Hacker News Reader

Comment by obblekk | Hacker News Reader

Someone I know drives an M series BMW and was considering a Tesla switch because his close friend in LA told him the autopilot is so good, he can now routinely drive home drunk (this was a guy in his mid 30s with a kid). As a result, my friend now also had confidence autopilot was reliable, no matter what I told him.

So, relative to the confidence most non-technical people seem to have had, this percentage is still not high enough.

Like most tech adoption curves, the hype here is still too high relative to reality. However, if you are someone who actually understands L1 - L4 scale, I think you should strongly correct people who don't.

Believing in the hype in crypto might lose you some money. Believing in the hype in self driving might lose you a life.

View on HN

> he can now routinely drive home drunk

> So, relative to the confidence most non-technical people seem to have had, this percentage is still not high enough.

My confidence in self driving cars is boosted by my extremely low confidence in people. I know too many drivers who have no business being on the road sober, and other people who routinely drive drunk. I'm confident self driving isn't there yet, i'm also pretty sure that it won't be too long before it gets better than the average driver.

Self-driving is not going to be better than the average driver for a long time.

But 2 things.

1) average doesn't matter.

There's unlikely to be extremely bad self-driving cars.

2) the road & nature of transportation will adapt to self-driving cars so that they don't need to be as good as they need to be on current roads, and eventually it won't matter (but that's like 20 years in the future).

If you would've looked at cities when the car was invented, you'd have thought that cars would never catch on. Cities adapted to the car. They'll adapt to self-driving. But it's going to take a long time.

> 2) the road & nature of transportation will adapt to self-driving cars

Are you kidding? Most of this country can barely keep potholes patched for the benefit of regular cars. Proposing major infrastructure spending to accommodate luxury car features is surely a joke.

The cool things is, you don't have to spend tons of money [=

There's the average driver paying attention.

And then there is the average driver being distracted -- by cell phone, by alcohol, by passengers in the car, from road rage.

Frankly, the average IQ is 100; self driving should be able to surpass that in reaction time, physics (following distance), and legality; so I think it's likely 75% better than than the average driver. But 100% better than the 50% that are distracted.

You're throwing out a lot of numbers, can you back them up?

There's an old joke that something like 75% of drivers think 75% of everyone else is a bad driver. This is just a demonstration of perception. It only takes one bad driver per lane to really screw up traffic. The correct answer is that the vast majority of drivers are quite competent, but you don't notice them.

These were nhsta survey numbers

https://www.driveresearch.com/market-research-company-blog/c...

https://www.valuepenguin.com/drinking-habits-survey#under-in...

Here are some others https://www.driveresearch.com/market-research-company-blog/c...

It's still not clear to me why there hasn't been more discussion about dedicated lanes and roadside sensors to make self-driving safer & more reliable.

Even if the tech grows significantly in capability, the unpredictability of other drivers and the ways snow affects roads seem to me to make these kinds of assists necessary.

> better than the average driver

The average driver is pull down by a lot of people who: 1) are drunk 2) speed unnecessarily 3) drive shitty cars 4) drive distracted by tech 5) drive tired

If you eliminate those factors, then major car crashes get reduced to almost nothing.

That is what the autopilot is competing against, not the "average" driver. Until it gets better than a human that is sober, rested and drives defensively, autopilot won't take off. We are a long way from that.

Exactly right. I don't want a self-driving car that is "average safe" because I am never "average drunk" when I drive myself. I refuse to drive after even one beer earlier that day, it's a decision I make for myself; I choose not to be an average driver. Why should I pretend that I am not myself, but rather am an embodiment of a statistic with no free will of my own?

inb4 "everybody thinks that", such inane arguments don't make me drunk.

Also, 6) drive at night, and 7) drive in terrible weather.

Even with all the people who drive dangerously, driving is remarkably safe given how many miles we drive. As you say, take away the outliers and it's very safe. And an autonomous system won't gain acceptance among the majority of drivers who don't take these risks until it's conclusively better than them.

The saying is "it takes two to have a car accident", and I found out over the years that it's mostly true, I've forgiven a lot of mistakes by other drivers, and viceversa.

It's also the cultural dimension to this: we as humans are very good as establishing a culture or fitting into a new culture when new to it. We are very good at predicting what the other drivers are doing, and we can avoid a lot of incidents that way. When could the AI have a perception of culture change, and say an AI trained in SF would have a hard time adapting in DC or New York - all with different styles of driving. Not to mention moving to other countries...

But we can't eliminate those factors; Indeed, those factors apply to 95% of American drivers.

(you left out Angry, Old)

- 43% of Americans — and 56% of Men — Admit to Drinking and Driving

- 60% of American drivers admit to texting while driving, and 70 percent admit to using a handheld cell phone while driving – 43 percent say they use a mobile device while driving as a habit.

It doesn't have to be better than average-without-the-outliers.

As long as it removes the outliers and drives consistently good enough to avoid accidents, then it is good enough.

Pretty sure if you get pulled over driving home on autopilot drunk, you're still getting a DUI.

It's amazing to me what people will do to save a few bucks on taxi fare.

Definitely. But people believe they won't get pulled over because the car will drive itself fine.

If autopilot means the car isn't swerving around like a drunken idiot is driving, where's the probable cause to pull people over?

Since when have cops needed probable cause?

DUI checkpoints

The autopilot doing its habitual random shenanigans that makes it look exactly like a drunk driver is at the wheel

You being asleep at the wheel

&c.

> DUI checkpoints

One of the nice things about living in the PNW is that both Oregon and Washington prohibit such unconstitutional crap.

I'm real glad they have DUI checks outside of night clubs during the weekend here, they bust hundreds of drunk drivers before they get on the roads.

Alcohol is responsible for 30% of road deaths here, 23% due to other drugs. That's a lot of death you can avoid with a 30 seconds spit test

DUI checkpoints are set up to only catch the stupidest of criminals. At least in my neck of the woods, they publish the locations of the checkpoints in advance, and are always on arterial roads, but never state highways or interstates. It's entirely possible to avoid the checkpoints altogether. If you're stupid enough to get wrapped up in one of those, you probably shouldn't be drinking or driving.

I once got pulled over because I was using autopilot. And I was stone cold sober. Damn thing just couldn't figure out how to do easy corners on I-5 without ping-ponging. Turns out there was a cop behind me.

Fortunately it was resolved quickly with chuckles all around.

They're probably pretty close to right. When I think back to impaired drivers I've noticed on the road, the first two things I've noticed were inadequate lane-keeping and wild/baseless speed changes. Autopilot is good enough to mask those two signals. (I'm not saying this is a good idea; I'm just saying they're probably correct in that it reduces their chance to be pulled over.)

I think there are worse outcomes here than getting a fine

In urban environments in high-density countries like South Korea it's fairly pervasive that you can use a phone app to call a driver. They will drive your car home for you.

> In urban environments in high-density countries

That would be urban environments in high-density countries with low wages. That driver needs to get to the car and home and someone needs to pay for that.

Mass Transit is an affordable option in places outside the US...

I don't in any way support drunk driving, but I do think it's unfair to frame it as "a few bucks." That would only be true if you were within walking distance and sharing a cab with others. For most of the situations I've been in, it's more like $60 plus a big gamble that there will be any rides available. In many areas Uber/Lyft are the only options and during low hours (particularly early morning 12 to 2) there aren't any drivers.

In the context of buying a $50,000 car + whatever FSD/autopilot costs instead, it's fair to call $60 "a few bucks".

I would agree if the buying the car was only for driving home from the bar. That seems unlikely. I would guess that in nearly all cases, the person already owned the car before they even decided to go to the bar that night.

This is more of an indictment of alcoholism than self driving cars. Anyone who’s routinely getting drunk has a big problem that will cloud their judgement.

> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amish+drunk+dri...

The Amish have been reminding Americans what they miss out on by ignoring their past. In fact anyone with a horse and likes a drink at the pub, knows its best to the take horse and not the car!

In Pennsylvania, a horse or house and buggy are considered vehicles. You are violating DUI laws just as much as if you're driving a car.

California's Vehicle Code (VEH) would still allow for a DUI charge when riding a horse. According to urban legend (and a lot of dubious websites), there are cases where Californians have been convicted of a DUI on a horse, though I haven't been able to find reputable sources for those claims.

VEH 1.670 [0]

> A “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

VEH 11.12.23152(a) [1]

> It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

IIRC many states other than just CA will give you a DUI for driving a lawn tractor drunk. On the road, at least. And in plenty of places just being in the car drunk is enough, even if you're in the back seat trying to sleep it off.

If you're capable of operating the vehicle, it can still count. A driving instructor once told me that if you have to sleep off drunkenness in the car, find a place to hide the key (ideally outside the car) so you are not considered capable of operating it.

Really, these laws are pretty absurd, but drunk driving kills a lot of people so here we are.

hah - but having grown up in rural Wisconsin - the rural highways there are full of drunk drivers because there are no ubers or taxies out there, and full of amish buggies that are nearly invisible at night (they just have one reflector on the back). It is a terrifying combination. Just have your drink at home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com