Imagine that you are in a car accident (the other person hit you). The insurance company uses your sleep tracker to claim that you were negligent due to not getting enough sleep the night before, and are therefore at fault, so they won't pay.
Data is as dangerous as it is helpful. The scary thing is that you cannot control how someone else will interpret your data.
In your example I think it's right that the driver is found at fault. The effects of sleep deprivation on driving are very well documented and are comparable to drinking. If a driver is not fit to be driving a car, then they are a danger to the other road users and must take responsibility for their negligence.
The same evidence could of course be helpful to the driver. If their sleep tracking app shows they are well rested and their phone's use shows no distractions while driving, then they could use that as evidence to fight a charge of driving without due care and attention.
This seems to be a common false logic argument based on an unknown, where the event leads the judgement. "Fault" occurs when someone does something that is against the rules and results in an undesirable outcome. They are NOT at fault if nobody observes them doing the thing that is against the rules + nobody else observes the undesirable outcome that resulted in the causality from doing the wrong thing (because nothing happened).
Even if someone did observe them breaking the rules, the "fault" doesn't exist until the undesirable outcome occurs and is observed. Arguing that loss of privacy will make things safer is illogical, given loss of privacy creates "inverse causality", or causality created by blaming someone for something before they actually do it in an objective frame. Keep in mind that (us) Buddhists believe we are all a single entity, with very specific discrimination that allows each of us to believe we are also a separate entity with an ego. That ego requires privacy to pull off what it does.
The process of "speaking for others" is akin to speculation about someone else's internal subjective frame inside a separate internal subject frame (aka mind's eye) in the observer (the one speaking for the other) BEFORE objective causality occurs. My hypothesis is that, by phrasing the speculation for other entities to consume as if it is an objective fact (which is is not), the "speaker" creates inverse causality event which then spreads in a viral way through the aggregate. See "this video will make you angry" on YouTube.
Apologies if this is still a bit rough around the edges logically and semantically. I'm just now getting it down in words and it's still a work in progress...
It's not as though we can derive some hard cutoff on how little sleep is clearly negligent. We're talking about wide ranges and tolerances for different people in different circumstances.
We're in the same situation with alcohol -- how much before you're actually impaired? -- but most states have responded to that reality with laws that prohibit driving after drinking almost any alcohol at all.
Are you sure you want a similar situation with respect to your sleep?
Given that I don't know of a single driver actually obeying the rules about mandatory breaks for long-distance travel, yes, I'd definitely want a similar situation with respect to sleep.
There is something weird about driving that makes most people feel they're smarter and better than everyone else, so they can ignore traffic laws at their discretion. That attitude costs quite a lot of lives every year.
Commercial truck drivers can have their log books inspected at weigh stations, if they haven't had the required rest (or don't have a logbook), they have to stop and stay off the road.
Yes. If it is your habit to stake other people's lives on your subjective opinion that you don't need sleep to be a safe driver, despite evidence to the contrary, those other people have every right to deter and punish your choice.
So we can stake the punishment on subjective limits on required sleep?
Blood alcohol provides a quantifiable measure of impairment. Sleep trackers don't even come close to measuring sleep well enough to provide a single number to use with a threshold.
Even if they are responsible, not receiving insurance coverage for a very expensive mistake like this could run someone's life into the ground. Sometimes, imperfect information helps us lift each other up. I'm all for accountability, but we don't want to leave people hanging out to dry with no second chances either.
Getting hit by a sleepy driver can run you into the ground. The only reason we don't have dui for sleep is we can't measure it. But if we could, it should (and hopefully would) be completely equivalent to alcohol.
> So you're say that Fitbit data, which has several cases of inaccuracy reported, should decide if a person should go to jail or not?
No, he's saying that choosing to drive while suffering from the very real effects of severe sleep deprivation probably constitutes negligence.
If the evidence that someone was suffering from severe sleep deprivation comes from a highly unreliable source, than that evidence should be treated as...highly unreliable. Courts are actually pretty good at that.
Yeah, I agree with everything you said, but the parent (and other comments) mentioned using "their sleep tracking app", which to me would never be reliable.
Data is as dangerous as it is helpful. The scary thing is that you cannot control how someone else will interpret your data.