If you had a system that drove roughly as well as I do at my 90% best and cut out the worst 10% of my driving, and let me not have to deal with the road that'd be fine for me.
And I probably should have said "sober, undistracted and competent human" since some people just shouldn't drive, and some people shouldn't be driving under certain conditions (which may not be tired or drunk, but going through a rough break up with late night emotional blowups).
U give far to much credit to human drivers. Capable human drivers as a subset of human drivers. A large subset to be sure,but nowhere near everyone. At least an av cant get drunk.
If every driver were drunk at all times, roads would be designed with that in mind. It's much harder to dangerous things in a car with better designed roads
The post I replied to sounded like it tried to justify it, like there was no other choice than to drive drunk. I also don't agree with you at all. You speak like it's some kind of technical problem that needs to be disrupted. If you drink and drive you're messed up and have big issues. Of course we should try to find ways to reduce it but you can never blame the system.
It's obvious. Most drunk people can get home without someone having to grab the wheel and help them. A few do require that, and they often get stopped by police.
Since almost any ai system currently needs SOME help on a 100 mile drive, yet most slightly drunk people would complete that drive just fine, you could argue close to that.
Not being a drink or erratic driver, I was thinking more of driving when I'm tired. It is possible to be a little too tired to drive safely without realising it, but I imagine the extra small adjustments you make when this happens - because you drift and correct - would be recognisable by the car.
It would be a huge pain if you are on a long drive and your car decides you need a nap! But it would save lives, possibly mine. Personal transport is a convenience. Personal safety is paramount.
People think they drive better when slightly drunk because they have impaired senses and do not notice potentially hazardous conditions that they luckily avoid.
Some just aren't good drivers when sober and rested - I've met many, and they let anyone with a pulse get a driver's license and even if you don't have one you're free to operate a motor vehicle all you want, nobody stops you from turning the key.
You're making a classic is-ought fallacy here. Drunk, high, sleep deprived or "crazy wild aggressive reckless" human drivers ought not to exist, but they do, and thus it's absolutely fair to compared autonomous drivers against them.
People who drink and drive may very well be perfect sober drivers 99.9% of the time but that doesn't excuse the .1% of the time that they're running into things.
Also, this beta isn't "closed-to-the-public". The "public" is an active and unwilling participant in it.
Driving while tired can be as dangerous as driving drunk.
Absolutely true. [1] The problem is cultural: While we've successfully established shaming around DUI, I think there's a certain kind of deeper, Protestant-work-ethic-derived rationalization we seem to make for drowsy driving. "You're working hard, so it's all right."
Perhaps the same ethical framework that was used to make DUI popularly unacceptable can be used for drowsy driving: To drive in this condition is to indulge one's self at others' peril.
That's the reasoning, but to me it just proves that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime separate from poor driving. (I guess it would be OK as an aggravating factor for other traffic crimes.) Someone who drives acceptably while drunk drives acceptably, period.
Wow. You are giving waaaayyy to much credit to the responsiveness of humans. Roughly 1 in 4 drivers have a statistically significant amount of alcohol in their blood system. Lets also not forget distractions like cell phones, finding/selecting music, passengers, OTC and prescription drugs, et al.
From my perspective, I'm the only good driver on the road and everyone else needs to go back to driving school or have their license revoked. :)
It also would presumably discriminate against entire swaths of people (think old folks, potentially disabled drivers, etc).
Not that I think anyone incapable of driving should be, but any impairment test would flunk certain groups of 100% sober people working at their best ability (not sleep-drunk, either).
And I probably should have said "sober, undistracted and competent human" since some people just shouldn't drive, and some people shouldn't be driving under certain conditions (which may not be tired or drunk, but going through a rough break up with late night emotional blowups).
reply