6 ms·

I don't really see the problem with this. Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists, and the only reason they don't always do so now is because of some impa

I don't really see the problem with this. Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists, and the only reason they don't always do so now is because of some impatient humans at the wheel who prioritize their speed over the safety of other road users. Without road-raging human drivers behind the wheel, is the vehicle occupant going to care that they got to nap a few minutes longer on the way to work? Or got to read a few more pages of their novel? Edit to add: Also, I'm looking forward to autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
I think you underestimate how crazy and obnoxious people can be. Take San Francisco, as an example. There are people who are poor and disenfranchised, and mentally ill, who feel that it gives them some power to saunter out into traffic and make everybody stop. With an autonomous car, that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. Take New York as another example. For years I only walked in NYC and I figured that all drivers were maniacs. Then I drove though Manhattan once and I realized the actual dynamic. If a driver doesn't put on a credible appearance of being willing to run down pedestrians, the pedestrians will never stop crossing the street. How does an autonomous car fit into that? I think these cars are going to work brilliantly in very polite and orderly places like Zurich, where everybody takes their turn and neither pedestrians nor bicyclists nor drivers feel put upon by the system. I have no idea how they are going to work here in America where we dump our mentally ill on the streets, and then don't give them sidewalks and crosswalks or any sense of dignity. I have a feeling it's going to work quite poorly.
- sanswork 11y ago
  >that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. They can do that now unless you are suggesting running them over as a solution.
  - thrownaway2424 11y ago
    You can jump out of your car and either rationally debate with them the merits of allowing access to the right-of-way, or jump directly to violent threats. The problem with autonomous cars as they are being rationalized to the public is that half the time the car will have no occupants at all. There will be nobody in the car to leap out and shake their fist.
    - gbhn 11y ago
      Or just do what a driverless car would do: call the authorities or turn around and proceed by another route.
      - grogenaut 11y ago
        Edit: ellaboration. Stopping in traffic and calling the cops because of this is going to be a non-starter. If you're the cause of the blockage how are they going to get there? The GP is right, there are many situations where it's not going to well, and I can see lots of pranks by highschoolers that will completely mess with self driving cars. Heck an accidental release of confetti would be an interesting experiment.
        afarrell 11y ago
        > How are they going to get there? By motorcycle
        10735922 11y ago
        Why are you pretending to be stupid? The cops would only be called if the car is blocked for several minutes or the passenger decides to do so. Nobody cares if the car has to brake for a few seconds and then continues driving as usual. We spend far more time at traffic lights anway.
        afarrell 11y ago
        "Why are you pretending to be stupid?" Is a rather abrasive tone for HN.
- e40 11y ago
  As someone that commutes to work via foot (for 20 years, 4 miles round trip), living across from SF, what you describe is by far the exception. The rule? Rude and dangerous drivers not yielding to legally crossing pedestrians. I would put the ratio of bad pedestrians to bad drivers at 1:1000.
rdtsc 11y ago
> Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books. To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a point or rely on the drivers to obey the law vs just staying alive and in one piece. > autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users. Hmm. Now this is interesting. We are almost there -- red light cameras, speed camers, automated toll booths, cars are always recording and logging their speed, acceleration and hundres of other parameters, onstar system. Now we just need an incentive such as an insurance discount to have cars be remotely disabled and pulled over of they speed too much where it becomes unsafe, or if they run red light. At first you'd think nobody would buy it, but maybe if car insurance goes from $500 a quarter to $150 there would be some takers. Then before you know it, it would become illegal to drive cars that don't have that feature.
- kobayashi 11y ago
  That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.
  - mjevans 11y ago
    My bet is until automated driving reaches a point where it can become cheaper than the insurance premium otherwise. At that point lies the critical mass where so many will buy it to save money that the price plummets towards zero/fully integrated basic requirement.
  - bdavisx 11y ago
    You don't have to raise the rates of someone who doesn't use the tracking; you simply lower the rates of someone who does - that's how the current tracking systems work, several insurance companies already have them.
kobayashi 11y ago
You can't have controlled traffic flows with constant jaywalking. And traffic flows will be increasingly important in order to minimize power consumption by automobiles and keep our growing cities liveable.

thrownaway2424 11y ago

I think you underestimate how crazy and obnoxious people can be. Take San Francisco, as an example. There are people who are poor and disenfranchised, and mentally ill, who feel that it gives them some power to saunter out into traffic and make everybody stop. With an autonomous car, that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. Take New York as another example. For years I only walked in NYC and I figured that all drivers were maniacs. Then I drove though Manhattan once and I realized the actual dynamic. If a driver doesn't put on a credible appearance of being willing to run down pedestrians, the pedestrians will never stop crossing the street. How does an autonomous car fit into that? I think these cars are going to work brilliantly in very polite and orderly places like Zurich, where everybody takes their turn and neither pedestrians nor bicyclists nor drivers feel put upon by the system. I have no idea how they are going to work here in America where we dump our mentally ill on the streets, and then don't give them sidewalks and crosswalks or any sense of dignity. I have a feeling it's going to work quite poorly.

sanswork 11y ago
>that deranged person can just sit down in front of the car, bringing everything to a halt. They can do that now unless you are suggesting running them over as a solution.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  You can jump out of your car and either rationally debate with them the merits of allowing access to the right-of-way, or jump directly to violent threats. The problem with autonomous cars as they are being rationalized to the public is that half the time the car will have no occupants at all. There will be nobody in the car to leap out and shake their fist.
  - gbhn 11y ago
    Or just do what a driverless car would do: call the authorities or turn around and proceed by another route.
    - grogenaut 11y ago
      Edit: ellaboration. Stopping in traffic and calling the cops because of this is going to be a non-starter. If you're the cause of the blockage how are they going to get there? The GP is right, there are many situations where it's not going to well, and I can see lots of pranks by highschoolers that will completely mess with self driving cars. Heck an accidental release of confetti would be an interesting experiment.
      - afarrell 11y ago
        > How are they going to get there? By motorcycle
      - 10735922 11y ago
        Why are you pretending to be stupid? The cops would only be called if the car is blocked for several minutes or the passenger decides to do so. Nobody cares if the car has to brake for a few seconds and then continues driving as usual. We spend far more time at traffic lights anway.
        afarrell 11y ago
        "Why are you pretending to be stupid?" Is a rather abrasive tone for HN.
e40 11y ago
As someone that commutes to work via foot (for 20 years, 4 miles round trip), living across from SF, what you describe is by far the exception. The rule? Rude and dangerous drivers not yielding to legally crossing pedestrians. I would put the ratio of bad pedestrians to bad drivers at 1:1000.

rdtsc 11y ago

> Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books. To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a point or rely on the drivers to obey the law vs just staying alive and in one piece. > autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users. Hmm. Now this is interesting. We are almost there -- red light cameras, speed camers, automated toll booths, cars are always recording and logging their speed, acceleration and hundres of other parameters, onstar system. Now we just need an incentive such as an insurance discount to have cars be remotely disabled and pulled over of they speed too much where it becomes unsafe, or if they run red light. At first you'd think nobody would buy it, but maybe if car insurance goes from $500 a quarter to $150 there would be some takers. Then before you know it, it would become illegal to drive cars that don't have that feature.

kobayashi 11y ago
That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.
- mjevans 11y ago
  My bet is until automated driving reaches a point where it can become cheaper than the insurance premium otherwise. At that point lies the critical mass where so many will buy it to save money that the price plummets towards zero/fully integrated basic requirement.
- bdavisx 11y ago
  You don't have to raise the rates of someone who doesn't use the tracking; you simply lower the rates of someone who does - that's how the current tracking systems work, several insurance companies already have them.

kobayashi 11y ago

You can't have controlled traffic flows with constant jaywalking. And traffic flows will be increasingly important in order to minimize power consumption by automobiles and keep our growing cities liveable.