[missosoup]

> Please don't get behind the wheel if you're drowsy.

I know two people with the issue that GP is talking about, and it's not what you're talking about.

They're perfectly alert when they get behind the wheel. They get drowsy on longer drives like 1hr+, which is why any time we do road trips I drive for them. And all that 'pull over and take a power nap' bullshit doesn't work. It's not grounded in any science to start with. I know both have tried coffee, breaks, stopping and taking a walk, etc. Of all those things, they said taking a nap is actually the worst because when they wake up they feel even more tired.

So their choices are: have someone else drive them, don't drive beyond a 1hr distance range, or deal with the drowsiness. You can imagine how sometimes life just forces them into #3 even though both are keenly aware of their issue and do their best to mitigate it.

Tech to detect when they phase out and save their life is absolutely the correct way to go.

[joosters]

If it's dangerous for you to drive, don't drive. It's as simple as that. If you can't stay alert enough for more than an hour, don't drive for more than an hour.

If people think that #3 is acceptable, they should never be allowed to drive a car, for everyone else's protection.

[missosoup]

That's not how real life works. It's dangerous for everyone to drive and in the future manual driving will be as legal as riding horses on highways is today.

People do potentially deadly risk reward calculus all the time. And of all potentially deadly things that people regularly do to crack down on, this one would have a pretty huge negative ROI for society. This issue impacts a non-trivial percentage of the population. You can't tell them all to change jobs or move their houses to be within whatever travel time limit. This purist notion of 'they should never be allowed to drive a car, for everyone else's protection' crumbles at the most trivial examination when you consider that you're talking about leaving millions of people jobless or in significantly worse quality of life conditions, while also completely reshuffling the housing markets and zoning. And even then, sometimes events will come up that force them to take that chance regardless, such as family emergencies.

Rather than this purist isolated-logic bullshit that would probably crash the economy if seriously enforced because you have absolutely failed to consider the first and second order effects of what you're suggesting, we actually have a viable tech solution instead.

I'm going to guess that most people who share this viewpoint are either high income earners living in a bubble who don't know what real life is like for most of the population, or are logical purists looking at this issue in isolation and not accounting for what life is like for most of the population. Life for most of the population is working paycheck to paycheck at whatever job you can get in order to make ends meet and keep your kids fed, and living in whatever housing you can get that doesn't make it impossible to get enough sleep to physically keep living due to long commute times. Being prevented from driving would absolutely destroy most affected families. You're going to do a lot more damage to society by preventing all those affected from driving than by doing nothing and letting it contribute to a small percentage of the road toll, which in itself is an insignificant percentage of the total death toll. Which is why every country on the planet has done nothing more drastic than awareness campaigns, despite being aware of this issue.

Really, this is where this entire discussion becomes moot. Fatigue and microsleep as a cause of road fatalities are a well studied issue that every developed nation is aware of and has done the calculus on. And not a single one of them decided to ban those affected from driving, because the calculus of that policy results in a massive net COST, not gain. And that calculus shifts even further now that we have fairly cheap car technology available to mitigate the issue. When you think through all this, the only conclusion is 'ban affected people from driving' is moronic and does significantly more harm than good.

tl;dr: you'll save more lives by replacing a single coal power plant with renewable energy than by implementing your policy. And you won't destroy the lives of millions of people and potentially crash the economy in the process. And there's already a viable solution on market that mitigates it almost entirely anyway. Pick your battles.

[spike021]

The fact that this comment is a plethora of words trying to win an argument how falling asleep at the wheel shouldn't be considered unsafe is incredible.

[scarmig]

That's an ungenerous reading of the comment. They would agree that falling asleep at the wheel is unsafe.

We've designed a system, however, that is set up such that it's bound to happen sometimes. Not everyone can call in to work and tell their boss "sorry, I slept badly last night, I'm not coming in" or order a $60 Uber to get somewhere on a whim. Moralizing at people is just virtue signaling.

[missosoup]

In one paragraph you've conveyed my point better than I could across multiple comments. This is the heart of what I was getting at.

This, and the fact that the HN demographic, mostly being techies, seem to be a bit disconnected from what real life looks like to 80%+ of the population of the world. A few instances per year of not coming in to work due to poor sleep or having to order Uber wouldn't just inconvenicence them - it would completely destroy their lives along with their children/families. People are doing what they need to do to survive and look after their loved ones.

[scarmig]

In an earlier life, I worked in the trucking industry. If you refused to drive anytime you were fatigued, you would not be successful in the industry (one reason I am very glad to not be doing that anymore; it's also one of the most dangerous occupations out there, partly for that reason). I think that lots of the people here have never worked a non-privileged job in their lives.

[spike021]

That's quite a reach and a bad take.

I've only been in the full-time tech industry for about 3.5 years.

Before then I was working hourly jobs to make ends meet, including working half time or more while studying full-time in college, working during high school, etc. This so I could pay rent and tuition with minimal, if any, aid.

I couldn't even afford a car until after graduating from university.

I was walking or taking public transportation everywhere prior to finally getting a car.

I won't disagree that people in SV can be snobby but let's not jump to conclusions here.

[jpambrun]

If you can't drive safely; you can't drive. There is no middle ground. You may think it's fine to take a risk for yourself based on your costs/benefits, but it's definitely not fine to take a risk for others.

[ghaff]

I'd point out that many things are not binary.

[drivebycomment]

I agree that moralizing doesn't help, and that we should fully take into account "realities". But that also means you can't just assume autopilot will help you - it could very well be that having autopilot will end up making people to fall asleep at the wheel more often, and therefore increase the chance of accidents or severity of the accidents. We know for a fact that it does involve some trade off (see those people misusing autopilot and getting into accidents), and we simply don't know autopilot provides better safety overall.

There has been enough indirect evidence to suggest advanced driver assist without a significant driver monitoring is dangerous (Google's report of their employees doing other things, the fatal accident of Uber's self-driving vehicle, various fatal and non-fatal accidents of Tesla autopilot due to misuse), but there's been no systematic study and we don't have enough public data to suggest it's one way or another.

[pluto9]

Nobody said it was safe. They merely pointed out that some people have to choose between safety and feeding their families.

[godelski]

I think the difference here is that some places have easy access to public transportation while most places in the US do not. People that live in one situation don't realize that people live in the other and how different it makes life. I've lived across the US and it has been vastly different.

I grew up in Southern California where one time my car broke down and my 20 minute commute (mostly highway) turned into a 2hr bus ride while my car was in the shop. Once I was an hour late to work because the bus came and went before it was scheduled for that stop. I've lived in a rural town in the south where no public transportation even existed. There wasn't even a way for most people to walk into town because there weren't even sidewalks. A few people biked, but it was pretty well known that if you weren't on a $5k bike riding in the nice area of town you had a DUI and were riding your kid's bike to get to work. I would have had to walk along a highway (a 30 minute walk) just to get to the store (I saw people doing this too). I've been in the Bay and NYC where busses have to wait at stops and there is light rail. Now I live in a city where I rarely drive my car and using my bike is easier to get around. These situations are very different and frankly I don't think people understand this.

The problem is that most of the US doesn't have infrastructure to relieve people of the choice between driving and being safe because they have to maintain their job. In many places there aren't even enough population density to make this economically feasible (aka profitable or net even). Someone was mentioning that technology can't solve this problem, but frankly this seems like the exact problem autonomous vehicles solve. Light rail is great, but it isn't a practical technology for most of the country.

[Silhouette]

This purist notion of 'they should never be allowed to drive a car, for everyone else's protection' crumbles at the most trivial examination when you consider that you're talking about leaving millions of people jobless or in significantly worse quality of life conditions

You contend that there are millions of people who knowingly drive while tired enough to fall asleep at the wheel and with a history of doing so?

If so, I contend that your argument is contrived and your claim is unrealistic. Most people do not and would not drive while so tired that they knew they were likely to fall asleep while doing so. For a start, such a pattern of behaviour would be suicidal. Statistically, there would be far more nasty accidents due to tiredness than actually happen.

In reality, only a tiny proportion of people drive while so tired that they might actually fall asleep at the wheel. Not only doing that but knowingly doing it when you have a history of dropping off while driving is utterly inexcusable.

[Mirioron]

>According to the National Sleep Foundation, about half of U.S. adult drivers admit to consistently getting behind the wheel while feeling drowsy. About 20% admit to falling asleep behind the wheel at some point in the past year – with more than 40% admitting this has happened at least once in their driving careers.

From: https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/safety-topics/fatigued-drivi...

Those are enormous numbers. I wonder how big the economic hit would be if none of those people drove.

[thatcat]

Wow so if you maximize economic growth at the cost of setting up a system that regularly requires a high degree of easily avoidable risk, then later you can use the "you're destroying the economy" argument to prevent any reasonable response that would lower that risk. That seems like a very irresponsible way of managing a system.

[Silhouette]

This is a matter of degree. The start of this thread wasn't about someone who was driving home at the end of a long day at work and feeling a little tired. It was about someone who, by their own admission, had a history of dozing off at the wheel, and wanted to knowingly continue driving while unfit to do so.

If we're being brutally objective here, road accidents are extremely expensive in purely economic terms. Obviously there could be a loss of productivity for anyone directly involved who was injured. But then you also need to expend considerable resources to clear the accident site and fully reopen the road. While you're doing that, you might be delaying many people due to congestion in the area of the accident. Then there is the cost of caring for anyone wounded, repairing any physical damage done to public infrastructure, and repairing or replacing any other vehicles that were involved and any cargo they were carrying. And of course, in the worst case, you have the profound effects of losing people entirely under such tragic circumstances, which involve not just losing anything they would have contributed for the rest of their lives, but also the consequences for their family and friends, their employers or clients, and anyone else who depended on them economically right down to the place on the corner where they stopped to buy a coffee each morning on the way into the office.

So even if we're only trying to avoid the most catastrophic cases such as someone actually falling asleep and causing a multi-vehicle pile-up on a major road, and even if we err on the side of caution and take many thousands of drivers off the road who are at significant risk of causing such an accident but in reality would not have done so, it's still not clear cut that the economic hit would be greater than the harm prevented.

For those who like hard data, I can't immediately offer you any, but as a very rough guide, here in the UK (where we already have lower per-capita road deaths than most of the world) I have seen arguments made about local road improvement schemes that suggested a seven-figure cost to save a single life would be economically justified. It's not hard to believe if you consider that a fatal accident can close a road for several hours, leaving thousands of vehicles stranded, and involving dozens of emergency responders and all of the equipment and vehicles they need, in addition to the injury, death and damage caused to anyone directly involved.

[fastball]

The start of the thread was actually:

> You should never get behind the wheel if there's a chance you'll fall asleep!

I would say anyone that feels drowsy has a change of falling asleep. So 50% of the population should regularly not get behind the wheel, by GC's standard.

[missosoup]

> Most people do not and would not drive while so tired that they knew they were likely to fall asleep while doing so

For most people, the other option is to stop driving to work and then be jobless and eventually homeless, make their kids go hungry, or go bankrupt. You guys seriously seem to be completely disconnected from what reality looks like for 80%+ of the population.

> In reality, only a tiny proportion of people drive while so tired that they might actually fall asleep at the wheel

You have no idea how microsleep works. It does not involve 'knowingly driving while tired enough to fall asleep'. This single statement makes it clear that you're expressing some pretty strong and sure-sounding opinions on a subject that you know nothing about. You (as in specifically you) could be experiencing microsleep on a regular basis and never even know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsleep

And even when talking about the other cause - fatigued driving, are you suggesting that people come in to work late after every night they had poor sleep? I mean that would actually be a decent policy if not for the fact that a handful of instances of that in a year would get most people fired? Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't drive home after a long shift? (do they like, sleep at their workplace? have you thought through this?). And we're back to my first point - I don't think you understand what life is like for the majority of the population who live paycheck to paycheck and work any job that they can get just to survive and keep their kids fed.

As someone enjoying the 'privilege' of working in tech and having flexible hours and being able to arbitrarily work from home and having enough savings to take a 6 month long sabbatical without any financial strain, I can see where you might be coming from. As someone who spent the first half of their life working blue collar jobs and having a panic attack over an unexpected 300 dollar expense which literally meant I spent 2 weeks eating nothing but pasta, I'm pretty sure you either never knew or have forgotten what life is like for most people out there. Yeah for you and I being banned from driving is just a mild inconvenience and 'sigh, now I have to use Uber for all travel'. For most people, it's a life and family destroying sentence.

[jhloa2]

Exactly. I live in the US in a relatively typical suburb and the vast majority of people here don't really have an option on whether or not they drive. Our public transit is lacking, jobs are inflexible with WFH, and the majority of housing located close to where jobs are clustered is exorbitantly expensive.

The issue is also compounded if you work a blue collar job where it's likely that you aren't even commuting to the same place every day and need to haul tools with you.

It's really easy for people to make blanket statements that you shouldn't drive if you have a history of being tired at the wheel, but the reality is that a large portion of our population doesn't have an option.

[remote_phone]

Not a history of being tired. A history of falling asleep. That’s completely different and knowing that you regularly fall asleep at the wheel is akin to murdering someone that doesn’t deserve it. If only the driver died then I wouldn’t care at all but too often others die that don’t deserve it.

[Silhouette]

For most people, the other option is to stop driving to work and then be jobless, make their kids go hungry, or go bankrupt. You guys seriously seem to be completely disconnected from what reality looks like for 80%+ of the population.

You keep writing as if this is a normal problem that everyone faces. If it were, and if everyone or even a moderate proportion of drivers were doing what you seem to be arguing is essential, then population numbers would be falling rapidly due to all the fatal accidents. As far as I can see, however, you haven't actually provided any data to back up your repeated claims about how widespread this problem is and how much damage would be caused if the relevant drivers stopped driving when they were unsafe.

You have no idea how microsleep works.

Susceptibility to microsleep is usually a result of failing to sufficient good quality sleep normally, an underlying medical problem, or both. Common conditions like obstructive sleep apnoea can be tested for. Effective treatments like CPAP machines exist. Given that OSA can have other serious health effects as well as causing the unusual tiredness that becomes a danger if you're doing something like driving or operating heavy machinery, investigation and treatment of potential sleep disorders is definitely recommended.

Of course if you simply don't get enough hours of sleep regularly, if you don't sleep well because you do things like drinking excessive amounts of alcohol in the evening, you can go to bed earlier, cut down on the booze, etc.

You (as in specifically you) could be experiencing microsleep on a regular basis and never even know it.

Given that there are many warning signs of microsleeps, one of which is being very tired all the time, and given that the subject of this thread is people driving when they know they're so tired they might fall asleep and having a history of scares caused by falling asleep at the wheel, I don't see that your attempt to make this personal has any relevance to the debate.

[aspaviento]

> For most people, the other option is to stop driving to work and then be jobless and eventually homeless, make their kids go hungry, or go bankrupt.

You say that as if there weren't any other options. You have public transport and you can share a car (and expenses) with someone who has your same destination.

> For most people, it's a life and family destroying sentence.

Dying in a car accident is literally a death sentence and has worse implications for your family.

[scarmig]

> You say that as if there weren't any other options. You have public transport and you can share a car (and expenses) with someone who has your same destination.

So, how does this work, exactly? So you set up carpooling with a coworker. And then one day you don't sleep well. Luckily enough, they're there to pick you up so you don't have to drive! ...but what happens when it's your turn to drive? You tell them, whoops, I'm tired today, so you're going to have to drive and get your spouse to change their plans so that you have access to a car? Or maybe they're always the one driving... what happens on days that they're tired? They cancel and you both have to find your own way via public transit?

Like what are the specific logistics here, accounting for failure modes? Does it amount to "spend $100 on Uber on days after a mediocre night's sleep"?

[Ancapistani]

A very large number of people in the US have access to no public transit whatsoever - and as for sharing a car... that’s what they’re likely doing with their partner. One person uses it to go to work while the other is at home, probably caring for their children.

[TylerE]

> You have public transpor

No you don't. In 95% of the US "Public transit" is maybe a bus that stops a mile away once every 2 hours. If that.

[quicklyfrozen]

You've never had a bad night's sleep? Never had to make a longish unexpected trip because of a family emergency? Never had to work 2 jobs to make ends meet?

In this case, if the person isn't able to get disability b/c of their condition, I can't fault them for doing what they need to survive. I don't like that it puts others at risk, and hope they are taking steps to reduce the risk. Detection technology that alerts them seems like a step in the right direction.

[Silhouette]

You've never had a bad night's sleep? Never had to make a longish unexpected trip because of a family emergency? Never had to work 2 jobs to make ends meet?

I've had to do all of those things. At some times in my life, I've had the first and last for an extended period. To my knowledge, I have never as a result driven in a condition that made me unsafe behind the wheel, though.

Yours is another comment that talks about people doing what they need to do to survive, which is an ironic characterisation given we're talking about behaviour that is borderline suicidal.

[quicklyfrozen]

If you have done those things, then you've accepted some increased risk of falling asleep, just like most of us have at one time or another. We're human and can't say for certain that falling asleep is impossible (or some other medical event won't happen).

We live with that risk, and some others have to live with more risk because of their circumstances. I'm more reacting to all the posts that no one should ever drive at all with even the slightest risk that they'll fall asleep, which is just an unrealistic ideal for most of us.

You know they let some people drive who have extremely bad eyesight--bad enough that that they can't read road signs? Yet they are allowed to drive, because not driving makes participation in our economy next to impossible.

[spike021]

Then you pay for a taxi, bus, or some other mode of transportation unless you're prepared to pay both financially and emotionally for any incident you wind up causing. Both for yourself and everyone else affected.

It's really not that complicated. Stop making choices for other people that could cause them to wind up injured or killed. Because yes, that is in fact what you're saying to do here.

[scarmig]

> You contend that there are millions of people who knowingly drive while tired enough to fall asleep at the wheel and with a history of doing so?

Yes? There are even millions of people who drive drunk every year, which is a far more conscious choice to endanger other people than someone driving home after long, late shift.

15 million people work a night shift. If 10% of them drive home drowsy one night per year, you're already at millions.

[dontcarethrow2]

Driving = Privelege Driving =/= Human right

[godelski]

No one is saying driving is a right. They are saying that if you want to have a job you need a car (in some areas of America). Even moreso if you want a job that pays above minimum wage. The problem is that there is a high pressure to put people in these situations, where the consequence for them has a large impact on their life if they don't put themselves in the risky situation.

[dmitriid]

> If it's dangerous for you to drive, don't drive. It's as simple as that.

You've never lived in the States, have you? The absolute vast majority of anything in the States is inaccessible without a car. If you live in a city, sure, you might get by with public transport (almost universally very bad in the States). Anywhere outside the city center? Good luck getting anywhere without a car.

[willbw]

Life can't just 'force' you into #3. It's still a choice you are making. If it is between you not being able to make a meeting on time or a cyclist getting killed because you fell asleep then I hope we can agree the negatives far outweigh the positives.

If you can't stay awake for an hour that must be very challenging but I don't think you should be driving at all for longer distances. At least not on a road you share with other people!