5 ms·

That video has some really terrifying moments. Some of the decisions would warrant an alpha flag

by zwirbl 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
My grandpa would warrant an alpha flag, too. But he still allowed to drive and his driving skills are not improving, at all. What the alpha flag would change, exactly?
- josefx 5y ago
  If your grandfather drove bad enough to pull two such stunts on a single drive he wouldn't have a car to drive anymore. So an alpha flag would at least indicate: "drives literally worse than rcMgD2BwE72F's grandfather" .
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    Erratum: my grandpa drives worst than FSD with human oversight (like in all the video you can find on Youtube). I didn't meant FSD without oversight, which is not possible anyway. But are we discussing the current level of FSD as a Level 5 system? Don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classific...
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Then he should hand in his license.
    - saiya-jin 5y ago
      why is it so hard to understand that roads full of drivers equal to your mythical grandpa would be a really bad idea and people would be dying left and right?
    - 542354234235 5y ago
      >my grandpa drives worst than FSD with human oversight Your grandpa is one person. Retesting 100 million drivers to find the bottom 10% is not exactly very feasible. For a model of FSD, all vehicles on the road share the exact same level of performance. We are talking about scale here. It is like comparing me selling some vegetables from my garden to a neighbor and a company selling 100 million units of vegetables across a country. It makes zero sense to say "they should both have the same level of safety standards", since a listeria outbreak sickening thousands is far worse than a tainted cucumber poisoning one neighbor. Tens of thousands of cars using dangerously poor driving level software is worse than any one individual driver that may have dangerously poor skills.
  - lupire 5y ago
    That's not true at all. You only lose you your license after being caught by police, several times.
    - johnday 5y ago
      Ah, but you can lose your car much quicker than that, if you make an error in driving.
- marcellus23 5y ago
  Many people would argue drivers should be regularly tested so that people like your grandpa can’t drive.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Where aren't they? Over here driver's licences expire.
    - nijave 5y ago
      In the U.S. they expire but you're usually not retested unless you move states and sometimes not even then. You usually just go down to the state's motor vehicle office and confirm your info is correct, pay the renewal and they print out a new license
      - SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
        Yep, the extent to which people are allowed to renew their license in the U.S. is very nearly criminal (both in the cases of old age and in previous history of driving impaired or recklessly). It's one of the less talked about externalities of the States being a car-based culture. Here, driving is considered a right more than a privilege, whereas in most other first world countries (e.g. most of Europe) the opposite is true.
  - sidibe 5y ago
    If his grandpa really drives this poorly he will lose his ability to drive well before it expires either directly from accidents, from losing his license after accidents, or from his insurance becoming too expensive. I'm always amazed at how badly die-hard FSD supporters think humans drive
- teslagrandpa 5y ago
  Tesla should hire your grandpa then, to drive around their cars. Much cheaper FSD and proven track record.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Your grandfather's license should be taken away (and, if he drives anyway, his car should be confiscated so that he stops before more drastic solutions are needed) One problem we have here (in the UK) is that unless you've committed a crime the most likely person to assess that you shouldn't drive any more is your GP (doctor). But doctors operate in an ethical framework that prioritises the interests of each patient as an individual, resolving both silly theoretical ethical problems ("Do I kill this healthy patient to save these other dying patients?") and real world practical ones. So, "grandpa's driving is bad" only meets the threshold when it's so bad he'd likely die, if he will just kill or injure other people that's not an ethical obstacle in this framework unless grandpa is uncomfortable with it, in which case he should stop driving without waiting for the license to be taken away. This is something you're seeing in health policy right now. Sticking needles in people's arms is something medics do, but they all operate under this ethical framework. So, while a government may have good reason to vaccinate Bob, the doctor is only willing to vaccinate Bob if Bob wants to be vaccinated and it's personally in Bob's interest, regardless of whether it'd be better for everybody else. Still, where it's important to public policy you can sidestep the ethical problem by sidestepping the medical procedure, here are two examples used today in the UK: 1. If somebody claims you're the other parent of their children and you owe child support but you disagree, the government can decide to make you get a DNA test (you get a refund if they aren't your kids). But the DNA test is a medical procedure, so if you really don't want it, the medics won't do it. Instead you'll end up in court, and the court will look at the available evidence and most likely say, well, seems to us if you were not the parent of these kids you'd have taken that DNA test and proved it. You owe child support. (Owing child support isn't a crime, so, there's no need to meet the criminal evidence standard). 2. If you're in a vehicle accident or just it seems obvious to them you might be drunk, the police can decide to test for alcohol. Some of the tests they could try don't need a medic but do need your co-operation, others would need a medic. Either way you might refuse and so, the law just provides for a penalty for "Refusing to provide a sample" that's almost exactly the same as the penalty for drink driving you might hope to avoid by doing so.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- volta83 5y ago
  I agree that people skills change over time, which is why I, as a driver, am in favor that every driver should retake the driving exam and a health exam every 2 years. I am also in favor of enforcing this for all foreign drivers going through my country somehow, since most of them don’t really know how to drive here.

That video has some really terrifying moments. Some of the decisions would warrant an alpha flag

by zwirbl 5y ago

That video has some really terrifying moments. Some of the decisions would warrant an alpha flag

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

My grandpa would warrant an alpha flag, too. But he still allowed to drive and his driving skills are not improving, at all. What the alpha flag would change, exactly?

josefx 5y ago
If your grandfather drove bad enough to pull two such stunts on a single drive he wouldn't have a car to drive anymore. So an alpha flag would at least indicate: "drives literally worse than rcMgD2BwE72F's grandfather" .
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Erratum: my grandpa drives worst than FSD with human oversight (like in all the video you can find on Youtube). I didn't meant FSD without oversight, which is not possible anyway. But are we discussing the current level of FSD as a Level 5 system? Don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-driving_car#SAE_Classific...
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Then he should hand in his license.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    why is it so hard to understand that roads full of drivers equal to your mythical grandpa would be a really bad idea and people would be dying left and right?
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    >my grandpa drives worst than FSD with human oversight Your grandpa is one person. Retesting 100 million drivers to find the bottom 10% is not exactly very feasible. For a model of FSD, all vehicles on the road share the exact same level of performance. We are talking about scale here. It is like comparing me selling some vegetables from my garden to a neighbor and a company selling 100 million units of vegetables across a country. It makes zero sense to say "they should both have the same level of safety standards", since a listeria outbreak sickening thousands is far worse than a tainted cucumber poisoning one neighbor. Tens of thousands of cars using dangerously poor driving level software is worse than any one individual driver that may have dangerously poor skills.
- lupire 5y ago
  That's not true at all. You only lose you your license after being caught by police, several times.
  - johnday 5y ago
    Ah, but you can lose your car much quicker than that, if you make an error in driving.
marcellus23 5y ago
Many people would argue drivers should be regularly tested so that people like your grandpa can’t drive.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Where aren't they? Over here driver's licences expire.
  - nijave 5y ago
    In the U.S. they expire but you're usually not retested unless you move states and sometimes not even then. You usually just go down to the state's motor vehicle office and confirm your info is correct, pay the renewal and they print out a new license
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 5y ago
      Yep, the extent to which people are allowed to renew their license in the U.S. is very nearly criminal (both in the cases of old age and in previous history of driving impaired or recklessly). It's one of the less talked about externalities of the States being a car-based culture. Here, driving is considered a right more than a privilege, whereas in most other first world countries (e.g. most of Europe) the opposite is true.
- sidibe 5y ago
  If his grandpa really drives this poorly he will lose his ability to drive well before it expires either directly from accidents, from losing his license after accidents, or from his insurance becoming too expensive. I'm always amazed at how badly die-hard FSD supporters think humans drive
teslagrandpa 5y ago
Tesla should hire your grandpa then, to drive around their cars. Much cheaper FSD and proven track record.
tialaramex 5y ago
Your grandfather's license should be taken away (and, if he drives anyway, his car should be confiscated so that he stops before more drastic solutions are needed) One problem we have here (in the UK) is that unless you've committed a crime the most likely person to assess that you shouldn't drive any more is your GP (doctor). But doctors operate in an ethical framework that prioritises the interests of each patient as an individual, resolving both silly theoretical ethical problems ("Do I kill this healthy patient to save these other dying patients?") and real world practical ones. So, "grandpa's driving is bad" only meets the threshold when it's so bad he'd likely die, if he will just kill or injure other people that's not an ethical obstacle in this framework unless grandpa is uncomfortable with it, in which case he should stop driving without waiting for the license to be taken away. This is something you're seeing in health policy right now. Sticking needles in people's arms is something medics do, but they all operate under this ethical framework. So, while a government may have good reason to vaccinate Bob, the doctor is only willing to vaccinate Bob if Bob wants to be vaccinated and it's personally in Bob's interest, regardless of whether it'd be better for everybody else. Still, where it's important to public policy you can sidestep the ethical problem by sidestepping the medical procedure, here are two examples used today in the UK: 1. If somebody claims you're the other parent of their children and you owe child support but you disagree, the government can decide to make you get a DNA test (you get a refund if they aren't your kids). But the DNA test is a medical procedure, so if you really don't want it, the medics won't do it. Instead you'll end up in court, and the court will look at the available evidence and most likely say, well, seems to us if you were not the parent of these kids you'd have taken that DNA test and proved it. You owe child support. (Owing child support isn't a crime, so, there's no need to meet the criminal evidence standard). 2. If you're in a vehicle accident or just it seems obvious to them you might be drunk, the police can decide to test for alcohol. Some of the tests they could try don't need a medic but do need your co-operation, others would need a medic. Either way you might refuse and so, the law just provides for a penalty for "Refusing to provide a sample" that's almost exactly the same as the penalty for drink driving you might hope to avoid by doing so.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
volta83 5y ago
I agree that people skills change over time, which is why I, as a driver, am in favor that every driver should retake the driving exam and a health exam every 2 years. I am also in favor of enforcing this for all foreign drivers going through my country somehow, since most of them don’t really know how to drive here.