In at least one state, given some conditions, driving "drunk" is legal again. Drunk means "with blood alcohol levels above those which would have lead to DUI convictions in 2023".
The conditions may be things like: you must have a car with level X of self-driving, or a specific model, or some other condition. The condition must be one which the general public can do (not something like "you must be a police officer" or "you must buy a model of a car which isn't available to the public".)
i.e. someone who has say 300k to spend and lives in the state can do the necessary things to get approval to be subject to these more relaxed drunk driving laws.
Note: if the limits for blood alcohol are relaxed generally, for all drivers, that is not sufficient. The situation must be such that people with some kind of self-driving technology have a more permissive regime.
1,000People are also trading
How does the market resolve if it occurs in a state/region which successfully seceded? (A hypothetical Republic of Montana, say, or of the Bay Area.)
@Lorxus how do markets about the USA usually handle this? I'd imagine the scope would be limited to the territory most naturally continuing the current USA perhaps as a recognized by the united nations. If such an event occurs I'll also consider the overall manifold resolution consensus about what constitutes the USA at that time.
This question is funny but my timeline for fully autonomous self-driving vehicles never requiring human intervention being on the market long enough to prompt a state legislature to act in this way is... not anytime soon.
@Duncn hmm I'm inclined to limit this to private cars which that same person may have driven to the bar, for example
@StrayClimb also it's something that requires change to weaken laws from how they rea today. Do you happen to know if catching an SD taxi today is forbidden if you're drunk?
@StrayClimb I think it is currently legal to catch a self-driving Waymo drunk. I've done so before several times.
@StrayClimb I think self driving taxis should count. The ability to drive the car seems unimportant. My argument goes as follows:
1. It should clearly count if one can buy a car without a steering wheel that is fully self driving.
2. If this counts it must also count if one can rent such a wheel less car for e.g. one year.
3. Ordering a self driving taxi is just renting it for a very short time. So this should also count.
@Timothy the question is about whether legislation will catch up to the reality that technology allows us more freedom. Will they voluntarily give up power? That's what I want to know. Since self-driving taxis are already legal, focusing on them would not be related.
@StrayClimb How about if someone owns the taxi, but also uses it when drunk?
I think the idea that anyone 'drives' a fully SDV is inherently contradictory, and that it is likely that it is already legal to 'drive' one while drunk.
I am worried that this will be so obvious that no one will bring a case to court, and thus we will never get an official confirmation of the de facto YES.
@Duncn I believe that often happens and the person is legally considered a normal driver when not working. A test I'm likely to use is: a person can drive a car manually to a bar, drink, and then engage a mode which allows them to drive home while intoxicated. If the car was self-driving on the way there too, that's okay.
@StrayClimb I don't think that should be legal unless there's a safety mechanism to prevent the drunk person from interfering with the self-driving. It makes more sense to just sell cars without steering wheels so there's no question about whether someone is driving.