3 ms·

'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,

'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).
depaya 5y ago
> 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. How are these two statements in any way related? A computer malfunction can cause an automated car to run a stop sign and t-bone you whether or not that car is programmed to slow down to 0mph or 5mph. You're stuck thinking about the way that humans make mistakes, computers can still make mistakes, but they're of a completely different nature. Consider a thought exercise - In your opinion which of these is a better way for an automated car to approach a stop sign? 1) Slow down to 5mph as it approaches the intersection and evaluate if it's safe to continue; if it is the car may continue without coming to a complete stop. The acceleration profile is designed so that the car has 15 seconds total to evaluate the situation before continuing through the intersection. 2) Slow down to a stop at the intersection and immediately continue if it's deemed to be safe. The acceleration profile is designed so that the car has 10 seconds total to evaluate the situation before continuing through the intersection. If we were talking about a human there is certainly an argument that option 2 is safer since human are generally bad at multitasking and requiring a period of time dedicated to looking for hazards is a good idea. However, a computer does not have the same issue and option 1 could be considered safer due to the increased time spent observing for hazards.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
People cause accidents too. If an autodrive car becomes (is already?) safer than a person, should we not revisit the rules? Rolling stops are illegal for a person, because a person suffers from inattentiveness and has slow reactions. The rules for a computer start from a different place, and likely will end up different from the rules for people. Traffic is never going to be completely safe. We accept that now. To hold autodriving to a higher standard is reasonable, but there's a limit. And it should be a rational limit, not just hyperbole. Strawmen like 'I'll be maimed!' are not really helping the conversation.
throwaway894345 5y ago
> If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me, If the computer malfunctions then the software telling it to come to a complete stop at a stop sign isn't going to save your bacon. You're t-boned either way.

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).

depaya 5y ago

> 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. How are these two statements in any way related? A computer malfunction can cause an automated car to run a stop sign and t-bone you whether or not that car is programmed to slow down to 0mph or 5mph. You're stuck thinking about the way that humans make mistakes, computers can still make mistakes, but they're of a completely different nature. Consider a thought exercise - In your opinion which of these is a better way for an automated car to approach a stop sign? 1) Slow down to 5mph as it approaches the intersection and evaluate if it's safe to continue; if it is the car may continue without coming to a complete stop. The acceleration profile is designed so that the car has 15 seconds total to evaluate the situation before continuing through the intersection. 2) Slow down to a stop at the intersection and immediately continue if it's deemed to be safe. The acceleration profile is designed so that the car has 10 seconds total to evaluate the situation before continuing through the intersection. If we were talking about a human there is certainly an argument that option 2 is safer since human are generally bad at multitasking and requiring a period of time dedicated to looking for hazards is a good idea. However, a computer does not have the same issue and option 1 could be considered safer due to the increased time spent observing for hazards.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

People cause accidents too. If an autodrive car becomes (is already?) safer than a person, should we not revisit the rules? Rolling stops are illegal for a person, because a person suffers from inattentiveness and has slow reactions. The rules for a computer start from a different place, and likely will end up different from the rules for people. Traffic is never going to be completely safe. We accept that now. To hold autodriving to a higher standard is reasonable, but there's a limit. And it should be a rational limit, not just hyperbole. Strawmen like 'I'll be maimed!' are not really helping the conversation.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me, If the computer malfunctions then the software telling it to come to a complete stop at a stop sign isn't going to save your bacon. You're t-boned either way.