5 ms·
> There were 3,723 deaths in California in 2020. The lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle crash for a person born in 2019 were 1 in 107. These odds suck. I
by quadrifoliate 5y ago
> There were 3,723 deaths in California in 2020. The lifetime odds of dying in a motor-vehicle crash for a person born in 2019 were 1 in 107. These odds suck. Is that really acceptable? Can we do better? We know we can. If we can reduce that number we should.
This is the crux of the argument. However, it falls flat when you consider that many other simple "can reduce that number" measures have not been adopted – like fitting speed governors to cars limiting them to some speed limit, putting tracking beacons in cars to making them automatically stop at red lights, or putting in devices in cars to limit drunk driving.
I don't see a reason why a much more complicated technology should leapfrog these simpler ones and be put into production so quickly, potentially risking innocent lives in the process. In fact, I believe the reason why it is being rushed so quickly is arguments like yours coupled with a low understanding of the technology involved. People are viscerally more willing to accept the idea that an "artificial intelligence" is going to drive the car, rather than the idea that their car is a multi-ton hunk of metal that needs to be limited and monitored carefully.
> I honestly think the biggest issue is probably the legal a s regulatory overhead of responding to the technology rather than the technology itself, but since it’s so hard to quantify I don’t often bring this up. But the biggest passion I have seen if from those same engineering minds, who truly understand the complexity, but also want to see it happen. Their timeframes are just long. I’ve heard 2045 and 2050.
Those timeframes seem normal to me. Rollout dates should not be decided by the whims of corporate shareholders. Let's put simple speed limiters on cars first, everyone can understand that technology – and see how that goes!
- augstein 5y agoThis is too simplistic thinking. For example a basic speed limiter can be very dangerous when overtaking slower cars, where it might be dangerous in some situations to not be able to go above the speed limit for a short moment.
- Xylakant 5y agoIf there’s no way to safely overtake a slower car without breaking the speed limit, then just don’t. A self driving car shouldn’t decide to do that either. Also, a speed limiter could easily be designed to allow exceeding the speed limit for a short moment.
- ModernMech 5y agoIdeally true, but not true in practice. When you're on the open road and the speed limit is 55mph, but everyone is going 80mph+, then anyone going the speed limit is a hazard. The speed limit is just an abstract notion at that point. Sure you may be violating the law, but I'm more worried about laws of physics at that velocity. You'll have people passing you on the left and behind you at +30mph. The cars behind you in your lane will form a queue of waiting to pass you, and they'll be getting into the right lane needing to accelerate from 55mph to 80mph (hard for a lot of cars). This is going to cause the cars in the fast lane to brake, which will cascade through the lane and cause a traffic slowdown. If someone isn't paying attention, it's going to result in a rear end collision and an hours-long traffic jam for hundreds of people. This is one of my worries with self driving cars: They'll follow the letter of the law even when it's not practically safe.
- tsimionescu 5y agoWhich is exactly why they are proposing to install speed limiters in all cars, which would address the first part of your argument.
- satronaut 5y agowhat are the logistics for this? There were 263.6 million cars in the US in 2015 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_Unit...), so I'm sure there's even more today. I could see having manufacturers install speed governers in new cars, but how would you coordinate installing in all the "old" cars? There'd be a period (probably years) where some, but not all cars don't have that limitation.
- iso1210 5y ago> When you're on the open road and the speed limit is 55mph, but everyone is going 80mph+, then anyone going the speed limit is a hazard Surely it's the ones doing 80mph that are the hazzard
- quadrifoliate 5y agoSee? You can visualize flaws with these kind of simple systems fairly quickly, don't you think similar ones exist in the purportedly "self-driving" cars? There are literally millions of situations where a Tesla might do the wrong thing, and some of them have been caught on camera. If we can't put speed limiters on cars, we definitely shouldn't be putting highly complicated computers in charge with no humans at the wheel.
- shkkmo 5y ago> If we can't put speed limiters on cars, we definitely shouldn't be putting highly complicated computers in charge with no humans at the wheel. This argument makes no sense. How do obvious edgecases invalidating a simple solution have any bearing on the feasibility of a complex solution being able to handle as many edgecases as a human driver?
- jazzyjackson 5y agoI think the point is more of a bikeshedding problem: people are more willing to accept “AI” because they are not knowledgeable enough to come up with a counter-example, whereas given a simple automation like “don’t go above the speed limit” any joe on the street can think of why that’s a problem. But AI is not magic, its just more rules.
- jacquesm 5y agoTrucks have been running with governors for decades. That has reduced truck accidents, not increased them. It makes for some idiotic overtaking behavior every now and then (when one truck that goes 89 km/h overtakes a truck that goes 88.5, and it takes forever and then some), but that's a nuisance, not a danger.
- concordDance 5y ago> That has reduced truck accidents, not increased them. How did you determine cause and effect here? There have been a LOT of changes to trucks, roads, signage etc.
- the-dude 5y agoOne of my first cars 'lost' the highest gear (5th) after a couple of years. You adapt and do less takeovers and only when it is absolutely safe.
- nikau 5y agoI'm not sure in what scenario you would use your highest (ie slowest accelerating) gear if wanting to do a fast overtake...
- kalleboo 5y agoMy car has a natural speed limiter (the engine is only 56 hp), and it just means I don't try to do overtaking maneuvers that would be dangerous. If I had a supercar, I would try many more dangerous overtaking maneuvers. Which is safer?
- Closi 5y ago> For example a basic speed limiter can be very dangerous when overtaking slower cars Eh I have a speed limiter I use quite often just to make driving through average speed areas more chill, and it doesn’t stop me pushing the throttle and getting up to full speed if I need to. It’s a bit smarter than “never go over the speed” - if you push the accelerator in a definite way the car will still respond, while if you hold your foot fairly still and only accelerate gently it will cap out at the max.
- stefan_ 5y agoThis is the absolute state of this debate. You can not overtake if doing so requires exceeding the speed limit. The best part is the same ignorant people develop the driverless cars, so we get Google cars that turn right across the bike lane instead of merging into it.
- mikestew 5y agoYou can not overtake if doing so requires exceeding the speed limit. Unless you are driving in the state of WA: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425 https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.425
- namdnay 5y agoBut people want to buy self-driving cars. And nobody wants self—limiting cars. So it’s not really a case of leapfrogging anything It’s not like manufacturers are waiting on the government to let them sell limited cars
- moffkalast 5y agoOr get this, we could walk and never get into a car crash!
- concordDance 5y agoI take it you don't live in an American suburb then?
- namdnay 5y agoI think it was sarcasm
- jazzyjackson 5y agoIt’s baffling to me that robots are allowed to break the speed limit.