3 ms·

>3) Which you're better off hitting if you need to swerve to avoid another car (is it better to hit the fruit stand or the 10 year old boy?) This is a non-issu

>3) Which you're better off hitting if you need to swerve to avoid another car (is it better to hit the fruit stand or the 10 year old boy?) This is a non-issue in practice. Just brake and don't turn the wheel. It's a naive approach and it leaves a lot of accident avoidance potential on the table in most situations but it's what most people do and expect everyone else to do. Trying to do anything else is impossible to justify to the public because everything you have to say about why you shouldn't panic stop for a object in the middle of the freeway when there's an open lane beside you will be drowned out by people telling you you're crash the car if you dare touch that steering wheel in an attempt to not crash.

duckymcduckface 7y ago
In a lot of situations blindly breaking will grt the passenger killed, for example a moose or caribou will go through your windshield if you hit them.
linuxftw 7y ago
You're 100% wrong. Many people, especially big trucks, have swerved off the road to avoid killing people and animals. If you'd ever taken a defensive driving course, you'd know that it's always quicker to steer avoid collision than it is to brake. This takes a supreme amount of context and situational awareness.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >You're 100% wrong. Many people, especially big trucks, have swerved off the road to avoid killing people and animals. If you'd ever taken a defensive driving course, you'd know that it's always quicker to steer avoid collision than it is to brake. You are 100% failing to properly parse my comment. I'm expressly saying that braking with zero regard for the situational details is not ideal but it accomplishes the goals of a self driving car. * be as good or better than humans at not crashing * react to situations in a manner similiar to and predictable by humans * not make any important stakeholders more likely to get sued * actually be implementable with current or near future technology >This takes a supreme amount of context and situational awareness. Which is hard enough to teach to people, let alone an AI.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Err, if a self driving car just breaks in that situation, then it fails all of the above goals: 1) "be as good or better than humans at not crashing" It could still crash because of momentum/distance. It could cause a pile-up. 2) react to situations in a manner similiar to and predictable by humans People would swerve depending on the situation. It's extremely common, and the logical thing to do in many cases. >not make any important stakeholders more likely to get sued Getting sued depends on the effect of your actions. If you kill/hurt your passengers, cause a pile-up, hit the person in front, etc. you will get sued. >actually be implementable with current or near future technology That's irrelevant...
coldtea 7y ago
>This is a non-issue in practice. Just brake and don't turn the wheel. That's really not what a driver would do. Depending on speed, setup, it risks being hit from behind, causing a pile-up, and of course being forced forward (by the car behind you hitting you) and hitting the 10 year old... Not to mention the chances of hurting/killing the passengers of your own car if you just break suddenly, as opposed to swerving...
- fest 7y ago
  The part on choosing to swerve vs brake based on risk being hit from behind does not make sense to me. It reminds something motorcycle riders say after a crash: "I felt that I won't be able to stop in time, so I leaned over the bike". The real reason is: they press the front brake too hard (instinctively), the wheel locks up and without gyroscopic effect the slightest disturbance let's the gravity do it's work. However, admitting the mistake is embarrassing, so a story justifying the action is being told. In the fractions of second needed for the decision, instincts prevail. Some people swerve, some people brake. If there is enough time to evaluate the action- it doesn't matter which choice was made (either the distance is enough to brake or there are no other cars around).

duckymcduckface 7y ago

In a lot of situations blindly breaking will grt the passenger killed, for example a moose or caribou will go through your windshield if you hit them.

linuxftw 7y ago

You're 100% wrong. Many people, especially big trucks, have swerved off the road to avoid killing people and animals. If you'd ever taken a defensive driving course, you'd know that it's always quicker to steer avoid collision than it is to brake. This takes a supreme amount of context and situational awareness.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>You're 100% wrong. Many people, especially big trucks, have swerved off the road to avoid killing people and animals. If you'd ever taken a defensive driving course, you'd know that it's always quicker to steer avoid collision than it is to brake. You are 100% failing to properly parse my comment. I'm expressly saying that braking with zero regard for the situational details is not ideal but it accomplishes the goals of a self driving car. * be as good or better than humans at not crashing * react to situations in a manner similiar to and predictable by humans * not make any important stakeholders more likely to get sued * actually be implementable with current or near future technology >This takes a supreme amount of context and situational awareness. Which is hard enough to teach to people, let alone an AI.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Err, if a self driving car just breaks in that situation, then it fails all of the above goals: 1) "be as good or better than humans at not crashing" It could still crash because of momentum/distance. It could cause a pile-up. 2) react to situations in a manner similiar to and predictable by humans People would swerve depending on the situation. It's extremely common, and the logical thing to do in many cases. >not make any important stakeholders more likely to get sued Getting sued depends on the effect of your actions. If you kill/hurt your passengers, cause a pile-up, hit the person in front, etc. you will get sued. >actually be implementable with current or near future technology That's irrelevant...

coldtea 7y ago

>This is a non-issue in practice. Just brake and don't turn the wheel. That's really not what a driver would do. Depending on speed, setup, it risks being hit from behind, causing a pile-up, and of course being forced forward (by the car behind you hitting you) and hitting the 10 year old... Not to mention the chances of hurting/killing the passengers of your own car if you just break suddenly, as opposed to swerving...

fest 7y ago
The part on choosing to swerve vs brake based on risk being hit from behind does not make sense to me. It reminds something motorcycle riders say after a crash: "I felt that I won't be able to stop in time, so I leaned over the bike". The real reason is: they press the front brake too hard (instinctively), the wheel locks up and without gyroscopic effect the slightest disturbance let's the gravity do it's work. However, admitting the mistake is embarrassing, so a story justifying the action is being told. In the fractions of second needed for the decision, instincts prevail. Some people swerve, some people brake. If there is enough time to evaluate the action- it doesn't matter which choice was made (either the distance is enough to brake or there are no other cars around).