Tesla on Autopilot Drove 7 Miles With Drunk Driver Sleeping

Yes and no, as having a track car and use it also in hillclimb, i just love when there is no help at all...

But being in a car stucked (or stoped lol ) and having an average speed of 10 to 20 Km/H in inner big cities or being in a straight line highway at 130 Km/H for hours is not driving pleasure at all. And in here you might enjoy an autonomous car.

 

This is because you don't have tried electric cars, they are really fun once you are used to drive it, i was really convinced after a try.
About the drivers most are bad, but what do you expect after only a week or two to have the licence...
Most of them doest even know how it work (FWD, RWD, AWD??? lol), how to change a tire, how to drive in bad weather, how to save people after an accident.
Only few country have this minimun learning in their driving licence.
Adding to that some using the phone for doing selfies, looking back to search something in the back at 130 Km/H, cuting curves like in Gran Turismo but at regular speed without looking if someone coming in front, using narcotics or alcool before to take the wheel... (i have personaly seen all of that) For all of that too it will save life.

 

You missed my point completely. I said explicitly that risk can never be reduced to zero. It is however controllable. If you drive defensively, sober and vigilant then your risk is of an accident is actually quite small.

When a computer controls everything and you still have a chance of dying then it is indeed arbitrary from your perspective. The risk mitigation strategies mentioned above will no longer apply. You simply plug in your destination and hope you get there. No system will be 100% safe and there's no equipment that is guaranteed not to malfunction. It also opens the door to new risks like having your car system hacked and deliberately wrecked.

My point is this: the lives you claimed will be saved will primarily be those drivers who practiced reckless or careless driving. Now everyone will have the same risk but will this risk increase over what a safe driver experiences today? We don't know the answer to that question yet. Computers are not omniscient nor are they perfect.

Not to mention that it will dramatically increase the cost to drive. There will be much more stringent regulation on maintenance in order for any manufacturer to assume liability. Whether private car ownership continues or not this cost will be passed on to the driver.

 

Has money to buy a tesla.
Isn't smart enough to call an Uber.
Oh humanity...

 

I didn't misunderstand what you said, or I don't think I did anyway. I said that your argument regarding control is wrong, which is entirely different.

You're vastly overestimating how much of a say you, as an individual driver, have in the safety of your driving experience. Certainly you can always crash your own car but once you assume that the majority of drivers would prefer to actively avoid that situation the dangers of driving are largely outside of your control. You can't control the driving conditions, road hazards, visibility or - and this is the big one - other drivers. Nor can you affect any possible malfunction of your vehicle, or indeed a physical emergency that might render yourself unable to adequately pilot the vehicle.

In short, there's nothing remotely controllable about the driving experience as we know it today and even full automation won't remove, or reduce, all the risk factors involved.

The safety of the driving experience is, to use your own word, arbitrary. The risks are small, yes, though larger than for most things people do in their daily lives, and the risks that exist are almost completely outside of our individual control. We do what we can to reduce the risks with the technology at hand but the remainder is just the roll of the dice.

Most of this line of critique boils down to fear of change, not any consistent or qualitative arguments on their own merits. You're not "in control" when you're a passenger on a commercial flight (though you're indeed much safer than you are driving under any circumstances), yet I doubt most people would feel safer if they were maneuvered into the cockpit and told to fly the plane. Mostly, and this is merely my opinion, because while people are often used to driving the car they're in they wouldn't be quite so comfortable flying a plane - because that's not the expectation.

You're effectively making an appeal to emotion, the idea that you would feel safer driving yourself than being a passive passenger in a vehicle driven by a computer. And that's fair, I can't speak for your feelings on the matter but it's a legitimate point. It's not. however, an argument based on fact or the realities of the situation and it's also one, as truly autonomous vehicles are introduced, I imagine we're going to get over quite quickly.

As for hacking that's already possible with many modern, not fully autonomous, vehicles. As of right now we only have security by obscurity in this regard, and perhaps - or so I hope - a modicum of respect for human life. While a modern car fleet, fully autonomous or not, would increase the target vector for such hacks it'll also bring about security hardening that currently don't exist.

There's a lot to unpack here so you're going to have to bear with me for a moment...

First of all, while autonomous vehicles will hopefully prevent people from committing suicide by car you're consistently neglecting the fact that the most significant dangers to any non-suicidal, individual driver are other drivers! Aside from those we have all these other hazards mentioned earlier, such as road conditions, visibility, hazards, vehicular malfunction, medical emergencies etc. and for those it often comes down to the skill of the individual driver.

There's two general categories that determines how good/safe a driver a person is, though I'll toss in a third just to make a point, namely;

• Awareness
• Experience
• Emotional stability.

A computer will always be 100% focused on the surroundings, with 360 degree peripheral vision and other senses that no human can match. A computer will never drive under the influence, never fumble with the controls, never text while driving, never turn around to yell at the kids in the backseat, never get preoccupied talking to the passengers, never fall asleep at the wheel after a 14 hour shift etc.
A computer will always have significantly more driving experience than any human, as it can not only simulate experiences but also count driving in the aggregate for all autonomous vehicles while we humans are stuck relying solely on our own meager experiences.
And, perhaps even more importantly in this context, a computer won't suffer from road rage, won't take risks to impress its friends nor to arrive at the destination 5 seconds faster and will never run out of its ability to make informed, un-emotional judgments every single time its driving.

You're quite right that computers are neither omniscient nor perfect, they're just far closer to it than humans - as far as driving is concerned.

 

To me, it all boils down to personal responsibility and freedom. I love computers as much as anyone, but i won't let one drive for me.....or do anything for me that takes my choice or responsibility away from me. True there are many bad and irresponsible drivers, but the only protection i trust against all of this is my own vigilance. Being forced to allow a computer to be in control of your driving is a violation of the freedom of self-determination. I take charge of my safety at home, at work, on the internet, and on the road.

 

It isn't about your own safety though, i think people are stating it's about cutting down on incidents that endanger the safety of others. No one involved in an accident previously believed they were an irresponsible driver. Taking charge of your own safety is fine when it's your own property, but it's not so simple when on public roads.

I don't see it ever being mandatory for everyone, but i'm assuming there would be insurance incentives for taking out the human side of things and driving manually would end up being an expensive hobby.

 

I'm not sure that's true. I'd guess that most idiots who drive while under the influence or asshats that rage behind the wheel know deep down that they're sh*t.

Like some others have mentioned, I'd like to see much more stringent requirements for drivers as well as stiffer penalties for traffic violations. And while I love driving, I'd give it up if a convenient and reliable mass transit system were put in place in my area. Not so sure I'd want to "own" a self-driving car though, seems like a waste of money if its just serving as an appliance.

 

Does driving drunk increase your risk of an accident? Yes.

Does driving the speed limit and using proper signaling technique reduce your risk of an accident? Yes

You can still 100% control your risk while. Certain behaviors increase it and certain behaviors decrease it. Unless you disagree with those above statements, then you were wrong to say my original point was "entirely untrue." You were wrong and now your spinning yarn to cover it up. Why can't you just say that you misunderstood my statement to mean risk can be reduced by 100%? Is this an example of an error a computer wouldn't make because they don't have emotions?

The pioneers of autonomous driving have OPENLY stated that there will still be fatalities. When you get in your auto-car and it drives you somewhere, then you ARE necessarily rolling a digital roulette of arriving safely. This is also a synonym for arbitrary. So, wrong again.

What are you talking about with an airliner comparison? You are reaching, big time. Do you know why people would feel uncomfortable flying a plane? Because it's NOT the same at all. It's an AIRPLANE!

You are just disagreeing with me to disagree and sound intellectual. The reduction in risk a person can person affect their driving experience by are the EXACT traits that you say makes the computer infallible, because they do it better? This isn't a zero sum comparison.

What's most disturbing is you are making all of these claims with ZERO data. A computer isn't aware of it's surroundings, at all. A computer is by definition not aware. A computer responds to feedback according to parameters set by the programmer. This is a system and it's far from perfect and far from proven on the road. A look at any automated robot should make you cringe when you know that similar mechanisms will be used to control cars, although they're much better than they used to be.

So while this system is getting the kinks worked out and data for the engineers starts coming in, then guess what? We are the Guinea Pigs. People will die because unanticipated situations will arise and there will be for lack of a better term "malfunctions." Having an honest discussion about this is not an appeal to emotion. Surviving or the will to survive is an instinct and that is not even close to the same. You've conflated the two. Right now, my chances of dying in a car as a good driver are pretty low. If you drive like a crazy person, then they are astronomically higher. So it looks like, and we'll all know more when we get data is that it is indeed possible for my risk to increase and their risk decrease. If this scenario arises and there is still a net decrease in deaths, then I have forfeited my safety because other people are irresponsible. I will be forced into a system that is actually not benefiting me at all. This is the conversation currently taking place, so instead of insulting my intelligence with dishonest rhetoric and trying to convince me of the magic of 'Puter's why don't you provide some actual information and add to the discussion?

There is no data to assuage my and other's very valid concerns and your cheap shot at us is unwarranted and frankly quite dangerous. You don't have any data either. Which brings me to my final point. I'd be really surprised if you aren't astro-turfing for the industry. Where my concerns are generated through a natural instinct, survival, where are your very fervent opinions coming from? You want us all to believe in these fantasy cars that drive better than people. They will remain a fantasy until they are on the road and proven. That's just how reality works. Yet, here you are dishonestly and highly motivated to make sure we engage with this fantasy too. My question is, why?

 

In Australia the last few years there has been a sharp rise in people losing control of their cars and crashing into people's houses! Drugs, alcohol or excessive speed usually to blame. Can't trust some humans to operate dangerous machines.

 

I'm now going to accuse you of the same thing you're accusing me of, namely not understanding the point I'm making.

Of course how you, individually, drive is going to be largest risk factor in any car-related travel. That said it's disingenuous to claim that by controlling your own driving, to the extent that you're able, you're in control of your driving experience - and hence safety. For two reasons, namely...

• Unless you're intentionally trying to crash your vehicle to begin with the comparison is meaningless, as you're not controlling for a risk factor that exists in the first place.
• This state of control assumes not only that you are 100% attentive, disciplined and able-bodied to begin with - a naive proposition to be sure - but also that you ignore every single other risk factor involved in driving.

Can you control all the other drivers on the road with you? No.
Can you control the weather? No.
Can you control visibility? Minimally.
Can you control potential wildlife or other road hazards? No.
Can you control for potential vehicular malfunctions or medical emergencies? To some extent, though not fully and certainly not within the span of any single drive.
And so on...

The point here is that, much like the first insight of adulthood, it's not actually about you - it's about all of us.

Let's assume you're a perfect driver, that still won't stop you from being in an accident. There are plenty of conditions that would lead to an accident even with an ideal, human, driver either because they're beyond the driver's ability to handle or outside of the realm of addressable risk to begin with. Not all of those scenarios could be mitigated with autonomous vehicles, obviously, but many could and that alone is worth the effort. Once you start considering the fact that no one is a perfect driver then the proposition (of autonomous vehicles from a safety standpoint) becomes even better.

Of course!

Autonomous vehicles are still a technology in its infancy and many of the discussions regarding it (cue the trolley problem and so on) are purely in the realm of philosophy rather than engineering. Will there be accidents, and casualties, as a result of immature technology during the early phases of deployment? Certainly, believing anything else is likely naive.

It'll take time until computers can handle every terrain, every weather condition or form of navigation.

That being said the safety floor for autonomous vehicles is much, much higher than that of human drivers - as is the ceiling.

A computer still won't be able to control for hazards, weather or every possible vehicle malfunction of course but you can reliable count upon it to handle any such incident more competently and gracefully than any human driver would.

The point, which you helped drive home very well, is that you're making an appeal to emotion based on a set of personal (though largely shared) expectations.

People would feel uncomfortable to take over the helm of a plane in flight because they have no experience of that, nor any expectation they would have to, and they're well aware that they're going to do a worse job than the trained pilot and possibly endanger not only themselves but everyone else on the plane. The best they could do is probably hit the autopilot and ask for help.

With a car the expectation is completely different. A lot of people have a driver's license and a reasonable, by human standards, number of hours worth of experience driving some subset of personal vehicles. Couple this with the generally, perceived, low risk of driving and a lot of people would feel quite comfortable and secure driving a car.

Once you add autonomous driving into the mix the situation is, however, exactly the same. A human driver would be inherently disadvantaged versus the computer, the trained driver in this scenario, and the safest course of action not only for the passengers in the car - as well as every other car on the same road - would be to let the computer drive.

Consider this, would someone who have never driven a car themselves feel comfortable taking over from the driver? Would they consider it more or less likely that they would get into an accident than a trained driver? Would they question the safety of a computer driving the vehicle when it's been their default experience to begin with?

No and yes, respectively.

A computer would inherently have access to data that no human would when driving, due to better sensory access and direct diagnostics feedback from the vehicle itself to mention a couple, but while not infallible by any means the point is very much that a computer would do it better than any human. Once the technology is mature enough for deployment, naturally.

Like I mentioned in my last post a computer will always be 100% focused, significantly more experienced than any human driver and not subject to emotional conditions that often impair the ability of human drivers.

It's not about you man, it just isn't.

I don't agree with the premise of that argument to begin with, as you said it's not a zero-sum contest. It's going to be safer both for you and everyone else, that's a pretty safe bet based on any available statistics regarding both current accident rates and projections based on autonomous drive tests.
That said... if the aggregate result of widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles is a notable reduction in vehicular accidents and fatalities it's frankly irrelevant if they could be proven to be slightly elevated for individual drivers under specific circumstances. The math is pretty simple, saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives every year would be a simple trade-off for fractionally increased risks for a single, or small percentage, of individuals. You, or I, just aren't more important than anyone else.

Before you get hung up on that argument though I will stress that it's entirely philosophical, as conclusively providing relevant statistics on an individual scale is largely impossible and the premise of it is flawed to being with. I only replied to it because it's important to point out that vehicle safety is a numbers game, and that any and all lives saved in the end is what matters.

To address, at least part of, the premise for this argument I'd like to point out that you've consistently neglected to take into account that everyone on the road is in constant danger from everyone else. Adopting autonomous vehicles won't just help prevent you getting into accidents, it'll similarly help prevent others from being in accidents with you. You like to focus on how excellent driving discipline and skill puts you in control of your safety, and how the lack of it would endanger you. While true, it's worth keeping in mind that reckless driving endangers not only you but everyone else on the road with you. From that it's easily deduced that any reckless behavior in other drivers is an inherent danger towards you, and one which autonomous vehicles would largely prevent.

Because I have the time to waste?

Or perhaps because I find the argument you're espousing dangerous to leave uncontested? Not because I feel it's inherently wrong (I do but that's besides the point) but rather because of the danger of rejecting a technology with the potential to save enormous numbers of human lives, as well as improving the quality of life for many more, based on nothing more than appeal to emotion.

As I'm not aiming to convince you of anything, in my experience you can't really convince people with anything short of an personal epiphany - it sure would be a nice world if we could though, I'm not sure what kind of information you'd want me to add?

Do you disagree with the idea that other drivers are both a potential safety risk for you, and each other, and that they are beyond your control?

Do you disagree with the weather, visibility, road hazards, vehicle malfunctions, medical emergencies and numerous other potential risks while driving are (fully or partially) beyond your ability to control as a driver?

Do you disagree with the idea that a computer would have better focus and awareness of the surroundings and vehicle/ground/traffic conditions than a human driver will?

Do you disagree with the idea that a computer is immune to road rage or emotional driving of any kind?

Do you disagree with the idea that a computer could draw upon a far larger pool of accumulated driving experience than any human driver?

I don't see how a reply to any of these questions could be "yes" and be worthy of consideration for a reply, which only really leaves two points of disagreement that I can think of, namely;

• That technical challenges and/or immature technology would introduce a safety risk that's not found with manual driving.
• That computers will make poor moral judgments in specific situations, such as the ever popular the trolley problem.

For the first point that's doubtlessly true, even if those dangers are largely already with us with the current level of semi-automation. No doubt there's going to be casualties, especially early on, and those situations are going to be worth discussing and analyzing in great detail. However, assuming the number of traffic casualties are reduced overall with autonomous vehicles that's still going to be a worthwhile trade-off. It's not unlike nuclear power, a lot of people get hugely upset about the handful of high-profile incidents we've seen over the years (and rightly so mind you!) but we're never really giving the innumerable years of lost lives due to pollution from, or areas of lands given over to and poisoned by, fossil reactors and their fuel as much as a second glance, because it's just there - part of the business.

I read an article, more than one actually, which pointed out that while airplane accidents get a huge amount of publicity and large investigations we don't pay anywhere near as much attention to driving accidents. Let alone a proportional amount. And this is saying something, because there's a significant number of driving accidents that are entirely preventable.

At the end of the day autonomous vehicles are going to introduce accident scenarios we didn't have before, and we're going to see casualties from those. I can't personally guarantee automation will reduce the number of casualties overall of course but the numbers we have from current road tests are quite one-sided in the positive and it's easy to see why. It's also worth considering just what kind of actors we're seeing in this space, these are hardly charities we're talking about and they're well aware of the challenges.

As for the second point it's entirely academic. You can usually find compelling arguments for whatever outcome in the case of such a scenario. As a software developer I'd probably start with minimizing the number of potential human casualties and ignoring further details (age, gender, pregnancy, pets etc.). The point of it being academic is that we have the time to discuss the situation and give the computer the foundation for whatever moral framework we decide upon, hence giving it the ability to make decisions based upon those, while no human driver would ever be able to make a meaningful decision in such a situation anyway. We just don't have the time, reflexes or control of the vehicle that a computer would in such a situation.

 

You clearly cherry picked my response. I'll try to make this quick.

Your first words, "I'm now going to accuse you of the same thing you're accusing me of"

I didn't accuse you, I corrected you because you assaulted my premise and in 3 replies not addressed it. You said I was wrong in saying drivers can't control their risk, now you are saying I accused you? More dishonesty.

You can describe risk FACTORS all you want and a human
can mitigate all of the risk with adjusted driving. We wouldn't be able to get auto insurance otherwise.

"It's going to be safer both for you and everyone else"

No, I described a specific scenario where my risk increases and irresponsible driver's risk decreases. You are being dishonest. You are making claims with NO data.

"People would feel uncomfortable to take over the helm of a plane in flight because they have no experience of that, nor any expectation they would have to, and they're well aware that they're going to do a worse job than the trained pilot and possibly endanger not only themselves but everyone else on the plane. The best they could do is probably hit the autopilot and ask for help."

Newsflash: Driving a car isn't even remotely close to flying a plane in practice. This is not even defensible. You are saying it's established that automated cars drive better than people. It's not established. Show me the data. Oh wait we don't have any!

"Or perhaps because I find the argument you're espousing dangerous to leave uncontested? Not because I feel it's inherently wrong (I do but that's besides the point) but rather because of the danger of rejecting a technology with the potential to save enormous numbers of human lives, as well as improving the quality of life for many more, based on nothing more than appeal to emotion."

The fact that you feel enlightened to make these claims with ZERO data shows you are biased. Do you have something to share?

You can make words. You can't prove anything you say holds water. You're looking like a shill. I'll keep my car until further notice. I hate to say it but are you Christian? I've seen people have faith in the unseen before. It's okay. It's not a criticism to have faith in the unseen.

 

How?

How do you control for another person hitting you with their car?
How do you control for a flash freeze when you don't have your winter tires on?
How do you control for a downpour reducing visibility to nil?
How do you control for wildlife on the road?
How do you control for an explosive flat or engine failure in high-speed traffic?
How do you control for a medical emergency rendering you unable to drive?
Etc.

At best you'll do so badly and to the best of your ability, though with third party actors you won't be able to at all. This doesn't make you a bad driver, it just means that there are situation outside of your control. If there weren't we wouldn't need insurance to begin with!

Autonomous vehicles takes bad driving out of the picture, and thus most of the dangers that third party actors represent, while being superior to human drivers in every relevant metric (attention, experience, emotional response).

You mentioned a hypothetical, generic scenario and I explained why it's both irrelevant on the merits and fundamentally flawed on its premise. If you want to discuss either of those things I refer you to the details in my previous post.

Nor is it the point you helped me make, namely that your experience as a driver and expectation of driving is forcing you into making an emotional appeal rather than an argument based on the merits of autonomous vehicles.

A person without a natural bias or expectation towards driving would be more likely to choose an autonomous vehicle simply because of its merits, which is why I expect the kind of emotional rejection we're seeing on the subject is likely one that we (humans, collectively) will get past in a relatively short span of time.

We have plenty of data from testing of autonomous vehicles but it is, as I'm sure you're aware, not suitable to draw any conclusions from at this stage.

• Compared to manual driving we don't have a statistically significant number of logged vehicles/kilometers from which to draw conclusions with recognizable confidence intervals.
• The technology is still in its infancy and currently undergoing primary testing, meaning the numbers for road-ready products are likely to be different.
• The very nature of logging drive tests and the inherent limitations of the current prototypes will generate a different set of challenges than if we're viewing all driving and the numbers are going to be skewed with that in mind.

That said it's pretty clear that autonomous vehicles are less accident-prone with the numbers we do have, and given the technology involved it's not hard to reason as to why that is (attention, experience, emotional response).

Given how you can't currently replace it with an autonomous alternative even if you wanted to, as the technology is still in its infancy and the products don't actually exist in consumer space, that seems a prudent decision.

I'm merely asking that once they are, you should consider letting go of your emotional preference in favor of the reasonable (and safer!) choice.

 

"We have plenty of data from testing of autonomous vehicles but it is, as I'm sure you're aware, not suitable to draw any conclusions from at this stage."

I know Hilbert reads all of this. He's legit. Are "We" giving him a cut?

You are literally cutting(out of context) and pasting my points now because you can't stand on your own two feet.

Not to mention my original point which you can't address. You failed. Your agenda is exposed. Pay those who worked hard to give you a platform. Advertising isn't free.

 

Like I've already mentioned my intent has never been to convince you, as that would have been a wasted effort, but rather to not leave what I consider a dangerous stance unopposed.

The primary point of yours that I took issue with is the notion that we, as drivers, can control for all risk involved. We can actually control for very little of it, which is part of the reason why there's substantial safety gains to be made with autonomous vehicles in the first place.

If you're talking about this;

then I'll happily concede, and already have, that we currently don't have a statistically significant amount of data from which to draw firm conclusions about the safety of autonomous vehicles. We do, however, have a quite good idea of the trend and potential of the technology, and it's quite one-sided in the positive regard.

If your stance is to wait and see until the technology is mature and reviewed based on actual consumer products then absolutely, that's always the prudent choice. Indeed, it's not like we have much choice in the matter currently!

Your argumentation has suffered from a decidedly more emotional slant however and while I've tried to explain why that's understandable given the situation, the expectation of driving and so on, my stance is that it would be unfortunate, dangerous even, to cling to that kind of argument as a basis of opposition to a potentially life-saving technology.

I'm fairly happy with how I've presented my points on the matter, in spite of your disagreement, and with the last couple of posts of yours devolving into increasing amounts of red herrings and ad hominem perhaps it's best to leave it at that.

 

and on the same road where another Tesla driver was killed when his autopilot drove him in to a divider. Of course Musk has come out to say what a great thing it was, somehow missing the point that the driver should never have been able to by pass the autopilot system at all let alone fall asleep and have it drive for several miles with him having no feedback to the car.

The issue with autonomous cars is the constant claim that they will reduce accidents and make traffic flow better and reduce congestion. The problem is that if EVERYONE / ANYONE can now get in to a self driving car then you immediately have a significant increase in the amount of traffic on the road. Just now you only have people of a legal age with a suitable driving qualification using cars on the road but if every man and his dog can get in a car just how many more cars will their be on the road? Will the claimed efficiencies of auto driving cars be cancelled out by the significant increase of people suddenly using cars that in the past couldn't? What happens if one crashes, who's to blame, the driver, the owner, the car maker, the guy who wrote the code or designed the hardware?

 

what happens when said cars computer get hacked and is purposely crashed? is the owner of the car responsible the creator of the car? the hacker? Cars that drive them self and are governed by system all other car are governed by fixes the stupid driver issue, it also open up a new can of worms were it can be hacked in to an to cause bad things or EVEN the AI that controls it having it own agenda.

No such thing as unhackable system. and when such thing happen it will be intresting to see who is blamed

 

My previous car was totaled because another car rammed into its side at an intersection (thankfully nobody was hurt). There was nothing I could do about that collision, and my insurance company agreed with me. Even for careful drivers, there is no way to mitigate the risks completely and we take a risk every time we go on the road.

Furthermore, even though I consider myself a good driver (no speeding tickets in the past five years and only one collision which I just described) I can think back to numerous instances that could have ended in an accident. Human beings aren't machine, strictly abiding by logical rules - we are emotional creatures who can make rash decisions, especially in a panic. Self-driving cars won't just be a remedy for bad drivers, it will help all of us and I am looking forward to the day that I can just hop into a car and have it drive me to my destination.

Commercial planes are largely automated, with computers doing most of the flying. How many times have planes been hacked and purposely crashed?

 

after the last two years in the Indian Ocean, i'm pretty sure you can say planes have been hacked and crashed, whether or not by someone outside of crew i have no idea.

 

So.... a system engineered at Tesla, produced out of the R&D of great industry minds & engineers whom had spent countless hours of development and time investing into the auto-piloting & "state-of-the-art" security of their cars was "bypassed" by a man drunk, twice over the legal limit? Am I to understand this correctly? What the fuu...

What's this guy like when he's sober?