5 ms·

I think a good question that follows from that is: how unsafe is too unsafe for autonomous vehicles? Can we evaluate roads in some generalized way that will not

by beager 9y ago

I think a good question that follows from that is: how unsafe is too unsafe for autonomous vehicles? Can we evaluate roads in some generalized way that will not only prevent autonomous vehicle activity, but inform local governments about when they should institute driving bans? In an ideal world, I trust autonomous cars over human-operated cars. So if the conditions are too dire for autonomous cars, I really don't want to be out there with humans driving.

akira2501 9y ago
> but inform local governments about when they should institute driving bans? In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this? > In an ideal world, I trust autonomous cars over human-operated cars. I don't understand this mentality out-of-hand, especially because I've been in cars that have had mechanical failures. There is no mechanical system that is perfectly reliable, and I'm not sure we're considering the emergent effects of this properly. Finally, unless you outright _force_ all drivers to use the autonomous mode, then users can still take control of their cars as they see fit and we're really not improving anything. Case in point, the video says that driving deaths disproportionately affects young _people_. Which is garbage.. it affects young _men_ who are 8 times more likely to die in a vehicle that they're driving than a female of the same age. I don't know how autonomous modes being available are really going to help this group.
- beager 9y ago
  > In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this? Some entity produces the data that finds roads unfit for driving based on weather and publishes it, local governments consume that data and institute a driving ban, non-essential personnel cannot drive or they'll get a citation. > I don't understand this mentality out-of-hand, especially because I've been in cars that have had mechanical failures. There is no mechanical system that is perfectly reliable, and I'm not sure we're considering the emergent effects of this properly. Correct, but I believe that a well-conceived autonomous car has a much higher standard of proper operation than a human, so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. I also don't really understand your last point so sorry for not addressing it.
  - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
    > so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. Unless there was a problem with the halt override.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Perfection is not the comparison, as long as they do better than human in the event of a failure it's a net win. Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different?
      - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        It will probably not win head to head with a human if the halt override fails, that's the point. > Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different? Both are so slim who really cares?
        Retric 9y ago
        Ahh, but you are assuming failure. What if the human has a stroke? Really, you must compare failure rates and severity on both sides. Looking at say aircraft, autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots and spend vastly more time flying aircraft.
        ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        We have been building cars for quite some time now, and yet there are still millions of recalls year after year. The idea that IT can solve physical problems is so pervasive on this site. > autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots How often do pilots really cause crashes, though? In the sense that it's the pilots fault-more often than not, it isn't. Most crashes are not the result of pilot failure in normal operation-but pilot failure in situations out of their control. It's hard to blame a pilot when an engine cuts out (a mechanical failure). my point is not that automated cars are never going to work. But it's just a utopia on here, about how all of our problems will be solved. Computers can't beat physics.
- Retric 9y ago
  People have strokes/fall asleep etc while driving, so the comparison is not 100% safe operation. PS: Roads do get closed in the US on a regular basis, generally they have cops direct traffic to other areas or just set up signs.
- apendleton 9y ago
  > Finally, unless you outright _force_ all drivers to use the autonomous mode, then users can still take control of their cars as they see fit and we're really not improving anything. I mean, Google has prototypes with no steering wheels, and has as an explicit goal the ability to transport children, blind people, the elderly, etc. Eventually they absolutely do want to force drivers to use autonomous mode (at least "force" in the sense that users will need to opt in when they choose a vehicle or service, rather than minute by minute during a trip).
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Roads get shut down all the time in inclement weather, even interstate highways. There are also things like 'chain advisories' which prohibit traffic of vehicles unequipped with tire chains. What this looks like is generally highway patrol blocking off the road and the news of the road closures or advisories is broadcast on the radio and television (and now the Internet, I suppose.) Even down in sunny Austin Texas we have road closures when heavy rains inundate low-water crossings, though it seems every few years someone tries to make it through one and ends up drowning.
  - akira2501 9y ago
    > There are also things like 'chain advisories' which prohibit traffic of vehicles unequipped with tire chains. Chains are illegal on Minnesota roadways.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Chains are typically required in the western US on mountain roads. [ADDED: during snowstorms.]
- maxerickson 9y ago
  If it is possible to get around in a car without driving, the standards for licensing can be increased. So all those young men can still do all the things they need a car for, they just don't get to legally operate one until they have demonstrated a higher level of proficiency. And all the ones that aren't just total assholes can let the car drive when they have been drinking.
  - mantas 9y ago
    Do things like speed and drive dangerously? I'm sure they'll pass a higher level as well. Unless you'd implement a psychological test that'd reject too temperament people.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      You don't necessarily need psychological testing. For instance, just make it easier to lose a license. Minor speeding could come with a license suspension if such a penalty were less consequential.
      - mantas 9y ago
        Over there "dangerous driving" means license suspension for up to 3 years. Doing donuts, speeding and overtaking recklessly, running lights while endangering oncoming traffic.. Any of these are immediate suspension and hefty fine. +50km/h (or +30km/h for novices) is immediate suspension as well. We still got plenty of jackasses. Mostly young men. With or without licenses...
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        >Minor speeding could come with a license suspension if such a penalty were less consequential. You realize that most states already do this, right?
        maxerickson 9y ago
        Yes of course, but I'm talking about a 6 month license suspension if you get a ticket for going 7 over, not a suspension after repeated severe tickets.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  > young _men_ who are 8 times more likely to die in a vehicle that they're driving than a female of the same age To paraphrase an acquaintance who drives a tow truck: Basically all deadly crashes are a result of an inability to drive properly (either via distraction or impairment). Actual "people being bad at driving" rarely causes deadly crashes by comparison. People make bad decisions that make them bad at driving. When a drunk couple goes off a cliff it's always a dude driving. Dumb things involving cell phones are less deadly but skew more female.
bm1362 9y ago
It’s also possibly not worth solving. I don’t know off the top of my head but I’d assume most of the population lives in temperate cities that rarely see the kind of icy weather regularly. Your vehicle could just not drive automatically in suboptimal settings and I think that’d be totally fine.

by beager 9y ago

akira2501 9y ago

> but inform local governments about when they should institute driving bans? In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this? > In an ideal world, I trust autonomous cars over human-operated cars. I don't understand this mentality out-of-hand, especially because I've been in cars that have had mechanical failures. There is no mechanical system that is perfectly reliable, and I'm not sure we're considering the emergent effects of this properly. Finally, unless you outright _force_ all drivers to use the autonomous mode, then users can still take control of their cars as they see fit and we're really not improving anything. Case in point, the video says that driving deaths disproportionately affects young _people_. Which is garbage.. it affects young _men_ who are 8 times more likely to die in a vehicle that they're driving than a female of the same age. I don't know how autonomous modes being available are really going to help this group.

beager 9y ago
> In the U.S. I'm not even sure what such a mechanism would look like? How could you enforce this? Some entity produces the data that finds roads unfit for driving based on weather and publishes it, local governments consume that data and institute a driving ban, non-essential personnel cannot drive or they'll get a citation. > I don't understand this mentality out-of-hand, especially because I've been in cars that have had mechanical failures. There is no mechanical system that is perfectly reliable, and I'm not sure we're considering the emergent effects of this properly. Correct, but I believe that a well-conceived autonomous car has a much higher standard of proper operation than a human, so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. I also don't really understand your last point so sorry for not addressing it.
- ntsplnkv2 9y ago
  > so even if there were mechanical problems, I'd trust the autonomous car to halt operation before the human. Unless there was a problem with the halt override.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Perfection is not the comparison, as long as they do better than human in the event of a failure it's a net win. Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different?
    - ntsplnkv2 9y ago
      It will probably not win head to head with a human if the halt override fails, that's the point. > Are you more likely to get food poisoning from a person prepared meal or a snickers prepared by machines? Now, why assume driving is different? Both are so slim who really cares?
      - Retric 9y ago
        Ahh, but you are assuming failure. What if the human has a stroke? Really, you must compare failure rates and severity on both sides. Looking at say aircraft, autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots and spend vastly more time flying aircraft.
        ntsplnkv2 9y ago
        We have been building cars for quite some time now, and yet there are still millions of recalls year after year. The idea that IT can solve physical problems is so pervasive on this site. > autopilot cause fewer crashes than pilots How often do pilots really cause crashes, though? In the sense that it's the pilots fault-more often than not, it isn't. Most crashes are not the result of pilot failure in normal operation-but pilot failure in situations out of their control. It's hard to blame a pilot when an engine cuts out (a mechanical failure). my point is not that automated cars are never going to work. But it's just a utopia on here, about how all of our problems will be solved. Computers can't beat physics.
Retric 9y ago
People have strokes/fall asleep etc while driving, so the comparison is not 100% safe operation. PS: Roads do get closed in the US on a regular basis, generally they have cops direct traffic to other areas or just set up signs.
apendleton 9y ago
> Finally, unless you outright _force_ all drivers to use the autonomous mode, then users can still take control of their cars as they see fit and we're really not improving anything. I mean, Google has prototypes with no steering wheels, and has as an explicit goal the ability to transport children, blind people, the elderly, etc. Eventually they absolutely do want to force drivers to use autonomous mode (at least "force" in the sense that users will need to opt in when they choose a vehicle or service, rather than minute by minute during a trip).
wavefunction 9y ago
Roads get shut down all the time in inclement weather, even interstate highways. There are also things like 'chain advisories' which prohibit traffic of vehicles unequipped with tire chains. What this looks like is generally highway patrol blocking off the road and the news of the road closures or advisories is broadcast on the radio and television (and now the Internet, I suppose.) Even down in sunny Austin Texas we have road closures when heavy rains inundate low-water crossings, though it seems every few years someone tries to make it through one and ends up drowning.
- akira2501 9y ago
  > There are also things like 'chain advisories' which prohibit traffic of vehicles unequipped with tire chains. Chains are illegal on Minnesota roadways.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Chains are typically required in the western US on mountain roads. [ADDED: during snowstorms.]
maxerickson 9y ago
If it is possible to get around in a car without driving, the standards for licensing can be increased. So all those young men can still do all the things they need a car for, they just don't get to legally operate one until they have demonstrated a higher level of proficiency. And all the ones that aren't just total assholes can let the car drive when they have been drinking.
- mantas 9y ago
  Do things like speed and drive dangerously? I'm sure they'll pass a higher level as well. Unless you'd implement a psychological test that'd reject too temperament people.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    You don't necessarily need psychological testing. For instance, just make it easier to lose a license. Minor speeding could come with a license suspension if such a penalty were less consequential.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Over there "dangerous driving" means license suspension for up to 3 years. Doing donuts, speeding and overtaking recklessly, running lights while endangering oncoming traffic.. Any of these are immediate suspension and hefty fine. +50km/h (or +30km/h for novices) is immediate suspension as well. We still got plenty of jackasses. Mostly young men. With or without licenses...
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      >Minor speeding could come with a license suspension if such a penalty were less consequential. You realize that most states already do this, right?
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Yes of course, but I'm talking about a 6 month license suspension if you get a ticket for going 7 over, not a suspension after repeated severe tickets.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
> young _men_ who are 8 times more likely to die in a vehicle that they're driving than a female of the same age To paraphrase an acquaintance who drives a tow truck: Basically all deadly crashes are a result of an inability to drive properly (either via distraction or impairment). Actual "people being bad at driving" rarely causes deadly crashes by comparison. People make bad decisions that make them bad at driving. When a drunk couple goes off a cliff it's always a dude driving. Dumb things involving cell phones are less deadly but skew more female.

bm1362 9y ago

It’s also possibly not worth solving. I don’t know off the top of my head but I’d assume most of the population lives in temperate cities that rarely see the kind of icy weather regularly. Your vehicle could just not drive automatically in suboptimal settings and I think that’d be totally fine.