7 ms·

> The biggest safety issue associated with these cars is that everyone else... ...drives dangerously and therefore illegally? That's an indictment of human dr

by ebg13 7y ago

> The biggest safety issue associated with these cars is that everyone else... ...drives dangerously and therefore illegally? That's an indictment of human drivers, not self-driving vehicles. So start aggressively ticketing all of the reckless humans and maybe that behavior will stop. If you have to swerve, then you're not following at a safe distance. If you swerve without having to, that's also recklessly dangerous. Both behaviors _should_ be penalized.

johnbrodie 7y ago
There's more to it than that. Traffic is as safe as it is (I won't call it flat-out "safe"), in no small part because people can anticipate other drivers. A _predictable_ driver is a safe driver. Having self-driving cars randomly stop short is a quick way to rack up a lot of "not legally at fault", but perhaps morally at-fault, accidents. FWIW, if you've ever done car/bike track days, this is a huge reason why it's so safe. People are split into groups according to skill level, with restrictions on passing (normally "only on the straights") for the lower groups. Much of the "skill level" here is actually just being predictable, not being outright fast. Someone can be in a Miata getting passed with a 50mph speed differential on a straight _because everyone is being predictable_. That same Miata might pass the same car with a huge speed differential at 90 mph in a turn, and it works because everyone is predictable.
- rhino369 7y ago
  >Having self-driving cars randomly stop short is a quick way to rack up a lot of "not legally at fault", but perhaps morally at-fault, accidents. And I'm pretty sure, in most jurisdictions, slamming on the breaks unexpectedly and for no good reason, will get you at least a portion of the liability for an accident. The person who rear-ends you will get some too, but its not always true that you can't be at fault when you get rear-ended. As you imply, no safety system should rely on others doing their job perfectly. That is an inherently unsafe system.
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    If there was an accident and the cops ask you "why did you break suddenly?" and you say something reasonable that's not "to commit insurance fraud" you probably won't be at fault. It's the responsibility of the person behind you to keep a safe following distance.
    - karthikb 7y ago
      I have had the "pleasure" of driving alongside and behind Cruise's vehicles on many occasions here in San Francisco. They will stop dramatically in the middle of a block (empty, no traffic, no pedestrians), edge forward, dramatically stop again, go halfway through the intersection and again...dramatically stop. It feels to me like whoever has written their braking algorithm is using bang bang control.
    - rhino369 7y ago
      Sure, but that an issue of evidence. Google, Uber, Tesla, etc. have source code, records, emails, reports, etc. that can potentially prove their cars just break because they aren't good enough drivers. And they have deep enough pockets that lawyers will go after them. 1000% sure Google will end up writing a check if someone dies because they rear-ended a google car that suddenly hit the breaks.
amirhirsch 7y ago
Your proposed solution is obviously untenable. The danger I’m describing is that not all cars are self-driving and the way human drivers react to these cars dramatically increases the danger around these cars. Drivers in SF may already know what to expect, but in every new city they roll out in, the human drivers will react rashly to these cars as they are frustrated with the unpredictable, inhuman, and incommunicable (no eye contact or hand waving) decisions they make.
- ebg13 7y ago
  > human drivers...dramatically increases the danger I know you're putting a gradual transition into context, but I see you say this ^, and my reaction is to suggest that we take human drivers off the road who recklessly endanger others instead of giving them a pass with the vehicular equivalent of "boys will be boys".
  - amirhirsch 7y ago
    I am so down for a car-less city
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Having traffic be predictable is far more important than the specific rules it follows. Human driven traffic follows rules, including a massive context specific set of rules about when it is reasonable to break the written rules. Drivers that adhere to the letter of the laws and totally disregarding the unwritten rules make terrible drivers because they do not follow the full set of rules that the majority of human drivers follow. All current autonomous cars drive like this. A small but infuriating subset of human drivers behave like this too. Generally it's expected that you pass these obstructions when possible and safe enough to do so (legal or not, though what's safe is usually legal too). What people consider safe varies somewhat between people. Anyone will pass a tractor on a country two lane. Only the most bold will pass a Cruise in traffic. Of course there's a danger zone around it. The current system is designed for humans and if we're ever going to automate it the autonomous cars need to be able to coexist with the human cars without causing problems. Boys will be boys isn't an excuse because it doesn't need to be. One of the engineering requirements is to get along with the boys.
MegaButts 7y ago
I agree with you that people should be ticketed for reckless driving, but I believe you're missing the point. If adding these cars to the road causes more accidents, regardless of who is at fault, they are making the roads more dangerous. Just like enforcing drug laws doesn't seem to increase public safety (I welcome data one way or the other, but my understanding is it actually is a significant contributor to decreasing public safety), maybe we should be honest with ourselves about human behavior and write our laws to actually cater to that. If humans reject self-driving cars, making laws protecting them isn't going to make people accept them. Make the self-driving cars actually acceptable to humans and then you don't even have a problem you try to solve with regulation.
- jfoster 7y ago
  Wouldn't it depend on the type of accident? From what I understand the most common case is that an autonomous vehicle will not proceed when a human thought it would (eg. at an intersection), resulting in the human hitting the back of the autonomous vehicle at low speed. That type of accident is preventable through patience and not very severe. It seems fine to me to have more of those if it results in any decrease in more severe accidents.
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    It was a hypothetical - it has nothing to do with the data because nobody is sharing the data. You can reinterpret it to mean "more dangerous" or however you like. The main point is culpability is irrelevant if the goal is safety.
malandrew 7y ago
Plus the SDC has cameras and sensors to capture other drivers being reckless and that data can be used as evidence to prosecute those drivers.
lunias 7y ago
IMO it is less desirable to be a person who incites rage as compared to a person who becomes occasionally enraged. Driving is strange in that there are upper bounds, but rarely lower bounds. i.e. a minimum speed is a rarity (and even more rarely enforced). If I made the rules then we would have speed targets (not limits) and people would be penalized for driving outside of a +/- 10% range. After all, it's not speed itself that kills. It's a large and sudden speed delta. Ideally, the speed targets would also be variable and data driven.
- danmaz74 7y ago
  The higher the speed, the higher the speed delta will the road and all stationary objects.
  - lunias 7y ago
    That's true, but I'm not advocating ludicrous speeds. I feel like people rarely crash into stationary objects when they're traveling on a highway and are more likely to rear-end someone entering their lane traveling significantly slower than the flow of traffic (or swerve around them and accidentally hit someone else). Increasing the flow rate should in theory also cut down on the amount of traffic on the road at point in time; making crashing into others less likely by default. Also, crash your car off the road or into walls all you want. Just don't crash into someone else please.
skywhopper 7y ago
Stopping suddenly for no good reason is also reckless behavior. Issuing a bunch of citations is not a remotely reasonable solution. These cars are clearly not ready to be tested in a place like San Francisco.
jakeogh 7y ago
This "humans are the bugs" thing is indicative of the disconnect between reality and the pre-programmed car proponents. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20462051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20462051

by ebg13 7y ago

johnbrodie 7y ago

There's more to it than that. Traffic is as safe as it is (I won't call it flat-out "safe"), in no small part because people can anticipate other drivers. A _predictable_ driver is a safe driver. Having self-driving cars randomly stop short is a quick way to rack up a lot of "not legally at fault", but perhaps morally at-fault, accidents. FWIW, if you've ever done car/bike track days, this is a huge reason why it's so safe. People are split into groups according to skill level, with restrictions on passing (normally "only on the straights") for the lower groups. Much of the "skill level" here is actually just being predictable, not being outright fast. Someone can be in a Miata getting passed with a 50mph speed differential on a straight _because everyone is being predictable_. That same Miata might pass the same car with a huge speed differential at 90 mph in a turn, and it works because everyone is predictable.

rhino369 7y ago
>Having self-driving cars randomly stop short is a quick way to rack up a lot of "not legally at fault", but perhaps morally at-fault, accidents. And I'm pretty sure, in most jurisdictions, slamming on the breaks unexpectedly and for no good reason, will get you at least a portion of the liability for an accident. The person who rear-ends you will get some too, but its not always true that you can't be at fault when you get rear-ended. As you imply, no safety system should rely on others doing their job perfectly. That is an inherently unsafe system.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  If there was an accident and the cops ask you "why did you break suddenly?" and you say something reasonable that's not "to commit insurance fraud" you probably won't be at fault. It's the responsibility of the person behind you to keep a safe following distance.
  - karthikb 7y ago
    I have had the "pleasure" of driving alongside and behind Cruise's vehicles on many occasions here in San Francisco. They will stop dramatically in the middle of a block (empty, no traffic, no pedestrians), edge forward, dramatically stop again, go halfway through the intersection and again...dramatically stop. It feels to me like whoever has written their braking algorithm is using bang bang control.
  - rhino369 7y ago
    Sure, but that an issue of evidence. Google, Uber, Tesla, etc. have source code, records, emails, reports, etc. that can potentially prove their cars just break because they aren't good enough drivers. And they have deep enough pockets that lawyers will go after them. 1000% sure Google will end up writing a check if someone dies because they rear-ended a google car that suddenly hit the breaks.

amirhirsch 7y ago

Your proposed solution is obviously untenable. The danger I’m describing is that not all cars are self-driving and the way human drivers react to these cars dramatically increases the danger around these cars. Drivers in SF may already know what to expect, but in every new city they roll out in, the human drivers will react rashly to these cars as they are frustrated with the unpredictable, inhuman, and incommunicable (no eye contact or hand waving) decisions they make.

ebg13 7y ago
> human drivers...dramatically increases the danger I know you're putting a gradual transition into context, but I see you say this ^, and my reaction is to suggest that we take human drivers off the road who recklessly endanger others instead of giving them a pass with the vehicular equivalent of "boys will be boys".
- amirhirsch 7y ago
  I am so down for a car-less city
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Having traffic be predictable is far more important than the specific rules it follows. Human driven traffic follows rules, including a massive context specific set of rules about when it is reasonable to break the written rules. Drivers that adhere to the letter of the laws and totally disregarding the unwritten rules make terrible drivers because they do not follow the full set of rules that the majority of human drivers follow. All current autonomous cars drive like this. A small but infuriating subset of human drivers behave like this too. Generally it's expected that you pass these obstructions when possible and safe enough to do so (legal or not, though what's safe is usually legal too). What people consider safe varies somewhat between people. Anyone will pass a tractor on a country two lane. Only the most bold will pass a Cruise in traffic. Of course there's a danger zone around it. The current system is designed for humans and if we're ever going to automate it the autonomous cars need to be able to coexist with the human cars without causing problems. Boys will be boys isn't an excuse because it doesn't need to be. One of the engineering requirements is to get along with the boys.

MegaButts 7y ago

I agree with you that people should be ticketed for reckless driving, but I believe you're missing the point. If adding these cars to the road causes more accidents, regardless of who is at fault, they are making the roads more dangerous. Just like enforcing drug laws doesn't seem to increase public safety (I welcome data one way or the other, but my understanding is it actually is a significant contributor to decreasing public safety), maybe we should be honest with ourselves about human behavior and write our laws to actually cater to that. If humans reject self-driving cars, making laws protecting them isn't going to make people accept them. Make the self-driving cars actually acceptable to humans and then you don't even have a problem you try to solve with regulation.

jfoster 7y ago
Wouldn't it depend on the type of accident? From what I understand the most common case is that an autonomous vehicle will not proceed when a human thought it would (eg. at an intersection), resulting in the human hitting the back of the autonomous vehicle at low speed. That type of accident is preventable through patience and not very severe. It seems fine to me to have more of those if it results in any decrease in more severe accidents.
- MegaButts 7y ago
  It was a hypothetical - it has nothing to do with the data because nobody is sharing the data. You can reinterpret it to mean "more dangerous" or however you like. The main point is culpability is irrelevant if the goal is safety.

malandrew 7y ago

Plus the SDC has cameras and sensors to capture other drivers being reckless and that data can be used as evidence to prosecute those drivers.

lunias 7y ago

IMO it is less desirable to be a person who incites rage as compared to a person who becomes occasionally enraged. Driving is strange in that there are upper bounds, but rarely lower bounds. i.e. a minimum speed is a rarity (and even more rarely enforced). If I made the rules then we would have speed targets (not limits) and people would be penalized for driving outside of a +/- 10% range. After all, it's not speed itself that kills. It's a large and sudden speed delta. Ideally, the speed targets would also be variable and data driven.

danmaz74 7y ago
The higher the speed, the higher the speed delta will the road and all stationary objects.
- lunias 7y ago
  That's true, but I'm not advocating ludicrous speeds. I feel like people rarely crash into stationary objects when they're traveling on a highway and are more likely to rear-end someone entering their lane traveling significantly slower than the flow of traffic (or swerve around them and accidentally hit someone else). Increasing the flow rate should in theory also cut down on the amount of traffic on the road at point in time; making crashing into others less likely by default. Also, crash your car off the road or into walls all you want. Just don't crash into someone else please.

skywhopper 7y ago

Stopping suddenly for no good reason is also reckless behavior. Issuing a bunch of citations is not a remotely reasonable solution. These cars are clearly not ready to be tested in a place like San Francisco.

jakeogh 7y ago

This "humans are the bugs" thing is indicative of the disconnect between reality and the pre-programmed car proponents. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20462051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20462051