4 ms·
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 dra
by 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 agoI am so down for a car-less city
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoHaving 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.
- kalenx 7y agoWell I do not think the issue is about following the unwritten rules. The issue is for a company to admit "yeah we're willingly programing/training our vehicles to break the law". Sure, it might be actually less dangerous to do so, but I'm not sure their PR department will be happy about it.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoI fully expect you are correct. I'm sure the engineers riding along are well aware how overly conservative they're being.
- princeb 7y agoare the engineers "over-conservative"? or have human drivers become inured to what should have been considered an unacceptable amount of driving risk?
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoWhat's "acceptable risk" is basically a matter of social consensus so anything human drivers (as a group) are ok with is de-facto acceptable. I think the engineers know the software drives un-humanly but they can't change it because driving like a dick within the letter of the law results in far less legal liability than driving like a human and breaking the law.
- ebg13 7y ago> Human driven traffic follows rules This is wishful thinking and clearly false. If it were true, there wouldn't be any at-fault crashes. The only accurate claim you can make is "human traffic sometimes follows rules, and the rules that it sometimes follows change regularly from person to person and moment to moment". That's not a defensible state. Implicit in your mistaken description is a pretense that humans are psychic and that we can predict what other people will do, but we aren't and, despite believing otherwise, we can't. That's why defensive driving is so important.