4 ms·

An autonomous driving system is either good enough to drive on our roads without supervision — or it's not. If it is good enough, it shouldn't matter whether ot

An autonomous driving system is either good enough to drive on our roads without supervision — or it's not. If it is good enough, it shouldn't matter whether others know if the driver isn't human. Any unsupervised driving system is likely to be around two orders of magnitude safer than a human driver.[0] So effectively they're special lights to tell others that a car is extremely safe. This will backfire horribly. While there is some residual benefit to law enforcement, these lights will signal to human drivers and pedestrians that this vehicle can be bullied with impunity, and with no risk of angry retaliation. Human drivers will cut in front of them mercilessly. Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. Maybe not in classy affluent suburbs, but definitely in rough neighborhoods. -- [0] I think it's obvious that anything less than two orders of magnitude (100X safer) is socially unsustainable. Think about it. 40 thousand people die on roads in the USA each year. Replace all drivers with an AI that's "only" 100X safer and we'll initially marvel at the 39k lives saved every year. But that will quickly be forgotten. What's left is the brutal carnage of 400 people mercilessly killed by robot cars annually...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaomidi 3y ago
It’s literally there so cops etc don’t pull you over for watching a movie while driving.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nerdponx 3y ago
  They should still pull you over for that. Pilot's don't get to watch an in-flight movie just because autopilot is on.
  - hasmolo 3y ago
    autopilot is a level 2 system technically, so you are right, they don’t use a system incorrectly
  - delecti 3y ago
    The legality of a pilot watching a movie is irrelevant to the discussion. It's legal for the person in the driver's seat to watch a movie with Mercedes' level 3 "Drive Pilot" active (in certain locations). A cop pulling you over is only wasting the time of everyone involved.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      And I argue that it should not be legal, just as it's not legal for a pilot: https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/11/5402484/new-faa-rule-keeps-pilots-from-using-personal-electronics-in-the https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/11/5402484/new-faa-rule-keep... A car at even 20 MPH has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy, and we are all well aware of the destructive consequences of rapid deceleration when large amounts of energy are involved, particularly when fleshy human bodies are involved. There exists no other system with anything close to a comparable level of risk where we do not require or at least expect a human to be actively monitoring the system and ready to take action in the event of a problem. I'm not saying we should ban Level whatever auto magic AI driving. All I'm saying is that we should use the same standards of responsible operation that we apply to literally every other area of human activity. Why does driving get a free pass?
    - brewdad 3y ago
      Which locations are those?
      - delecti 3y ago
        California and Nevada. From the first sentence of the article: > Mercedes-Benz is the first automaker to gain approval to sell a Level 3 automated driving system in the United States; the first customer-owned S-Class and EQS sedans in California and Nevada equipped with the Drive Pilot system hit dealer lots this month.
        nerdponx 3y ago
        Does level 3 not legally require an attentive operator in those jurisdictions?
- j4yav 3y ago
  Unless it's only visible to cops, that doesn't really invalidate what the post you are replying to is saying about unintended consequences.
- simondotau 3y ago
  This is precisely why L3 is dangerous and unworkable and should be banned. Playing high speed tag-team with vehicular responsibility is insane and I can't believe anyone takes it seriously. If the vehicle has a driver's seat and you're sitting in it, you should be considered responsible for the car's actions. If you want to watch a movie, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat. If you want your car to drive your drunk ass home, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat.
hasmolo 3y ago
what does this fear come from? the logic doesn’t hold up with any automated mass transit i’ve seen. why aren’t people standing on the train lines at airports? why aren’t people trying to hit the distribution robots in Japans airports? do you really think there’s a future where people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism) where they are jumping out in front of cars? there’s very little evidence that people in a mentally sane state, read not incapacitated, will self harm to spite technology. i know living in the bay i’d mess with the self driving cars, but never by getting in the right of way and risking my damn life, only by signaling a left and forcing them to slow down behind me. i never once tried to get infront of the car at the last moment to see if i could be menaingfully maimed. i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt will trump your concept of how ‘poors’ live
- simondotau 3y ago
  > what does this fear come from? For starters, dash cam footage of how drivers and pedestrians are willing to interact with vehicles with human drivers. If that's what they're willing to do when it's an unpredictable human in control, I can only imagine what they'll do when it's an extremely predictable computer in control. > people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism) I think it's racist to assume that rough areas implicitly means a different racial demographics. That might be the case in your country, but it isn't in mine. In cases where there are different racial demographics in rough areas, the fact of this disparity is a fact. Your dispute is with reality, not the person who might dare to point at reality. It's my opinion that systemic improvement is made harder when we cloak reality in double-speak. > i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt I'm not necessarily talking about jumping into the path of an autonomous car so that it's forced to perform an emergency brake. I'm talking about jaywalking without concern for the car having to slow down well ahead of you to maintain a safe distance.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Oh look, just posted to Youtube https://youtu.be/fci0__FKp9Q?t=553 https://youtu.be/fci0__FKp9Q?t=553
  - 3y ago
ginko 3y ago
>Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. Pedestrians SHOULD be able to just step onto the road on a crosswalk without having to worry if drivers will stop as they're legally required to.
- simondotau 3y ago
  I didn't say crosswalk.
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
> these lights will signal to human drivers and pedestrians that this vehicle can be bullied with impunity, and with no risk of angry retaliation. Human drivers will cut in front of them mercilessly. Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. The risk of angry retaliation is identical to what we have already. The driver of this car can just take manual control at any time and react as they would in a non-AV. If what you're claiming is true, the behaviors you're describing would already be common with traditional cars.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aaomidi 3y ago

It’s literally there so cops etc don’t pull you over for watching a movie while driving.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nerdponx 3y ago
They should still pull you over for that. Pilot's don't get to watch an in-flight movie just because autopilot is on.
- hasmolo 3y ago
  autopilot is a level 2 system technically, so you are right, they don’t use a system incorrectly
- delecti 3y ago
  The legality of a pilot watching a movie is irrelevant to the discussion. It's legal for the person in the driver's seat to watch a movie with Mercedes' level 3 "Drive Pilot" active (in certain locations). A cop pulling you over is only wasting the time of everyone involved.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    And I argue that it should not be legal, just as it's not legal for a pilot: https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/11/5402484/new-faa-rule-keeps-pilots-from-using-personal-electronics-in-the https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/11/5402484/new-faa-rule-keep... A car at even 20 MPH has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy, and we are all well aware of the destructive consequences of rapid deceleration when large amounts of energy are involved, particularly when fleshy human bodies are involved. There exists no other system with anything close to a comparable level of risk where we do not require or at least expect a human to be actively monitoring the system and ready to take action in the event of a problem. I'm not saying we should ban Level whatever auto magic AI driving. All I'm saying is that we should use the same standards of responsible operation that we apply to literally every other area of human activity. Why does driving get a free pass?
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Which locations are those?
    - delecti 3y ago
      California and Nevada. From the first sentence of the article: > Mercedes-Benz is the first automaker to gain approval to sell a Level 3 automated driving system in the United States; the first customer-owned S-Class and EQS sedans in California and Nevada equipped with the Drive Pilot system hit dealer lots this month.
      - nerdponx 3y ago
        Does level 3 not legally require an attentive operator in those jurisdictions?
j4yav 3y ago
Unless it's only visible to cops, that doesn't really invalidate what the post you are replying to is saying about unintended consequences.
simondotau 3y ago
This is precisely why L3 is dangerous and unworkable and should be banned. Playing high speed tag-team with vehicular responsibility is insane and I can't believe anyone takes it seriously. If the vehicle has a driver's seat and you're sitting in it, you should be considered responsible for the car's actions. If you want to watch a movie, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat. If you want your car to drive your drunk ass home, that's fine, don't sit in the driver's seat.

hasmolo 3y ago

what does this fear come from? the logic doesn’t hold up with any automated mass transit i’ve seen. why aren’t people standing on the train lines at airports? why aren’t people trying to hit the distribution robots in Japans airports? do you really think there’s a future where people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism) where they are jumping out in front of cars? there’s very little evidence that people in a mentally sane state, read not incapacitated, will self harm to spite technology. i know living in the bay i’d mess with the self driving cars, but never by getting in the right of way and risking my damn life, only by signaling a left and forcing them to slow down behind me. i never once tried to get infront of the car at the last moment to see if i could be menaingfully maimed. i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt will trump your concept of how ‘poors’ live

simondotau 3y ago
> what does this fear come from? For starters, dash cam footage of how drivers and pedestrians are willing to interact with vehicles with human drivers. If that's what they're willing to do when it's an unpredictable human in control, I can only imagine what they'll do when it's an extremely predictable computer in control. > people in ‘rough neighborhoods’ (this is very poorly hidden classism/racism) I think it's racist to assume that rough areas implicitly means a different racial demographics. That might be the case in your country, but it isn't in mine. In cases where there are different racial demographics in rough areas, the fact of this disparity is a fact. Your dispute is with reality, not the person who might dare to point at reality. It's my opinion that systemic improvement is made harder when we cloak reality in double-speak. > i strongly suspect the desire to not be hurt I'm not necessarily talking about jumping into the path of an autonomous car so that it's forced to perform an emergency brake. I'm talking about jaywalking without concern for the car having to slow down well ahead of you to maintain a safe distance.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Oh look, just posted to Youtube https://youtu.be/fci0__FKp9Q?t=553 https://youtu.be/fci0__FKp9Q?t=553
- 3y ago

ginko 3y ago

>Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. Pedestrians SHOULD be able to just step onto the road on a crosswalk without having to worry if drivers will stop as they're legally required to.

simondotau 3y ago
I didn't say crosswalk.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago

> these lights will signal to human drivers and pedestrians that this vehicle can be bullied with impunity, and with no risk of angry retaliation. Human drivers will cut in front of them mercilessly. Pedestrians will step onto the road in front of them. The risk of angry retaliation is identical to what we have already. The driver of this car can just take manual control at any time and react as they would in a non-AV. If what you're claiming is true, the behaviors you're describing would already be common with traditional cars.