5 ms·

> Once people learn how to spot these cars, very quickly the tricks to passing them are going to be learned Crazy driving is itself often tricks to pass human-

> Once people learn how to spot these cars, very quickly the tricks to passing them are going to be learned Crazy driving is itself often tricks to pass human-driven cars. > Not to mention the jokers using laser pointers and whatnot to mess with them. If you think this won't happen, you are sorely naive. No need to wait; laser pointers are effective at messing up human vision sensors today. But no epidemic yet... Most of the operation of current society depends on the vast vast majority of us not being in a mass-murderous mood.

seibelj 11y ago
It's harder to be aggressive when dealing with human-driven cars because people can react. The commuter dozing in his self-driving car is not aggressively driving, and with his car legally mandated to be in super-safe mode, it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic.
- sneak 11y ago
  > it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic. So read a book or work on something on your laptop or go on Amazon and buy a present for your partner with the health insurance money you'll eventually save by registering your commute as autonomous.
- magicalist 11y ago
  You're using a first approximation to a self-driving car ("follow all laws to the letter") to extrapolate. There are a large number of reasons you'd notice that won't work the very first time you take a car out for a drive (you give a great one: "it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic"). With no eye contact or hand gestures available it's a harder problem, but aggression and counter-aggression is going to have to be a part of any self-driving model. Even if all cars were self driven you'd still have pedestrians willing to cross the street at any sign of hesitation.
  - pekk 11y ago
    Whose problem is this? If I am in a self-driving car, I don't expect it to use "aggression" to try to compete with other drivers. I just want it to get there safely.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- derefr 11y ago
  The robot equivalent of a "work-to-rule" strike could be a possible response to this kind of behaviour: the driverless cars all around an aggressive driver could go into a slower, more defensive mode and box the aggressive driver in—to ensure the safety of neighbouring traffic, of course.
  - executesorder66 11y ago
    That's a horrible idea. What if the aggressive driver is rushing a bleeding passenger to the hospital?
    - chrisBob 11y ago
      Even in your made up thought experiment that accounts for << 1% of all aggressive driving miles I still think this is the correct approach to take. Speeding to the hospital is only superficially different than speeding and weaving through traffic on your morning commute. The biggest difference is probably that you are flustered, and less likely to make good decisions while in route. The worst accident I have ever seen was someone rushing to the hospital [1]. The threat to those around you, and the chances of an accident slowing you down outweigh the small potential time saved. It would be far better for you to learn first aid and respond appropriately than for you to drive aggressively to the hospital. [1] So there I was[2] driving through Iraq when an Iraqi army convoy approached rapidly from behind us. While swerving past my trucks, that had pulled over for them to pass, one of the vehicles left the road and rolled over multiple times. 2 people died in that accident, I applied tourniquets to 2 additional people who lost limbs, and no, they didn't get the gunshot victim to the hospital any quicker that way. [2] Fun fact. Do you know the difference between a fairy-tale and a war story? War stories start with "So there I was".
      - executesorder66 11y ago
        Good point. And what about police/emergency vehicles rushing somewhere?
        11y ago
- hrehhf 11y ago
  Traffic police will be looking to make up lost revenue from being unable to ticket autonomous car riders, so those aggressive drivers will be a better target. (Not that I approve of using tickets as revenue, just saying that it will happen.) And those autonomous car passengers now have their hands free to take video of the unsafe human drivers nearby, for later public judgement ;)
  - themartorana 11y ago
    I've been thinking about this and cringing in wait for the lobbying against self-driving cars from police unions. But then I thought, that couldn't happen, because it's too clear that any such lobbying puts police unions squarely at odds with citizen safety. Now, shoot-first cops, civil forfeiture, and highly militarized police forces already point at this, but there's plausible deniability. Opposing self-driving cars could be too direct of a swipe at public safety from public safety officers. I don't know...
    - omegaham 11y ago
      I agree. Law enforcement will definitely have to change, though. Right now, traffic infractions are a way for the police to look for other criminal activity. Pulled over for speeding? Cool - let's run your license to see if you have any warrants. Let's see if I can find something else that you're doing. Self-driving cars will completely remove this avenue of investigation because there will be much fewer infractions. I think that this is a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand, you won't get police harassing random innocent people on the off-chance that they're criminals. On the other hand, the police will start doing other things because they don't have to pull people over anymore, and those things might be much more invasive.
      - Zigurd 11y ago
        If you're not as white as I am, it's 99% good. Driving while dark-skinned is a big cause of traffic stops.
- skybrian 11y ago
  Rush hour traffic on a highway is a good example of where aggressive driving doesn't actually work very well. I've seen people try to drive aggressively (switching lanes and tail-gating), and they're still in sight for a very long time. So they're maybe seconds ahead of me? Sometimes I even end up passing them because they chose the wrong lane, or they ended up stopped at a light. You do get idiots saloming around in somewhat heavy traffic, but that doesn't actually slow others down much while they're putting everyone at risk.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  I'm skeptical of that. I think on average drive time goes down. A few steady drivers drastically reduce stop and go driving, and can eliminate those weird traffic aftershocks where everyone slows down for nothing, just because someone slowed down at that point an hour ago. [1] Furthermore, the total time might be less on a good day, with aggressive driving, but the more aggressive drivers there are, the higher the likelihood of an accident, which takes substantially longer than slow drivers. t1 = aggro drive time t2 = slow drive time t3 = accident drive time small cities, say less that 500k, it's probably not worth it, because p(accident) is pretty low, freeway backups relatively rare, say in the neighborhood of .1 bigger cities though, traffic gets messed up all the time. t2 wins. t2 < p(accident) * t3 + p(1-accident) * t1 http://www.npr.org/2013/11/29/247825768/phantom-traffic-jams-what-causes-mysterious-highway-backups http://www.npr.org/2013/11/29/247825768/phantom-traffic-jams...
- manicdee 11y ago
  Rush hour traffic is going so slow that non-aggressive driving will only cost you a low single digit percentage of travel time, which will all be made up at the first red light. I routinely drive at 90km/h on the main 100km/h stretch of my 28km commute. 23km at 90km/h, and I pull up next to or immediately behind the person that passed me a few minutes ago: the difference in arrival time between a car doing 120 and another doing 90 on that stretch is 4 minutes, assuming they hit 120km/h as soon as they leave the lights at one end of the road. If they have to overtake slower traffic like busses, cranes and me, they get less of a head start. Eleven minutes versus fifteen on the only stretch where aggression makes a difference. There is no way in the world that this counts as "double" the time. The rest of the trip is the same average speed of about 25km/h, with the more aggressive driver getting to use their brakes more than me. Red lights are the great equaliser. Aggressive driving buys you one or two cycles of the traffic lights, along with a much higher fuel and maintenance bill.
- copsarebastards 11y ago
  > The commuter dozing in his self-driving car is not aggressively driving, and with his car legally mandated to be in super-safe mode, it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic. That's a common idea based on not-very-careful observation and just isn't factual. There's plenty of data showing that aggressive driving has minimal effect on travel times. In fact, you actually get a bigger speed-up by strategically avoiding left turns: companies with delivery fleets plan their routes with this in mind. [1] Not-super-technical explanation: http://lifehacker.com/does-speeding-really-get-you-there-any-faster-1556767685 http://lifehacker.com/does-speeding-really-get-you-there-any...

seibelj 11y ago

It's harder to be aggressive when dealing with human-driven cars because people can react. The commuter dozing in his self-driving car is not aggressively driving, and with his car legally mandated to be in super-safe mode, it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic.

sneak 11y ago
> it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic. So read a book or work on something on your laptop or go on Amazon and buy a present for your partner with the health insurance money you'll eventually save by registering your commute as autonomous.
magicalist 11y ago
You're using a first approximation to a self-driving car ("follow all laws to the letter") to extrapolate. There are a large number of reasons you'd notice that won't work the very first time you take a car out for a drive (you give a great one: "it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic"). With no eye contact or hand gestures available it's a harder problem, but aggression and counter-aggression is going to have to be a part of any self-driving model. Even if all cars were self driven you'd still have pedestrians willing to cross the street at any sign of hesitation.
- pekk 11y ago
  Whose problem is this? If I am in a self-driving car, I don't expect it to use "aggression" to try to compete with other drivers. I just want it to get there safely.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
derefr 11y ago
The robot equivalent of a "work-to-rule" strike could be a possible response to this kind of behaviour: the driverless cars all around an aggressive driver could go into a slower, more defensive mode and box the aggressive driver in—to ensure the safety of neighbouring traffic, of course.
- executesorder66 11y ago
  That's a horrible idea. What if the aggressive driver is rushing a bleeding passenger to the hospital?
  - chrisBob 11y ago
    Even in your made up thought experiment that accounts for << 1% of all aggressive driving miles I still think this is the correct approach to take. Speeding to the hospital is only superficially different than speeding and weaving through traffic on your morning commute. The biggest difference is probably that you are flustered, and less likely to make good decisions while in route. The worst accident I have ever seen was someone rushing to the hospital [1]. The threat to those around you, and the chances of an accident slowing you down outweigh the small potential time saved. It would be far better for you to learn first aid and respond appropriately than for you to drive aggressively to the hospital. [1] So there I was[2] driving through Iraq when an Iraqi army convoy approached rapidly from behind us. While swerving past my trucks, that had pulled over for them to pass, one of the vehicles left the road and rolled over multiple times. 2 people died in that accident, I applied tourniquets to 2 additional people who lost limbs, and no, they didn't get the gunshot victim to the hospital any quicker that way. [2] Fun fact. Do you know the difference between a fairy-tale and a war story? War stories start with "So there I was".
    - executesorder66 11y ago
      Good point. And what about police/emergency vehicles rushing somewhere?
      - 11y ago
hrehhf 11y ago
Traffic police will be looking to make up lost revenue from being unable to ticket autonomous car riders, so those aggressive drivers will be a better target. (Not that I approve of using tickets as revenue, just saying that it will happen.) And those autonomous car passengers now have their hands free to take video of the unsafe human drivers nearby, for later public judgement ;)
- themartorana 11y ago
  I've been thinking about this and cringing in wait for the lobbying against self-driving cars from police unions. But then I thought, that couldn't happen, because it's too clear that any such lobbying puts police unions squarely at odds with citizen safety. Now, shoot-first cops, civil forfeiture, and highly militarized police forces already point at this, but there's plausible deniability. Opposing self-driving cars could be too direct of a swipe at public safety from public safety officers. I don't know...
  - omegaham 11y ago
    I agree. Law enforcement will definitely have to change, though. Right now, traffic infractions are a way for the police to look for other criminal activity. Pulled over for speeding? Cool - let's run your license to see if you have any warrants. Let's see if I can find something else that you're doing. Self-driving cars will completely remove this avenue of investigation because there will be much fewer infractions. I think that this is a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand, you won't get police harassing random innocent people on the off-chance that they're criminals. On the other hand, the police will start doing other things because they don't have to pull people over anymore, and those things might be much more invasive.
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      If you're not as white as I am, it's 99% good. Driving while dark-skinned is a big cause of traffic stops.
skybrian 11y ago
Rush hour traffic on a highway is a good example of where aggressive driving doesn't actually work very well. I've seen people try to drive aggressively (switching lanes and tail-gating), and they're still in sight for a very long time. So they're maybe seconds ahead of me? Sometimes I even end up passing them because they chose the wrong lane, or they ended up stopped at a light. You do get idiots saloming around in somewhat heavy traffic, but that doesn't actually slow others down much while they're putting everyone at risk.
jfoutz 11y ago
I'm skeptical of that. I think on average drive time goes down. A few steady drivers drastically reduce stop and go driving, and can eliminate those weird traffic aftershocks where everyone slows down for nothing, just because someone slowed down at that point an hour ago. [1] Furthermore, the total time might be less on a good day, with aggressive driving, but the more aggressive drivers there are, the higher the likelihood of an accident, which takes substantially longer than slow drivers. t1 = aggro drive time t2 = slow drive time t3 = accident drive time small cities, say less that 500k, it's probably not worth it, because p(accident) is pretty low, freeway backups relatively rare, say in the neighborhood of .1 bigger cities though, traffic gets messed up all the time. t2 wins. t2 < p(accident) * t3 + p(1-accident) * t1 http://www.npr.org/2013/11/29/247825768/phantom-traffic-jams-what-causes-mysterious-highway-backups http://www.npr.org/2013/11/29/247825768/phantom-traffic-jams...
manicdee 11y ago
Rush hour traffic is going so slow that non-aggressive driving will only cost you a low single digit percentage of travel time, which will all be made up at the first red light. I routinely drive at 90km/h on the main 100km/h stretch of my 28km commute. 23km at 90km/h, and I pull up next to or immediately behind the person that passed me a few minutes ago: the difference in arrival time between a car doing 120 and another doing 90 on that stretch is 4 minutes, assuming they hit 120km/h as soon as they leave the lights at one end of the road. If they have to overtake slower traffic like busses, cranes and me, they get less of a head start. Eleven minutes versus fifteen on the only stretch where aggression makes a difference. There is no way in the world that this counts as "double" the time. The rest of the trip is the same average speed of about 25km/h, with the more aggressive driver getting to use their brakes more than me. Red lights are the great equaliser. Aggressive driving buys you one or two cycles of the traffic lights, along with a much higher fuel and maintenance bill.
copsarebastards 11y ago
> The commuter dozing in his self-driving car is not aggressively driving, and with his car legally mandated to be in super-safe mode, it's going to take twice as long for it to make it through rush hour traffic. That's a common idea based on not-very-careful observation and just isn't factual. There's plenty of data showing that aggressive driving has minimal effect on travel times. In fact, you actually get a bigger speed-up by strategically avoiding left turns: companies with delivery fleets plan their routes with this in mind. [1] Not-super-technical explanation: http://lifehacker.com/does-speeding-really-get-you-there-any-faster-1556767685 http://lifehacker.com/does-speeding-really-get-you-there-any...