7 ms·

> As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24. "As a result" is a pretty big stretch. Traffic accidents result from unex

> As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24. "As a result" is a pretty big stretch. Traffic accidents result from unexpected situations. People who drive a lot learn to read the environment and the drivers around them and anticipate what will happen next. When those anticipations are violated, it runs the risk of creating a surprise that can't be managed. That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction. Learning to drive is an empirical process based on observed behavior, not a deductive process from the rules of the road. So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked. They don't drive like people, and thus violate the heuristics that human drivers have built up to predict traffic behavior. And perhaps more importantly, they look different, so they can feed into confirmation bias about how annoying they are. If it was impossible to distinguish self-driving cars (if they exhibited the same visual diversity as cars in general), it would be harder for people to build mental associations about them.

umvi 8y ago
> That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction. I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.
- Pxtl 8y ago
  Yellow doesn't mean "you can go through if you can beat the red". It means "stop if it is safe to do so". If it's just firm braking and not actual tires-squealing stop? The driver probably did the right thing.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    Safe is relative. If he almost got rear ended, it probably wasn't safe. Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that. At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have seen people stop on yellow in a way that seemed unsafe.
    - cptskippy 8y ago
      So what you're saying is that drivers should endanger themselves by taking risky maneuvers to spare the person driving behind, who are endangering them by following too closely, from an accident?
      - gizmo686 8y ago
        Driving is a risky maneuver. The question is what is the less risky way of handling a stop light. The point of yellow lights is so that drivers can continue through the intersection after the light left the green state, because not green=stop is unsafe. Running a yellow is less dangerous to the person driving then stopping for yellows. That is why we have yellow
      - loco5niner 8y ago
        That's not what they are saying...
      - snowwrestler 8y ago
        It's not risky to go through an intersection when the light is yellow. If your light is yellow, the cross light is red. Proceeding through a yellow is no riskier than a green. Traffic lights originally only had red and green. Municipalities added yellow specifically to prevent brake-slamming stops that led to crashes. Slamming the brakes on yellow is contrary to its purpose.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      > I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red) I have seen people who have so egregiously missed the yellow that the cross-signal turned green before they entered the intersection. Saying that running a yellow is safer than not trains people to be entitled to running yellow lights, and that is going to make their actions much less safe. If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light. That is a very simple rule to follow and is going to be safe to follow. If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    > It means "stop if it is safe to do so". if you have to slam on your brakes, it is (arguably) not safe to stop.
    - zlynx 8y ago
      Slamming the brakes means different things for a sports car vs a SUV. In my Subaru STI I can stop faster than some Escalade with only 2/3rds the brake pedal pressure. I'm not even close to maximum braking force. It's even more true in a lighter car like a Porsche 911. Just as if they were driving a large commercial truck it is the SUV driver's responsibility to not be too close to me.
      - loco5niner 8y ago
        Even following at a safe distance, if you stop suddenly, they will have to stop suddenly. The point is, don't stop suddenly unless you HAVE to. Try to be smooth and predictable.
- cgriswald 8y ago
  > I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. I witnessed an accident where a tiny little compact slammed on his brakes the second a light turned yellow. Unfortunately, he was being followed by a large SUV. The SUV hit him and pushed him into the intersection.[0] The very next day, at the very same intersection, I saw the now dented compact do the very same thing under the very same circumstances. He had learned nothing. [0]To make matters worse, he left his perfectly drivable car in the middle of the intersection instead of pulling ahead. He got out of his car, made a phone call, and just stood there in the intersection having a conversation (with police or insurance I would assume), endangering himself and others.
  - guiomie 8y ago
    Well, technically he doesnt have anything to learn, because he is right. The person behind him should always keep enough distance to stop according to the speed he is driving. The person who rear-ended him is in wrong and is responsible for the damages.
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      Slamming on your breaks when you don't need to and forcing everyone behind you to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting you is a bad idea. Smooth and predictable is safe.
      - jrockway 8y ago
        Yeah, but you have to be following the car in front of you at a distance that takes into account your reaction time and the actual braking distance. This time, the guy slammed on his brakes because of a yellow light which is maybe not a good reason... but it could have easily been someone running the red light, some kid running out into the street after a ball, the car's wheel flying off, etc.
        loco5niner 8y ago
- sgift 8y ago
  So, you nearly rear-ended someone because you didn't hold proper distance? What's your point?
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    No. If they didn't have proper distance, they would have rear-ended. Instead, they had to slam on their brakes to avoid an accident. The leading driver caused a slam-on-brakes situation when they should not have.
- mikestew 8y ago
  I've been caught by surprise before when I've been following too closely... There, FTFY. I tend to follow too closely, too, but let's call it what it is and not blame the driver in front of us.
  - umvi 8y ago
    Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable. The vast majority of drivers coast through yellow lights if they are reasonably close to the line. Breaking this predictability by abruptly halting at yellow (while reasonably close to the intersection) is going to be a risk multiplier - regardless of if you are "blameless" for doing so.
    - mikestew 8y ago
      Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable. The problem is, if I relied on other drivers to be predictable, I'd probably already be dead. I tell other motorcycle riders, "ask yourself what the stupidest thing that driver in front/next to/behind you can do. Now plan for that." It's not too often that plan needs to be executed, but it's handy when the time comes. (Anecdotally, I've found WA to be the hardest to plan for; man, they're a creative bunch.) So, yes, be predictable; but expect the unexpected. As Red Green said, "we're all in this together."
      - fpoling 8y ago
        One cannot follow that in Moscow and drive. Their in heavy traffick to change lines one signals the turn for few seconds and drives into the line without waiting the cars there to give the way. One just has to assume that people are reasonable and want to avoid crashing into your car. Otherwise one may just drive in the initial line forever as nobody gives the way until the car moves into their line. I was told Paris is similar.
  - rizzom5000 8y ago
    I disagree, if OP was following too closely the collision would have happened. Instead OP had to take evasive action to avoid collision because driver in front did something unexpected. I look forward to the day that self-driving cards are mandatory. Driving is one of the most excruciating things I endure in daily life and only because of the huge number of people on the roads exhibiting random and completely irrational behavior. If there is absolutely no rational reason to stop your car in the midst of moving traffic, then why do it?
spike021 8y ago
>So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked. Assuming you're implying that self-driving cars won't have behavior that's easy to learn, I'm not so sure. Even self-driving cars should fall into certain patterns (maybe those will vary with the tech, depending on if they're run on Waymo or some other company's version of it).

umvi 8y ago

> That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction. I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.

Pxtl 8y ago
Yellow doesn't mean "you can go through if you can beat the red". It means "stop if it is safe to do so". If it's just firm braking and not actual tires-squealing stop? The driver probably did the right thing.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  Safe is relative. If he almost got rear ended, it probably wasn't safe. Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that. At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have seen people stop on yellow in a way that seemed unsafe.
  - cptskippy 8y ago
    So what you're saying is that drivers should endanger themselves by taking risky maneuvers to spare the person driving behind, who are endangering them by following too closely, from an accident?
    - gizmo686 8y ago
      Driving is a risky maneuver. The question is what is the less risky way of handling a stop light. The point of yellow lights is so that drivers can continue through the intersection after the light left the green state, because not green=stop is unsafe. Running a yellow is less dangerous to the person driving then stopping for yellows. That is why we have yellow
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      That's not what they are saying...
    - snowwrestler 8y ago
      It's not risky to go through an intersection when the light is yellow. If your light is yellow, the cross light is red. Proceeding through a yellow is no riskier than a green. Traffic lights originally only had red and green. Municipalities added yellow specifically to prevent brake-slamming stops that led to crashes. Slamming the brakes on yellow is contrary to its purpose.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red) I have seen people who have so egregiously missed the yellow that the cross-signal turned green before they entered the intersection. Saying that running a yellow is safer than not trains people to be entitled to running yellow lights, and that is going to make their actions much less safe. If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light. That is a very simple rule to follow and is going to be safe to follow. If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  > It means "stop if it is safe to do so". if you have to slam on your brakes, it is (arguably) not safe to stop.
  - zlynx 8y ago
    Slamming the brakes means different things for a sports car vs a SUV. In my Subaru STI I can stop faster than some Escalade with only 2/3rds the brake pedal pressure. I'm not even close to maximum braking force. It's even more true in a lighter car like a Porsche 911. Just as if they were driving a large commercial truck it is the SUV driver's responsibility to not be too close to me.
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      Even following at a safe distance, if you stop suddenly, they will have to stop suddenly. The point is, don't stop suddenly unless you HAVE to. Try to be smooth and predictable.
cgriswald 8y ago
> I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. I witnessed an accident where a tiny little compact slammed on his brakes the second a light turned yellow. Unfortunately, he was being followed by a large SUV. The SUV hit him and pushed him into the intersection.[0] The very next day, at the very same intersection, I saw the now dented compact do the very same thing under the very same circumstances. He had learned nothing. [0]To make matters worse, he left his perfectly drivable car in the middle of the intersection instead of pulling ahead. He got out of his car, made a phone call, and just stood there in the intersection having a conversation (with police or insurance I would assume), endangering himself and others.
- guiomie 8y ago
  Well, technically he doesnt have anything to learn, because he is right. The person behind him should always keep enough distance to stop according to the speed he is driving. The person who rear-ended him is in wrong and is responsible for the damages.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    Slamming on your breaks when you don't need to and forcing everyone behind you to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting you is a bad idea. Smooth and predictable is safe.
    - jrockway 8y ago
      Yeah, but you have to be following the car in front of you at a distance that takes into account your reaction time and the actual braking distance. This time, the guy slammed on his brakes because of a yellow light which is maybe not a good reason... but it could have easily been someone running the red light, some kid running out into the street after a ball, the car's wheel flying off, etc.
      - loco5niner 8y ago
sgift 8y ago
So, you nearly rear-ended someone because you didn't hold proper distance? What's your point?
- loco5niner 8y ago
  No. If they didn't have proper distance, they would have rear-ended. Instead, they had to slam on their brakes to avoid an accident. The leading driver caused a slam-on-brakes situation when they should not have.
mikestew 8y ago
I've been caught by surprise before when I've been following too closely... There, FTFY. I tend to follow too closely, too, but let's call it what it is and not blame the driver in front of us.
- umvi 8y ago
  Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable. The vast majority of drivers coast through yellow lights if they are reasonably close to the line. Breaking this predictability by abruptly halting at yellow (while reasonably close to the intersection) is going to be a risk multiplier - regardless of if you are "blameless" for doing so.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable. The problem is, if I relied on other drivers to be predictable, I'd probably already be dead. I tell other motorcycle riders, "ask yourself what the stupidest thing that driver in front/next to/behind you can do. Now plan for that." It's not too often that plan needs to be executed, but it's handy when the time comes. (Anecdotally, I've found WA to be the hardest to plan for; man, they're a creative bunch.) So, yes, be predictable; but expect the unexpected. As Red Green said, "we're all in this together."
    - fpoling 8y ago
      One cannot follow that in Moscow and drive. Their in heavy traffick to change lines one signals the turn for few seconds and drives into the line without waiting the cars there to give the way. One just has to assume that people are reasonable and want to avoid crashing into your car. Otherwise one may just drive in the initial line forever as nobody gives the way until the car moves into their line. I was told Paris is similar.
- rizzom5000 8y ago
  I disagree, if OP was following too closely the collision would have happened. Instead OP had to take evasive action to avoid collision because driver in front did something unexpected. I look forward to the day that self-driving cards are mandatory. Driving is one of the most excruciating things I endure in daily life and only because of the huge number of people on the roads exhibiting random and completely irrational behavior. If there is absolutely no rational reason to stop your car in the midst of moving traffic, then why do it?

spike021 8y ago

>So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked. Assuming you're implying that self-driving cars won't have behavior that's easy to learn, I'm not so sure. Even self-driving cars should fall into certain patterns (maybe those will vary with the tech, depending on if they're run on Waymo or some other company's version of it).