4 ms·

could you expand on in how far this is a problem? i must say i'm glad there's finally no way of talking out of it, if the data says you did it wrong, then you m

by karyon 10y ago

could you expand on in how far this is a problem? i must say i'm glad there's finally no way of talking out of it, if the data says you did it wrong, then you most likely did it wrong and the cops should make you pay money or jail time, shouldn't they? no matter whose data it was. even if there is something like a chilling effect, if it prevents people from speeding and running red lights, that sounds pretty cool to me. insurances are another matter. although we probably disagree over that as well, it's certainly (even) more debatable.

Hondor 10y ago
I agree. Traffic offenses are often the reasons accidents happen. I bet if that girl knew the cops were monitoring her speed and she was guaranteed to get fined for speeding, then she wouldn't have been speeding.
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  Tell that to the Google fleet...
lobotryas 10y ago
Ok, but where do you draw the line? In CA the speed limit is usually 65. Should I get automatically fined the moment I go from 65 to 66? How do you distinguish between reckless speeding and overtaking a slow-moving vehicle by using the fast lane? What about real emergencies where you speed to get your wife to the hospital because her water just broke, she is in pain and there is no time to wait for an ambulance? There are many variables to consider. I hope such omni-present telemetry never comes to pass. I'd rather people have more freedom than for the state to try and create a rubber-covered world where everything is safe. Heck, I'm even worried about self driving cars because I know someone with good intentions will propose we outlaw manual driving "for the greater good".
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  The difference happens when you're involved in an accident, i.e. when personal or financial harm is involved (insurance etc). While there is an amendment stating that a suspect cannot incriminate him/herself, I don't think it applies to a traffic accident (where the car is impounded and its data read for information that could previously only be gathered by looking at skidmarks and the like). Automatic fining, best not, but alternatively as a driver you should be able to automatically limit your speed, especially in a car like the Tesla where speeding is very easy. Wouldn't you agree that preventing an accident is better than finding out who is to blame, or survival chances, etc? Speeding is still one of the main causes of traffic accidents, and even if it's not the cause, it's the primary factor in the amount of damage caused.
- karyon 10y ago
  The question of where to draw the line does not come with more telemetry data collected by cars. If you would deploy lots of speed traps everywhere, you'd have a similar situation. Overtaking a slow-moving vehicle does probably not allow you to ignore speed limits. And I'm pretty sure you are allowed to ignore speed limits to a certain extend in case of emergencies. I don't want the car to enforce the speed limit by itself, and even if, you could solve that by an "emergency button" of some sort. You'd need to justify it's use when asked by the cops of course. I also do value freedom and think that absolute safety is not something desirable, but considering the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, people apparently abuse their freedom in traffic and we do need more safety there.
  - y04nn 10y ago
    What happens if you have to speed up suddenly to avoid an accident? Do you have the time to push an emergency button? I don't think so.
- eru 10y ago
  Yes, the speed limit should be enforced with extreme prejudice. If people want higher speed limits, they should use the normal political processes to get the laws changed; not rely on arbitrary enforcement only on people the police want to pull over. And outlawing human-driving (outside of race tracks) _is_ the way of the future. Cars are just too damn dangerous---especially to people not inside the car.
burfog 10y ago
I'm bothered by the "no matter whose data it was", especially for multi-car crashes and for crashes without other parties being hurt. In a multi-car crash, I'd like to see this: all data is available for defense in court. For offense, you get your own data and you also get the common subset of data from every car. If somebody's car provides nothing, then nobody's data can be used for offense. Example why: Suppose your car records that you are going 20% too fast. The other person was going 150% too fast, but his car didn't record anything. It's not fair that he can use your evidence to prove that you are at fault. His failure to provide evidence lets him get away with much worse.

by karyon 10y ago

Hondor 10y ago

I agree. Traffic offenses are often the reasons accidents happen. I bet if that girl knew the cops were monitoring her speed and she was guaranteed to get fined for speeding, then she wouldn't have been speeding.

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
Tell that to the Google fleet...

lobotryas 10y ago

Ok, but where do you draw the line? In CA the speed limit is usually 65. Should I get automatically fined the moment I go from 65 to 66? How do you distinguish between reckless speeding and overtaking a slow-moving vehicle by using the fast lane? What about real emergencies where you speed to get your wife to the hospital because her water just broke, she is in pain and there is no time to wait for an ambulance? There are many variables to consider. I hope such omni-present telemetry never comes to pass. I'd rather people have more freedom than for the state to try and create a rubber-covered world where everything is safe. Heck, I'm even worried about self driving cars because I know someone with good intentions will propose we outlaw manual driving "for the greater good".

Cthulhu_ 10y ago
The difference happens when you're involved in an accident, i.e. when personal or financial harm is involved (insurance etc). While there is an amendment stating that a suspect cannot incriminate him/herself, I don't think it applies to a traffic accident (where the car is impounded and its data read for information that could previously only be gathered by looking at skidmarks and the like). Automatic fining, best not, but alternatively as a driver you should be able to automatically limit your speed, especially in a car like the Tesla where speeding is very easy. Wouldn't you agree that preventing an accident is better than finding out who is to blame, or survival chances, etc? Speeding is still one of the main causes of traffic accidents, and even if it's not the cause, it's the primary factor in the amount of damage caused.
karyon 10y ago
The question of where to draw the line does not come with more telemetry data collected by cars. If you would deploy lots of speed traps everywhere, you'd have a similar situation. Overtaking a slow-moving vehicle does probably not allow you to ignore speed limits. And I'm pretty sure you are allowed to ignore speed limits to a certain extend in case of emergencies. I don't want the car to enforce the speed limit by itself, and even if, you could solve that by an "emergency button" of some sort. You'd need to justify it's use when asked by the cops of course. I also do value freedom and think that absolute safety is not something desirable, but considering the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, people apparently abuse their freedom in traffic and we do need more safety there.
- y04nn 10y ago
  What happens if you have to speed up suddenly to avoid an accident? Do you have the time to push an emergency button? I don't think so.
eru 10y ago
Yes, the speed limit should be enforced with extreme prejudice. If people want higher speed limits, they should use the normal political processes to get the laws changed; not rely on arbitrary enforcement only on people the police want to pull over. And outlawing human-driving (outside of race tracks) _is_ the way of the future. Cars are just too damn dangerous---especially to people not inside the car.

burfog 10y ago

I'm bothered by the "no matter whose data it was", especially for multi-car crashes and for crashes without other parties being hurt. In a multi-car crash, I'd like to see this: all data is available for defense in court. For offense, you get your own data and you also get the common subset of data from every car. If somebody's car provides nothing, then nobody's data can be used for offense. Example why: Suppose your car records that you are going 20% too fast. The other person was going 150% too fast, but his car didn't record anything. It's not fair that he can use your evidence to prove that you are at fault. His failure to provide evidence lets him get away with much worse.