- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AI controlled vehicle kill switches appear to be coming to new vehicles later this year
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:01 pm to SallysHuman
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:01 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I believe per capita is like per 100,000… or 1,000… dunno, I’m drinking right now.
No. Per capita is per person
1
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:02 pm to LegendInMyMind
At this point we really can abolish the police. They aren’t doing shite any way, protecting people. They don’t prevent felonies or misdemeanors. And if the cars are going to self regulate DUI, the police won’t be arresting drunk drivers. So what they hell are they offering for all the taxes we’re paying?
Law enforcement has been feckless since Covid. This is just eliminating another of their functions.
Law enforcement has been feckless since Covid. This is just eliminating another of their functions.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:02 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
No. Per capita is per person
Like I said…. I’m drankin’…
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:03 pm to jrodLSUke
quote:
Why would anyone be against this?
Because it’s going to be a complete clusterfrick. Go out to dinner and have a glass or two of wine, and all of a sudden your car won’t work. You really think these things will work? Are we all going to have to blow every time we start the car?
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:04 pm to weagle1999
Watching TD develop from skeptical college kids to boomer-type geriatrics who believe everything they read online has been fascinating.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:07 pm to weagle1999
quote:
blood-alcohol detection system that prevents or limits operation when BAC meets or exceeds the legal limit of 0.08%.
I'm all for this. Alcohol makes some people do very stupid things, like driving and killing a crossing guard.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:10 pm to jrodLSUke
quote:
Why would anyone be against this?
Let’s see..
1. Because AI systems alone still can’t reliably detect whether a driver is impaired without a horrible false positive rate.
2. Because data collected by these systems (likely including driver-facing cameras) will be sold to various data brokers, hacked by malicious third parties, and stolen by the government.
3. Because any sort of chemical detection system (likely including breathalyzers) will require some sort of calibration.
4. Because all of this would just make vehicles even more expensive and create even more maintenance headaches.
.. just off the top of my head.
ETA: We are still a long way from any of this becoming real, though. Remains to be seen how the NHTSA actually goes about it. AFAIK they still haven’t said much about what, if anything, might end up being required.
This post was edited on 4/30/26 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:17 am to weagle1999
Not mine
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:36 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Watching TD develop from skeptical college kids to boomer-type geriatrics who believe everything they read online has been fascinating.
says the COVID vax truther
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:39 am to SloaneRanger
The real double whammy is cops will assume every car on the side of the road is a drunk. You can be changing your tire and have to do with demands for a FST.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:48 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
Why would anyone be against this?
I think some are against it because of the fear of what's next, the slippery slope argument. If they keep putting things in to control us how long before they put a switch in our houses to dictate what time we have to go to bed at night? As an example
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:00 am to weagle1999
I can’t imagine how anyone could be opposed to this..
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:07 am to Volvagia
quote:
You can be changing your tire and have to do with demands for a FST
Decline it. You are not required to submit to it or perform it.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:12 am to udtiger
What about when the AI reads you are not able to drive in a life or death situation, bc your stress levels are way too high?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:21 am to SallysHuman
quote:
This is saving us from drunk arse Memorial Day Revelers driving a hummer towing a boat from crashing into you at a decent rate of speed at a red light (that's what happened to me).
It’s not saving you from anything. It’s not like this law coming into effect and assuming all of us are drinking and driving, replaces all the vehicles on the road.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:23 am to weagle1999
quote:
A passive performance-monitoring system that continuously observes a driver’s behavior and restricts or prevents vehicle operation if the system determines the driver may be impaired;
or
A blood-alcohol detection system that prevents or limits operation when BAC meets or exceeds the legal limit of 0.08%.
The reason is limiting our ability to be mobile and do as we please.
Our pushback on EV's (which would've done the same) has caused this.
So when driving out in the middle of nowhere your new S580 will be haulted and your family wll be stranded.
And what exactly wll this " passive performance-monitoring system" do?
If you look funny on the cars internal camera system I'm, sure it will think you're inebriated. What if the system sees you yawning?
NOw if the system can detect alcahol thats fine. HOw the hell can it do that?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:26 am to weagle1999
Alcohol consumption is on a downward trend, is this going to know if you’re high?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 7:26 am to brass2mouth
quote:
It’s not saving you from anything. It’s not like this law coming into effect and assuming all of us are drinking and driving, replaces all the vehicles on the road.
True... it would take many years to realize any real benefit. And drunk assholes could find ways to circumvent it, I'm sure.
What would really help, in SC at least, is actually punishing drunk drivers. The real problem here has been decades of laxity in prosecuting and punishing.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 7:32 am to FutureMikeVIII
According to DUI.org
quote:
Based on DUI death rates per 100,000 residents, these are the 10 most dangerous states for drunk driving, with arrest rates included for additional context: State DUI Deaths per 100,000 DUI Arrests per 100,000 South Carolina 7.66 266.90 Montana 6.28 366.00 Wyoming 6.15 493.44 Arizona 5.76 284.74 New Mexico 5.61 260.27 Texas 5.53 194.19 Alabama 5.53 173.59 Mississippi 5.27 410.85 Tennessee 5.19 287.18 Arkansas 5.11 225.12
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 7:34 am
Posted on 5/1/26 at 7:41 am to weagle1999
quote:
A blood-alcohol detection system that prevents or limits operation when BAC meets or exceeds the legal limit of 0.08%.
How about a system that detects pot?
And then a system that detects rowdy kids?
And then one which detects when the streets may be "too slick"?
And then one which just shuts down based on the possibility of bad weather?
I personally can't wait until the world is covered in bubble wrap to keep my precious self safe.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News