Online Videos Shame Two Sleeping Tesla Drivers (jalopnik.com)

Electrek reports: A Tesla Model S driver in Southern California was caught on camera seemingly asleep at the wheel while driving on Autopilot... Kevin Paschal from Southern California shared the video on Facebook and said about the incident: "Highlight of my day. Dude is passed out on the freeway in his Tesla and still driving better than 90% of SoCal, lol... Dude was perfectly centered in his lane the whole time and maintained a safe distance from all vehicles...."

In this case, it looks like the driver has at least one hand over the bottom half of the steering wheel, which could be enough to avoid any Autopilot alert -- thought that's not always the case. Paschal said that the driver was like that for "several miles" and when asked why he didn't honk to attempt to wake him or get him to pay attention, he wrote, "I'm not sure the car would have cared...."

You should definitely attempt to wake the driver up if it can be done safely. As for the driver falling asleep, there are basically two schools of thoughts here. One could say that the driver would have fallen asleep anyway, as drivers do, and Autopilot actually made the situation a lot safer. Others would argue that the convenience aspect of Tesla's Autopilot might have actually contributed to putting the driver to sleep.
BGR also reports on a second incident where "If anything, the Tesla driver in the video is so relaxed that he's not even at the wheel; he's full-on reclining."

"This is why I personally think Level 2 autonomy is a bad idea," warns Jalopnik. "If it's possible for a moron like this to sleep while the car is driving at highway speeds, that's a huge problem."

Comments

Better than 90%

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like autopilot will be really good for elderly people who refuse to stop driving. Having my grandparents (and now, my dad) drive the car made a trip scarier than any rollercoaster.

Re: Better than 90%

[HiThere]

My guess is 5 years, though fully autonomous is probably closer to 10. And that's really annoying, because I no longer drive.

Re: Better than 90%

[Joce640k]

Stop living in a utopia where humans are all perfect.

So long as the cars of any given manufacturer are statistically at least as safe as human drivers then there should be no liability under law.

The way things are going right now we're almost ready to make autopilot systems mandatory on highways/freeways/autobahns/whatever-they're-called-in-your-country.

Auto driving will save lives

[Bruce66423]

Better that than dozing off without autopilot.

This is the fact that the populist human first sceptics should admit to. Given that, these sorts of stories aren't a problem; as the quote admits, the car was driving safely.

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[mentil]

Indeed. I have a relative who drove cross-country to his new home in NYC. He fell asleep at the wheel in the NY countryside, and woke up in a cornfield at the wheel of a totaled car. He got it towed to the junkyard and started his new life, possessions in hand; never bought a car again, despite working for Toyota.

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[sg_oneill]

This is the fact that the populist human first sceptics should admit to. Given that, these sorts of stories aren't a problem; as the quote admits, the car was driving safely.

Right. This could be a game changer for a lot of people. My father has mild narcolepsy, And by mild I mean "it doesnt happen often". But when it happens, he's asleep.

Its happened a couple of times while driving. He's heading home from work. And then he shakes his head and his car is parked neatly at the side of the road. His brain seems smart enough to go "Ok, head office just shut down, lets park this puppy safely", probably an outcome of driving for close to 50 years. But its still not particularly safe.

Now I personally encourage him to stop driving. But I understand why he's reluctant. His savings won't let him retire and he needs to drive to work. Fucker of a situation to be in, and 100% an outcome of the 2007 stock market crash that wiped out his entire savings.

Something like this would mean he could continue to work without having to worry that next time the lights go out, his own "autonomous" system won't get him off the road safely. And that would be huge for the old boy. Because the alternative right now, is retiring in complete poverty.

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[PolygamousRanchKid]

When I see how a lot of folks drive while awake these days . . . I think it would be better for everyone's safety if they would sleep instead, and let the car do the driving.

Now this would be some cool pseudo-AI car technology: The car detects that the driver is driving like crap, and takes over.

"I'm sorry, Dave. You're driving like crap and are going to cause an accident caused by human error. I will take over and drive for you."

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[AmiMoJo]

While I sympathise with his situation, he could kill someone. In the UK he would have been banned from driving as soon as this condition was diagnosed. It sucks but at least in the UK there would be an obligation by his employer to try to accommodate him, e.g. by allowing him to work from home or allowing reduced working hours so that he could commute on public transport more easily.

AP wouldn't be that much help anyway, as you have to activate it. If he blacks out while it's turned off then it won't do anything beyond the basic forward collision avoidance that is pretty much standard (mandatory?) on all new cars.

Until we get to level 5 autonomy these technologies cannot be used as a substitute for safe driving.

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[tlhIngan]

Better that than dozing off without autopilot.

This is the fact that the populist human first sceptics should admit to. Given that, these sorts of stories aren't a problem; as the quote admits, the car was driving safely.

Yeah, this is what the anti-autonomous driving cars crowd should realize. They may enjoy driving, but if they saw what was REALLY happening around them, they'd really wish that technology was out there right now.

People asleep at the wheel - it's so bad some cars come with alertness detection technology to suggest when you should pull over or get a coffee. Then there's all that distracted driving out there - not just texting anymore, but doing god-knows-what on their phones (texting, reading, watching movies, etc). It's so bad distracted driving has displaced drunk driving as the number one killer.

The truth of the matter is that driving is no longer the #1 activity done behind the wheel for a good chunk of the driving population , and that should scare anyone who wants to stay safe on the road.

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[serviscope_minor]

Until we get to level 5 autonomy these technologies cannot be used as a substitute for safe driving.

Well the key there is "safe driving". I don't think you need that before you're a good substitute for average human driving.

As someone pointed out up thread, if the drivers fell asleep and caused a 5 car pileup with multiple deaths, it would barely make the local news. Unfortunately that kind of thing happens all the time. Autonomus cars aren't a substitute for an altert, well trained, non distracted human driver in familiar driving conditions. However people get begging the wheel sleep deprived, yelling at the kids, annoyed about something at work and impatient with the heavy traffic due to the one snowfall that year.

Re: Auto driving will save lives

[dcw3]

Fucking foreigner. J/K, but few places in the U.S. have public transport as good as NYC, or London.

Re:Auto driving will save lives

[squiggleslash]

Florida. But pretty much everywhere except the interior of a dwindling number of cities is the same.

huge gaps between buildings (filled with largely unused parking spaces

I'm curious to know what part of the country you live in where this isn't the case. Normal US planning policies since the 1950s has been that every business has to be built on a lot with "free parking", which in practice means either strip malls or essentially a large parking lot with a small building in the middle. I've driven from Key West to Connecticut (not in one journey!), and other than the interiors of the largest cities on the way every single area was zoned like this.

Quite possibly the only reason I can think of why you're questioning it is that you're so used to it it's never even occurred to you that it's ridiculous.

Businesses are banned due to zoning laws not to "force people to drive", but because most folks don't want to live next door to a machine shop

Yes, because "machine shops" are the only types of businesses and are completely typical of businesses, not like stores and restaurants and offices. Right? And the negatives associated with "machine shops" can't be dealt with using noise ordinances or other environmental laws, right?

Seriously, this is FUD. It's like you're reading talking points from a NIMBY playbook here. I'm surprised you're not cut and pasting a twenty page essay on why HOAs are the best and protect home values at the same time.

Most people want to live near the businesses that serve them. That's commonsense. Arguing the opposite by using a contrived example of a business that wouldn't sit next to a residential house anyway because it'd violate noise and pollution ordinances shows either a complete lack of thought about the issues or dishonesty on your part.

As for NIMBY, I moved to a quiet suburban community two decades ago because that's the environment I prefer to live in. YMMV, but if you don't like it that way, there are plenty of places to live that are different.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately dishonest or not, but if not I'm guessing that you think there are because you were able to find properties you liked, therefore everyone else should be able to find what they want. If you're using the fact you like your suburban community as an excuse to demand bans on rail transportation, like my neighbors in Martin County Florida, who are opposing the use of an existing rail line to supply passenger transportation for people from South Florida wanting to get to Orlando and Tampa, then you're demonstrating the problem: it doesn't affect you, it doesn't in any way reduce your choices, but you've confused "Should not force people to drive" with "Should force people not to drive". Or maybe you're an asshole. I can't tell.

Video of drivers shamed in old car

[Njovich]

Here is a video of sleeping drivers shamed in their car without automatic braking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Engineering To The Rescue

[mentil]

Obviously the solution here is automatic fuel injection. And by fuel, I mean caffeine; and by injection, I mean hypodermic.

Re: Engineering To The Rescue

[dcw3]

I could support a coffee system, but the preferred delivery should be made piping hot and to the crotch.

This is Tesla's fault.

[xxxLCxxx]

Isn’t the technology supposed to detect that a driver is "non-responsive" and bring the car to a halt in a controlled manner? Those idiots should not be seen cruising around; they should be parked at the right side, call for emergency already sent (they’d then have to pay for their "nap").
This is Tesla’s fault. Either they have no such detection or it’s broken (deactivation being a fault).

Re:This is Tesla's fault.

[xxxLCxxx]

Luxury cars always have a lower accident rate.
Now did they - or did they not - implement a technology to check if there is a driver for their non-autopilot "autopilots"?

Autopilot made this news.

[SuricouRaven]

If the car didn't have autopilot and he fell asleep, and crashed into another car at highway speed killing five people, then it wouldn't even make local news. Novel things make the news, and car accidents are routine - no-one cares about that continuous death toll any more, it's become background noise. But Tesla autopilot? That's new! Exciting! Scary! That gets covered.

Speed limits set too low cause similar problems

[olddoc]

On well designed, safe highways It can be very boring to drive at low speed limits like 55MPH or 100KPH. I feel more alert when I drive with the flow of traffic which is often 20% higher than posted limits in the eastern USA. When the job is too boring it's hard for humans to maintain alertness and vigilance.

Re:Speed limits set too low cause similar problems

[thegarbz]

I feel more alert

Of course you do. The higher stakes and the higher risk of an accident is actually straining your brain. You may feel more alert but in reality you're below break even in end result for your life and health.

There's been plenty of studies of this, mostly coming out of Europe where countries attempted to somewhat unify highway speed limits before realising what an impact it had. As a result countries like the Netherlands went from having 100km/h max to many highways with 120km/h and 130km/h.

The EC identified the following:
Every 1km/h speed increase created an average 3% increase in accidents.
Better still, the function fitted to fatalities related to speed is based on the 4th power of the ratio of speed increase. So doing 110km/h instead of 100km/h makes you just shy of 50% more likely to die should you have an accident.

I'm sure a few slow sleeping drivers waking up in hospital will be quite thankful for the lower speed limits.

When I die I want to go peacefully

[Kernel Kurtz]

in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Re:The real danger of this 'technology'; story tim

[jwhyche]

I heard this story before but it was a bunch of hippies. They bought a van with cruse control. Lead hippie pointed the van to the open highway, hit cruse control, and went to back of the van to hit the bong with his friends.

Re:'Dead man's handles'

[dcw3]

How about four lighted buttons, and you have to press the one that randomly lights up periodically, and at random intervals.