Should drunk drivers be charged with DUI in fully autonomous cars?

[FrodosNewPet]

Should drunk drivers be charged with DUI in fully autonomous cars?

New laws will have to be written based on the level of automation you have.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/10/australia-panel-asks-is-starting-a-self-driving-car-while-drunk-criminal/

MEGAN GEUSS - 10/6/2017, 11:19 AM

In some Australian states, it’s illegal to start a car with the intent to put it in motion while you’re drunk. The rise of autonomous vehicles complicates things though. Sure, you’re three sheets to the wind and want to put the car in motion, but you're unlikely to hurt anyone by directing a car to taxi you through the Taco Bell drive-through a couple of times before you pass out in a cloud of tortilla dust.

~ snip ~

Though it may seem obvious that a drunk person should be allowed to be taxied home by a fully autonomous car, the question is less clear if you have to determine just how autonomous an autonomous vehicle needs to be for a drunk person to operate it. The government should want drunk people to engage a high-level autonomous driving system if the alternative is driving themselves home, but if they’ll be penalized for being drunk while they’re “in control” of an autonomous vehicle, uptake of self-driving systems may be slow.

Instead, the NTC argues, drunk driving offenses should only apply to drunk people who are manually operating their vehicles but not to people who have merely started an autonomous car. The present rules "exist because a person who starts or sets in motion a conventional vehicle while under the influence clearly has an intention to drive,” the NTC writes.

~ snip ~

The questions are being raised in the US, too. At the Governors' Highway Safety Association meeting this week, US authorities discussed open container laws in autonomous vehicles. Currently, it's illegal to have an open alcohol container in a car while you're driving US roads. But should that apply in fully autonomous systems where no one is driving?

~ snip ~

Day by day, automated vehicle technology is progressing to the point of feasibility. At the same time, many social and economic challenges will be coming along for the ride.

We need to address these challenges sooner or later. We cannot keep kicking them down the road. We need to be prepared for the loss of professional driver jobs. Not to mention the huge economic infrastructure catering to personally owned vehicles - car dealers, mechanics, tow trucks, etc.

[Lithos]

1. If you carry any responsibility

Such as having the ability and/or responsibility to override control, apply a brake, then yes... you are driving under the influence.

[Dave Starsky]

4. BUT, if the car is completely autonomous...

And can be trusted to drive on the road WITHOUT anyone in it, then I don't have a problem with it, as long as there is some failsafe to ensure that the driver can't take over any kind of manual control.

But I think we're a LONG way from that. I'm not as optimistic about the chances of fully autonomous vehicles happening any time soon as some people are.

[BannonsLiver]

11. I'm not either

Some folks who are enthusiastic techies like to get a little ahead of themselves. Like the over the top automation thread from earlier today.

[Ms. Toad]

13. I don't ever want one that a human can't override.

in the event of an emergency.

The corollary to that is that DUI should apply to the "driver" who needs to be alert enough to tae over in the event of a malfunction of the automated driving system.

[AngryAmish]

2. No.

[sarisataka]

3. If an autonomous car crashes

who is at fault? The "operator" if there is some form of manual override or the company that built the car or the company that wrote the software?

If the first, then DUI laws should apply.

If the second or third, then we will never have autonomous cars. The liability will be too great.

[Dave Starsky]

6. It's Barack Obama's fault, of course.

Obama is always at fault.

[NotASurfer]

21. Ah, the First Law of Trumpbotics n/t

[NutmegYankee]

5. Yes. No vehicle will ever be fully autonomous without monitoring.

The computer system will need to kick control to the driver if there is a software, hardware, or sensor malfunction. I work on a platform that has fly-by-wire automation and sensors and hardware are always malfunctioning and so get turned off. You may need to switch a sensor, or shutdown a channel. Airplanes for instance constantly do this, and even operate with some systems disabled.

[USALiberal]

29. "ever"??? You do not realize how technology works. nt

[Lee-Lee]

7. Automated cars are going to be a new frontier in tort and criminal law.

If an automated car does something that causes a crash, who is at fault?

The "driver".
The company that made it?
The programmers who wrote the code?

Who gets the ticket?

Who gets sued?

If a driver now turns the wrong way down a sidewalk and causes harm to someone it's easy to know who is at fault.

If an automated car does it while the driver is out of the control loop- who is at fault.

And I expect that unless the law is changed to give a degree of immunity to auto makers we will never see truley automated cars, because they will want the drivers in the loop at all times just to make sure they beat te liability.

[NightWatcher]

8. Technology is always ahead of the law. If theres anyway that the driver could alter the path

of the autonomous driving vehicle and you are drunk, you get a dui.

[Coventina]

9. Only if people reading, texting, etc. also get charged with criminal conduct as well.

No reason to single out one hazardous behavior from others.

[JoeStuckInOH]

15. Being Drunk or Hiigh is WAY different than unsafe distracted behaviors.

Being Drunk or High differs vastly from texting or reading, or eating, or other distracting behavior because the person in the drivers seat can cease the unsafe behavior immediately and resume manual operation safely if human intervention is necessary. Drunk or High people cannot simply decide to stop being intoxicated the moment they want to drive again.

[Coventina]

17. Nope. According to the data, texting is worse than being drunk.

Impaired driving is impaired driving.

[JoeStuckInOH]

18. You're missing what I'm saying...

This isn't about which is better or worse. It's about the ability to make decisions when needed.

Its a safe assumption that EVERY autonomous vehicle will have the ability to quickly override autonomous function if human intervention is necessary. There could be an accident ahead requiring unusual detour, unpaved/dirt roads, irregular traffic pattern due to recent construction, no lines on the road... there's too many unpredictabilities on the road to expect autonomous vehicles to be able to navigate 100% of all situations - that's just unrealistic.

A person texting has 100% of their mental faculties intact. They are fully cognizant and they know they shouldn't text and drive... so they let the autonomous control take over while they are being distracted. And when necessary, a person texting can put the cell phone down and take over control of the car in a situation requiring override to the autonomous control.

Whereas intoxicated people make poor choices, in general. Someone with intoxicated/impaired judgment may not even realize they are impaired and should let the car drive itself... or perhaps there is a situation they feel human intervention is necessary and, with impaired judgment, disable autonomous control. An intoxicated person cannot become not drunk/high by choice. Only time can reduce impairment, not willpower.

It's simple... Keep the laws as is:
1) No texting and driving. If they're caught manually driving while texting then they are liable for breaking the law. But someone texting is not driving if the computer is driving... so that is fine.

2) No sitting in the drivers set of a running motor vehicle while intoxicated. Because there might be a need to operate that thing yourself and there's no guarantee the autonomous vehicle won't need intervention/assistance.

[Coventina]

20. If ANYONE in the driver's seat is incapacitated in ANY way, they should be

charged with a crime. That means if they are texting, if they are drunk, if they are reading a book, ANYTHING.

Whatever is taking their attention away from driving is not OK. It doesn't matter what it is, they all need to be treated equally. Period.

[DBoon]

10. What was the law in the 19th century about riding horses drunk?

Seriously.

I've heard an advantage a horse had over a car is that no matter how drunk you are, the horse will reliably take you home.

[Mariana]

12. Nowadays you can be charged with DUI or equivalent

in some states, if you're drunk and riding a horse, or bicycle, or skateboard, or just about anything other than your own feet (then you get done for public drunkenness).

[DBoon]

22. I think we now generalize auto based DUI laws to other forms of transportation

But before automobiles were in widespread use, was driving a horse while drunk any sort of offense?

[Mariana]

24. I would guess not.

I imagine relatively few people were killed or injured by drunks riding horses, so what would be the point? The reason we have drunk driving laws is because we had/have thousands of people a year killed and tens of thousands injured by drunk drivers.

Some of the laws just plain go too far. I was living in Texas when they decided it was a good idea to arrest people for drinking in bars in 2006. When it was made public and it was pointed out that this was a stupid thing to do, they said it was to prevent drunk driving. But, it turned out they arrested a bunch of people in hotel bars that were staying in the hotels. So, they arrested a bunch of people who weren't going to be driving anyway, in order to prevent drunk driving. The laws in Texas allow this.

[JoeStuckInOH]

14. Yes. Many options exist to help drunkards... Uber, Lyft, Taxis, and friends.

If the person has the physical ability to turn off autonomous operation and engage in manual driving - which I suspect EVERY autonomous car will have manual overrides... then they are still ultimately in command of the car while intoxicated (or can be with the push of a button) even though they're not providing driving input at the moment.

This differs vastly from texting or reading, or eating, or other distracting behavior because the person in the drivers seat can cease the unsafe behavior and resume manual operation if necessary. Drunk or High people cannot simply decide to stop being intoxicated the moment they want to drive again.

Insurance companies will NEVER sign off on the notion that person ultimately responsible for the car they are insuring might be shitfaced.

[dembotoz]

16. they say its like taking a cab so it should be like taking a cab

the computer is not drunk

if you call a cab while drunk do you get charged with drunk driving if the cab crashes?

no

[Mariana]

25. I agree.

If you're not driving, you shouldn't be charged with drunk driving. If you're riding, you're not driving. Arresting someone who isn't driving drunk but might do so, sometime in the future is just wrong.

[Iggo]

19. Drunk drivers should always be charged with a DUI.

[gyroscope]

23. The fault would lie with the maker of the SD car

to say that the human "driver" is at fault when he wasn't even driving completely defeats the purpose of an autonomous car, and it is no longer autonomous.

if you are expected to be alert every moment as to what your self-driving car doing then it is no longer autonomous or independent and you may as well be driving it manually.

[karynnj]

26. yes because the "driver" has the ability to overrule the computer and he/she should be sober enough

to do so.

[democratisphere]

27. NO.

[longship]

28. There are no fully autonomous vehicles!

And there aren't going to be any for some time. I know that they are like a Matrix wet dream for some folks but the facts are plain, the USA infrastructure is not fit for fully autonomous vehicles. This is especially where there are winter storms, and/or mountain passes. That's why all the places where these Matrix wet dream death traps are tested have neither winter storms or mountain passes.

I'll never see them in my neighborhood because, although we don't have mountain passes, we do have winter storms plus very few of the roads here are actually paved. So you can keep your so-called autonomous vehicles in the flat desert areas and other places that I don't drive.

[Doreen]

30. Are there any rules about people who are drunk out of their

minds but are in the passengers seat? I mean if the driver gets pulled over because a light is out and their friend is raging drunk are there any consequences? I ask because if there are rules about being a plowed passenger then they should apply to autonomous cars. I really have no clue about those laws. I do not worry about it as I have about 3 drinks a year.

[no_hypocrisy]

31. Only if the automation could be disabled by the "driver".

Otherwise, it would be like getting a DWI while being a passenger in a taxi.