3 ms·

> The only way that AEB might conceivably make you less safe is if you pick up bad driving habits because you expect the all-knowing robot to keep you safe. Thi

by ben509 7y ago

> The only way that AEB might conceivably make you less safe is if you pick up bad driving habits because you expect the all-knowing robot to keep you safe. This certainly applies to some people, but that's the person's fault, not the manufacturers fault for rolling out systems that are better than nothing, even if they aren't perfect. When you bring up fault, it implies you view this as a conscious change in behavior. It could be. But many driving habits can't really be conscious decisions as they're judgement calls that one couldn't explain if pressed. If visibility is poor and you decide to drive slower than the speed limit, you are picking a speed that feels right. The way you approach an intersection or a curve with bad line of sight is based on your sensation of the possible risk. It seems impossible to figure out how people respond to a moral hazard individually, but there is a strong enough signal in aggregate that the phenomenon is well known by insurers. If the unconcious factor outweighs the benefits of the system, an AEB is a net negative.

djsumdog 7y ago
There's been evidence for a while that these safety systems do cause drivers to not pay as much attention: https://www.wired.com/2011/07/active-safety-systems-could-create-passive-drivers/ https://www.wired.com/2011/07/active-safety-systems-could-cr... Like this article says, in city traffic that's stop and go, these systems could prevent rear-endings. But it could also make drivers more complaisant and not pay as much attention in situations where these systems don't work as well (higher speeds on freeways or with pedestrian detection).
Dylan16807 7y ago
How much can you unconsciously change your behavior based on a system that has probably never triggered for you on a pedestrian?
- ben509 7y ago
  You heard a salesman explain it to you, or read about it when purchasing the vehicle.
jschwartzi 7y ago
I don't get it. Are you arguing that because the systems quietly encourage habits of mind that the human driver isn't responsible for knowing that these habits exist and correcting them? Because that subtly implies that human drivers shouldn't be at fault for anything the car does. And that's a pretty scary attitude for me considering that I walk and bike on the roads you drive on. There are good rules of thumb for things like approaching intersections(slow down, move foot to brake pedal), and you can use EG the dotted lines of the road to decide whether you're going too fast for conditions. The rule of thumb is that you pick a dot that just enters your field of view, and then count out how many seconds it takes for it to disappear below your hood. If it's less than about 5, you are driving too fast for conditions and should slow down. And the rule of thumb is 3 seconds for a strip appearing from behind the car in front of you for a safe following distance on the highway. It's not nebulous at all.
- ben509 7y ago
  > Are you arguing that ... the human driver isn't responsible ... I'm arguing that "responsibility" and "fault" are appropriate for resolving a legal dispute, but they don't tell you if a system as a whole is more safe or not. > The rule of thumb is that you pick a dot that just enters your field of view... How often do you do this check? And why?

by ben509 7y ago

djsumdog 7y ago

There's been evidence for a while that these safety systems do cause drivers to not pay as much attention: https://www.wired.com/2011/07/active-safety-systems-could-create-passive-drivers/ https://www.wired.com/2011/07/active-safety-systems-could-cr... Like this article says, in city traffic that's stop and go, these systems could prevent rear-endings. But it could also make drivers more complaisant and not pay as much attention in situations where these systems don't work as well (higher speeds on freeways or with pedestrian detection).

Dylan16807 7y ago

How much can you unconsciously change your behavior based on a system that has probably never triggered for you on a pedestrian?

ben509 7y ago
You heard a salesman explain it to you, or read about it when purchasing the vehicle.

jschwartzi 7y ago

I don't get it. Are you arguing that because the systems quietly encourage habits of mind that the human driver isn't responsible for knowing that these habits exist and correcting them? Because that subtly implies that human drivers shouldn't be at fault for anything the car does. And that's a pretty scary attitude for me considering that I walk and bike on the roads you drive on. There are good rules of thumb for things like approaching intersections(slow down, move foot to brake pedal), and you can use EG the dotted lines of the road to decide whether you're going too fast for conditions. The rule of thumb is that you pick a dot that just enters your field of view, and then count out how many seconds it takes for it to disappear below your hood. If it's less than about 5, you are driving too fast for conditions and should slow down. And the rule of thumb is 3 seconds for a strip appearing from behind the car in front of you for a safe following distance on the highway. It's not nebulous at all.

ben509 7y ago
> Are you arguing that ... the human driver isn't responsible ... I'm arguing that "responsibility" and "fault" are appropriate for resolving a legal dispute, but they don't tell you if a system as a whole is more safe or not. > The rule of thumb is that you pick a dot that just enters your field of view... How often do you do this check? And why?