12 ms·

Sorry but everything after "the driver who's responsible for their decisions was drunk" is moot. But otherwise, yes, your statement otherwise about giving "toy

• 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.
    • metabagel 3y ago
      > The other point though is that people already have access to cars and, according to the evidence, cars with these features are LESS dangerous. I don’t think we can say anything of the sort for Tesla FSD (beta).
    • ra7 3y ago
      There are no statistics that categorically prove cars with these features are less dangerous. Tesla's own "safety report" is extremely misleading and has no controls for geography, weather, time of day, average age of cars, demographics, etc. If you're developing an autonomous system, you have a moral and ethical obligation not to roll it out when it's half baked and unsafe. You can't give an unfinished safety critical system to the general public and then blaming them for misusing it.
      • loceng 3y ago
        Don't all Tesla vehicles have the highest safety ratings ever? I guess maybe though something being less dangerous isn't the same as something being relatively more safe?
        • ra7 3y ago
          Those safety ratings don't assess FSD performance.
          • loceng 3y ago
            You're missing or avoiding my point? Comparing similar accidents regardless of FSD or not - a Tesla's occupants are arguably kept safer, would fair better than being in any other vehicle, right?
            • ra7 3y ago
              You’re making an entirely irrelevant point. They’d fare better if they were in a bus too. We’re talking about cause of the accident here, not what happens after one.
              • loceng 3y ago
                Naw, you're just dismissing my valid point because it has weight to it - you want it to be irrelevant, it's not.
  • loceng 3y ago
    How about alcohol odour detection required in all vehicles? How about attention-distraction monitoring, and perhaps first penalty or safeguard is forced reduced speed, where attention-distraction level determined determines the maximum speed the vehicle can go - whereby reducing the need for as fast of a reaction time? Any other possible solutions? I think in general coddling people is more harmful than good, and is lazy to not find nuanced solutions - just because blanket rules are "easier."
• genocidicbunny 3y ago
  > Sorry but everything after "the driver who's responsible for their decisions was drunk" is moot. It's not for the larger discussion about safety of these sorts of systems. Any such system _has_ to consider the dumb human that's in the loop, because to not do so is almost inevitable to lead to problems. If your driving assist system makes people more likely, and more able, to drive drunk, then it's not just a problem with those people. Sure, they shouldn't be doing that, but ignoring that some people will is irresponsible. Any system that involves humans that doesn't consider the human element is doomed to fail eventually. We humans are far too good at making that a certainty.
  • loceng 3y ago
    So the solution is dumbing down the curriculum to appease to the dumbest - which has externalized costs, of course. But all this thread is great evidence towards requiring people of a certain ineptitude to be required to only use self-driving vehicles in the future, once they're proven ~100% safe, right? But really what you're arguing is people needing to be raised to be responsible, as the root cause-problem.
• fwip 3y ago
  Knives don't come with self-guided-propulsion-and-steering while requiring you to be ready to stop them within seconds.
  • loceng 3y ago
    Fair point. So would you argue for attention-reaction time testing to make sure a person is fast enough? We'd certainly be able to gather data for the situations that end badly to very horrifically - with harm or injury - and determine first at least if there is a threshold that everyone should need to meet; currently are there any thresholds, like I believe handicap drivers with only one hand/arm - who at first thought, and maybe I'm wrong, won't be able to react as quickly or strongly in any situation - though they may in general be far more cautious because of their state.
    • fwip 3y ago
      I don't think we specifically need a reaction-speed test for Level 2 driving systems, but maybe we could for driving in general. The pernicious combination that makes L2 unsafe is that it encourages the driver to let their focus wander, and then unexpectedly demands that you have full attention. When 95% of your highway time requires almost no focus, your brain will naturally wander off and pay much less attention to the situation on the road. So when the 1-in-1000 dangerous situation occurs, you're less prepared to react to it than an unassisted driver would be. Edit to be more clear: A reaction-speed test measures your best-case reaction time, because you know it's coming. Normal driving situations test your "normal" reaction time. Situations under L2 test your worse-than-normal reaction time.
• freejazz 3y ago
  That's not how proximate cause works in a negligence case.
  • loceng 3y ago
    Can you explain?
    • freejazz 3y ago
      Sure. If it's a fact that being sober wouldn't have prevented the accident from happening, then being drunk could not have been a proximate cause.