4 ms·
It looks like they had only just entered the crosswalk. Sure there's a "letter of the law/intent of the law" distinction here, but I don't see this as a particu
by dkokelley 10y ago
It looks like they had only just entered the crosswalk. Sure there's a "letter of the law/intent of the law" distinction here, but I don't see this as a particularly egregious action, especially when compared to normal human behavior (human drivers do this often, and with much narrower margins).
(If the software was designed not to do this but failed to behave appropriately, then the situation deserves addressing.)
Also note Google's cars are explicitly programmed to exceed the speed limit in order to track with a lead car in order to get better info on road conditions ahead. [1] Technically illegal, but this both increases safety and is well within the bounds of normal human driving behavior.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28851996 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28851996
- SilasX 10y ago>It looks like they had only just entered the crosswalk. To me it looks like they were fully inside the intersection before the car began the turn, so it was a violation (if very technical and unenforced). >Sure there's a "letter of the law/intent of the law" distinction here, but I don't see this as a particularly egregious action, especially when compared to normal human behavior (human drivers do this often, and with much narrower margins). Absolutely -- and as a pedestrian, I would prefer drivers punch through if they have sufficient clearance, rather than pointlessly sit there and watch me walk through. But there's a difference between a) "everyone has to do it even though it's not technically allowed", vs b) "hey, let's showcase this as a prime example of our advanced technology in action" I think it was wrong to do it as b), since it looks like some elderly people were cut off.