Hacker News Reader

Comment by this_steve_j | Hacker News Reader

Watching this video, I am impressed by how well FSD works! Watching FSD crash videos, though, I am reminded by the many spectacular failure modes of SAE Level <4 driving systems on public roads.

The NHTSA reported in April that most fatal FSD crashes involved no driver intervention, or driver intervention only in the last 1 second, and in all cases an attentive driver could have perceived and taken steps to lessen the severity of damage and injuries in the crash.

For anything less than SAE Level 4, the human MUST take over driving when requested. The question is, can we? Sign up for the beta test and find out, I guess!

Personally I would much prefer a new Mercedes E class wagon with Driver Assist (Distronic) to a Tesla with FSD.

View on HN

Frankly, I do not see a justification for this technology at this point. Sure it’s good but nothing is really comparable to an attentive operator when even one multi-thousand pound hunk of deadly steel is hurtling down the road, let alone hundreds and thousands, and lives at stake. It simply is madness.

> Frankly, I do not see a justification for this technology at this point.

Drunks and the drowsy. Sure, they should have called an Uber or chosen not to drive at all. But the road is safer for having that multi-thousand pound hunk of steel steered by a more competent and attentive driver (FSD)

Surely this is sarcasm. You'd prefer a drunk person getting into a Tesla with FSD vs. an attentive and alert person driving (anything else)? I'm sorry but being drunk and getting behind the wheel, that's an automatic fail. I don't care what you're driving. You shouldn't be behind that wheel in a position of responsibility when you are under the influence. I include 'thinking the Tesla will just handle it' as under the influence.

My point is not that a drunk "should" drive, even with FSD. It's that clearly they do. I know someone personally who drives under the influence frequently despite the legal and material risks. No one thinks this is a good idea.

I would absolutely prefer any driver using FSD, but especially one physically and mentally inhibited by drugs or alcohol.

> I include 'thinking the Tesla will just handle it' as under the influence.

I've commented on this before, but: no one using FSD for even a short period of time is "under the influence" of the branding. The lived experience of the technology is that is amazing and useful, even if it flawed. YMMV

Self driving cars should exist because careless people might not drive safely? That’s interesting. How about we just make it illegal to drive drunk or drowsy?

It already is illegal (certainly to drive under the influence). But consider even someone driving "buzzed" (not "drunk", and maybe not even strictly over the legal limit): is the roadway safer with or without "Full" Self Driving technology?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com