3 ms·

what prevents me from passing a red light? What prevents me from going the wrong way on the motorway? Exactly the same as now: Common sense, self-protection, a

what prevents me from passing a red light? What prevents me from going the wrong way on the motorway? Exactly the same as now: Common sense, self-protection, and the law. Currently, people do all they can to avoid incidents, so if I do the things you mention, I will be safe to the extent that the driver sees me and can take evasive action. If what I do is detected too late to avoid a collision (such as crossing an active junction on a red light, or driving into the path of an oncoming car on a motorway) then it doesn't matter whether the driver is human or software if the event is detected too late for any response to be effective. Human or software, you're still reliant on brakes, traction, and structural stability. Those things don't miraculously improve when there's someone with faster reflexes at the wheel. That's not to say it won't be safer when detection and response time is shorter, but it won't be so much safer as to reward stupidity.

mannykannot 11y ago
It is not exactly the same as now: there is much greater certainty about what the outcome will be. The physics is the same, but the human is out of the loop. There's been a subset of people who already behave this way for as long as I can recall, and it probably started soon after the invention of the automobile. Automation will greatly facilitate it.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. I don't get this whole argument. We needn't be so worried about a few others taking small advantages when the overall state will be better for us.
  - mannykannot 11y ago
    > You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. That is true now (and obviously more so in the first case), yet people still do it. If it wasn't being done, you could suggest that automation will not change the situation enough for people to start doing it, but as there already are people doing it, then that threshold has already been crossed, and it is implausible that it will not increase in frequency as the risk of doing it is decreased.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Not sure where you drive, but it must be a wonderful place. Here in Atlanta, the only rule during rush hour seems to be "What gets me to my destination quickest?" (And that's with us having what I consider fairly law-abiding drivers in comparison to some cities)
  - zardo 11y ago
    >You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. By the time we have 99% market penetration of automated cars, we'll have had V2X standards for a decade or more. You probably would have a report of every vehicle nearby, but... At that point cars could just interleave at intersections, and the lights can just switch on when a human driven car shows up.
  - lotu 11y ago
    The robotic cars have faster reflexes but they aren't magic. It is possible that the car will simply not physically be able to stop in time, imagine blind intersections with a large highway. Also you should recognize that right now most of the time people run red lights or stuff like that they don't crash. If they did we wouldn't need red light cameras.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 11y ago
I wonder if there has ever been studies into automated vehicles that only move considering the amount of energy that can be dissipated at any time.
smileysteve 11y ago
> Exactly the same as now: .... and the law. One might assume that if the majority of car do not speed, do not make illegal maneuvers, do not drunk drive, and do not get into accidents then law enforcement will severely reduce enforcement.
- drumdance 11y ago
  > One might assume that if the majority of car do not speed, do not make illegal maneuvers, do not drunk drive, and do not get into accidents then law enforcement will severely reduce enforcement. HA! Who will pay their salaries? They'll likely double-down on enforcement against "old school" drivers.

mannykannot 11y ago

It is not exactly the same as now: there is much greater certainty about what the outcome will be. The physics is the same, but the human is out of the loop. There's been a subset of people who already behave this way for as long as I can recall, and it probably started soon after the invention of the automobile. Automation will greatly facilitate it.

darkmighty 11y ago
You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. I don't get this whole argument. We needn't be so worried about a few others taking small advantages when the overall state will be better for us.
- mannykannot 11y ago
  > You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. Also, you might get prosecuted for reckless behavior. That is true now (and obviously more so in the first case), yet people still do it. If it wasn't being done, you could suggest that automation will not change the situation enough for people to start doing it, but as there already are people doing it, then that threshold has already been crossed, and it is implausible that it will not increase in frequency as the risk of doing it is decreased.
- ethbro 11y ago
  Not sure where you drive, but it must be a wonderful place. Here in Atlanta, the only rule during rush hour seems to be "What gets me to my destination quickest?" (And that's with us having what I consider fairly law-abiding drivers in comparison to some cities)
- zardo 11y ago
  >You won't be able to guarantee there are no cars around you without human drivers. By the time we have 99% market penetration of automated cars, we'll have had V2X standards for a decade or more. You probably would have a report of every vehicle nearby, but... At that point cars could just interleave at intersections, and the lights can just switch on when a human driven car shows up.
- lotu 11y ago
  The robotic cars have faster reflexes but they aren't magic. It is possible that the car will simply not physically be able to stop in time, imagine blind intersections with a large highway. Also you should recognize that right now most of the time people run red lights or stuff like that they don't crash. If they did we wouldn't need red light cameras.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 11y ago

I wonder if there has ever been studies into automated vehicles that only move considering the amount of energy that can be dissipated at any time.

smileysteve 11y ago

> Exactly the same as now: .... and the law. One might assume that if the majority of car do not speed, do not make illegal maneuvers, do not drunk drive, and do not get into accidents then law enforcement will severely reduce enforcement.

drumdance 11y ago
> One might assume that if the majority of car do not speed, do not make illegal maneuvers, do not drunk drive, and do not get into accidents then law enforcement will severely reduce enforcement. HA! Who will pay their salaries? They'll likely double-down on enforcement against "old school" drivers.