6 ms·

Before jumping to conclusions, are we sure these Waymos hit from behind didn't awkwardly and randomly stop in the middle of a busy intersection (where no sane h

by cj 3y ago

Before jumping to conclusions, are we sure these Waymos hit from behind didn't awkwardly and randomly stop in the middle of a busy intersection (where no sane human driver would)? I know YouTube videos aren't always representative of reality, but there are some videos of these cars randomly driving extremely slowly in very busy intersections which might be a contributing factor to getting rear-ended, even if it's not Waymo's "fault" from an insurance perspective.

globular-toast 3y ago
Doesn't matter. If you drive into a slow-moving or stationary object then it's your fault in every sense. If you are driving too closely and are not ready to react to the vehicle in front doing an emergency stop for any reason then it's your fault in every sense. Most human drivers I observe are taking huge chances every single day. I see them drive at speed around corners they can't see around fully, driving far too closely to cars front, using their phone etc. They get lucky but it's only a matter of time before they have accidents. The three incidents recorded here are simply due to three humans' luck running out.
mikestew 3y ago
Before jumping to conclusions... Nah, I'm jumping straight to this conclusion: if you hit something in front of you that didn't leap out in front of you at the last second, you fucked up. The object that you hit was erratically slowing and speeding up? You should have left more room to allow for the unpredictability. It was raining, can't see, the roads are slick? Leave more room in front of you. Yes, I way too often don't do that, either. But if there's something in the road ahead of me, and I hit it? Man, there are few scenarios where I can claim that there was nothing I could do. And in the case of a full-sized vehicle in front of me, I don't care how erratically it's driving, don't run into the back of it.
- flerchin 3y ago
  If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. Well you won't fix the humans...
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. It's not causing accidents in these cases. The humans are.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      The causality version of "cause", not the blame version. Accidents that would not have happened without the system.
- bumby 3y ago
  Right, but also imagine how traffic would be if everyone drove with the pre-requisite distance to do that. Can you imagine I-5 traffic if everyone had 10 car lengths between them? So while your statement isn't wrong, it's also not always pragmatic in the real world.
  - jaktet 3y ago
    I’m guessing an accident caused due to not leaving enough room to safely stop is going to cause a bit more traffic than the alternative
    - bumby 3y ago
      So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? If not, then you already recognize the probability is less than 100%, so that has to be baked into your statement.
      - mikestew 3y ago
        So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? The only comments saying that are...yours. If your argument is so lacking that you need to argue in bad faith, perhaps it is best to not bother at all. Or perhaps you are not aware of the proper following distance (and therefore, part of the problem about which you complain). Two car lengths (EDIT: seconds, not car lengths; oops) is the general advice.
        bumby 3y ago
        I'm just trying to understand exactly what they are advocating, because so many people seem to be making a dichotomous safety choice. It's not a simple model and my point is there are tradeoffs. >Two car lengths is the general advice. No. It's speed, roadway, and car dependent. Two car lengths isn't even sufficient at 25mph let alone at 70mph.[1] Which all goes to show how poorly people tend to think about these things and quickly resort to overly simplified mental models. [1] https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Aug15_Speeding_1.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_A...
- sib 3y ago
  I remember taking Driver's Ed class many years ago. When we got to the section about fault in relation to rear-end collisions, the instructor said, "if you rear-end someone, it is your fault, full stop." The class then spent five minutes asking hypotheticals, to which the answer was always, "nope, still your fault."
  - ghaff 3y ago
    That is correct. However, it's also the case that in the real world if you drive legally but do things like brake erratically, you will cause accidents.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      Not if the vehicles behind you are self driving cars.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    He's wrong. What if that car ahead just got there and is moving far below your velocity? And there's the case of where the car ahead stopped in a fashion a car can't--ran into something massive or the like. Under standard driving conditions if the car in front of you is involved in a head-on at speed you're going to hit it. 2 second following distance assumes the car ahead is subject to the same physics you are.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      If you cannot see a car ahead of you in time to stop then you are going too fast for conditions. The only time it can be not your fault is if the slow moving car switches lanes in front of you before there is time to stop.
    - sib 3y ago
      The one exception is if a car pulls into a lane in front of you when you are traveling faster. His actual statement was, "if you rear-end someone that you are following, it is your fault..." If someone abruptly pulls in front of you, you weren't following them.
- rickydroll 3y ago
  I have a couple more scenarios for you. Overdriving your headlights is a great way to hit something you don't see in time. The safe speed in average conditions on low beams is around 25 to 30 mph, and on high beams, it is around 45 to 50 mph. If there's any glare on the roadway from security lights and oncoming drivers, your safe speed drops 10 to 20 miles an hour. Related to this is glare from the sun or artificial sources. I lived in a small city with antique-style globe lamps on Main Street. The veiling glare made pedestrians invisible, and even if you knew about the glare and watched for pedestrians, you would still be surprised when they became visible halfway across the street in front of you.
danans 3y ago
> Before jumping to conclusions, are we sure these Waymos hit from behind didn't awkwardly and randomly stop in the middle of a busy intersection (where no sane human driver would)? I'm nearly certain that I'm alive today because I drove as defensively as something like a Waymo. One day as I was approaching an intersection where I had a green light, I saw a car approaching the same intersection from the cross street at a speed that they couldn't have possibly stopped for their red light. I instinctively slowed down suddenly and that car, as I predicted , ran the red light at high speed and turned just a few yards in front of me. If I had been more tired, hasty, or it had been darker out, I might not have seen it or reacted in time. A fully autonomous and defensive driving system wouldn't get tired or hasty, and lidar can see fine at night. And yes, I might have gotten rear ended, but that's a far better outcome than getting t-boned by a car going 65mph.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  >If I had been more tired, hasty, or it had been darker out, I might not have seen it or reacted in time. If you had just been an average driver. Most people are terrible at defensive driving.
  - danans 3y ago
    > Most people are terrible at defensive driving. Mostly because people misunderstand what defensive driving means. It doesn't mean "go slow". It means always maintain a safety margin between your vehicle and others, adjusted for speed, road/weather conditions, and relative direction of travel. Those are the kinds of objectives a self driving system can very reliably achieve, unlike a human.

by cj 3y ago

globular-toast 3y ago

Doesn't matter. If you drive into a slow-moving or stationary object then it's your fault in every sense. If you are driving too closely and are not ready to react to the vehicle in front doing an emergency stop for any reason then it's your fault in every sense. Most human drivers I observe are taking huge chances every single day. I see them drive at speed around corners they can't see around fully, driving far too closely to cars front, using their phone etc. They get lucky but it's only a matter of time before they have accidents. The three incidents recorded here are simply due to three humans' luck running out.

mikestew 3y ago

Before jumping to conclusions... Nah, I'm jumping straight to this conclusion: if you hit something in front of you that didn't leap out in front of you at the last second, you fucked up. The object that you hit was erratically slowing and speeding up? You should have left more room to allow for the unpredictability. It was raining, can't see, the roads are slick? Leave more room in front of you. Yes, I way too often don't do that, either. But if there's something in the road ahead of me, and I hit it? Man, there are few scenarios where I can claim that there was nothing I could do. And in the case of a full-sized vehicle in front of me, I don't care how erratically it's driving, don't run into the back of it.

flerchin 3y ago
If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. Well you won't fix the humans...
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > If your system is objectively right, but also objectively causing accidents with humans. It's not causing accidents in these cases. The humans are.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The causality version of "cause", not the blame version. Accidents that would not have happened without the system.
bumby 3y ago
Right, but also imagine how traffic would be if everyone drove with the pre-requisite distance to do that. Can you imagine I-5 traffic if everyone had 10 car lengths between them? So while your statement isn't wrong, it's also not always pragmatic in the real world.
- jaktet 3y ago
  I’m guessing an accident caused due to not leaving enough room to safely stop is going to cause a bit more traffic than the alternative
  - bumby 3y ago
    So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? If not, then you already recognize the probability is less than 100%, so that has to be baked into your statement.
    - mikestew 3y ago
      So you're saying we should all drive with a 10 car buffer, then? The only comments saying that are...yours. If your argument is so lacking that you need to argue in bad faith, perhaps it is best to not bother at all. Or perhaps you are not aware of the proper following distance (and therefore, part of the problem about which you complain). Two car lengths (EDIT: seconds, not car lengths; oops) is the general advice.
      - bumby 3y ago
        I'm just trying to understand exactly what they are advocating, because so many people seem to be making a dichotomous safety choice. It's not a simple model and my point is there are tradeoffs. >Two car lengths is the general advice. No. It's speed, roadway, and car dependent. Two car lengths isn't even sufficient at 25mph let alone at 70mph.[1] Which all goes to show how poorly people tend to think about these things and quickly resort to overly simplified mental models. [1] https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_Aug15_Speeding_1.html https://one.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/Safety1nNum3ers/august2015/S1N_A...
sib 3y ago
I remember taking Driver's Ed class many years ago. When we got to the section about fault in relation to rear-end collisions, the instructor said, "if you rear-end someone, it is your fault, full stop." The class then spent five minutes asking hypotheticals, to which the answer was always, "nope, still your fault."
- ghaff 3y ago
  That is correct. However, it's also the case that in the real world if you drive legally but do things like brake erratically, you will cause accidents.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Not if the vehicles behind you are self driving cars.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  He's wrong. What if that car ahead just got there and is moving far below your velocity? And there's the case of where the car ahead stopped in a fashion a car can't--ran into something massive or the like. Under standard driving conditions if the car in front of you is involved in a head-on at speed you're going to hit it. 2 second following distance assumes the car ahead is subject to the same physics you are.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    If you cannot see a car ahead of you in time to stop then you are going too fast for conditions. The only time it can be not your fault is if the slow moving car switches lanes in front of you before there is time to stop.
  - sib 3y ago
    The one exception is if a car pulls into a lane in front of you when you are traveling faster. His actual statement was, "if you rear-end someone that you are following, it is your fault..." If someone abruptly pulls in front of you, you weren't following them.
rickydroll 3y ago
I have a couple more scenarios for you. Overdriving your headlights is a great way to hit something you don't see in time. The safe speed in average conditions on low beams is around 25 to 30 mph, and on high beams, it is around 45 to 50 mph. If there's any glare on the roadway from security lights and oncoming drivers, your safe speed drops 10 to 20 miles an hour. Related to this is glare from the sun or artificial sources. I lived in a small city with antique-style globe lamps on Main Street. The veiling glare made pedestrians invisible, and even if you knew about the glare and watched for pedestrians, you would still be surprised when they became visible halfway across the street in front of you.

danans 3y ago

> Before jumping to conclusions, are we sure these Waymos hit from behind didn't awkwardly and randomly stop in the middle of a busy intersection (where no sane human driver would)? I'm nearly certain that I'm alive today because I drove as defensively as something like a Waymo. One day as I was approaching an intersection where I had a green light, I saw a car approaching the same intersection from the cross street at a speed that they couldn't have possibly stopped for their red light. I instinctively slowed down suddenly and that car, as I predicted , ran the red light at high speed and turned just a few yards in front of me. If I had been more tired, hasty, or it had been darker out, I might not have seen it or reacted in time. A fully autonomous and defensive driving system wouldn't get tired or hasty, and lidar can see fine at night. And yes, I might have gotten rear ended, but that's a far better outcome than getting t-boned by a car going 65mph.

Workaccount2 3y ago
>If I had been more tired, hasty, or it had been darker out, I might not have seen it or reacted in time. If you had just been an average driver. Most people are terrible at defensive driving.
- danans 3y ago
  > Most people are terrible at defensive driving. Mostly because people misunderstand what defensive driving means. It doesn't mean "go slow". It means always maintain a safety margin between your vehicle and others, adjusted for speed, road/weather conditions, and relative direction of travel. Those are the kinds of objectives a self driving system can very reliably achieve, unlike a human.