6 ms·

I mean... I am "Tesla Hater" in that I don't like the direction they're proceeding in; but every human being I ever met in real actual life does rolling stops u

I mean... I am "Tesla Hater" in that I don't like the direction they're proceeding in; but every human being I ever met in real actual life does rolling stops under some conditions. Last time I can confidently state that "I never rolled through a stop at very slow speed" is when I was 17, and only NOW do I realize how much of an annoying bum I was :P. So if a car does a rolling stop through a stop sign when there are no other cars obstacles or people, my thought is 1. yes that's a breach of law as written 2. It's what everybody else safely does. Kind of like in many jurisdictions, police will gently talk to you if you drive 60kph on the freeway, or even if you're doing 90kph in the left lane. Yes it's legal, no it isn't safe.

sandworm101 5y ago
It is one thing to note that humans regularly break the law. It is another thing to task people with programing a robot to break that law. I'm very sure that many people break the speed limit regularly. But I would never expect to get away with programing a car to break that limit. No sane person would ever tell an employee or customer that rolling stops are OK, not in writing. And 5.6mph isn't rolling. That's beyond a walking pace. That's jogging territory. Any cop watching an intersection would ticket this.
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  I fully support the noble notions and idealistic ideas. But let's make it real, and let's ask a question about the real world: Does that mean that expectation is all automated cars will go exactly the speed limit on the left lane of North American superhighways? If so, those cars will inherently be a danger to life and limb. I don't care about any self-righteous driver who indicates houghtily "I drive speed limit on left lane of American super highway", I've spoken to advanced driver safety instructors, highway police officers and city councilors who all agree those people need to bloody well move it along - it's just not safe.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    Yes. For a company to program illegality into a product opens them up to untold liability. Normal car companies program their speedometers to read slightly high (5% ish). This keeps them from being into lawsuits by people who claim that an inaccurate speedometer contributed to the severity of a crash. Any car company who programs a car to drive faster than the limit will be either liable or have to pay lawyers in every crash involving such cars. Even if their car doesn't cause the crash, the fact that it was speeding will contribute to the severity of the accident. It would be like programing a robotic bartender to serve kids who are underage but look old enough to pass for 21. Corporate lunacy.
    - sebzim4500 5y ago
      >Yes. For a company to program illegality into a product opens them up to untold liability. People have been saying this for years yet Tesla is not being sued into nonexistence. Presumably their contracts are written well enough that if the user tells the car to go above the speed limit that's on them.
      - sandworm101 5y ago
        Because incidents involving these programs are very small. At the moment there are very few Teslas on the road in comparison to other car companies. There would statistically only be a handful at most of such accidents. But give it a few years until there are 10x or 20x as many teslas on the road. Then the class actions will start. That is if, like here, Tesla hasn't already recalled all such vehicles.
        renewiltord 5y ago
        What are your odds and the amount you'd be willing to bet that this is true? There are sums of money and odds that I would be willing to play this at.
      - frosted-flakes 5y ago
        There's a difference between the driver setting the cruise control above the speed limit, and a computer unilaterally deciding that it should run a stop sign.
- Calavar 5y ago
  > And 5.6mph isn't rolling Most cars idle at 5 to 6 mph, so any roll through a stop sign is likely to break the 5 mph mark. > Any cop watching an intersection would ticket this. Not sure where you live, but this is absolutely not the case where I am. I have only ever once heard of a traffic officer ticketing for this. On the other hand, I see cops watch on as people ignore "no turn on red" signs and let them get away with it pretty much every day. Let alone rolling through an intersection at 5 mph.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Lol, I live in SF. I've seen two cruisers waiting at a red light watch a car go right through it and do nothing. I'm not complaining or anything, but that guy is defo wrong that cops will ticket anyone.
  - jmisavage 5y ago
    I’ve gotten a ticket before for a rolling stop. It happens.
enlyth 5y ago
When I was a kid and we were living in Vancouver, my mum told me how she did a 'rolling stop' through a stop sign at 4am in the morning with empty streets, and a cop car noticed it and gave her a massive fine. She was in tears because my family wasn't earning much money at the time. For some reason I still remember this story decades later and always come to a full stop at stop signs, that's how I was taught in driving school and that's how I will always do it. I'm a calm driver and I don't care if people are annoyed by me, I will drive the speed limit and I will not rush anywhere, it's not my problem that someone else needs to speed because they woke up late, safety should be the number one priority when you're operating a vehicle.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  Sounds like a ticket to fight as the cop working at 4am would have a hard time showing up to court.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    In my area, cops have specific court dates; all their tickets are set to be handled on the same day that's already part of the cop's schedule.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Those are traffic cops working daylight hours who pull over many cars and it makes sense to stack those cases. We have a 4am case with a very high bill. If the officer keeps that shift chances are they are not going to want to show up 9am one day before going back to nights the next.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        The cop working at 4am might be working a schedule like 12am-12pm and have their cases handled at 9am one day a month. Or they switch between night and day shifts, like lots of nurses do. They’ll make it work.
hangonhn 5y ago
I wonder if that might be a function of how roads near you are designed. I live in the Bay Area and there are definitely certain roads and intersections where I don't feel safe not coming to a full stop and looking both ways. It might be because of hills or that the other direction has no stop sign, etc. Maybe where you live roads have better visibility but at least in my experience in my part of the Bay Area, I often find myself needing to be very careful at some stop signs and has consequently been doing complete stops.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  Some people have never seen sidewalks, tall hedges, or kids riding bikes on said sidewalks blocked by said tall hedges, because they don't exist in modern suburbia, particularly in certain climates.
bambax 5y ago
> Yes it's legal IDK about the US, but in France the speed limit is a target speed; if conditions are good (weather, visibility, traffic) you're supposed to drive at or near maximum speed. It's illegal to drive too slow, and there's a specific fine for this. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006842210 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000... [in French]
- pinkorchid 5y ago
  The law that you linked says that drivers aren't allowed to drive at an unreasonably slow speed, and defines that to be (for highways, with good weather, and just on the leftmost lane) 80 km/h. It doesn't say that the speed limit is a target, or that you're supposed to drive at or near it.
  - bambax 5y ago
    Yes, but it's how we're taught at driving school. I think it's written down somewhere but can't find it at the moment, so the article I linked to is the closest I could find.
    - cgriswald 5y ago
      > ...but it's how we're taught at driving school. It doesn't matter. People have all kinds of things they are taught about driving from their parents, instructors, and even official documents that don't carry legal weight (e.g., a highway patrol website). Even when these types of ideas are good ideas, they aren't binding and you can't count on others to follow those rules. The only true rules of the road are the subset of the laws that are enforced; where enforcement might be done by law enforcement officers, civil judges, or insurance company adjudication processes.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  In Australia (I left 15 years ago) it was stated that you were required to drive at the _maximum_ speed that met the conditions: - not exceeding posted speed limit - appropriate for environmental conditions - your ability to safely control the vehicle And failure to do so could be fined.
rtikulit 5y ago
On a public road I almost always come to a full stop, and if I don't I recognize it as an error. That's the law and there are very good reasons for it. It's an unambiguous standard of performance, for example. Arguments for rolling stops based on personal utility are selfish, IMHO, and arguments pleading utility to others are disingenuous--the rolling stoppers say that it's safer to rolling stop because of the rolling stoppers? Please. Think it through. :-) (Part of the reason I do it is because as I age I would like to ingrain habits that will make me a safer driver even as my cognitive ability declines.) Near me there is an intersection where the same cars drive through on a daily basis and where the drivers have habituated themselves to rolling stops. Yes, it's almost always fine. But I have been almost T-boned twice, and was hit once, fortunately with minimal damage. And even though they do not have the right of way, their habit of rolling stops regularly pre-empts the actual rules of the road, and they cut off drivers who have the right of way. That this is due to the normalization of deviance is abundantly obvious.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  - rtikulit 5y ago
    I'm struggling to respond constructively to your comment. Think about all the phenomena that make up "cognitive ability" and all of the possible dimensions and properties of "cognitive decline". It should be obvious that your advice is not in any way useful or actionable. And rituals are a very well accepted strategy for dealing with situations which demand consistent and good attention, where human cognitive variability causes problems. A couple of famous examples--checklists used by aircraft pilots, or the pointing rituals used on Japanese railways.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Safety rituals are extremely useful exactly because accidents happen when you have reduced capacity without realising it. Doesn’t matter if it’s because of lack of sleep, work stress, cognitive decline, etc.
- 5y ago

sandworm101 5y ago

It is one thing to note that humans regularly break the law. It is another thing to task people with programing a robot to break that law. I'm very sure that many people break the speed limit regularly. But I would never expect to get away with programing a car to break that limit. No sane person would ever tell an employee or customer that rolling stops are OK, not in writing. And 5.6mph isn't rolling. That's beyond a walking pace. That's jogging territory. Any cop watching an intersection would ticket this.

NikolaNovak 5y ago
I fully support the noble notions and idealistic ideas. But let's make it real, and let's ask a question about the real world: Does that mean that expectation is all automated cars will go exactly the speed limit on the left lane of North American superhighways? If so, those cars will inherently be a danger to life and limb. I don't care about any self-righteous driver who indicates houghtily "I drive speed limit on left lane of American super highway", I've spoken to advanced driver safety instructors, highway police officers and city councilors who all agree those people need to bloody well move it along - it's just not safe.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Yes. For a company to program illegality into a product opens them up to untold liability. Normal car companies program their speedometers to read slightly high (5% ish). This keeps them from being into lawsuits by people who claim that an inaccurate speedometer contributed to the severity of a crash. Any car company who programs a car to drive faster than the limit will be either liable or have to pay lawyers in every crash involving such cars. Even if their car doesn't cause the crash, the fact that it was speeding will contribute to the severity of the accident. It would be like programing a robotic bartender to serve kids who are underage but look old enough to pass for 21. Corporate lunacy.
  - sebzim4500 5y ago
    >Yes. For a company to program illegality into a product opens them up to untold liability. People have been saying this for years yet Tesla is not being sued into nonexistence. Presumably their contracts are written well enough that if the user tells the car to go above the speed limit that's on them.
    - sandworm101 5y ago
      Because incidents involving these programs are very small. At the moment there are very few Teslas on the road in comparison to other car companies. There would statistically only be a handful at most of such accidents. But give it a few years until there are 10x or 20x as many teslas on the road. Then the class actions will start. That is if, like here, Tesla hasn't already recalled all such vehicles.
      - renewiltord 5y ago
        What are your odds and the amount you'd be willing to bet that this is true? There are sums of money and odds that I would be willing to play this at.
    - frosted-flakes 5y ago
      There's a difference between the driver setting the cruise control above the speed limit, and a computer unilaterally deciding that it should run a stop sign.
Calavar 5y ago
> And 5.6mph isn't rolling Most cars idle at 5 to 6 mph, so any roll through a stop sign is likely to break the 5 mph mark. > Any cop watching an intersection would ticket this. Not sure where you live, but this is absolutely not the case where I am. I have only ever once heard of a traffic officer ticketing for this. On the other hand, I see cops watch on as people ignore "no turn on red" signs and let them get away with it pretty much every day. Let alone rolling through an intersection at 5 mph.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Lol, I live in SF. I've seen two cruisers waiting at a red light watch a car go right through it and do nothing. I'm not complaining or anything, but that guy is defo wrong that cops will ticket anyone.
- jmisavage 5y ago
  I’ve gotten a ticket before for a rolling stop. It happens.

enlyth 5y ago

When I was a kid and we were living in Vancouver, my mum told me how she did a 'rolling stop' through a stop sign at 4am in the morning with empty streets, and a cop car noticed it and gave her a massive fine. She was in tears because my family wasn't earning much money at the time. For some reason I still remember this story decades later and always come to a full stop at stop signs, that's how I was taught in driving school and that's how I will always do it. I'm a calm driver and I don't care if people are annoyed by me, I will drive the speed limit and I will not rush anywhere, it's not my problem that someone else needs to speed because they woke up late, safety should be the number one priority when you're operating a vehicle.

ipaddr 5y ago
Sounds like a ticket to fight as the cop working at 4am would have a hard time showing up to court.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  In my area, cops have specific court dates; all their tickets are set to be handled on the same day that's already part of the cop's schedule.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Those are traffic cops working daylight hours who pull over many cars and it makes sense to stack those cases. We have a 4am case with a very high bill. If the officer keeps that shift chances are they are not going to want to show up 9am one day before going back to nights the next.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The cop working at 4am might be working a schedule like 12am-12pm and have their cases handled at 9am one day a month. Or they switch between night and day shifts, like lots of nurses do. They’ll make it work.

hangonhn 5y ago

I wonder if that might be a function of how roads near you are designed. I live in the Bay Area and there are definitely certain roads and intersections where I don't feel safe not coming to a full stop and looking both ways. It might be because of hills or that the other direction has no stop sign, etc. Maybe where you live roads have better visibility but at least in my experience in my part of the Bay Area, I often find myself needing to be very careful at some stop signs and has consequently been doing complete stops.

erosenbe0 5y ago
Some people have never seen sidewalks, tall hedges, or kids riding bikes on said sidewalks blocked by said tall hedges, because they don't exist in modern suburbia, particularly in certain climates.

bambax 5y ago

> Yes it's legal IDK about the US, but in France the speed limit is a target speed; if conditions are good (weather, visibility, traffic) you're supposed to drive at or near maximum speed. It's illegal to drive too slow, and there's a specific fine for this. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006842210 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000... [in French]

pinkorchid 5y ago
The law that you linked says that drivers aren't allowed to drive at an unreasonably slow speed, and defines that to be (for highways, with good weather, and just on the leftmost lane) 80 km/h. It doesn't say that the speed limit is a target, or that you're supposed to drive at or near it.
- bambax 5y ago
  Yes, but it's how we're taught at driving school. I think it's written down somewhere but can't find it at the moment, so the article I linked to is the closest I could find.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    > ...but it's how we're taught at driving school. It doesn't matter. People have all kinds of things they are taught about driving from their parents, instructors, and even official documents that don't carry legal weight (e.g., a highway patrol website). Even when these types of ideas are good ideas, they aren't binding and you can't count on others to follow those rules. The only true rules of the road are the subset of the laws that are enforced; where enforcement might be done by law enforcement officers, civil judges, or insurance company adjudication processes.
FireBeyond 5y ago
In Australia (I left 15 years ago) it was stated that you were required to drive at the _maximum_ speed that met the conditions: - not exceeding posted speed limit - appropriate for environmental conditions - your ability to safely control the vehicle And failure to do so could be fined.

rtikulit 5y ago

On a public road I almost always come to a full stop, and if I don't I recognize it as an error. That's the law and there are very good reasons for it. It's an unambiguous standard of performance, for example. Arguments for rolling stops based on personal utility are selfish, IMHO, and arguments pleading utility to others are disingenuous--the rolling stoppers say that it's safer to rolling stop because of the rolling stoppers? Please. Think it through. :-) (Part of the reason I do it is because as I age I would like to ingrain habits that will make me a safer driver even as my cognitive ability declines.) Near me there is an intersection where the same cars drive through on a daily basis and where the drivers have habituated themselves to rolling stops. Yes, it's almost always fine. But I have been almost T-boned twice, and was hit once, fortunately with minimal damage. And even though they do not have the right of way, their habit of rolling stops regularly pre-empts the actual rules of the road, and they cut off drivers who have the right of way. That this is due to the normalization of deviance is abundantly obvious.

jacquesm 5y ago
- rtikulit 5y ago
  I'm struggling to respond constructively to your comment. Think about all the phenomena that make up "cognitive ability" and all of the possible dimensions and properties of "cognitive decline". It should be obvious that your advice is not in any way useful or actionable. And rituals are a very well accepted strategy for dealing with situations which demand consistent and good attention, where human cognitive variability causes problems. A couple of famous examples--checklists used by aircraft pilots, or the pointing rituals used on Japanese railways.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Safety rituals are extremely useful exactly because accidents happen when you have reduced capacity without realising it. Doesn’t matter if it’s because of lack of sleep, work stress, cognitive decline, etc.
5y ago