17 ms·

Automated accident avoidance covers accidents in stop-and-go traffic jams. My 2012 Volvo already a rudimentary system along these lines that is designed specifi

Automated accident avoidance covers accidents in stop-and-go traffic jams. My 2012 Volvo already a rudimentary system along these lines that is designed specifically for stop-and-go traffic. Other Volvos have tools for detecting drivers losing alertness. Technology for helping to keep cars in their lanes already exists. Technology for stooping cars when pedestrians and bicycles appear in front and/or on the side when making a turn at an intersection already exists. Most of these systems need to get much, much better, but I think it's very reasonable to separate them from the general capability of driving a car autonomously from point A to point B. If we can develop a car to drive autonomously from point A to point B, and if we are granting that this system can also solve the problems you list above, I believe we can also develop most of the safety features that do not involve driving the car autonomously from A to B. I think this is more than a minor point to quibble over, as there are many extremely difficult problems to solve for fully autonomous driving that are unrelated to this kind of safety. For example, autonomous driving involves recognizing when the map is wrong. Despite driving maps being a so-called mature technology, a variety of map programs tell me to turn left on certain streets during prohibited times. There is a road that was closed at one end more than a decade ago, and when summoning a ride-share to an address on that street, we have to always text them not to follow the map directions, because it tries to send the car down the closed road, and today's ride-sharing drivers are terrible navigators and literally get lost. Solving autonomous driving solves problems like those AND safety problems, true. But if we just want to solve the safety problems, we can, and we can solve them faster and sooner by focusing on them.

zaroth 7y ago
Distracted driving is a leading cause of accidents, and if you spend any time driving at all it seems like practically the majority of drivers are distracted. Particularly when driving on AutoPilot, I notice the drivers around me tend to be highly distracted, not only that but the bottom quintile of drivers are actually quite horrible at driving in practice. Functional automation brings stability and predictability to driving patterns which will eliminate more accidents than purely emergency response systems do. The human element is responsible for $877 billion in damages, pain, suffering, and lost wages per year according to the NHTSA. I believe it's a moral imperative to massively reduce that number. Emergency response technology works in a small percentage of cases to reduce the severity of an impact. It often does not even avoid an impact rather than just reducing the severity of one, and the systems on the market are particularly bad at avoiding pedestrians. While all that is true, these systems are also very good at annoying drivers with false positives to the point where a plurality of drivers want to switch them off. Aside from removing distracted and poor human operators from the equation, another reason that self-driving can obtain a lower accident rate than emergency response systems is that the self-driving system will have (1) awareness of the environment, (2) keeps the car within a safety envelope at all times, (3) is in full control of inputs, and (4) has a set destination point in mind, so it knows where it is trying to go. The emergency system may have (1) awareness of the environment, but is lacking (2) - (4). This puts it at a strict disadvantage to full self-driving. For example, just take the simple situation of approaching a stopped car 500ft ahead at 25mph. The road is currently one lane but expanding to 2, the stopped car is turning left in the left-turn lane. When does the AEB apply the brakes? The answer must always be "at the last possible second," because the system doesn't know where the driver is headed and is not supposed to intervene during normal driving. An autopilot knows if is planning to stay right and proceed through the light, or if it's going to come to a stop behind the lead car in order to turn left. It can set an appropriate speed at all times based on not only the environment, but the desired path ahead. It is planning and strategizing, instead of merely reacting (and not at the last possible second either). A functional AutoPilot comes to a full stop at a stop sign, every time. It always signals before merging. It knows how to zipper merge. It doesn't get on it's cell phone on the highway, or fall asleep at the wheel. Personally I think FSD should be able to prevent an order of magnitude more accidents than a purely emergency response system. In practice, of course, we do both.

zaroth 7y ago

Distracted driving is a leading cause of accidents, and if you spend any time driving at all it seems like practically the majority of drivers are distracted. Particularly when driving on AutoPilot, I notice the drivers around me tend to be highly distracted, not only that but the bottom quintile of drivers are actually quite horrible at driving in practice. Functional automation brings stability and predictability to driving patterns which will eliminate more accidents than purely emergency response systems do. The human element is responsible for $877 billion in damages, pain, suffering, and lost wages per year according to the NHTSA. I believe it's a moral imperative to massively reduce that number. Emergency response technology works in a small percentage of cases to reduce the severity of an impact. It often does not even avoid an impact rather than just reducing the severity of one, and the systems on the market are particularly bad at avoiding pedestrians. While all that is true, these systems are also very good at annoying drivers with false positives to the point where a plurality of drivers want to switch them off. Aside from removing distracted and poor human operators from the equation, another reason that self-driving can obtain a lower accident rate than emergency response systems is that the self-driving system will have (1) awareness of the environment, (2) keeps the car within a safety envelope at all times, (3) is in full control of inputs, and (4) has a set destination point in mind, so it knows where it is trying to go. The emergency system may have (1) awareness of the environment, but is lacking (2) - (4). This puts it at a strict disadvantage to full self-driving. For example, just take the simple situation of approaching a stopped car 500ft ahead at 25mph. The road is currently one lane but expanding to 2, the stopped car is turning left in the left-turn lane. When does the AEB apply the brakes? The answer must always be "at the last possible second," because the system doesn't know where the driver is headed and is not supposed to intervene during normal driving. An autopilot knows if is planning to stay right and proceed through the light, or if it's going to come to a stop behind the lead car in order to turn left. It can set an appropriate speed at all times based on not only the environment, but the desired path ahead. It is planning and strategizing, instead of merely reacting (and not at the last possible second either). A functional AutoPilot comes to a full stop at a stop sign, every time. It always signals before merging. It knows how to zipper merge. It doesn't get on it's cell phone on the highway, or fall asleep at the wheel. Personally I think FSD should be able to prevent an order of magnitude more accidents than a purely emergency response system. In practice, of course, we do both.