10 ms·

> Von Ohain and Rossiter had been drinking, and an autopsy found that von Ohain died with a blood alcohol level of 0.26 — more than three times the legal limit

> Von Ohain and Rossiter had been drinking, and an autopsy found that von Ohain died with a blood alcohol level of 0.26 — more than three times the legal limit — a level of intoxication that would have hampered his ability to maintain control of the car, experts said. The details make this seem less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue.

charliebwrites 3y ago
I’m not saying this is where we are now, but eventually when self driving cars are sufficiently advanced, they should be able to drive drunk people home without needing them to provide input (and probably best to forbid them from doing so all together as they’re impaired)
psunavy03 3y ago
[flagged]
- wombat-man 3y ago
  Yeah. But also maybe don't call it "Full Self Driving"
- timeon 3y ago
  Crazy that FSD is legal.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    Why? You're supposed to be ready to take over. Marketing hype and a foolish name does not make the system inherently dangerous.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  What does FSD stand for?
ra7 3y ago
These two were idiots, but this highlights the dangers of L2 driver assistance systems (misleadingly marketed as "Full Self Driving") that requires driver attention at all times to prevent accidents. It gives you a false sense of security and there's no guarantee you'll take over in time to prevent an accident. If you give dumb toys to people, they will use it in dumb ways. This is why Waymo/Google abandoned their driver assistance efforts a decade ago and jumped straight to driverless. That turned out to be a masterstroke in terms of safety.
- loceng 3y ago
  Sorry but everything after "the driver who's responsible for their decisions was drunk" is moot. But otherwise, yes, your statement otherwise about giving "toys" to "dumb" people stands no matter the technology. And knives can be used to cut steak or stab people.
  - ra7 3y ago
    You could be perfectly sober and still not be able to intervene in time to prevent a crash. Systems like this encourage inattention, but still expect drivers to turn on attention in a fraction of a second. That's the entire point. So no, it's not moot.
    - LeFantome 3y ago
      It depends on the discussion you are having. I agree that it is not “moot” in either case. Your point is that these systems need to be save even in the face of incapable drivers and that, despite the misleading marketing, they are not that ( yet ). The other point though is that people already have access to cars and, according to the evidence, cars with these features are LESS dangerous. Encouraging over-reliance is a problem but not as big a problem as having to rely on the human 100% of the time. This statement is just a fact given the statistics. Given the above, while it is too extreme to say that operation by an impaired driver is “moot”, it is fair to suggest that the most significant source of risk is the impaired driver themselves and their decision to operate a vehicle of any kind. The biggest offer to this risk are the additional safety features of the vehicle. The degree of over-confidence caused by the vehicle type is a distraction.
elzbardico 3y ago
Someone should never drink and drive. Never! Yet, I believe that even at 0.26 blood alcohol content he had a better chance at living if driving himself.
elzbardico 3y ago
I use a self-driving technology every time I drink. It's called Taxi or Uber.
KaiserPro 3y ago
>seems less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue. if the car is truly autonomous, then no, its failure of a life critical system if the car is not autonomous, then calling it "Full Self Driving" is a wilful misrepresentation of it's capability. To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) full self drive, means that, it drives it's self, safely. You and I know that's not the case. However the vast majority of people out there don't know it. Everyone is rightly chewing Boeing out for lax safety standards, but that door didn't kill anyone. If you are going to be annoyed at Boeing, then you need to be absolutely fucked off at tesla.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) But in this case, which is what the previous comment is talking about, this doesn't apply.
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    No, it really does. For example kinder eggs are illegal in the USA, because even though the small(ish) plastic parts are inside a plastic inedible case, too many kids ate the small plastic parts. Now, the vast majority of people eating kinder eggs, don't eat the toy. However because its reasonable that an unsupervised child would eat the plastic, they were banned. But. The point of FSD is that it is safe. If its safe, a drunk person who is behind the wheel, shouldn't be able to cause it to crash, if the FSD is engaged. FSD should fail safe. but it can't fail safe, it is not "full self drive" and should never have been marketed as such. However, people's safety is supplemental to large corporation's feelings/profits/liability.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      The driver in question worked for Tesla and would be aware to not trust the marketing name of the feature. That's why it doesn't apply.
baxtr 3y ago
I’m not sure what “0.26” exactly means, but if it’s what I interpret to be that’s about one beer for a typical male adult. It’s not nothing but it’s not a lot either.
- dwater 3y ago
  0.26 is pretty drunk, in my opinion. A 140lb person drinking 8 shots would leave them close to blacking out unless they drank a lot, and very often. https://www.healthline.com/health/alcohol/blood-alcohol-level-chart#charts https://www.healthline.com/health/alcohol/blood-alcohol-leve...
- fwip 3y ago
  You may be thinking of 0.026. 0.08 is the legal limit in most states. 0.26 is drunk enough that you need to worry about them choking on their own vomit.
- etempleton 3y ago
  It is Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) and 0.26% is about 8-12 drinks depending on the person's tolerance and weight. Legally drunk. The legal limit to drive in most states is .08% which is typically 2-3 drinks.
- macksd 3y ago
  It's over 3 times the legal limit for the most forgiving definition of drunk driving in Colorado.
- whaleofatw2022 3y ago
  0.26 if a BAC, would be more like 5-10 beers, one drink typically is good for 0.02-0.04
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Sebb767 3y ago
  BAC is given in percent (parts per 100, %), whereas a lot of countries use permille (parts per 1000, ‰). This would equate to 2.6 permille, which is quite a lot, especially for non-drinkers.
mihaic 3y ago
Drunk people are told not to drive themselves. Letting something labeled "Full Self-Driving" drive them would sound logical to a drunk brain.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>The details make this seem less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue. In every single discussion with Tesla fans re: FSD, we hear that "FSD is safer NOW than human drivers", but every time there's an accident it's the driver's fault. At what point are Tesla accountable for the mixed messaging around this product?
- samatman 3y ago
  Those two facts are not necessarily contradictory.
- redserk 3y ago
  That's not really relevant here though as there is no claim of 100% perfection with AP/FSD, nor did I advocate for support of Tesla here. This feature requires acknowledging multiple documents staying that it may make errors and is not to be classified as an autonomous driving system. This is present when you purchase the feature, in the tutorial videos about what the car is capable of, in a screen you must read before enabling this feature, and repeated in every set of release notes that appear on each update. I fail to see why all blame for impaired driving evaporates because the manufacturer of the car is Tesla. Let's put on the Product Manager hat. How would you convey to a user that they should use a feature in a responsible manner?

charliebwrites 3y ago

I’m not saying this is where we are now, but eventually when self driving cars are sufficiently advanced, they should be able to drive drunk people home without needing them to provide input (and probably best to forbid them from doing so all together as they’re impaired)

psunavy03 3y ago

[flagged]

wombat-man 3y ago
Yeah. But also maybe don't call it "Full Self Driving"
timeon 3y ago
Crazy that FSD is legal.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Why? You're supposed to be ready to take over. Marketing hype and a foolish name does not make the system inherently dangerous.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
What does FSD stand for?

ra7 3y ago

These two were idiots, but this highlights the dangers of L2 driver assistance systems (misleadingly marketed as "Full Self Driving") that requires driver attention at all times to prevent accidents. It gives you a false sense of security and there's no guarantee you'll take over in time to prevent an accident. If you give dumb toys to people, they will use it in dumb ways. This is why Waymo/Google abandoned their driver assistance efforts a decade ago and jumped straight to driverless. That turned out to be a masterstroke in terms of safety.

loceng 3y ago
Sorry but everything after "the driver who's responsible for their decisions was drunk" is moot. But otherwise, yes, your statement otherwise about giving "toys" to "dumb" people stands no matter the technology. And knives can be used to cut steak or stab people.
- ra7 3y ago
  You could be perfectly sober and still not be able to intervene in time to prevent a crash. Systems like this encourage inattention, but still expect drivers to turn on attention in a fraction of a second. That's the entire point. So no, it's not moot.
  - LeFantome 3y ago
    It depends on the discussion you are having. I agree that it is not “moot” in either case. Your point is that these systems need to be save even in the face of incapable drivers and that, despite the misleading marketing, they are not that ( yet ). The other point though is that people already have access to cars and, according to the evidence, cars with these features are LESS dangerous. Encouraging over-reliance is a problem but not as big a problem as having to rely on the human 100% of the time. This statement is just a fact given the statistics. Given the above, while it is too extreme to say that operation by an impaired driver is “moot”, it is fair to suggest that the most significant source of risk is the impaired driver themselves and their decision to operate a vehicle of any kind. The biggest offer to this risk are the additional safety features of the vehicle. The degree of over-confidence caused by the vehicle type is a distraction.

elzbardico 3y ago

Someone should never drink and drive. Never! Yet, I believe that even at 0.26 blood alcohol content he had a better chance at living if driving himself.

elzbardico 3y ago

I use a self-driving technology every time I drink. It's called Taxi or Uber.

KaiserPro 3y ago

>seems less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue. if the car is truly autonomous, then no, its failure of a life critical system if the car is not autonomous, then calling it "Full Self Driving" is a wilful misrepresentation of it's capability. To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) full self drive, means that, it drives it's self, safely. You and I know that's not the case. However the vast majority of people out there don't know it. Everyone is rightly chewing Boeing out for lax safety standards, but that door didn't kill anyone. If you are going to be annoyed at Boeing, then you need to be absolutely fucked off at tesla.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
robertlagrant 3y ago
> To a normal person (no ignore the driver's employment history) But in this case, which is what the previous comment is talking about, this doesn't apply.
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  No, it really does. For example kinder eggs are illegal in the USA, because even though the small(ish) plastic parts are inside a plastic inedible case, too many kids ate the small plastic parts. Now, the vast majority of people eating kinder eggs, don't eat the toy. However because its reasonable that an unsupervised child would eat the plastic, they were banned. But. The point of FSD is that it is safe. If its safe, a drunk person who is behind the wheel, shouldn't be able to cause it to crash, if the FSD is engaged. FSD should fail safe. but it can't fail safe, it is not "full self drive" and should never have been marketed as such. However, people's safety is supplemental to large corporation's feelings/profits/liability.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    The driver in question worked for Tesla and would be aware to not trust the marketing name of the feature. That's why it doesn't apply.

baxtr 3y ago

I’m not sure what “0.26” exactly means, but if it’s what I interpret to be that’s about one beer for a typical male adult. It’s not nothing but it’s not a lot either.

dwater 3y ago
0.26 is pretty drunk, in my opinion. A 140lb person drinking 8 shots would leave them close to blacking out unless they drank a lot, and very often. https://www.healthline.com/health/alcohol/blood-alcohol-level-chart#charts https://www.healthline.com/health/alcohol/blood-alcohol-leve...
fwip 3y ago
You may be thinking of 0.026. 0.08 is the legal limit in most states. 0.26 is drunk enough that you need to worry about them choking on their own vomit.
etempleton 3y ago
It is Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) and 0.26% is about 8-12 drinks depending on the person's tolerance and weight. Legally drunk. The legal limit to drive in most states is .08% which is typically 2-3 drinks.
macksd 3y ago
It's over 3 times the legal limit for the most forgiving definition of drunk driving in Colorado.
whaleofatw2022 3y ago
0.26 if a BAC, would be more like 5-10 beers, one drink typically is good for 0.02-0.04
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Sebb767 3y ago
BAC is given in percent (parts per 100, %), whereas a lot of countries use permille (parts per 1000, ‰). This would equate to 2.6 permille, which is quite a lot, especially for non-drinkers.

mihaic 3y ago

Drunk people are told not to drive themselves. Letting something labeled "Full Self-Driving" drive them would sound logical to a drunk brain.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>The details make this seem less of an autonomous driving issue and more of an incredibly irresponsible operation issue. In every single discussion with Tesla fans re: FSD, we hear that "FSD is safer NOW than human drivers", but every time there's an accident it's the driver's fault. At what point are Tesla accountable for the mixed messaging around this product?

samatman 3y ago
Those two facts are not necessarily contradictory.
redserk 3y ago
That's not really relevant here though as there is no claim of 100% perfection with AP/FSD, nor did I advocate for support of Tesla here. This feature requires acknowledging multiple documents staying that it may make errors and is not to be classified as an autonomous driving system. This is present when you purchase the feature, in the tutorial videos about what the car is capable of, in a screen you must read before enabling this feature, and repeated in every set of release notes that appear on each update. I fail to see why all blame for impaired driving evaporates because the manufacturer of the car is Tesla. Let's put on the Product Manager hat. How would you convey to a user that they should use a feature in a responsible manner?