Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Owner Attempts Autopilot Defense During DUI Stop (arstechnica.com)
It turns out driving drunk is still illegal, even with a driver-assistance system active. "On Saturday, January 13, police discovered a man in his Tesla vehicle on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge," reports Ars Technica. "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that 'the man had apparently passed out in the stopped car while stuck in the flow of busy bridge traffic at 5:30pm, according to the California Highway Patrol." From the report: When police woke the man up, he assured officers that everything was fine because the car was "on autopilot." No one was injured in the incident, and the California Highway Patrol made a snarky tweet about it. Needless to say, other Tesla owners -- and people who own competing systems like Cadillac's Super Cruise -- should not follow this guy's example. No cars on the market right now have fully driverless technology available. Autopilot, Supercruise, and other products are driver assistance products -- they're designed to operate with an attentive human driver as a backup. Driving drunk using one of these systems is just as illegal as driving drunk in a conventional car.
I don’t get what their issue is. I pilot my Jumbojets drunk all the time. Damn cops, am I right, guys?
My fear is that once cars are fully automated, cops will still claim you need to be sober to operate them, and being near your car with the keys will still be worth $25,000 in fines and legal fees.
This is an extension of the classic problem where people are arrested for things that are not obviously drunk driving. Waiting in your vehicle to sober up (rather than driving it) is the other one that comes to mind, since police officers can hit you with an "attempted DUI" charge.
the eula will make the renter (passenger) liability for any crash even in cars with no controls.
The law has caught up
with Elon's autopilot?
Passenger seat, bro.
What is it with some Tesla owners thinking the laws of physics and the courts somehow don't apply to them.
Organization? You must be joking..
Yes, he was passed out and the car wasn't moving. Under California law, that's still drunk driving. A friend of mine had his car conk out just as he left the Bay Bridge. He was able to roll it over to the curb, park it, and call a tow truck. A CHP officer beat the tow truck to the scene, though, and determined my friend had been drinking. Because he was still sitting in the car while he waited for the tow, he was charged with a DUI in a car that was motionless and would not even start if he tried.
So don't drink and drive, m'kay?
Breakfast served all day!
count as under driver control civil cases yes (under the eula you can't sue) criminal at least it's in a real court with judges that jail people that try to pull NDA BS.
I'm kind of alright with that, insurance will handle the civil liabilities, and things will remain relatively capped on payout (vs what a multi billion dollar company can do).
Though I will need to pay the liability insurance, it will likely reduce the overall cost in payouts of liability for self driving cars, making the insurance cheaper vs GM insuring (or self insuring) for said payouts.
I'm much more concerned about the criminal aspect of riding in an automous (level 4 within it's automous rules) under the influence (or asleep).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
...The cops are super aggressive about DUI. They will actually come to your house if you're suspected of drunk driving and arrest you if they have any proof you were driving with in the past X hours and fail a breathalizer. That proof could definitely include your vehicle still being warm.
Hell, I've heard cops tell me, if you're drunk and you just go sleep in your car, in a parking lot, you can be arrested for DUI.
"Autopilot saves drunk drivers' life". Assuming he would have driven either way (drunks usually do), if he hadn't had autopilot on when he passed out, the car wouldn't have driven for a few minutes on its own, then pulled slowly to a stop and put the blinkers on. He would just have crashed. Possibly into another car.
Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
But there will be cars that can drive unattended in some conditions and locations, but not everywhere, and I'm curious how it will be treated.
They'd be treated as the laws and courts decide. Laws and courts can be arbitrary, but they often are reasonable.
I'd expect that:
* If the self-driving algorithms are recognized as smart enough to pull over, safely park, and insist a driver take over if things are getting to hairy for them, letting the auto-pilot run the car while you're impaired would be fine (provided you don't try to take over if the autopilot doesn't trust itself, or launch it into a situation where you should have known that the algorithms might fail.)
* Riding impaired when a "reasonable and prudent" (and non-impaired) person would trust the autopilot would be OK.
* Letting the auto-pilot take you to a medical facility when you're too out-of-it to drive yourself, as well, would not just be OK but in some cases would let your case win on the "necessity defence" even if the law prohibits it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This is why when the cops get there you're standing around wondering where the driver, Helmut, went. No, you don't know his last name. Or his address. But he looks kinda like you, actually. That's why you let him drive. No, he's gone. He went that way. Or that way. I don't recall.
It's excellent practice for becoming a politician, too.
AC
Benzi
ShanghaiBill, was this you??
This defense wouldn't work for a pilot, not even on a long flight where they could be on autopilot for 10 hours and sober up. There is, AFAIK, no mode of transportation where this defense works since you always have to be ready to take over if the automated system disengages. To think that it would work on cars is pretty ridiculous since such systems are far less advanced for that mode of transportation.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
because they certainly are not advertising the technology as driver "assistance" and do nothing to correct the misapprehension by customers.
..."No cars on the market right now have fully driverless [sic] technology available." Well, why the fuck not? We have the technology (with complicit understanding that it is not perfect, yet better than human drivers.) IMHO, assuming that saving arbitrarily-destined lives is a reasonable goal, then this should be the easiest lock to click, yeah? At all levels of gov't? Easy-peasy. Fully driver-less cars. Well, then...no more "drunk driving", no more "distracted driving", no more "fatigued driving", etc. Insurance companies would feel that sting, I'm sure.Woke.
And people will be able to freely associate again.
Anyone that follows the space knows that Google saw the same damn thing and made the right decision. Level 2 and 3 autonomous is dangerous and shouldn't be used. Elon made a tough situation for himself with the stupid hype cycle. Forcing him to release something that is clearly dangerous and as a result making roads less safe. When google saw what people did in their trials, they immediately shut it down and switched focus to full autonomous. What Tesla did is irresponsible because people will abuse it. It was never a question of "if people will or how many". It was always when and what's the consequences. Google saw that basically everyone abused the system and didn't pay attention. For all the good that Elon has done, releasing the feature prematurely isn't one of his best decisions.
How can someone who drinks like that afford a Tesla? I want to be drunk in a Tesla too!
That's a big part of what aggravates me about this tech (apart from the hype, which is astronomical, seconded only by the greed of corporations that see only dollar signs): people want it as an excuse, not an innovation. I personally feel we could do with less excuses, not more. Also, there is zero guarantee that ANY tech will save a kajillion lives. Death is a part of life, folks. It happens everyday, and it always will.
Tesla on autopilot hits fire truck at 65mph on Monday morning in Culver City. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/22/tesla-on-autopilot-slams-into-parked-fire-truck-on-freeway/. Fire truck was parked at an accident scene along with CHP, lights flashing. Yes, a lane was partly blocked. Tesla and fire truck both badly damaged. This time it was morning commute and DUI was not immediately implicated. What is with these people?
Check for new comments ... 114 of 113 loaded ...
They gave somebody a DUI on a horse. I think a horse has a better "autopilot" than a Tesla given that it has a living brain and can navigate the world all by itself...
... this is a really painful way to discover that Musk was lying to you about autopilot. At least you didn't broadside a truck and die. Be Happy! And send the bill to Musky boy. (Can't fix stupid!)