8 ms·

I'm really curious whether this frustration is truly because of the limitation of the technology(which is totally possible) or because of some sort of cognitive

I'm really curious whether this frustration is truly because of the limitation of the technology(which is totally possible) or because of some sort of cognitive bias/confirmation. Would they feel the same frustration if the van had no decals or visible sensors? Are they more frustrated at the cars more than the other drivers? Community "anger" can be really perplexing like how a community of people were complaining about the ailments from a phone tower when the company already turned off the tower six weeks prior. [1]https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-revelation-in-iburst-tower-battle.html https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-revela...

mc32 8y ago
I’m guessing people see them as surplus unnecessary vehicles adding to the congestion they already experience. The alternative is that they are anti-automation, perhaps.
- thisacctforreal 8y ago
  Or the cars suck at driving. Disclosure: I've never seen one in action, just stating a possibility.
klodolph 8y ago
I'm also wondering what part of this is due to them being programmed to follow the letter of the law, instead of driving like other drivers.
- zamalek 8y ago
  As someone who attempts to follow the letter of the law, I experience quite a few incidents of aggressive driving. The complaints here are really just demonstrating how bad humans are at driving - the frustration probably arises due to the fact that they are unable to intimidate the driver in front of them with aggressive behavior. > One woman said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn By following the correct speed limit and following distance, you will have ample time to react to any silly behavior. Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn.
  - mulletbum 8y ago
    >Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn. Did you really mean this or is it sarcasm?
  - jclardy 8y ago
    My first thought when reading the "suddenly stopped" quote is that it was probably at a stop light or sign, and the car actually stopped as directed by the law, then proceeded to move forward to turn, versus the progressive rolling stop that nearly everyone does.
  - rhacker 8y ago
    This is the truth here. I also try to follow the letter of the law. I always assume that a brick wall may suddenly shoot up in front of the car in front of me, stopping it instantly and killing everyone in it. So following closer than the recommended distance, is idiotic. How often will a brick wall shoot up in front of a car like life is a video game? Probably a really low percentage, but cats, deer, blown tires, trailers falling off, jackknifing trucks - all can have similar effects. Even knowing my car may get the brick wall, which I can't avoid, I can at least do the best I can to avoid someone else's. Google's challenge however, is that we are in a very very small minority.
    - camjohnson26 8y ago
      You're a minority because following the letter of the law isn't always the safe decision. It's illegal to cross the double yellow lines, but if a car is pulled over on the shoulder then I'll cross the lines to give them more space. It's illegal but it increases safety for me and them.
      - rhacker 8y ago
        I do safe, illegal things too, so good point in mentioning this. I should have clarified that I was mostly talking about speed limits, tailgaiting etc.. I was just picking up the above poster's phrase. I don't think I could accurately sum up my driving style in a phrase, but that's probably the best short way to do it.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  That is a real problem that I'm curious to see how Alphabet solves. In many areas of the country, the posted speed limit is often much lower than the realistic speed cars are going - following the letter of the law becomes unsafe behavior when you're going 15mph slower than everyone else. Of course, the answer here is probably the most boring: following the letter of the law ensures the least liability.
  - cozzyd 8y ago
    Automated vehicles could finally follow speed limits, stop blocking buses and bike lanes, and yield to pedestrians. What's not to like about that?
    - marssaxman 8y ago
      Why would we want other vehicles to follow speed limits? Then everyone would be stuck moving slowly. On the other hand... if everyone were to obey all of the impractically-low speed limits at once - like a "work-to-rule" strike - perhaps that would create enough political pressure to get them raised up to a more reasonable level.
      - reaperducer 8y ago
        This just demonstrates that you don't understand what speed limits are for. They're not some arbitrary number imposed on you to make your life inconvenient. In addition to being adjusted for the engineering of the road, they also create gaps in traffic allowing people to change lanes, or other people to enter traffic, or — in the case of roads with intersections — allow other people to make left turns, especially on curves. Just because you don't understand why a speed limit exists doesn't mean it's wrong. A lot of science goes into these decisions.
        crappants 8y ago
        That’s funny that the municipal speed limit for a 200 sq mile area including urban and rural densities is 30 mph. What a coincidence that most of the roads just so happen to have conditions that 30 mph is always the right speed. It’s 30 mph in the city which seems pretty reasonable but in fact seems too fast in some parts (this is an old non grid city)... meanwhile oh they bump it to 35 mph for a county road that is suburban to rural and two lanes wide in each direction. That same basic road with similar traffic patterns and construction is 45 mph the next county over. And then.. the next state over everything urban is 25 now.. even though that state gets a lot less rain and snow. And explain to me how the laws of physics or “science” change across state lines. Because if you’ve ever driven from one state to the next in the US you will quickly learn that each DOT has its own theory of how to do things and how to assign speeds. The PA turnpike is 70 mph now and I refuse to believe you have any science to back up why that 70 mph is more appropriate than the 65 mph for the NYS thruway which is wider, straighter, flatter, better lit , in overall better shape throughout the state...also why is the speed 65 in bumblefuck as well as an hour outside of nyc (I lived through the politics of northeast road transportation and bud shuster so spare me your science counterargument, I already know it’s a pile). I feel like you are or might be related to a traffic engineer and I honestly don’t want to hurt your feelings.
- jellicle 8y ago
  Has Google (or any other company) ever said "we are programming our cars to follow the letter of the law"? I don't believe so. This seems to be something that programmers and lazy reporters have inferred to be true, without evidence. For example, it is required in California to signal lane changes/turns for at least 100 feet before the maneuver. (Other states may have different requirements, so better hope your GPS is functioning.) If little Sally runs out into the road and can only be avoided by swerving, heck, even crossing double yellow lines, the letter of the law would be to strike Sally without swerving since the swerve maneuver can't be legally executed. Is that what is being programmed [Y/N]? Indeed, they are not being programmed to obey the letter of the law: https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-to-speed-because-well-everybodys-doing-it/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-...
  - aeorgnoieang 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure you're wrong about your example being legally impossible. And you might be right that the robocar companies aren't trying to program their cars to drive strictly legally for every possible situation, it is in fact a reasonable presumption.
  - bryanlarsen 8y ago
    If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions. You cannot rely on being able to swerve into the oncoming lane, it might be occupied. If you can reasonably avoid Sally but don't, that's careless driving. You're avoiding a misdemeanor to commit a possible felony.
    - cgriswald 8y ago
      > If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions. That's an unreasonable standard. You may be driving too fast for conditions, but being unable to stop in time when something unpredictably enters the roadway is, by itself, neither proof nor definition. The average stopping distance for a passenger vehicle at 20 mph is 20 feet; to say nothing of a heavily-laden delivery truck. That's not including reaction distance. Sally might step out from behind a van. Or a large branch might fall from a tree. Or the wind might push over a garbage can. A dog may wander onto the interstate. Some accidents are unavoidable by simply applying the brakes, except by forgoing non-ambulatory transportation altogether.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
If you read the article, though, people are particularly frustrated about how the cars, which are purposefully programmed to err on the conservative side, are slow and halting where other drivers could handle a T-intersection with ease. Honestly, it sounds like the same kind of frustration I hear with people reacting to elderly, overly cautious drivers.
notahacker 8y ago
It's possible the human drivers frustrated at waiting behind slow Google cars reluctant to turn left in traffic are perceiving the vehicles as more cautious than they actually are because they know they're automated (as well as because they're so numerous), but in all probability they actually are calibrated to be more cautious than even fairly sensible human drivers when driving across oncoming traffic. And ultimately, if autonomous vehicles are ever going to make it onto normal roads, they're going to have to live with human perceptions of them as well, accurate or otherwise. The original article[1] cites an example of a human driver admitting that he got so frustrated waiting for them to turn left at junctions he dangerously and illegally overtook them there, which is a reminder that taking or being perceived to take a cautious approach doesn't necessarily lead to a net safety increase where it is likely to have an effect on the behaviour other drivers. Also, some of the cited examples sound like clear errors and lane discipline issues that sounds too blatant to just be perception. The original author's Twitter thread even illustrates a tangible example[2] of a potentially dangerous driving error the technology made, where a turning vehicle apparently reacts to an oncoming vehicle intending to turn in behind it (signalling and possibly moving a little early) by hard braking in mid turn, obstructing the oncoming vehicle intending to merge and possibly giving a following vehicle a surprise as well. A reminder that coming to a stop is not always the most sensible response to uncertainty. If the human driver wasn't involved in restarting that car, that incident probably doesn't appear in its much-trumpeted disengagement statistics though... [1]https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions-slowed-by-tech-trouble?shared=4596b7125469ea51 https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions... - probably worth the annoying email harvest if you're interested [2]https://twitter.com/amir/status/1034443909341106177 https://twitter.com/amir/status/1034443909341106177

mc32 8y ago

I’m guessing people see them as surplus unnecessary vehicles adding to the congestion they already experience. The alternative is that they are anti-automation, perhaps.

thisacctforreal 8y ago
Or the cars suck at driving. Disclosure: I've never seen one in action, just stating a possibility.

klodolph 8y ago

I'm also wondering what part of this is due to them being programmed to follow the letter of the law, instead of driving like other drivers.

zamalek 8y ago
As someone who attempts to follow the letter of the law, I experience quite a few incidents of aggressive driving. The complaints here are really just demonstrating how bad humans are at driving - the frustration probably arises due to the fact that they are unable to intimidate the driver in front of them with aggressive behavior. > One woman said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn By following the correct speed limit and following distance, you will have ample time to react to any silly behavior. Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn.
- mulletbum 8y ago
  >Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn. Did you really mean this or is it sarcasm?
- jclardy 8y ago
  My first thought when reading the "suddenly stopped" quote is that it was probably at a stop light or sign, and the car actually stopped as directed by the law, then proceeded to move forward to turn, versus the progressive rolling stop that nearly everyone does.
- rhacker 8y ago
  This is the truth here. I also try to follow the letter of the law. I always assume that a brick wall may suddenly shoot up in front of the car in front of me, stopping it instantly and killing everyone in it. So following closer than the recommended distance, is idiotic. How often will a brick wall shoot up in front of a car like life is a video game? Probably a really low percentage, but cats, deer, blown tires, trailers falling off, jackknifing trucks - all can have similar effects. Even knowing my car may get the brick wall, which I can't avoid, I can at least do the best I can to avoid someone else's. Google's challenge however, is that we are in a very very small minority.
  - camjohnson26 8y ago
    You're a minority because following the letter of the law isn't always the safe decision. It's illegal to cross the double yellow lines, but if a car is pulled over on the shoulder then I'll cross the lines to give them more space. It's illegal but it increases safety for me and them.
    - rhacker 8y ago
      I do safe, illegal things too, so good point in mentioning this. I should have clarified that I was mostly talking about speed limits, tailgaiting etc.. I was just picking up the above poster's phrase. I don't think I could accurately sum up my driving style in a phrase, but that's probably the best short way to do it.
vorpalhex 8y ago
That is a real problem that I'm curious to see how Alphabet solves. In many areas of the country, the posted speed limit is often much lower than the realistic speed cars are going - following the letter of the law becomes unsafe behavior when you're going 15mph slower than everyone else. Of course, the answer here is probably the most boring: following the letter of the law ensures the least liability.
- cozzyd 8y ago
  Automated vehicles could finally follow speed limits, stop blocking buses and bike lanes, and yield to pedestrians. What's not to like about that?
  - marssaxman 8y ago
    Why would we want other vehicles to follow speed limits? Then everyone would be stuck moving slowly. On the other hand... if everyone were to obey all of the impractically-low speed limits at once - like a "work-to-rule" strike - perhaps that would create enough political pressure to get them raised up to a more reasonable level.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      This just demonstrates that you don't understand what speed limits are for. They're not some arbitrary number imposed on you to make your life inconvenient. In addition to being adjusted for the engineering of the road, they also create gaps in traffic allowing people to change lanes, or other people to enter traffic, or — in the case of roads with intersections — allow other people to make left turns, especially on curves. Just because you don't understand why a speed limit exists doesn't mean it's wrong. A lot of science goes into these decisions.
      - crappants 8y ago
        That’s funny that the municipal speed limit for a 200 sq mile area including urban and rural densities is 30 mph. What a coincidence that most of the roads just so happen to have conditions that 30 mph is always the right speed. It’s 30 mph in the city which seems pretty reasonable but in fact seems too fast in some parts (this is an old non grid city)... meanwhile oh they bump it to 35 mph for a county road that is suburban to rural and two lanes wide in each direction. That same basic road with similar traffic patterns and construction is 45 mph the next county over. And then.. the next state over everything urban is 25 now.. even though that state gets a lot less rain and snow. And explain to me how the laws of physics or “science” change across state lines. Because if you’ve ever driven from one state to the next in the US you will quickly learn that each DOT has its own theory of how to do things and how to assign speeds. The PA turnpike is 70 mph now and I refuse to believe you have any science to back up why that 70 mph is more appropriate than the 65 mph for the NYS thruway which is wider, straighter, flatter, better lit , in overall better shape throughout the state...also why is the speed 65 in bumblefuck as well as an hour outside of nyc (I lived through the politics of northeast road transportation and bud shuster so spare me your science counterargument, I already know it’s a pile). I feel like you are or might be related to a traffic engineer and I honestly don’t want to hurt your feelings.
jellicle 8y ago
Has Google (or any other company) ever said "we are programming our cars to follow the letter of the law"? I don't believe so. This seems to be something that programmers and lazy reporters have inferred to be true, without evidence. For example, it is required in California to signal lane changes/turns for at least 100 feet before the maneuver. (Other states may have different requirements, so better hope your GPS is functioning.) If little Sally runs out into the road and can only be avoided by swerving, heck, even crossing double yellow lines, the letter of the law would be to strike Sally without swerving since the swerve maneuver can't be legally executed. Is that what is being programmed [Y/N]? Indeed, they are not being programmed to obey the letter of the law: https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-to-speed-because-well-everybodys-doing-it/ https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-...
- aeorgnoieang 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure you're wrong about your example being legally impossible. And you might be right that the robocar companies aren't trying to program their cars to drive strictly legally for every possible situation, it is in fact a reasonable presumption.
- bryanlarsen 8y ago
  If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions. You cannot rely on being able to swerve into the oncoming lane, it might be occupied. If you can reasonably avoid Sally but don't, that's careless driving. You're avoiding a misdemeanor to commit a possible felony.
  - cgriswald 8y ago
    > If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions. That's an unreasonable standard. You may be driving too fast for conditions, but being unable to stop in time when something unpredictably enters the roadway is, by itself, neither proof nor definition. The average stopping distance for a passenger vehicle at 20 mph is 20 feet; to say nothing of a heavily-laden delivery truck. That's not including reaction distance. Sally might step out from behind a van. Or a large branch might fall from a tree. Or the wind might push over a garbage can. A dog may wander onto the interstate. Some accidents are unavoidable by simply applying the brakes, except by forgoing non-ambulatory transportation altogether.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

If you read the article, though, people are particularly frustrated about how the cars, which are purposefully programmed to err on the conservative side, are slow and halting where other drivers could handle a T-intersection with ease. Honestly, it sounds like the same kind of frustration I hear with people reacting to elderly, overly cautious drivers.

notahacker 8y ago

It's possible the human drivers frustrated at waiting behind slow Google cars reluctant to turn left in traffic are perceiving the vehicles as more cautious than they actually are because they know they're automated (as well as because they're so numerous), but in all probability they actually are calibrated to be more cautious than even fairly sensible human drivers when driving across oncoming traffic. And ultimately, if autonomous vehicles are ever going to make it onto normal roads, they're going to have to live with human perceptions of them as well, accurate or otherwise. The original article[1] cites an example of a human driver admitting that he got so frustrated waiting for them to turn left at junctions he dangerously and illegally overtook them there, which is a reminder that taking or being perceived to take a cautious approach doesn't necessarily lead to a net safety increase where it is likely to have an effect on the behaviour other drivers. Also, some of the cited examples sound like clear errors and lane discipline issues that sounds too blatant to just be perception. The original author's Twitter thread even illustrates a tangible example[2] of a potentially dangerous driving error the technology made, where a turning vehicle apparently reacts to an oncoming vehicle intending to turn in behind it (signalling and possibly moving a little early) by hard braking in mid turn, obstructing the oncoming vehicle intending to merge and possibly giving a following vehicle a surprise as well. A reminder that coming to a stop is not always the most sensible response to uncertainty. If the human driver wasn't involved in restarting that car, that incident probably doesn't appear in its much-trumpeted disengagement statistics though... [1]https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions-slowed-by-tech-trouble?shared=4596b7125469ea51 https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions... - probably worth the annoying email harvest if you're interested [2]https://twitter.com/amir/status/1034443909341106177 https://twitter.com/amir/status/1034443909341106177