4 ms·

This Tesla saved the life of a driver who fell asleep (drunk) behind the wheel, as well as the lives of others on the road around it. Having seen first hand wha

This Tesla saved the life of a driver who fell asleep (drunk) behind the wheel, as well as the lives of others on the road around it. Having seen first hand what often happens when people do that I don’t understand what everyone’s complaining about. People drink and drive. It’s a huge problem in this country. If Tesla autopilot made him drive drunk then needle exchanges promote drug use. You can’t have it both way folks. It’s either a public safety issue or it’s not.

aw3c2 8y ago
If a car is "intelligent" enough to drive, it should be able to refuse to transport a drunk driver too.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  Unless it’s a taxi, right? I mean, when I catch a taxi home after I’ve been drinking, I’m not the driver, so your point stands. But if the car really could self drive then it could be a selfdriving taxi?
- bertil 8y ago
  That option was tried: a company developed a safety system on top of a car’s ignition. To start, the driver had to blow into an alcohol test. It was meant for parents’ letting their teenagers drive their car and court-mandates. The system was rapidly scraped when people realise someone else could easily blow in.
  - lttlrck 8y ago
    Parents feeling the need to install these things seems misguided at best. But IID are in use all over the world and Universal IID hasn’t got far - as you’d expect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device
TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
I upvoted your comment because it’s a reasonable position to take, in my opinion. I guess the down voters are probably wondering what would have happened if nobody tried to stop the vehicle. The obvious thing to do is slow down and stop in front of it, unless the car wound then change lanes out of the way. That’s a worrying thought. I tend to agree with your sentiment, at least in the future tense: self driving cars could, at least theoretically, drive sleeping / inebriated / injured people. We’re probably not there yet, and I don’t believe Tesla advertise this as a feature.
- csydas 8y ago
  I think the downvotes are because the GP makes a sweeping generalization to conclude and makes it seem as if the auto-pilot was the only reason the man survived. Based on the report and the description of how Tesla's auto-pilot functionality is supposed to work, it sounds like a bug or unintended activation of the auto-pilot prevented an initial tragedy, and the Highway Patrol luckily developed a smart way of safely stopping the car. As was commented elsewhere, the story would have been way different had any number of factors, human or AI, been slightly different. I really hope that a proper review on what engaged the auto-pilot here is performed so there is a clearer understanding. But as for the GP, I personally find their post to be contentless, even if their reaction is one that many people might have.

aw3c2 8y ago

If a car is "intelligent" enough to drive, it should be able to refuse to transport a drunk driver too.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
Unless it’s a taxi, right? I mean, when I catch a taxi home after I’ve been drinking, I’m not the driver, so your point stands. But if the car really could self drive then it could be a selfdriving taxi?
bertil 8y ago
That option was tried: a company developed a safety system on top of a car’s ignition. To start, the driver had to blow into an alcohol test. It was meant for parents’ letting their teenagers drive their car and court-mandates. The system was rapidly scraped when people realise someone else could easily blow in.
- lttlrck 8y ago
  Parents feeling the need to install these things seems misguided at best. But IID are in use all over the world and Universal IID hasn’t got far - as you’d expect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_interlock_device

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago

I upvoted your comment because it’s a reasonable position to take, in my opinion. I guess the down voters are probably wondering what would have happened if nobody tried to stop the vehicle. The obvious thing to do is slow down and stop in front of it, unless the car wound then change lanes out of the way. That’s a worrying thought. I tend to agree with your sentiment, at least in the future tense: self driving cars could, at least theoretically, drive sleeping / inebriated / injured people. We’re probably not there yet, and I don’t believe Tesla advertise this as a feature.

csydas 8y ago
I think the downvotes are because the GP makes a sweeping generalization to conclude and makes it seem as if the auto-pilot was the only reason the man survived. Based on the report and the description of how Tesla's auto-pilot functionality is supposed to work, it sounds like a bug or unintended activation of the auto-pilot prevented an initial tragedy, and the Highway Patrol luckily developed a smart way of safely stopping the car. As was commented elsewhere, the story would have been way different had any number of factors, human or AI, been slightly different. I really hope that a proper review on what engaged the auto-pilot here is performed so there is a clearer understanding. But as for the GP, I personally find their post to be contentless, even if their reaction is one that many people might have.