7 ms·

That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving habits.

by trgn 5y ago

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Human drivers respond to incentives. Lax policing, lax drivers. Strong policing, speed traps, and bigger fines result in people driving better. It's not that people can't drive, it's just that they don't care to drive well, but they will drive well if the enforcement is frequent and heavy enough.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Driving is all about risk management. Erring towards 100% cautious at all times isn't always better, it needs to be a balance between controlling the risk of accidents with the costs: time taken for individual drivers, general congestion of roads, even things like fuel consumption. Risks vary according to weather conditions, traffic levels, times of day, etc etc. A prescriptive approach (e.g. always drive at X speed) isn't usually optimal.
  - trgn 5y ago
    > the risk of accidents with the costs are you joking? The risk of driving is injuries and death, primarily born by those _not_ in a car. How somebody weighs this with speeding or rolling stops, or any other form of acting like a careless driver is beyond me. Most importantly, safe driving is good form. Speeding is trashy.
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      It's always safest to not drive at all, or never leave the house. On the other hand, exceeding the speed limit when driving through the desert doesn't endanger pedestrians to any significant degree (how many zeroes is sufficient?)
      - Xylakant 5y ago
        How many miles are driven through the literal desert compared to where people are around? If anything, the speed limit in the desert could be adapted to local conditions, but not base the default rules on that exception.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  Why are they called "speed traps"? If you're driving over the speed limit and get a citation, it isn't a trap. This isn't like a sting operation for vehicle theft with a car left parked and running with keys in the ignition. There are some states where it was found illegal to have someone slow down too fast, i.e. you can't have a 70 mph zone followed by a 30 mph zone. That would in fact constitute a speed trap of kinds, since no one can safely slow down 50 mph in an instant. The practical effect of this is 3 or 4 series of signs spaced exactly 100 ft or so, each one lowering the speed limit no more than 15 mph. It's the equivalent of a 'braking zone' on a race track, but on the street.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    I'm a little incorrect in my use of "speed trap," my apologies. I meant where the police are hanging out out-of-view and ready to spring on anyone speeding or doing other obvious violations, not sudden speed transitions which are mainly used as a revenue stream.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Is a trap because its below the natural speed of the road. My city for example lowered the speed to 25mph by roads are designed for 35-45 mph so naturally traffic flows at that spees
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  How are you defining better? Because personally I find taking rolling stops when it won't cause any harm is better than always stopping, even if it's not legal.
  - orwin 5y ago
    I think that if your country have signs for rolling stops (a yield sign basically), and chose not to put one at this very intersection (even if its a new road that had not seen much usage yet), you should do a full stop, even with a car doing a full stop in front of you. In some countries, it's not clear if you don't read the local language(Morocco, i'm looking at you!), but if the inverted red triangle exist, just do full stop.
ses1984 5y ago
How many times do human drivers need to actually stop at stop signs? Probably hundreds of millions of stop signs are rolled per day. How much more carbon is released, if all of those vehicles actually came to a complete stop?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Now consider how many people have died or been permanently injured from rolling stops. An extremely common mistake is a failed right-turn on red where the driver doesn't stop and rolls over a pedestrian in the crosswalk. And how many drivers will live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. Who cares how much carbon it saves when people get horrific injuries from it? If you want to save the planet, build intersections designed for rolling like roundabouts, crosswalks with signaling, and yield signs.
  - ses1984 5y ago
    How many people have died or been permanently injured from rolling stops? There are loads of stop signs at intersections where pedestrians would rarely if ever cross, maybe it would be possible to differentiate those intersections from crosswalks.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  Change 4-way stop signs for roundaubouts like most of the world. Not only does that increase throughput by allowing to yield they also increase safety by forcing a curve and avoiding frontal crashes. (Also, pedestrian crossings should and are normally set back a bit from the intersection, given some traffic calming like level crossings and a median island and have better visibility overall) "Roundabout vs. 4-way stop, which one is superior?" - Interesting Engineering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkrYdlMCsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkrYdlMCsg
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    You can't just replace every 4-way stop to a roundabout, and the "rest of the world" doesn't do so either. The vast majority of the roundabout would have to cut across residential property.
lariati 5y ago
Robots have to follow the letter of the law. This is so obvious I don't even know how it can be debated.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  In the immediate, of course you are correct. In the longer term - I suspect we will develop two different sets of laws as we understand what things robots do well and what things they do not. For example: I suspect that robots might be allowed to drive slightly faster on highways because they are better at maintaining the proper following distance, but always drive at the lowest speed limit for roads with variable conditions because they struggle to evaluate the environment.
- bdamm 5y ago
  It is neither obvious, nor possible. There are zero real world drivers that actually follow all the laws. Do you think that people are just all bad? Or is there maybe a higher level principle at play here?
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    Most drivers are absolutely terrible. Self-driving cars should not be mimicking them.
    - bdamm 5y ago
      Self-driving cars should be mimicking only the "best" drivers. If you qualify "best" as something like "lowest lateral g-forces on passengers" then you end up with a very comfortable drive that absolutely breaks laws all over the place and is also safe. So... which would you rather have? A driver that is a delight to experience and does not cause you anxiety, or a driver that strictly follows all laws to the letter but drives like a robot and kind of throws you around?
depaya 5y ago
When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign and I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes, people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles. Perhaps a better example is stop lines at intersections; sometimes stop lines are so poorly painted that you cannot see any oncoming traffic unless you pull forward another 5-6 feet. The letter of the law says you still must completely stop at the stop line, pull forward and completely stop again, then continue. Does anybody actually do that?
- globular-toast 5y ago
  > Why bother? Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly kills people.
  - notch656a 5y ago
    The law is just a tool. It routinely does not permit the optimal choice for neither yourself nor society as a whole. Like other tools, sometimes the best choice is to ignore it. ---------- >The comment you are replying to said nothing about the law. >> Why bother? >Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly kills people. The context of the quote by globular-toast is from this paragraph: >When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign and I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes, people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles. There's no doubt there was reference to law.
    - b3morales 5y ago
      The comment you are replying to said nothing about the law.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving habits. One of those things will get better as technology advances and more R&D is done on it, the other thing will not and hasn't for a very long time. Unless I misunderstood your comment and you are actually referring to some form of transhumanity?

That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving habits.

by trgn 5y ago

That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving habits.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Human drivers respond to incentives. Lax policing, lax drivers. Strong policing, speed traps, and bigger fines result in people driving better. It's not that people can't drive, it's just that they don't care to drive well, but they will drive well if the enforcement is frequent and heavy enough.

HPsquared 5y ago
Driving is all about risk management. Erring towards 100% cautious at all times isn't always better, it needs to be a balance between controlling the risk of accidents with the costs: time taken for individual drivers, general congestion of roads, even things like fuel consumption. Risks vary according to weather conditions, traffic levels, times of day, etc etc. A prescriptive approach (e.g. always drive at X speed) isn't usually optimal.
- trgn 5y ago
  > the risk of accidents with the costs are you joking? The risk of driving is injuries and death, primarily born by those _not_ in a car. How somebody weighs this with speeding or rolling stops, or any other form of acting like a careless driver is beyond me. Most importantly, safe driving is good form. Speeding is trashy.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    It's always safest to not drive at all, or never leave the house. On the other hand, exceeding the speed limit when driving through the desert doesn't endanger pedestrians to any significant degree (how many zeroes is sufficient?)
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      How many miles are driven through the literal desert compared to where people are around? If anything, the speed limit in the desert could be adapted to local conditions, but not base the default rules on that exception.
sidewndr46 5y ago
Why are they called "speed traps"? If you're driving over the speed limit and get a citation, it isn't a trap. This isn't like a sting operation for vehicle theft with a car left parked and running with keys in the ignition. There are some states where it was found illegal to have someone slow down too fast, i.e. you can't have a 70 mph zone followed by a 30 mph zone. That would in fact constitute a speed trap of kinds, since no one can safely slow down 50 mph in an instant. The practical effect of this is 3 or 4 series of signs spaced exactly 100 ft or so, each one lowering the speed limit no more than 15 mph. It's the equivalent of a 'braking zone' on a race track, but on the street.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I'm a little incorrect in my use of "speed trap," my apologies. I meant where the police are hanging out out-of-view and ready to spring on anyone speeding or doing other obvious violations, not sudden speed transitions which are mainly used as a revenue stream.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Is a trap because its below the natural speed of the road. My city for example lowered the speed to 25mph by roads are designed for 35-45 mph so naturally traffic flows at that spees
colinmhayes 5y ago
How are you defining better? Because personally I find taking rolling stops when it won't cause any harm is better than always stopping, even if it's not legal.
- orwin 5y ago
  I think that if your country have signs for rolling stops (a yield sign basically), and chose not to put one at this very intersection (even if its a new road that had not seen much usage yet), you should do a full stop, even with a car doing a full stop in front of you. In some countries, it's not clear if you don't read the local language(Morocco, i'm looking at you!), but if the inverted red triangle exist, just do full stop.

ses1984 5y ago

How many times do human drivers need to actually stop at stop signs? Probably hundreds of millions of stop signs are rolled per day. How much more carbon is released, if all of those vehicles actually came to a complete stop?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Now consider how many people have died or been permanently injured from rolling stops. An extremely common mistake is a failed right-turn on red where the driver doesn't stop and rolls over a pedestrian in the crosswalk. And how many drivers will live with the guilt for the rest of their lives. Who cares how much carbon it saves when people get horrific injuries from it? If you want to save the planet, build intersections designed for rolling like roundabouts, crosswalks with signaling, and yield signs.
- ses1984 5y ago
  How many people have died or been permanently injured from rolling stops? There are loads of stop signs at intersections where pedestrians would rarely if ever cross, maybe it would be possible to differentiate those intersections from crosswalks.
fabianhjr 5y ago
Change 4-way stop signs for roundaubouts like most of the world. Not only does that increase throughput by allowing to yield they also increase safety by forcing a curve and avoiding frontal crashes. (Also, pedestrian crossings should and are normally set back a bit from the intersection, given some traffic calming like level crossings and a median island and have better visibility overall) "Roundabout vs. 4-way stop, which one is superior?" - Interesting Engineering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkrYdlMCsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkrYdlMCsg
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  You can't just replace every 4-way stop to a roundabout, and the "rest of the world" doesn't do so either. The vast majority of the roundabout would have to cut across residential property.

lariati 5y ago

Robots have to follow the letter of the law. This is so obvious I don't even know how it can be debated.

aeturnum 5y ago
In the immediate, of course you are correct. In the longer term - I suspect we will develop two different sets of laws as we understand what things robots do well and what things they do not. For example: I suspect that robots might be allowed to drive slightly faster on highways because they are better at maintaining the proper following distance, but always drive at the lowest speed limit for roads with variable conditions because they struggle to evaluate the environment.
bdamm 5y ago
It is neither obvious, nor possible. There are zero real world drivers that actually follow all the laws. Do you think that people are just all bad? Or is there maybe a higher level principle at play here?
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  Most drivers are absolutely terrible. Self-driving cars should not be mimicking them.
  - bdamm 5y ago
    Self-driving cars should be mimicking only the "best" drivers. If you qualify "best" as something like "lowest lateral g-forces on passengers" then you end up with a very comfortable drive that absolutely breaks laws all over the place and is also safe. So... which would you rather have? A driver that is a delight to experience and does not cause you anxiety, or a driver that strictly follows all laws to the letter but drives like a robot and kind of throws you around?

depaya 5y ago

When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign and I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes, people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles. Perhaps a better example is stop lines at intersections; sometimes stop lines are so poorly painted that you cannot see any oncoming traffic unless you pull forward another 5-6 feet. The letter of the law says you still must completely stop at the stop line, pull forward and completely stop again, then continue. Does anybody actually do that?

globular-toast 5y ago
> Why bother? Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly kills people.
- notch656a 5y ago
  The law is just a tool. It routinely does not permit the optimal choice for neither yourself nor society as a whole. Like other tools, sometimes the best choice is to ignore it. ---------- >The comment you are replying to said nothing about the law. >> Why bother? >Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly kills people. The context of the quote by globular-toast is from this paragraph: >When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign and I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes, people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles. There's no doubt there was reference to law.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    The comment you are replying to said nothing about the law.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving habits. One of those things will get better as technology advances and more R&D is done on it, the other thing will not and hasn't for a very long time. Unless I misunderstood your comment and you are actually referring to some form of transhumanity?