5 ms·

No, it's the self driving cars. Self driving cars need to learn the actual rules of the road in addition to the written ones before they're ready for mainstream

No, it's the self driving cars. Self driving cars need to learn the actual rules of the road in addition to the written ones before they're ready for mainstream adoption.

Retric 9y ago
Not at the cost of human lives. Yes, self driving cars may get rear ended more frequently etc, but low speed collisions are not nearly as important as pedestrian fatalities etc.
ctdonath 9y ago
The problem is that you can't viably sell an autonomous vehicle that large, heavy, fast, and operating so close to other vehicles & unprotected pedestrians when it has been deliberately programmed to violate known laws. The makings for an industry-destroying lawsuit are enormous.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Yes this. Humans are free to break laws in that they have free will, robots are not, legally speaking.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  The underlying problem seems to be that the rules of the road are broken. We need to ensure everyone drives to the rules, and if the rules are out of date, they need to be updated. Selectively allowing rules to be broken is an extremely bad precedent.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    This. If common behavior is against the rules you either need to change the typical behavior or the rules. You can't just wave your hands and say "but I was following the rules". Sure that might save your wallet if you cause a crash but that doesn't scale to the society level.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      I'd argue that it wasn't the person following the rules that "caused a crash" but the person who wasn't.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        That works on an individual level but why not modify the rules to fit the norm so the people who exceed the law when practical don't conflict with the people who follow the law reality be damned? Your comment also reminds me of a proverb to the tune of "bad drivers aren't a problem until they meet". Sure, one can be that driver that leaves death and destruction in their wake but still look good on paper if the metric is legal and financial penalties since those only loosely correlate with actual bad behavior.
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        Again, you’re suggesting changing the rules because some people are bad at following them. Why exactly would they follow the new rules?
- Spivak 9y ago
  Look, if self-driving cars can't drive like a human then it's already game over. Of course it's possible to completely rearchitect our transportation systems to make autonomous transportation possible. Hell, we could install a series of movable tracks along the roads that send signals to vehicles that would remove virtually all of the difficulty. If autonomous vehicles aren't feasible without sweeping changes to traffic law then they're not feasible yet.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Shivetya 9y ago
which begs the question, will self driving cars be coded to break the law, specifically speed limits. How do we accommodate that into regulations governing their use. We have a hard law that states, speed limit. Yet "everyone" knows otherwise. I am curious how we sort this out. Will roads become stricter with cars self enforcing the limits? How do self driving cars know who is next at a four way stop?
- toast0 9y ago
  > We have a hard law that states, speed limit. There is not a hard law that states speed limit at least in California; instead the law sets 'reasonable and prudent' as the limit, and that lawfully set and posted or legislated limits set forth evidence of what is reasonable and prudent. Driving over 100 mph is separately off limits, however. (I would rarely find that speed to be reasonable or prudent!). A self-driving vehicle would likely be recording evidence of conditions which could show that the speed was reasonable and prudent given the conditions, which include other traffic on the road. The basic California speed law is: > 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. It is furthered by: > 22351. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing. Additionally section 22348 describes a specific additional infraction for driving at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour.
  - fishcolorbrick 9y ago
    I really wouldn't want to program a car that obeys speed limits in 49 states, and in one state "record[s] evidence of conditions which could show that the speed was reasonable and prudent given the conditions" From an implementation perspective that sounds like a lot of overhead just to let Californians drive fast.

No, it's the self driving cars. Self driving cars need to learn the actual rules of the road in addition to the written ones before they're ready for mainstream adoption.

Retric 9y ago

Not at the cost of human lives. Yes, self driving cars may get rear ended more frequently etc, but low speed collisions are not nearly as important as pedestrian fatalities etc.

ctdonath 9y ago

The problem is that you can't viably sell an autonomous vehicle that large, heavy, fast, and operating so close to other vehicles & unprotected pedestrians when it has been deliberately programmed to violate known laws. The makings for an industry-destroying lawsuit are enormous.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Yes this. Humans are free to break laws in that they have free will, robots are not, legally speaking.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
The underlying problem seems to be that the rules of the road are broken. We need to ensure everyone drives to the rules, and if the rules are out of date, they need to be updated. Selectively allowing rules to be broken is an extremely bad precedent.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  This. If common behavior is against the rules you either need to change the typical behavior or the rules. You can't just wave your hands and say "but I was following the rules". Sure that might save your wallet if you cause a crash but that doesn't scale to the society level.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    I'd argue that it wasn't the person following the rules that "caused a crash" but the person who wasn't.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      That works on an individual level but why not modify the rules to fit the norm so the people who exceed the law when practical don't conflict with the people who follow the law reality be damned? Your comment also reminds me of a proverb to the tune of "bad drivers aren't a problem until they meet". Sure, one can be that driver that leaves death and destruction in their wake but still look good on paper if the metric is legal and financial penalties since those only loosely correlate with actual bad behavior.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        Again, you’re suggesting changing the rules because some people are bad at following them. Why exactly would they follow the new rules?
Spivak 9y ago
Look, if self-driving cars can't drive like a human then it's already game over. Of course it's possible to completely rearchitect our transportation systems to make autonomous transportation possible. Hell, we could install a series of movable tracks along the roads that send signals to vehicles that would remove virtually all of the difficulty. If autonomous vehicles aren't feasible without sweeping changes to traffic law then they're not feasible yet.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Shivetya 9y ago

which begs the question, will self driving cars be coded to break the law, specifically speed limits. How do we accommodate that into regulations governing their use. We have a hard law that states, speed limit. Yet "everyone" knows otherwise. I am curious how we sort this out. Will roads become stricter with cars self enforcing the limits? How do self driving cars know who is next at a four way stop?

toast0 9y ago
> We have a hard law that states, speed limit. There is not a hard law that states speed limit at least in California; instead the law sets 'reasonable and prudent' as the limit, and that lawfully set and posted or legislated limits set forth evidence of what is reasonable and prudent. Driving over 100 mph is separately off limits, however. (I would rarely find that speed to be reasonable or prudent!). A self-driving vehicle would likely be recording evidence of conditions which could show that the speed was reasonable and prudent given the conditions, which include other traffic on the road. The basic California speed law is: > 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. It is furthered by: > 22351. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing. Additionally section 22348 describes a specific additional infraction for driving at a speed greater than 100 miles per hour.
- fishcolorbrick 9y ago
  I really wouldn't want to program a car that obeys speed limits in 49 states, and in one state "record[s] evidence of conditions which could show that the speed was reasonable and prudent given the conditions" From an implementation perspective that sounds like a lot of overhead just to let Californians drive fast.