3 ms·

Most accidents happen at intersections, and you don't know how fast the other car is going. I would consider rolling stop far more "dangerous" in that regard. I

by sgc 5y ago

Most accidents happen at intersections, and you don't know how fast the other car is going. I would consider rolling stop far more "dangerous" in that regard. If I were programming it and laws were not a concern, I would probably look at speed limits on both streets and disallow on higher speed intersections, or those with obstructed vision (data allowing of course).

bryanlarsen 5y ago
That's exactly what Tesla did -- rolling stops were only performed if both streets were 30mph limits or less.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  That's exactly what Tesla did -- said to themselves "the law is not a concern" (to quote GP)
- asdff 5y ago
  This makes the big assumption that the other driver is playing by the rules and respecting the speed limit and also not going to ignore the stop sign (which I see happen more and more lately in socal).
hamburglar 5y ago
There’s nothing magical about a full and complete stop. The reason we do it is to force humans to slow down and give themselves some objective standard for how much time they need to evaluate the conditions of the intersection. And the reason rolling stops are so common is that in many situations, it’s very obvious that the full stop is an unnecessary bit of ceremony. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to say that a competent self driving car should be equally capable of making the necessary safety decisions whether it’s paused for a full stop or not. Given the premise that we are approving computers to make high frequency decisions about multi-ton hunks of metal driving around on our streets, there is simply no way in my mind that the difference between a full stop and a rolling stop for them is actually a safety issue.
- sgc 5y ago
  It's more a question of whether it's a problem for the other driver. But yes, I agree the best thing would be to change the laws. Instead they have gotten even more ceremonious in my area over the last few years. Tesla is taking on a ton of liability even by going 5 mph over the limit. This recall will be used in a court case over another FSD feature for sure.

by sgc 5y ago

bryanlarsen 5y ago

That's exactly what Tesla did -- rolling stops were only performed if both streets were 30mph limits or less.

HWR_14 5y ago
That's exactly what Tesla did -- said to themselves "the law is not a concern" (to quote GP)
asdff 5y ago
This makes the big assumption that the other driver is playing by the rules and respecting the speed limit and also not going to ignore the stop sign (which I see happen more and more lately in socal).

hamburglar 5y ago

There’s nothing magical about a full and complete stop. The reason we do it is to force humans to slow down and give themselves some objective standard for how much time they need to evaluate the conditions of the intersection. And the reason rolling stops are so common is that in many situations, it’s very obvious that the full stop is an unnecessary bit of ceremony. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to say that a competent self driving car should be equally capable of making the necessary safety decisions whether it’s paused for a full stop or not. Given the premise that we are approving computers to make high frequency decisions about multi-ton hunks of metal driving around on our streets, there is simply no way in my mind that the difference between a full stop and a rolling stop for them is actually a safety issue.

sgc 5y ago
It's more a question of whether it's a problem for the other driver. But yes, I agree the best thing would be to change the laws. Instead they have gotten even more ceremonious in my area over the last few years. Tesla is taking on a ton of liability even by going 5 mph over the limit. This recall will be used in a court case over another FSD feature for sure.