond the legal threshold on the basis of
| purely circumstantial evidence.
|
| There's no good answer here, because we need cut and dried
| evidence in our legal system to prevent abuses, but there's
| not really good ways to do that. Separately, the leading
| cause of accidents is no longer drunk driving in most parts
| of the West, it's inattentive driving due to
| cellphone/electronics usage while operating a vehicle.
| Younger generations don't drink as much as older generations,
| to the point that zero-percent alcohol spirits and NA beer
| are now becoming broad markets and it's dramatically
| affecting bar/pub culture, but younger generations nearly as
| a rule are addicted to their smartphones.
| iso1631 wrote:
| MADD was formed in 1980
|
| 0.08 level was set in law in the UK in 1967, in France and
| West Germany in 1970
|
| Most countries have since lowered it to 0.05.
| tristor wrote:
| > Most countries have since lowered it to 0.05.
|
| That's the BAC of a healthy male an hour after drinking 2
| light beers. That is an absurd limit to set in stone,
| however there is plenty of evidence to show that /some/
| people are impaired at 0.05 BAC.
|
| Ultimately it really amounts to a battle between people
| who want to operate off fuzzy logic and reasonableness
| and a people who want to use totalitarian enforcement.
| There is definitely a significant government-funded (and
| activist pushed) take where /any/ amount of alcohol /any/
| time prior to driving is dangerous, which is obviously
| stupid and incorrect.
|
| People should not drink and drive, they should not drive
| while impaired in any capacity, whether its from their
| prescription medication, a drink, a joint, or simply a
| lack of sleep. There is also absolutely nothing wrong for
| a normal healthy person to have a single glass of wine
| over a steak dinner and to drive home, which will not in
| any way physiologically impair you.
| vkou wrote:
| > There is definitely a significant government-funded
| (and activist pushed) take where /any/ amount of alcohol
| /any/ time prior to driving is dangerous, which is
| obviously stupid and incorrect.
|
| Driving itself is dangerous. Acknowledging this is
| obviously smart and correct.
|
| And while I'm sure that you can drive safely at 100 miles
| an hour, or after five beers, _some_ objective standard
| has to be drawn _somewhere_. If the line were drawn at
| 0.16, someone would no doubt chime in to explain about
| how they 've got it fully together at 0.17.
| tristor wrote:
| Sure, but that's a strawman of my position. I'm not
| saying we should not draw a line, I'm saying that drawing
| a line is required due to how our systems work (in my
| earlier comment), and then in my reply to /reducing that
| line which was already nebulous/ I'm pointing out how
| ridiculous that reduction is. There are people who are
| impaired at 0.05 BAC. A normal healthy adult male is not.
| Like many things you can think of them as statistical
| distributions with outliers. If you slide the BAC level
| you consider legally impaired (regardless of actual
| function) you shift how many people will fall in the
| distribution above the line but without meaningful
| impairment.
|
| I'm not making some radical point here, I'm speaking
| basic reality.
| vkou wrote:
| Because they are drunk and want to get home.
|
| Or because they are drunk and want to go somewhere.
|
| That's all there is to it.
| Yizahi wrote:
| Good old "let's fire QA guys and give testing to the everyone
| else". It never fails to entertain. "The happy path checks all
| green, lets deploy!" :) .
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Imagine if an attack like this could disable _ALL_ vehicles, and
| not just the ones fit with the breathalyzer socket. It could
| happen soon:
|
| https://carcoachreports.substack.com/p/government-kill-switc...
| chasil wrote:
| Is there any indication that the source of the attack was Iran?
| mvdtnz wrote:
| If you search for Intoxalock on r/DUI you'll see this company has
| been notorious for a long time. They are regarded as the worst
| interlock provider by a very wide margin for various issues
| around reliability and service quality.
| ghastmaster wrote:
| I am an Intoxalock user right now. My device was due for
| calibration three days after the onset of this breach. I called
| the mechanic that does the calibration and they said they could
| not access the Intoxalock system. My device said I was overdue. I
| still drove it for 2 days. Intoxalock did a partial fix and the
| service center was able to extend the period for my calibration
| for another 10 days, but still couldn't calibrate it. I need to
| schedule that calibration now. It was a minor inconvenience for
| me.
| Arubis wrote:
| Now let's add an externally-controlled backdoor to everything
| else, too, and that'll work out great.
| stevemadere wrote:
| Given Pete Hegseth's history, this could be a huge national
| security issue.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-23 23:01 UTC)