3 ms·

We could legislate around this very irrational/human fear. Personally I’d feel much safer if the roads were primarily filled with drivers that don’t get emotion

by dcow 3y ago

We could legislate around this very irrational/human fear. Personally I’d feel much safer if the roads were primarily filled with drivers that don’t get emotional and are objectively safer. Even if a few accidents confuse me and seem avoidable. I think what your analysis is missing is that most human accidents are also 100% avoidable. Why aren’t we looking at the incredibly dumb things humans do and asking the same hard questions? Why doesn’t it spook us when a human doesn't see a red light and t-bones cross traffic? Or when a multi-car pileup happens because a large pickup truck with a big car complex is tailgating someone at 85 mph and a sudden stop is required?

lotsofpulp 3y ago
It does spook some people, but sufficiently large portions of the population also like to engage in the very things that cause those collisions, such as using their phone or being distracted, driving inebriated, driving fast, tailgating, etc, such that most people feel okay with others being risky, since they are being risky too. Of course, when a collision does happen and damages have to be paid, the injured party will of course start advocating for full liability even if they previously had no issues engaging in the risky driving themselves. Which is why this is not reflected at the polls when voting for a politician who would promise cracking down hard on moving violations, with things like cameras and increased police stops.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  And all because of our over reliance on cars in urban and suburban environments. Mass transit basically eliminates the need for moving violations, traffic citations, parking problems, cameras, and police stops. No more need for stroads, toll booths, etc. Our cities might actually be livable again. Walking and biking wouldn't feel like putting our lives at risk. Fewer parking lots means more stores and other amenities closer to where we live. It's the cars. Autonomous or not, cars are the problem. But just like health care, we keep choosing and voting for the absolute worst option because it's what we're used to and fear-mongers selling us a story about how any change will inevitably lead to a socialist hellscape. Fear: it's a hell of an addictive drug even as we witness our own obvious decline.
  - frumper 3y ago
    America is huge and its people are very spread out. Its cities are sprawling and low density. For what it's worth, I don't actually shop at the supermarket closest to my house that is within walking distance because they don't offer good prices.
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      Yes, there is much work to be done. And it will have to be done to move forward. We've eroded sidewalks and put driveways along major stroads. Parking lots often match or exceed the size of the businesses they serve. We've reached maximum density with car-centric city planning. There are some software decisions that worked well up to a certain point, but simply won't scale reliably to the current level let alone what you need for the foreseeable future. At some point you have to bite the bullet and refactor. Refactoring takes skill, and you need the right folks for the job, but it will get harder and more expensive the longer you wait. It typically doesn't have to be done all at once. Just fix as you go and stop following the older patterns. Have a plan and work toward the goal one step and a time. One commit at a time. One stroad at a time. Folks may believe in the whole "personal freedom" with a car, but how personal or free are you sitting in bumper to bumper traffic? Cars = Liberty is a pernicious lie.
      - frumper 3y ago
        I'm not sure what bullet we have to bite and why. I'd rather the personal freedom to just drive across town and shop. Our sidewalks are great, we have bike lanes, lots of parks. What we don't have here is a lack of space. We're surrounded by miles of farmland, as are all of the other cities near me.
        bluGill 3y ago
        There is only so far as you are willing to drive. In theory I have the freedom to drive to New York city for my shopping, but that is a 17 hour drive (best case, not counting stops!), so I would never do that. Even for cities of normal size, the total distance across means you would not want to make it a regular event to shop on the other side of the city. So if we add transit, and increase density you can find there are more places you within a reasonable range for whatever activity even though you lost the freedom of the car. Of course if your activity isn't shopping - something a city excels at - but instead camping far away from other humans: then a car means freedom. When the activity you want to do is something a city excels then doing it via transit should mean even more ability to do it and thus more freedom. Of course this freedom via transit only works out when there is great transit and high density. Getting there is often difficult.
paxys 3y ago
Here's a sensible way to make that transition – driving is treated as a privilege. If you are a dipshit on the road more than a certain number of times (driving drunk, running red lights, driving recklessly) then that privilege gets taken away, and you have to use an autonomous car. Over time the safety of everyone on the road goes up regardless of what they are driving.
- blitz_skull 3y ago
  That only works in parts of the world where there is a viable alternative to driving. Speaking as someone who has lived most of their life in the rural south US, that’s not a reality for most of the world.
  - dcow 3y ago
    You missed: > and you have to use an autonomous car The idea being you use this hypothetical level 5 autonomous vehicle instead of the ones that let you be a dipshit. Anyway, we already revoke peoples’ licenses for drunk driving and we do it in the areas you’re referring to.
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      See earlier note about the public not accepting autonomous vehicles while they make errors humans consider nonsensical. The actual aggregated stats don't matter. The logic doesn't matter. All that matters is the video of a self-driving car veering off course suddenly and slamming into a school or bumping a pedestrian at high speed on video. It won't matter that no kids got hurt or that the pedestrian survived with minor injuries. It will feel more dangerous and untrustworthy, and that has always been more than enough to kill a promising solution in this country. If we can overcome that and actually follow the numbers instead of our guts, we won't need most of the cars in the first place—autonomous or otherwise—because the numbers say mass transit is the better option on all metrics: economic, environmental, safety, land use, etc. Cars are at best a backfill option.
      - 3y ago
steveBK123 3y ago
The problem is it's not totally irrational to be freaked out by this. Think about the distribution of the error rate. A lot of fatal accidents can be attributed to inexperience, distracted driving, running lights, drugs, alcohol, asleep at the wheel, medical events or extremely aggressive driving. The distribution of unsafe driving is not even. Personally I had 2 accidents in my teens and 0 for the following 20 years. Your typical taxi driver will be fired/fined/reported over time if they drive this way. Further, if you are in a taxi where you notice a driver making you uncomfortable, you can end the ride early (I have). However, imagine a robodriver that is 4x safer, however every single vehicle on the road has the same probability in any instant of invoking the same "no human would make this mistake" driving error fatally. An analogy would be that at any moment, your calm, courteous, focussed spouse behind the wheel suddenly transforms into a 17 year old teen in a Mustang.
- dcow 3y ago
  But I’m 4x safer. I’ll take those odds.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    There's a difference between "I'm 4x safer", and "I'm expected to be 4x safer than the average person is now". The GP is arguing that there is a way to actively become safer than the average person by avoid getting into "dangerous" situations. This may or may not be 4x safer than average though. There's this element of control that is lost when it comes to AI driving. The relevant point to you is, if you already have good driving skills, always drive responsibly, and generally avoid driving in areas/times that have more drunken drivers around, then you might not actually benefit 4x.
    - steveBK123 3y ago
      Yes, this is the point I am making. If you do not engage in risky behavior, and are not distracted, you are likely already 2-4x safer than an average driver. So AI driving may not make your driving better. Next problem is everyone else's driving! It's like an arms race / tragedy of the commons issue as well. Your safe driving doesn't matter if other people are still running lights / driving drunk / etc. In absence of near-perfect AI driving, followed by government mandates to take everyone else off the street.. it doesn't matter. And this is never going to happen.
cyanydeez 3y ago
yes, it'd be very easy: you want a vehicle on the road, name who gets sued for damages and criminal culpability for failure. almost all our tech wants to skirt to legal system.
FranksTV 3y ago
Easy to say if you live somewhere without winter. AI models are a LONG way off from the kind of driving you need in near-whiteout conditions.
- dublinben 3y ago
  Nobody should be driving in near-whiteout conditions, human or AI.
  - dcow 3y ago
    Of course if’s best to avoid dangerous conditions, but you must realize that weather changes fast and a clear road can become very low visibility in the matter of minutes. There are also urgent and emergency situations where it’s rational to take the weather risk and drive much more cautiously than the alternative. Finally the issue is not strictly visibility it’s more the pavement condition. Autonomous drivers can’t “feel” the road the way a human can, at least not yet, so conditions that a human could safely cautiously navigate just aren’t safe for a non-human right now.

by dcow 3y ago

lotsofpulp 3y ago

It does spook some people, but sufficiently large portions of the population also like to engage in the very things that cause those collisions, such as using their phone or being distracted, driving inebriated, driving fast, tailgating, etc, such that most people feel okay with others being risky, since they are being risky too. Of course, when a collision does happen and damages have to be paid, the injured party will of course start advocating for full liability even if they previously had no issues engaging in the risky driving themselves. Which is why this is not reflected at the polls when voting for a politician who would promise cracking down hard on moving violations, with things like cameras and increased police stops.

ttfkam 3y ago
And all because of our over reliance on cars in urban and suburban environments. Mass transit basically eliminates the need for moving violations, traffic citations, parking problems, cameras, and police stops. No more need for stroads, toll booths, etc. Our cities might actually be livable again. Walking and biking wouldn't feel like putting our lives at risk. Fewer parking lots means more stores and other amenities closer to where we live. It's the cars. Autonomous or not, cars are the problem. But just like health care, we keep choosing and voting for the absolute worst option because it's what we're used to and fear-mongers selling us a story about how any change will inevitably lead to a socialist hellscape. Fear: it's a hell of an addictive drug even as we witness our own obvious decline.
- frumper 3y ago
  America is huge and its people are very spread out. Its cities are sprawling and low density. For what it's worth, I don't actually shop at the supermarket closest to my house that is within walking distance because they don't offer good prices.
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    Yes, there is much work to be done. And it will have to be done to move forward. We've eroded sidewalks and put driveways along major stroads. Parking lots often match or exceed the size of the businesses they serve. We've reached maximum density with car-centric city planning. There are some software decisions that worked well up to a certain point, but simply won't scale reliably to the current level let alone what you need for the foreseeable future. At some point you have to bite the bullet and refactor. Refactoring takes skill, and you need the right folks for the job, but it will get harder and more expensive the longer you wait. It typically doesn't have to be done all at once. Just fix as you go and stop following the older patterns. Have a plan and work toward the goal one step and a time. One commit at a time. One stroad at a time. Folks may believe in the whole "personal freedom" with a car, but how personal or free are you sitting in bumper to bumper traffic? Cars = Liberty is a pernicious lie.
    - frumper 3y ago
      I'm not sure what bullet we have to bite and why. I'd rather the personal freedom to just drive across town and shop. Our sidewalks are great, we have bike lanes, lots of parks. What we don't have here is a lack of space. We're surrounded by miles of farmland, as are all of the other cities near me.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        There is only so far as you are willing to drive. In theory I have the freedom to drive to New York city for my shopping, but that is a 17 hour drive (best case, not counting stops!), so I would never do that. Even for cities of normal size, the total distance across means you would not want to make it a regular event to shop on the other side of the city. So if we add transit, and increase density you can find there are more places you within a reasonable range for whatever activity even though you lost the freedom of the car. Of course if your activity isn't shopping - something a city excels at - but instead camping far away from other humans: then a car means freedom. When the activity you want to do is something a city excels then doing it via transit should mean even more ability to do it and thus more freedom. Of course this freedom via transit only works out when there is great transit and high density. Getting there is often difficult.

paxys 3y ago

Here's a sensible way to make that transition – driving is treated as a privilege. If you are a dipshit on the road more than a certain number of times (driving drunk, running red lights, driving recklessly) then that privilege gets taken away, and you have to use an autonomous car. Over time the safety of everyone on the road goes up regardless of what they are driving.

blitz_skull 3y ago
That only works in parts of the world where there is a viable alternative to driving. Speaking as someone who has lived most of their life in the rural south US, that’s not a reality for most of the world.
- dcow 3y ago
  You missed: > and you have to use an autonomous car The idea being you use this hypothetical level 5 autonomous vehicle instead of the ones that let you be a dipshit. Anyway, we already revoke peoples’ licenses for drunk driving and we do it in the areas you’re referring to.
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    See earlier note about the public not accepting autonomous vehicles while they make errors humans consider nonsensical. The actual aggregated stats don't matter. The logic doesn't matter. All that matters is the video of a self-driving car veering off course suddenly and slamming into a school or bumping a pedestrian at high speed on video. It won't matter that no kids got hurt or that the pedestrian survived with minor injuries. It will feel more dangerous and untrustworthy, and that has always been more than enough to kill a promising solution in this country. If we can overcome that and actually follow the numbers instead of our guts, we won't need most of the cars in the first place—autonomous or otherwise—because the numbers say mass transit is the better option on all metrics: economic, environmental, safety, land use, etc. Cars are at best a backfill option.
    - 3y ago

steveBK123 3y ago

The problem is it's not totally irrational to be freaked out by this. Think about the distribution of the error rate. A lot of fatal accidents can be attributed to inexperience, distracted driving, running lights, drugs, alcohol, asleep at the wheel, medical events or extremely aggressive driving. The distribution of unsafe driving is not even. Personally I had 2 accidents in my teens and 0 for the following 20 years. Your typical taxi driver will be fired/fined/reported over time if they drive this way. Further, if you are in a taxi where you notice a driver making you uncomfortable, you can end the ride early (I have). However, imagine a robodriver that is 4x safer, however every single vehicle on the road has the same probability in any instant of invoking the same "no human would make this mistake" driving error fatally. An analogy would be that at any moment, your calm, courteous, focussed spouse behind the wheel suddenly transforms into a 17 year old teen in a Mustang.

dcow 3y ago
But I’m 4x safer. I’ll take those odds.
- hnfong 3y ago
  There's a difference between "I'm 4x safer", and "I'm expected to be 4x safer than the average person is now". The GP is arguing that there is a way to actively become safer than the average person by avoid getting into "dangerous" situations. This may or may not be 4x safer than average though. There's this element of control that is lost when it comes to AI driving. The relevant point to you is, if you already have good driving skills, always drive responsibly, and generally avoid driving in areas/times that have more drunken drivers around, then you might not actually benefit 4x.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Yes, this is the point I am making. If you do not engage in risky behavior, and are not distracted, you are likely already 2-4x safer than an average driver. So AI driving may not make your driving better. Next problem is everyone else's driving! It's like an arms race / tragedy of the commons issue as well. Your safe driving doesn't matter if other people are still running lights / driving drunk / etc. In absence of near-perfect AI driving, followed by government mandates to take everyone else off the street.. it doesn't matter. And this is never going to happen.

cyanydeez 3y ago

yes, it'd be very easy: you want a vehicle on the road, name who gets sued for damages and criminal culpability for failure. almost all our tech wants to skirt to legal system.

FranksTV 3y ago

Easy to say if you live somewhere without winter. AI models are a LONG way off from the kind of driving you need in near-whiteout conditions.

dublinben 3y ago
Nobody should be driving in near-whiteout conditions, human or AI.
- dcow 3y ago
  Of course if’s best to avoid dangerous conditions, but you must realize that weather changes fast and a clear road can become very low visibility in the matter of minutes. There are also urgent and emergency situations where it’s rational to take the weather risk and drive much more cautiously than the alternative. Finally the issue is not strictly visibility it’s more the pavement condition. Autonomous drivers can’t “feel” the road the way a human can, at least not yet, so conditions that a human could safely cautiously navigate just aren’t safe for a non-human right now.