|
It doesn't exist yet so there are no laws
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Hoshi posted:It doesn't exist yet so there are no laws When you’re drinkin’ claws??
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:What would the laws be for Level 5 Full-Self Driving and being under the influence of alcohol/drugs? Level 5 FSD is a pipe dream and may not exist ever let alone in the near future. Your question might as well be what are the rules for flying my personal spaceship while drunk. The right law, imo, if level 5 ever actually exists, would shift liability for incidents in full auto to the manufacturer. However, the government is completely captured by regulators. So the driver will still be liable for everything, and dui laws will probably still be enforced to an extent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Level 5 FSD is a pipe dream and may not exist ever let alone in the near future. Your question might as well be what are the rules for flying my personal spaceship while drunk. I don’t know how you’re enforcing DUI laws since a self-driving car would be functionally no different than taking a taxi. Drunk passengers aren’t charged. Feasible self-driving cars would replace taxis and ride services would probably mean fewer people have their own car anyway. But what’s the basis to charge someone for being their own passenger rather than a third-party’s? And yeah, I don’t see manufacturers being strictly liable. That takes away incentive to develop and make the cars. Self-driving cars will likely maintain a driver/owner override and negligence common law may place the burden of the last best chance to avoid an accident on the human driver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:I don’t know how you’re enforcing DUI laws since a self-driving car would be functionally no different than taking a taxi. Drunk passengers aren’t charged. Feasible self-driving cars would replace taxis and ride services would probably mean fewer people have their own car anyway. But what’s the basis to charge someone for being their own passenger rather than a third-party’s? The presence of an override and manual control requires that the driver be sober. If such override is actually needed, then we're not level 5 fsd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
I’ve thought long an hard about this (implementation of “”””full self driving “”””” ) and basically you end up with trains. We already have trains so ...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
We’d (the public) would have to pay for dedicated highways and special roads for the “”””FSD””””” cars and by that time what is the point Otherwise as mentioned the liability issues are ridiculous and make the idea a non starter imho
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 19:50
|
|
|
What level self driving is the one that Elon is touting will come in mid-2020? https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-car-drive-itself-across-the-country-2019-3 quote:"I think we will be feature-complete full self-driving this year, meaning the car will be able to find you in a parking lot, pick you up, take you all the way to your destination without an intervention — this year," Musk said in an interview with ARK Invest. "I would say that I am certain of that. That is not a question mark." And https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/23/20929529/tesla-full-self-driving-release-2019-beta quote:Musk previously estimated that by the middle of 2020, Tesla’s autonomous system will have improved to the point where drivers will not have to pay attention to the road. The company also plans to roll out autonomous taxis in some parts of the US. The service will allow Tesla owners to add their cars to a Tesla network, which he said would be akin to Uber or Airbnb. What happens at the end of 2020? Starpluck fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
Musk is claiming level 5 is right around the corner because he’s a conman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
yeah he's saying that because he needs cash and floats his entire business on the irrational exhuberance of dipshits who think their teslas will basically be KITT doing uber shifts while they shitpost at their coding jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The presence of an override and manual control requires that the driver be sober. If such override is actually needed, then we're not level 5 fsd. Not needed, but included by the manufacturer as an out for them on liability though? If you mean level 5 means there can be no override, then the driver/owner has absolutely no involvement and all cars are just a service. Back to the taxi analogy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
That sounds like a question only Elon can answer with his big, wet brain
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:
Musk announces that autonomous driving is unfortunately but inevitably delayed after it turns out that a skunk walking next to the road causes fatal accidents, along with anything else they didn't put in an `if` case for. Fortunately, he makes a joke about how he didn't have "2020 vision" and the stock market heartily guffaws while tousling his hair and saying "that's our Elon!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
PHIZ KALIFA posted:yeah he's saying that because he needs cash and floats his entire business on the irrational exhuberance of dipshits who think their teslas will basically be KITT doing uber shifts while they shitpost at their coding jobs. Sounds like more of a Shelbyville idea...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Level 5 FSD is a pipe dream and may not exist ever let alone in the near future. Your question might as well be what are the rules for flying my personal spaceship while drunk. yeah as a practical matter the only sensible place to put liability is on the manufacturer. the only question will be if it's a strict liability standard akin to no-fault insurance or if the car needs to be in some sense "at fault". such cars are nowhere near existence whatever musk says, and he says it because his company's finances depend on idiots believing it's right around the corner, and if they ever do exist they won't be teslas (which lack lidar, a key hardware capability).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
At present most DUI statutes are phrased something to the effect of "Operating a Motor Vehicle while intoxicated" and I'd be confident that 1) they'd still prosecute and win under that definition, even if the car was fully self driving and, more to your question 2) there is no real incentive for legislatures to bend over backwards to write in an exception for self-driving cars any time soon. Even these cars will have driver override, and who here can't imagine some rear end in a top hat gets in and passes out, unbuckled, slumps over the steering wheel yanking the car into oncoming traffic or drops his foot on the gas pedal, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:At present most DUI statutes are phrased something to the effect of "Operating a Motor Vehicle while intoxicated" and I'd be confident that 1) they'd still prosecute and win under that definition, even if the car was fully self driving and, more to your question 2) there is no real incentive for legislatures to bend over backwards to write in an exception for self-driving cars any time soon. Perhaps in a true-"FSD" mode, the intoxicated driver would sit in the front passenger seat, preventing him for slopping over the controls. And in that case, he's a passenger and not the driver of the vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:At present most DUI statutes are phrased something to the effect of "Operating a Motor Vehicle while intoxicated" and I'd be confident that 1) they'd still prosecute and win under that definition, even if the car was fully self driving and, more to your question 2) there is no real incentive for legislatures to bend over backwards to write in an exception for self-driving cars any time soon. The defense would be that you weren't impaired by the alcohol because the ai was doing it all anyway. Realistically though such a case would rarely come to trial because DUI stops happen when either the driver is doing something an AI wouldn't do, like driving erratically or speeding, or there's a major wreck, which an ai makes less likely anyway. And if there's a wreck while an AI is driving the case is instantly too complicated for the prosecutor to deal with. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Mar 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The defense would be that you weren't impaired by the alcohol because the ai was doing it all anyway. Realistically though such a case would rarely come to trial because DUI stops happen when either the driver is doing something an AI wouldn't do, like driving erratically or speeding, or there's a major wreck, which an ai makes less likely anyway. Or there's a DUI checkpoint and the window doesn't roll down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 04:05
|
|
|
"I am not driving, I am traveling."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
I never installed Joindr in the car so
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The defense would be that you weren't impaired by the alcohol because the ai was doing it all anyway. Realistically though such a case would rarely come to trial because DUI stops happen when either the driver is doing something an AI wouldn't do, like driving erratically or speeding, or there's a major wreck, which an ai makes less likely anyway. 1. You are still impaired, even if the ai is not. The ai is not subject for criminal prosecution, you are. 2. You are still the responsible operator of a vehicle. You are not merely a passenger, you are in control of the actions of the vehicle if only by ordering it around. Closest analogy would be instructing a learning driver, which you also cannot be drunk for. This is still ignoring the general negligence of being in a state where you may not be able to respond to an emergency appropriately. 3. In some jurisdictions, such as mine, attempt drink driving carries the exact same penalties and the bar for attempt is "turning the key". Even if you're not driving, it's still possible to get convicted for impossible attempt, and intent doesn't matter for this over here. 4. Legislatively, it is generally undesireable even with full autonomous driving having a bunch of drunk people be the only humans in charge of a machine capable of serious harm. So that would be very likely to be criminalized regardless of the above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 07:41
|
|
|
Right. In my jurisdiction there are two different charges: DUI and DUAC (unlawful alcohol concentration). DUI requires impairment. The argument would be that ai assisted driving requires so little awareness that the alcohol in your system wasn't impairing you in that task. Itd be a jury question and one you'd have a decent s bu ot with depending. You'd still get convicted of duac if you blew but you have to consent to blow for that. I agree on your last point but that's not the law yet. I also agree there would be civil liability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 10:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right. In my jurisdiction there are two different charges: DUI and DUAC (unlawful alcohol concentration). DUI requires impairment. The argument would be that ai assisted driving requires so little awareness that the alcohol in your system wasn't impairing you in that task. Itd be a jury question and one you'd have a decent s bu ot with depending. Ah. So the impairment is actually tested against the activity and it's only impairment if the alcohol would render the operation dangerous or something like that? Wow, that is weird to me. We follow the "medical principle" where it really doesn't matter how the alcohol affects you, if you test over 0,02% BApercentage and you're (attempting) driving or controlling a motor vehicle that's it. There are no further tests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 11:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Ah. So the impairment is actually tested against the activity and it's only impairment if the alcohol would render the operation dangerous or something like that? Wow, that is weird to me. Well, the test is whether you were under the influence / impaired. No danger requirement. Idea being, someone might have had one drink but have a tolerance and not actually be impaired in their driving. This turns into a battle of proof over the roadside "field sobriety" tests usually, if it goes there. That's kinda valid because the field sobriety tests are kinda bullshit -- I've had clients pass the tests and still get charged, I've had several dead sober clients fail the tests because they were elderly / had balance issues / didn't understand the directions etc. Sometimes it can be an issue of being impaired by something other than a drink/drug, like lack of sleep; technically, not DUI! Blood alcohol level is the separate DUAC charge -- which carries all the exact same penalties but is technically distinct because it rests on a blood alcohol level not an impairment test -- but that needs (generally) consent to the blood alcohol testing, whether by breath machine or blood draw. If there's a serious accident they'll get a warrant for a blood draw. Then you're over the limit, BAM, convicted. Otherwise though you have a right to refuse the breath test. They'll automatically suspend your license if you refuse and require you to do a alcohol class, but it's a non-criminal penalty because the right to drive is technically civil and administrative, through the department of motor vehicles. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Mar 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 11:59
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, the test is whether you were under the influence / impaired. No danger requirement. Idea being, someone might have had one drink but have a tolerance and not actually be impaired in their driving. This turns into a battle of proof over the roadside "field sobriety" tests usually, if it goes there. That's kinda valid because the field sobriety tests are kinda bullshit -- I've had clients pass the tests and still get charged, I've had several dead sober clients fail the tests because they were elderly / had balance issues / didn't understand the directions etc. Sometimes it can be an issue of being impaired by something other than a drink/drug, like lack of sleep; technically, not DUI! Interesting. Ours is BAC only. No test, no charge. If you refuse the breath test the police usually take your license right then and there, arrest you and bring you to the hospital for a blood draw. There is no refusing and no need for a warrant. We do have a discretionary "you don't appear fit to be in traffic" statute, but it usually also requires drug/alcohol testing and we don't usually do any performative tests. It's just the policeman's observations. Fun fact: since the BAC test statute applies only to motor vehicles, you can drunk drive a horse so long as it's generally safe and you're not hosed up enough to get slapped with the discretionary statute. This would not be the case with an ai, since that would be in a motor vehicle. So basically, a horse is that level 5 ai thing you wanna drive home drunk. Completely Texas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 12:21
|
|
|
Holy poo poo so that's why America does those weird roadside tests. We also just have a strict test where if you're over the limit you're done. Trying to prove actual impairment sounds like a huge waste of resources. Side note I once transcribed a case where a guy had been asked to get out of the car because the police thought he was drunk (tbf he had a half-full bottle of something with him, I forget what) and as he got out, before they could test him, he drank down the rest of the bottle to obscure the results. So they got him on perversion of justice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Holy poo poo so that's why America does those weird roadside tests. We also just have a strict test where if you're over the limit you're done. Trying to prove actual impairment sounds like a huge waste of resources. Hahaha fantastic. We have a special rule where if you imbibe alcohol within 6 hours of driving when you understand or should understand that there will be a police investigation because of the driving (such as an accident, incident, you're stopped in a random control), they can convict you under the same rules as normal DUI based on your BAC. It's a weird rule that not many other jurisdictions have and swedes for example have gotten away with this because they didn't know about the law and they don't have anything like it in sweden, so they can actually plead non-negligent ignorance of the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 14:19
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:
In my state that is known as the "Jean Toal Defense" because our (now retired) Chief Justice of the state supreme court, Jean Toal, wrecked her car outside her own house, went into her house, and immediately poured herself a stiff drink "to calm her nerves."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In my state that is known as the "Jean Toal Defense" because our (now retired) Chief Justice of the state supreme court, Jean Toal, wrecked her car outside her own house, went into her house, and immediately poured herself a stiff drink "to calm her nerves." In 2009 the Wakulla County, FL sheriff was drunk and crashed into a woman driving with her kid in the car. He subsequently fled the scene. The elected county judge sentenced him to 6 months of no drinking without any actual monitoring because his neighbors would be able to effectively monitor him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
Part of the point of the generalized “DWI” charges is that there’s other substances that impair driving ability, legal or not, that you also need to ban. Nobody’s going to have specific tests for levels of “don’t operate heavy machinery” prescription drugs for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
I think any Tesla “self driving” AI should be under a strict liability regime which would mean it would never work under the current roads and traffic Also the fact that “self driving” AI wouldn’t go over the speed limit ??? Makes it a non starter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
There’s no way to insure those vehicles without requiring the meat popsicle inside to have a non-delegable responsibility for its safe operation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:There’s no way to insure those vehicles without requiring the meat popsicle inside to have a non-delegable responsibility for its safe operation. The root issue is that our moral system, and therefore our legal system, can't actually find an adequate solution for this. We need to solve the trolley problem first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:There’s no way to insure those vehicles without requiring the meat popsicle inside to have a non-delegable responsibility for its safe operation. Just invent a company that pairs drunk owners of self driving cars with independent contractors whose job it is remotely monitor the safe operation of the car. Of course, you can't make a living wage unless you're monitoring at least a dozen cars, twice that of you're going to carry insurance...
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Can't kill enough people as a drone pilot? Become a Uber pilot instead!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Part of the point of the generalized “DWI” charges is that there’s other substances that impair driving ability, legal or not, that you also need to ban. Nobody’s going to have specific tests for levels of “don’t operate heavy machinery” prescription drugs for example. Uh norwegian police has been using spit analyzers for opiates, cokain, amphetamines/methamphetamines, THC and benzos since... 2015? And there's blood sampling where there are forensic medical tables for dosage equivalents in blood to BAC, which they had before that so if the police decided you looked stoned, they'd have put you in for a blood test regardless. (legal stuff that affects driving, like what? I'm not aware of any drug legal or not, that impairs you, that you can drive while under the influence of? You guys have those? What are they?) As a fun bonus, they would also slap you with unlawful use of a controlled substance which is a felony equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Uh norwegian police has been using spit analyzers for opiates, cokain, amphetamines/methamphetamines, THC and benzos since... 2015? Keyword there being "Norwegian." People forget that in the US, "Police" means one of 20,000 different city, county, state, or federal agencies, each one with its own separate budget, equipment, capabilities, pool of voters deciding what they can and can't have, etc I'm sure plenty of jurisdictions out here have those, they're just not ubiquitous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Uh norwegian police has been using spit analyzers for opiates, cokain, amphetamines/methamphetamines, THC and benzos since... 2015? And there's blood sampling where there are forensic medical tables for dosage equivalents in blood to BAC, which they had before that so if the police decided you looked stoned, they'd have put you in for a blood test regardless. (legal stuff that affects driving, like what? I'm not aware of any drug legal or not, that impairs you, that you can drive while under the influence of? You guys have those? What are they?) Prescription opiates or benzos are legal but you shouldn't drive on them. There's also drugs that can interact with each other to create an impaired effect that don't on their own. Not having a generic "driving while intoxicated/impaired" statute leaves a big old loophole that you don't really want to exist every time someone finds a new way to get hosed up on purpose or accidentally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Uh norwegian police has been using spit analyzers for opiates, cokain, amphetamines/methamphetamines, THC and benzos since... 2015? And there's blood sampling where there are forensic medical tables for dosage equivalents in blood to BAC, which they had before that so if the police decided you looked stoned, they'd have put you in for a blood test regardless. (legal stuff that affects driving, like what? I'm not aware of any drug legal or not, that impairs you, that you can drive while under the influence of? You guys have those? What are they?) It's really easy to detect whether someone's taken a specific drug, it takes blood testing and a fair bit of pharmacology to determine when they took it or whether it's at a level where it impairs. I'm getting the impression Norway assumes impairment if any detectable level is in your blood or spit, which is really problematic considering many legal drugs are detectable well below their therapeutic levels. My ADHD med is an amphetamine, does that mean I'd get popped for possession and impaired driving if I got pulled over in Norway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2020 18:45
|
|