3 ms·
The intent behind such laws is simple: You must not endanger others to save an animal. These are good laws, even if those without actual driving experience may
by nanis 9y ago
The intent behind such laws is simple: You must not endanger others to save an animal. These are good laws, even if those without actual driving experience may not understand them.
As the Globe and Mail puts it: "It doesn't matter why the chicken crossed the road — your responsibility is to the people around you."[1]
"If you're forced to choose between getting
rear-ended and hitting a small animal — hit
the animal."
"People end up in serious crashes with other
cars because they let their emotions take over
when they see a bunny, DiCicco says."
"Drivers need to be prepared to make these
tough decisions and not get in a 12 car pileup
because they saw a baby deer and thought of
Bambi," he says.
My unfounded speculation is that the RC car jockeys who programmed how the car should react under various conditions did not fully understand what such laws mean (probably having no real life driving experience in ambiguous conditions). And, the cars sensors saw the human with the bicycle, but thought it was an animal.
This is pure speculation, but it makes sense to me. My gut feelings are somewhat validated by every single comment here that tries to make this this poor woman's fault.
PS: You might correctly deduce that I do not think "self-driving cars" is a good idea. I think everyone needs to be reintroduced to Asimov.
[1]: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/what-should-you-do-if-you-see-an-animal-on-the-road/article19494060/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commutin...
- Robin_Message 9y ago"If you're forced to choose between getting rear-ended and hitting a small animal — hit the animal." If you are forced to make that choice, the car behind you is already driving illegally close to you. Kristine D'Arbelles, spokesperson for the Canadian Automobile Association (CAA), is just making excuses for other people's poor driving. Stopping distances people! And the rule of thumb is double them for rain, ten times for ice. And if someone is tailgating you, let them pass you. They are in the wrong but there is no point saving a few seconds keeping in front of them. /rant
- madez 9y ago> These are good laws, even if those without actual driving experience may not understand them. No, they are not. You didn't even touch the arguments I gave. If there is a risk of collision with the car behind you, then not you but the driver of the car behind you is at fault for not keeping a safe distance to account for their reaction time and brake performance.
- nanis 9y ago> but the driver of the car behind you is at fault That will be small consolation if you cause harm to others' persons or property when trying to avoid an animal such as a deer. That is the practical upshot. If you hit a deer, insurance will pay you under comprehensive coverage and your rates will not go up. On the other hand, if, because of your attempt to save the deer's life, you hit a guardrail and smash your car, and get hurt in the process, you'll be lucky to collect anything. The main point I tried to make above is this: I am speculating that the car's "AI" thought the person walking a bicycle fit the profile of an animal which interacted with a ruleset that embodies this principle in a simplistic way because the code for these stupid self-driving cars is being written by people with little to no experience driving in less than ideal conditions. Also, Tesla S cannot see a stopped firetruck: https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/ https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/