4 ms·

“move below the speed limit and ensure you don’t kill anyone.” Sounds good to me!

by ISL 9y ago

Shivetya 9y ago
which brings up the question, if an AV can identify the speed limit do they always obey it or will operators of the vehicle be allowed to go faster?
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
  My guess: If the vehicle allows manual override, and legislation does not change and force manufacturers of autonomous vehicles to prevent transgressions, the human operator will be able to go faster.
- asteli 9y ago
  I remember this being an issue with the Google cars on the highway. The cars, if software limited to the posted speed limit, were dangerously slow compared to the surrounding traffic. Some limited law breaking had to be introduced in order to operate safely.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>Sounds good to me! That's the half-lie you trot out at the beginning of a rand that ends with "think of the children" The generalized version is "don't go too much faster or slower than the majority of drivers around you" The one person doing 55 in a 60 (or ever 60) where everyone goes 80 may reduce their own legal liability if things go bad but they're also greatly increasing the likelihood that things go bad. I really hope there was an implied /s that I missed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bullfightonmars 9y ago
  To be fair "think of the children" can work pretty well to change the way people and governments think about cars. It got the Netherlands country wide bike infrastructure. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollands-stop-murdering-children-street-safety-movement/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollan...
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    If you're actually right your side shouldn't have to play dirty with rhetoric and appeals to emotion to get your way (except maybe to counter an opposition that's doing so). People as a group might not make great decisions the first time around but speaking society figures it out eventually. Usually the group that's promoting education and telling people to draw their own conclusions is the one that's right in the long term.
    - dibujante 9y ago
      The opposition is always doing so, no matter who the opposition is.
- ClassyJacket 9y ago
  In that case it's not the person obeying the law that's endangering anyone, it's everybody else. Your argument is an excuse irresponsible drivers use to justify being reckless and endangering others. Safety aside, you couldn't expect people to consistently drive over the speed limit due to the constant speeding fines and licence loss alone. Speed cameras don't care if you were "going with the traffic".
- ISL 9y ago
  The speed limit is less important to me than the "ensure you don't kill anyone". Any deviation from the normal flow of traffic will decrease as self-driving cars get increasing numbers of miles under their wheels.

“move below the speed limit and ensure you don’t kill anyone.” Sounds good to me!

by ISL 9y ago

“move below the speed limit and ensure you don’t kill anyone.” Sounds good to me!

which brings up the question, if an AV can identify the speed limit do they always obey it or will operators of the vehicle be allowed to go faster?

tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago
My guess: If the vehicle allows manual override, and legislation does not change and force manufacturers of autonomous vehicles to prevent transgressions, the human operator will be able to go faster.
asteli 9y ago
I remember this being an issue with the Google cars on the highway. The cars, if software limited to the posted speed limit, were dangerously slow compared to the surrounding traffic. Some limited law breaking had to be introduced in order to operate safely.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>Sounds good to me! That's the half-lie you trot out at the beginning of a rand that ends with "think of the children" The generalized version is "don't go too much faster or slower than the majority of drivers around you" The one person doing 55 in a 60 (or ever 60) where everyone goes 80 may reduce their own legal liability if things go bad but they're also greatly increasing the likelihood that things go bad. I really hope there was an implied /s that I missed.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bullfightonmars 9y ago
To be fair "think of the children" can work pretty well to change the way people and governments think about cars. It got the Netherlands country wide bike infrastructure. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollands-stop-murdering-children-street-safety-movement/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollan...
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  If you're actually right your side shouldn't have to play dirty with rhetoric and appeals to emotion to get your way (except maybe to counter an opposition that's doing so). People as a group might not make great decisions the first time around but speaking society figures it out eventually. Usually the group that's promoting education and telling people to draw their own conclusions is the one that's right in the long term.
  - dibujante 9y ago
    The opposition is always doing so, no matter who the opposition is.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
In that case it's not the person obeying the law that's endangering anyone, it's everybody else. Your argument is an excuse irresponsible drivers use to justify being reckless and endangering others. Safety aside, you couldn't expect people to consistently drive over the speed limit due to the constant speeding fines and licence loss alone. Speed cameras don't care if you were "going with the traffic".
ISL 9y ago
The speed limit is less important to me than the "ensure you don't kill anyone". Any deviation from the normal flow of traffic will decrease as self-driving cars get increasing numbers of miles under their wheels.