4 ms·

The part about OTA update being a benefit to all - yes I agree. But aggressive autopilot being evil? That's a stretch. Sure human operators need to stop every

The part about OTA update being a benefit to all - yes I agree. But aggressive autopilot being evil? That's a stretch. Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense. But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different. Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way. Computers are different from humans. They drive differently. Insisting they behave the same way, is like insisting drivers have a person on foot proceeding ahead honking a horn and waving a flag (as early localities insisted drivers of the new automobile should have to do) because they might scare the horses.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
Your argument may be valid in 30 years when the automated cars have improved, and more importantly, on roads where human driving has been outlawed. Until then, when a semi-automated car comes to a stop sign, they should stop.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Even if no one is there? I'll send you a horn and flag in the post, for the next drive.
  - cout 5y ago
    Yes, in states where stopping at a stop sign is the norm, come to a stop even when no one is there. This ensures predictability, which is important for both driver and pedestrian safety. If you are in a state like Massachusetts where a rolling stop is the norm, then for the same reason it's best if the car does not come to a complete stop, regardless of whether someone is there, because it makes your vehicle's motion more predictable. Ideally laws in those states should also be adjusted to reflect what people actually do.
    - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
      I disagree. If no one else is at the intersection, rolling stops make no impact on safety. There's no one there to predict anything.
      - cout 5y ago
        It is important to know both that no one else is at the intersection and that no one else is approaching the intersection. Consider a two-way stop where an approaching car is exceeding the legal speed limit (as is the norm everywhere I've driven in the US); would you still argue that a rolling stop makes no (zero) impact on safety?
      - Swenrekcah 5y ago
        The problem is determining whether or not nobody is there.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Genuine question: are there any states where full-stopping at a stop sign is the norm whether or not anyone is there? I've done a whole lot of cross-country driving and I've never been to a place where the norm is coming to a complete stop even if there is traffic present.
      - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
        Well, if no one is there, naturally you won't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop. Now, if a cop saw you do a rolling stop because you thought there was no one there, he could stop you (in KS anyways).
        cout 5y ago
        In my state (SC), the people I personally know who have been ticketed for a rolling stop have typically been the only vehicle at the intersection (sometimes the only vehicle on the entire road). I suspect this is because the infraction is more visible (it's illegal either way afaik).
whoknew1122 5y ago
'Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way.' <-- That's quite a sterile, abstract way to say 'We can change how the computer behaves if the computer causes an accident.' Which is to say if the computer damages property and non-consenting people. Rolling stops are illegal because they're dangerous. If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me, I could very well be paralyzed given the multiple structural issues with my spine. My bodily health is more than an 'issue' which can be coded away. Because Tesla can fix their code, but that code fix isn't going to fix my back.
- DennisP 5y ago
  If the computer malfunctions, it could t-bone you even though it fully stopped first. It's basically anthropomorphizing the computer to say that a full stop makes it safer.
  - cout 5y ago
    Ensuring sufficient reaction time isn't the only reason for a full stop. A full stop is a signal to those around you that you are yielding the right of way. If there is another way to signal (e.g. all other cars are a autonomous vehicles communicating wirelessly and there are no pedestrians) then there is no need for a full stop. In other cases the lack of a clear signal can create confusion as to who has the right of way, leading to a collision.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      > those around you But isn't this discussion about whether rolling stops are okay when nobody else is around you?
      - cout 5y ago
        Is it? I see nothing in parent/grandparent/ancestors of my comment qualifying whether or not other cars are at the intersection at the time of the rolling stop. The original comment that spawned this discussion was "If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops, I don't care what concern it stems from." There is a another thread on which is definitely about whether rolling stop are okay when nobody else is at the intersection (note this is subtly different from whether nobody else is around, especially for a two-way stop instead of a four-way).
mindslight 5y ago
The vast majority of stop signs have plenty of visibility, and could and should have been yield signs instead. Still, as a driver that isn't looking for extra hassles, I need to come to a full stop - despite the time wasted, jostling of my cargo, and needless clutch wear. Self driving vehicles shouldn't be allowed to escape the draconian regulations that we all have to bear, rather the regulations should be reformed for everybody. And this uniformity goes doubly for driving, where being able to understand and predict the actions of other vehicles is paramount.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  That seems strange - a robot should have the same rules as a human? Why-ever would that be? It's a reasonable idea, that we will have more nuanced rules for automation vs human operators.
- cout 5y ago
  I agree, though traffic circles or roundabouts are the standard design pattern for a multi-way intersection without stop signs or traffic lights.
- frumper 5y ago
  I hadn't seen anyone say they should "escape the draconian regulations". Non-Tesla's are perfectly capable of rolling stops. I'm assuming a cop can and will still write tickets for this. Not stopping at a stop sign is on the driver whether it's a Tesla or not.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    The comment I responded to was directly advocating having different laws for self driving cars, or at least I took it that way: > Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense. But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different.
    - frumper 5y ago
walnutclosefarm 5y ago
There is significant added risk. Failure to observe traffic rules by a subset of vehicles means that the drivers - human or otherwise - have to guess the intention and actions of vehicles with less information, and greater uncertainty. A driver rolling through an all-way stop intersection is a threat to other vehicles, as it is not signalling it's intention to abide by the round-robin rule of all-way stops, e.g. And frankly, in the case of Tesla autopilot, the vehicle is not autonomous, and the responsible party for the motion of the vehicle is still the operator, regardless of how much the computers are doing on their behalf. Under these circumstances, correct observation of traffic laws is mandatory.
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  That's ignoring the premise that there's no one else there. Humans do it all the time (rolling stop when alone at an intersection) and civilization hasn't fallen.
8note 5y ago
Fully stopping makes it clear to cars coming from other directions what to do. They're the ones that have to be automated for you to do a rolling stop
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  Um. When the intersection is clear, then there's no point then, right? Because there's nobody else to care. That's the idea.

Swenrekcah 5y ago

Your argument may be valid in 30 years when the automated cars have improved, and more importantly, on roads where human driving has been outlawed. Until then, when a semi-automated car comes to a stop sign, they should stop.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Even if no one is there? I'll send you a horn and flag in the post, for the next drive.
- cout 5y ago
  Yes, in states where stopping at a stop sign is the norm, come to a stop even when no one is there. This ensures predictability, which is important for both driver and pedestrian safety. If you are in a state like Massachusetts where a rolling stop is the norm, then for the same reason it's best if the car does not come to a complete stop, regardless of whether someone is there, because it makes your vehicle's motion more predictable. Ideally laws in those states should also be adjusted to reflect what people actually do.
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    I disagree. If no one else is at the intersection, rolling stops make no impact on safety. There's no one there to predict anything.
    - cout 5y ago
      It is important to know both that no one else is at the intersection and that no one else is approaching the intersection. Consider a two-way stop where an approaching car is exceeding the legal speed limit (as is the norm everywhere I've driven in the US); would you still argue that a rolling stop makes no (zero) impact on safety?
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      The problem is determining whether or not nobody is there.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Genuine question: are there any states where full-stopping at a stop sign is the norm whether or not anyone is there? I've done a whole lot of cross-country driving and I've never been to a place where the norm is coming to a complete stop even if there is traffic present.
    - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
      Well, if no one is there, naturally you won't be ticketed for doing a rolling stop. Now, if a cop saw you do a rolling stop because you thought there was no one there, he could stop you (in KS anyways).
      - cout 5y ago
        In my state (SC), the people I personally know who have been ticketed for a rolling stop have typically been the only vehicle at the intersection (sometimes the only vehicle on the entire road). I suspect this is because the infraction is more visible (it's illegal either way afaik).

whoknew1122 5y ago

'Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way.' <-- That's quite a sterile, abstract way to say 'We can change how the computer behaves if the computer causes an accident.' Which is to say if the computer damages property and non-consenting people. Rolling stops are illegal because they're dangerous. If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me, I could very well be paralyzed given the multiple structural issues with my spine. My bodily health is more than an 'issue' which can be coded away. Because Tesla can fix their code, but that code fix isn't going to fix my back.

DennisP 5y ago
If the computer malfunctions, it could t-bone you even though it fully stopped first. It's basically anthropomorphizing the computer to say that a full stop makes it safer.
- cout 5y ago
  Ensuring sufficient reaction time isn't the only reason for a full stop. A full stop is a signal to those around you that you are yielding the right of way. If there is another way to signal (e.g. all other cars are a autonomous vehicles communicating wirelessly and there are no pedestrians) then there is no need for a full stop. In other cases the lack of a clear signal can create confusion as to who has the right of way, leading to a collision.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > those around you But isn't this discussion about whether rolling stops are okay when nobody else is around you?
    - cout 5y ago
      Is it? I see nothing in parent/grandparent/ancestors of my comment qualifying whether or not other cars are at the intersection at the time of the rolling stop. The original comment that spawned this discussion was "If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops, I don't care what concern it stems from." There is a another thread on which is definitely about whether rolling stop are okay when nobody else is at the intersection (note this is subtly different from whether nobody else is around, especially for a two-way stop instead of a four-way).

mindslight 5y ago

The vast majority of stop signs have plenty of visibility, and could and should have been yield signs instead. Still, as a driver that isn't looking for extra hassles, I need to come to a full stop - despite the time wasted, jostling of my cargo, and needless clutch wear. Self driving vehicles shouldn't be allowed to escape the draconian regulations that we all have to bear, rather the regulations should be reformed for everybody. And this uniformity goes doubly for driving, where being able to understand and predict the actions of other vehicles is paramount.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
That seems strange - a robot should have the same rules as a human? Why-ever would that be? It's a reasonable idea, that we will have more nuanced rules for automation vs human operators.
cout 5y ago
I agree, though traffic circles or roundabouts are the standard design pattern for a multi-way intersection without stop signs or traffic lights.
frumper 5y ago
I hadn't seen anyone say they should "escape the draconian regulations". Non-Tesla's are perfectly capable of rolling stops. I'm assuming a cop can and will still write tickets for this. Not stopping at a stop sign is on the driver whether it's a Tesla or not.
- mindslight 5y ago
  The comment I responded to was directly advocating having different laws for self driving cars, or at least I took it that way: > Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense. But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different.
  - frumper 5y ago

walnutclosefarm 5y ago

There is significant added risk. Failure to observe traffic rules by a subset of vehicles means that the drivers - human or otherwise - have to guess the intention and actions of vehicles with less information, and greater uncertainty. A driver rolling through an all-way stop intersection is a threat to other vehicles, as it is not signalling it's intention to abide by the round-robin rule of all-way stops, e.g. And frankly, in the case of Tesla autopilot, the vehicle is not autonomous, and the responsible party for the motion of the vehicle is still the operator, regardless of how much the computers are doing on their behalf. Under these circumstances, correct observation of traffic laws is mandatory.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
That's ignoring the premise that there's no one else there. Humans do it all the time (rolling stop when alone at an intersection) and civilization hasn't fallen.

8note 5y ago

Fully stopping makes it clear to cars coming from other directions what to do. They're the ones that have to be automated for you to do a rolling stop

JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Um. When the intersection is clear, then there's no point then, right? Because there's nobody else to care. That's the idea.