5 ms·

So human drivers wouldn't crash here? Or a good, attentive, best-case human driver wouldn't crash here? Because those are not the same set, and it seems the for

So human drivers wouldn't crash here? Or a good, attentive, best-case human driver wouldn't crash here? Because those are not the same set, and it seems the former set has crashed into this particular barrier multiple times. I don't think it's acceptible that a vehicle with adaptive cruise, lane keeping, and emergency braking would hit this barrier without any mitigating braking or action, but the actual state of drivers on the roads and human traffic fatalities is pretty grim as-is.

FireBeyond 8y ago
I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier: 1) _aimed directly at it_ rather than glancing blows/swerving at the last moment, etc., and 2) _accelerated beyond the speed limit as they did_, rather than applying any form of braking, let alone AEB.
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  > I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier. So implausible that the barrier was destroyed just weeks earlier by a human driver?
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    I find it equally implausible that you willfully ignored the context of my quotes. To the extent that you literally changed the colon that lead to the context of those quotes into a period to make it sound like that was the extent of my statement. Yes, human drivers crash into crash barriers, as noted. Now, how many of those human drivers "actively aimed at the barrier", as the NTSB stated? And how many of those human drivers, having aimed at the barrier, "then accelerated in excess of the speed limit" as they did so? And if you do reply, try not to take sentence fragments as an excuse to change quotes to misrepresent someone's statements.
    - Robotbeat 8y ago
      I ignored it intentionally because that is a mischaracterization of what the NTSB report said. That is what clickbait headlines said (misleadingly). The autopilot was following the lines, which looked a lot like a lane. Human drivers make similar mistakes, and it is quite likely that’s what happened earlier and why the barrier was destroyed beforehand. The lines are about the same size as a lane and lead you straight into the barrier.
ckastner 8y ago
> So human drivers wouldn't crash here? Or a good, attentive, best-case human driver wouldn't crash here? I'd argue that a Reasonable Person [1] wouldn't crash here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
- stetrain 8y ago
  I think that's actually a really good method to apply in these cases, and I agree. However I also think that the roads are currently occupied by many people who fall below that standard. Should a car with assistive technologies only be a success if it is as good as a reasonable person, or if it is better than a typical person? Obviously the former is prefereable to the latter, but people seem much more content with the idea of driving themselves into walls (or another typical person on the road might crash into them and cause that outcome) than with the idea that a computer might do that same. See also fear of flying vs driving even though flying is demonstrably safer, but feels much more out of the hands of the flyer.

FireBeyond 8y ago

I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier: 1) _aimed directly at it_ rather than glancing blows/swerving at the last moment, etc., and 2) _accelerated beyond the speed limit as they did_, rather than applying any form of braking, let alone AEB.

Robotbeat 8y ago
> I think it's "rather unlikely" to the point of implausibility, that even the human drivers who have crashed into that barrier. So implausible that the barrier was destroyed just weeks earlier by a human driver?
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  I find it equally implausible that you willfully ignored the context of my quotes. To the extent that you literally changed the colon that lead to the context of those quotes into a period to make it sound like that was the extent of my statement. Yes, human drivers crash into crash barriers, as noted. Now, how many of those human drivers "actively aimed at the barrier", as the NTSB stated? And how many of those human drivers, having aimed at the barrier, "then accelerated in excess of the speed limit" as they did so? And if you do reply, try not to take sentence fragments as an excuse to change quotes to misrepresent someone's statements.
  - Robotbeat 8y ago
    I ignored it intentionally because that is a mischaracterization of what the NTSB report said. That is what clickbait headlines said (misleadingly). The autopilot was following the lines, which looked a lot like a lane. Human drivers make similar mistakes, and it is quite likely that’s what happened earlier and why the barrier was destroyed beforehand. The lines are about the same size as a lane and lead you straight into the barrier.

ckastner 8y ago

> So human drivers wouldn't crash here? Or a good, attentive, best-case human driver wouldn't crash here? I'd argue that a Reasonable Person [1] wouldn't crash here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

stetrain 8y ago
I think that's actually a really good method to apply in these cases, and I agree. However I also think that the roads are currently occupied by many people who fall below that standard. Should a car with assistive technologies only be a success if it is as good as a reasonable person, or if it is better than a typical person? Obviously the former is prefereable to the latter, but people seem much more content with the idea of driving themselves into walls (or another typical person on the road might crash into them and cause that outcome) than with the idea that a computer might do that same. See also fear of flying vs driving even though flying is demonstrably safer, but feels much more out of the hands of the flyer.