Plan A
Fall asleep in the back seat and when pulled over, claim your Uber driver must have jumped out.
I'm amazed the Highway Patrol haven't pulled over a couple in the back seat of an auto-drive Tesla yet.
In an exciting first, the autopilot feature in a Tesla car managed to save rather than kill its occupant. At 0300 PT on Friday, the highway patrol pulled alongside at grey Tesla Model S travelling at 70 miles an hour on a freeway down toward Silicon Valley and noticed that driver – 45-year-old Alexander Samek – appeared to be …
This post has been deleted by its author
Tesla's autopilot can't even cope with stop signals, or junctions. Turning it on in any kind of urban environment is an invitation for something horrible to happen.
And this isn't just isolated to Tesla. Even the best autonomous vehicles in the world suck. There is too much hype and too little consideration of how they'd handle situations that a human could solve easily but are essentially intractible to a machine.
Wow - that's some hateful downvoting. Was referring to this story:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/tesla-autopilot-drives-hospital-life-threatening-medical-emergency-a7179886.html
Didn't realise it was made up. it was being reported pretty widely.
"Pity they can't actually do that, nor ever will."
Of course they'll be able to drive the blind or blind drunk home. WayMo's test vehicles can probably do that today. The issue is whether they can do so sufficiently reliably in all conceivable driving conditions to avoid collateral damage. Or at least get the level of injury to innocent bystanders down to socially acceptable levels.
And there is the problem - the acceptable levels to the public will be zero casualties, even though that's impossible outside of a controlled environment. Every single incident (regardless of fault) will be interpreted as a failure of self driving vehicles, where what we should be setting the bar at is as good as a human driver.
The makers of autonomous vehicles have only themselves to blame for this - they have sold the idea to the public on the basis that they will eliminate traffic accidents. If they turn out to be no better than human drivers, then people will quite rightly ask what point there is in having them.
And there is the problem - the acceptable levels to the public will be zero casualties..... where what we should be setting the bar at is as good as a human driver.
I'm not entirely convinced that that is where the bar is set. I think it's more the expectation that self driving vehicles should be as good (or better) than human drivers perceive themselves to be.
If you've been driving (say) 20 years and never had an accident, that's as much luck as anything. But most humans will assess that and see it as evidence of their own driving acumen (ignoring the fact that even the best driver can still be rear-ended - or worse - by a total pillock). Or, of course, they have been in accidents but it was totally the other guys fault (even if it wasn't).
So it's a high bar to meet.
I think the best you'll get in terms of acceptance for now, is there'll be 3 classes of driver
- Those who don't want self-driving cars full stop
- Those who want other drivers to be in self-driving cars (because other drivers are idiots)
- Those who want self-driving cars now (because they hate driving, or want safety improvements etc)
I'd hazard a guess that the majority of drivers probably fall into that middle group. They view their own driving as better than average, so you're going to have a really hard time selling to them on safety improvements because they expect the car to be better than their image of themselves - which means near perfect.
I actually have similar concerns to that but it's not so much an assessment of my own driving abilities that drives it. It's partly more based on observations of the quality of the code we see released in other areas by some of the companies involved (e.g. Google and Android) and much more driven by concerns about skanky companies cutting corners to make money (see Uber).
It doesn't mean we won't get there in the end, but it's a rocky path, and I think it's a lot further off than most of the players/advocates would like you to believe.
"what we should be setting the bar at is as good as a human driver."
Dunno about that. I know a guy who has been classed as 'at fault' in a couple of crashes (one involved someone swerving into his lane whom he hit less than a second later, the other involved a moment of bad timing to check his mirror - had it been a moment earlier or later, but he picked the one wrong second to check the mirrors). Normally he's a great driver and every one I know feels safe with him.
I know another driver who has never had or caused an accident, and he is scary terrible. People won't ride with him or offer/ask to drive if they do. He tail gates. He refuses to indicate. If he's going slow and someone tries to pass he'll speed up to block them in. If someone tries to merge he'll speed up. He spends a lot of his time looking out the window. Just this last week he came within inches of hitting a parked car at speed but his passengers screamed and he looked back at the road only to find he wasn't on the road any more. Yet he's never once caused an accident (at least none within visual range at the time, who knows what has happened with frustrated drivers further down the road).
I'd settle for no 'distracted' type accidents and other accidents at least on a par with, if not better than an average driver. Mis-reading the road conditions is not a bad thing. Not reading them at all is quite bad. Not even lifting your head from your txt is terrible. If we can at least take that much out of the equation.. (BTW, manufacturers - make sure the entertainment systems and communication systems are completely divorced from the driving systems - you don't want a hack or a fault on the first two chewing up resources that causes the 3rd to fail!)
You can still get charged for that:
Every person . . . who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine, or who is drunk
so you can lose your license when drunk whilst being taken home by your cow
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/35-36/94/section/12
My Grandad once lost his sergeant's stripes for being "drunk in charge of a bicycle".
One of my mates got fined for speeding on his bicycle. The cops were so impressed that he'd managed 36mph on a winding country lane that they didn't notice he'd inadvertently admitted he was cycling home from the pub.
One of my mates got fined for speeding on his bicycle. The cops were so impressed that he'd managed 36mph on a winding country lane that they didn't notice he'd inadvertently admitted he was cycling home from the pub.
One for the Widows and Orphans fund, or a shaggy dog story. Almost all UK speed restrictions apply to mechanically propelled vehicles only
Where I live if you are drunk in a vehicle - even in the back seat - you can be arrested if you have the keys on you. I was told by a friend who is a lawyer that if you want to sleep it off in your car, you need to get inside, lock the car, and toss the keys out of your reach before you go to sleep. And even that's not foolproof as if a cop sees you entering the vehicle drunk you can be cited for drunk driving since you can't prove that you were not intending to drive or would be leaving the keys out of your reach.
Obviously you could still be arrested for public intox if your car is not on private property, but that's a minor inconvenience compared to what happens to you for drunk driving.
As good as who? I don't know about you, but I'm a much better driver when I'm fully rested, paying 100% attention to the road, etc. than I am if I'm tired, distracted, have several people in my car yelling about something etc.
I've always said the bar needs to be set at a 90% reduction in crashes and fatalities per mile - measured across ALL conditions (i.e. not like Tesla's bullshit numbers where they claim Autopilot has a lower than human accident rate but compare their accident rate in conditions Autopilot can work in versus ALL the conditions humans drive in)
You might think that if humans have X fatalities for a certain amount of driving, but autonomous cars would had X-1 fatalities doing all the driving in those same conditions that we should want autonomous cars. WE WILL NOT! People need to see MAJOR benefits to give up control, so it needs to be better than the BEST human drivers (because let's face it, 95% of people think they are in the top 5% of drivers) paying full attention. A solution that is better when I'm tired and distracted but WORSE when I'm at full attention is not something I will accept!
One for the Widows and Orphans fund, or a shaggy dog story. Almost all UK speed restrictions apply to mechanically propelled vehicles only
Some issues there.
1) Cops seldom know the law, aside from "is it faster than the posted limit".
2) The law may not be as you think it is.
3) A bicycle is mechanically propelled. The pedals, crank, sproket, chain and whatever the rear hub uses is mechanical.
3a) I could make a rocket-powered vehicle that has no mechanical parts to it. I could theoretically even have no valves to control fuel input, and just burn fuel at a constant rate. I'd be able to break speed limits while not being able to be ticketed?
3b) Using such a law as an excuse would probably have been used by someone to claim their vehicle was 'coasting' at the time, thus not mechanically powered, thus not subject to such laws. Any such past law is probably since repealed.
4) Just because it's what the law says doesn't mean it's what the cops act on. And most people are not so well versed in the law that they'd have the knowledge to challenge the cops. Most people consider speeding as a strict liability offence; their vehicle was travelling faster than the limit therefore they're guilty.
One of my mates got fined for speeding on his bicycle. The cops were so impressed that he'd managed 36mph on a winding country lane that they didn't notice he'd inadvertently admitted he was cycling home from the pub
No he didn't. He might have been fined for cycling carelessly or without consideration for others or somesuch but he was not done for speeding. More likely he was simply stopped and given a talking to and inappropriate speed may well have been a factor in that.
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/06/can-cyclists-break-the-speed-limit-or-does-the-law-only-apply-to-motorists/
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/06/can-cyclists-break-the-speed-limit-or-does-the-law-only-apply-to-motorists/
From the same article :
"It is, however, possible for local bylaws to impose speed limits on cyclists. For example, on Hampstead Heath in London there is an 8mph speed limit for cyclists, and in Richmond Park the speed limit of 20 miles per hour for vehicles also applies to cyclists."
As I mentioned above, cops will give you a ticket even if the law says otherwise. Few people know the law well enough to challenge the ticket (in many countries speed camera vehicles must be legally parked or the ticket is invalid - how many people know this? The tickets stand unless challenged and either revoked by the appropriate officer or challenged and revoked in court).
Few countries have so few laws that any one person can know all of them, even in a field they specialise in :(
ISTR (from more years back than I care to remember) a newspaper report about a bloke who tried to get around the law by using a hovercraft to navigate along the river that was common to his house and the local pub... Dunno if he got away with it, but it makes for a good tale.
"how can anyone be certain that the drunkard in the car won't try to take control?"
That actually happened to a friend of mine - she was driving round a corner when the drunk passenger panicked and grabbed the wheel, resulting in the car rolling. Luckily nobody was seriously hurt other than the car.