3 ms·

Only if the people who are concerned could be channeling their concern into solving the problem. Here, I am guessing, not many people can actually solve the pro

by rdtsc 3y ago

Only if the people who are concerned could be channeling their concern into solving the problem. Here, I am guessing, not many people can actually solve the problem, so we can safely be very concerned about both things simultaneously! It would be different if it were the same exact group of people and the same budget who are in charge of plane safety, as those in charge of the car safety. We can then scold them for wasting time on planes and told them to shift focus to cars instead.

1letterunixname 3y ago
Stop making sense! It would be useful if the readily mechanizable aspects of ATC-piloting and driving were done by machine but with human-in-the-loop. The fixations with completely human, manual processes and the leap to full automation are both too risky. There is plenty of middle-ground to derisk and remove points where human-error is mostly likely to occur. TCAS has been an excellent aid. Perhaps an automotive "TCAS" would also be useful.
- toast0 3y ago
  > Perhaps an automotive "TCAS" would also be useful. Forward Collision Warning systems and automatic emergency braking are becoming common in new cars. The problem and solution spaces are pretty different, so I don't think applying TCAS directly would be helpful --- I don't think there's a chance of cars having transponders anytime soon, and certainly deer, cyclists and pedestrians are unlikely to participate in an active transponder system, and there's no opportunity for cars to pull up or sink. At the same time, TCAS does not instruct to reduce or increase horizontal speed.
  - mikrotikker 3y ago
    Automatic emergency braking is fucking horrifying tho... It has false positives and can be dangerous.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Is it more dangerous than people not braking because they are watching something on their phone?
      - mikrotikker 3y ago
        Depends I guess.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I've only been in a car with two people who claim to get a lot of false positives on their AEB system while driving. Every time I saw a "false positive" it was almost always because they were driving very unsafely, trying to weave through heavy traffic at high speeds, approaching cars extremely rapidly and attempting to leave no room. In other words, not really false just not what the highly unsafe driver was wanting. Meanwhile across many thousands of miles and a few different makes of AEB I've never once encountered an actual false positive. Every engagement has been pretty reasonable to me.
      - toast0 3y ago
        My one car with AEB has been pretty good with activations at speed, sometimes activating for a situation which wasn't really needed, but always understandable. The trickiest one is when a car in front is leaving the lane and slowing, but I wouldn't call that a false positive --- it's not stopping out of the blue or for a falling (tree) leaf; it detected the scenario properly, but not the nuance. At parking speeds though, it would regularly emergency brake to save bushy flowers encroaching into the driveway, or one, it tried to save a driveway from being backed into (there was some weird pavement angle).
      - mikrotikker 3y ago
        Nah my feet work and so do my eyes. I have had small accidents in the past and learned from them. I understand for people who don't learn or can't judge speed and need a crutch, but perhaps it's better they don't drive at all.
gretch 3y ago
>It would be different if it were the same exact group of people and the same budget who are in charge of plane safety, as those in charge of the car safety This is exactly the case. In the US we have the Department of Transportation that governs automobile transportation as well as air travel (and also trains and boats).
- rdtsc 3y ago
  But the FAA and the NHTSA are different agencies under that. People who work at FAA can't switch tasks and stop working on plane safety and start working on road safety. With time of course either agency can be funded or defunded but that can be done independently. Just because NHTSA gets more money or resources doesn't automatically mean FAA will get defunded and vice-versa.

by rdtsc 3y ago

1letterunixname 3y ago

Stop making sense! It would be useful if the readily mechanizable aspects of ATC-piloting and driving were done by machine but with human-in-the-loop. The fixations with completely human, manual processes and the leap to full automation are both too risky. There is plenty of middle-ground to derisk and remove points where human-error is mostly likely to occur. TCAS has been an excellent aid. Perhaps an automotive "TCAS" would also be useful.

toast0 3y ago
> Perhaps an automotive "TCAS" would also be useful. Forward Collision Warning systems and automatic emergency braking are becoming common in new cars. The problem and solution spaces are pretty different, so I don't think applying TCAS directly would be helpful --- I don't think there's a chance of cars having transponders anytime soon, and certainly deer, cyclists and pedestrians are unlikely to participate in an active transponder system, and there's no opportunity for cars to pull up or sink. At the same time, TCAS does not instruct to reduce or increase horizontal speed.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  Automatic emergency braking is fucking horrifying tho... It has false positives and can be dangerous.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Is it more dangerous than people not braking because they are watching something on their phone?
    - mikrotikker 3y ago
      Depends I guess.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I've only been in a car with two people who claim to get a lot of false positives on their AEB system while driving. Every time I saw a "false positive" it was almost always because they were driving very unsafely, trying to weave through heavy traffic at high speeds, approaching cars extremely rapidly and attempting to leave no room. In other words, not really false just not what the highly unsafe driver was wanting. Meanwhile across many thousands of miles and a few different makes of AEB I've never once encountered an actual false positive. Every engagement has been pretty reasonable to me.
    - toast0 3y ago
      My one car with AEB has been pretty good with activations at speed, sometimes activating for a situation which wasn't really needed, but always understandable. The trickiest one is when a car in front is leaving the lane and slowing, but I wouldn't call that a false positive --- it's not stopping out of the blue or for a falling (tree) leaf; it detected the scenario properly, but not the nuance. At parking speeds though, it would regularly emergency brake to save bushy flowers encroaching into the driveway, or one, it tried to save a driveway from being backed into (there was some weird pavement angle).
    - mikrotikker 3y ago
      Nah my feet work and so do my eyes. I have had small accidents in the past and learned from them. I understand for people who don't learn or can't judge speed and need a crutch, but perhaps it's better they don't drive at all.

gretch 3y ago

>It would be different if it were the same exact group of people and the same budget who are in charge of plane safety, as those in charge of the car safety This is exactly the case. In the US we have the Department of Transportation that governs automobile transportation as well as air travel (and also trains and boats).

rdtsc 3y ago
But the FAA and the NHTSA are different agencies under that. People who work at FAA can't switch tasks and stop working on plane safety and start working on road safety. With time of course either agency can be funded or defunded but that can be done independently. Just because NHTSA gets more money or resources doesn't automatically mean FAA will get defunded and vice-versa.