5 ms·

> "Waymo is 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic" actually means "Waymo drives at the legal speed limit for that location... Probably 100% safer too Speed i

by worik 2y ago

> "Waymo is 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic" actually means "Waymo drives at the legal speed limit for that location... Probably 100% safer too Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles

josephcsible 2y ago
> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles Not in the way you think. If you're going 55 because it's the speed limit, but everyone else is going 70, you're the most likely driver to cause a collision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Indeed. Much as buying a smaller car makes you a hazard to everyone nearby because they cannot see you as easily. The most sensible thing for everyone is ever larger and more heavily armored vehicles. Won't someone think of the children. `/s` All that said. If you cannot maneuver safely around drivers going the speed limit then they are not the problem.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Mawr 2y ago
  The mental hoops drivers go through to justify their unsafe behaviour...
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Oh please. Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle, since that's usually the case. In that situation, the behavior you're calling out as unsafe is simply "going faster". Now, in a technical sense that's true, but it's always true. Going faster reduces safety when you're above the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're at the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're below the speed limit. If you reduce safety to black and white, then you should always go slower, until you're barely moving. If the speed limit is 40, that doesn't magically make it safe to go 40. Black and white thinking leads to a bad conclusion, so let's add nuance back in. Speed is dangerous but roads are designed to let you go a certain speed while minimizing the danger. You're not being dangerous until you go over that speed. And that speed is almost always higher than the speed limit, especially in good weather. Going over the speed limit is not itself a problem. It's going over the design speed of the road that's a problem.
    - vkou 2y ago
      > Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle Let's not, because most of the speeding I see is from people who very mistakenly think they know what speed the road's designed to handle, because they don't give a crap about pedestrians, bicyclists, visibility, other vehicles, or really, anything but getting to the next red light faster. Perhaps you drive in a utopia that's solely populated by traffic architects, but here in the real world, it's populated by normal people, many of whom are bad drivers, and bad judges of road safety, but are really good at hitting the gas. Our high death rates reflect this.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > Perhaps you drive in a utopia that's solely populated by traffic architects I drive in an area that has a lot of overbuilt roads, and I don't think that's a very uncommon situation. > they don't give a crap about pedestrians, bicyclists, visibility, other vehicles, or really, anything but getting to the next red light faster That's very dangerous even if you strictly follow the speed limit. It's a separate problem.
      - katbyte 2y ago
        Overbuilt roads aka “strodes”are real common in North America and as people tend to drive the speed they feel is correct not the limit it leads people to going faster and create unsafe situation. There’s a great not just bikes video on this iirc A sign doesn’t really change behaviour but narrowing roads , separated bike lanes, pedestrian controlled crossings, roundabouts, and generally making the road “feel slower” does
        vkou 2y ago
        I'm aware of this phenomenon. My point is that until the road is narrowed, the safe speed on it may be lower than the average backseat traffic architect might think.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      Kinetic energy is proportional to square of velocity. It doesn't take large speed reduction to halve energies involved and thus the danger. Even not taking into account how crappy human perception and reflexes are.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  Regardless, Waymo is under the spotlight and they can't risk the regulatory hit of openly breaking laws, even if it's a perfectly normal thing for a human to do.
- senordevnyc 2y ago
  Rear-ending someone going slower than you is not their fault.
  - serf 2y ago
    >Rear-ending someone going slower than you is not their fault. who gives a shit who is at fault when they're in an accident? the goal is to avoid the event all together, not to have a scapegoat.
    - level1ten 2y ago
      The type of people who see a "lane ends ahead" and immediately merge, blocking up traffic and wasting a half mile of empty lane. "I'm in my assigned place and I did what I was supposed to!!"
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        The thing that blocks up traffic at a merge is when people can't get over smoothly. If everyone gets over at the first opportunity, then things go fine. The empty lane isn't wasted, it absorbs brief bursts in traffic that need more time to get over. But even if it was wasted, that wouldn't be a big deal. A 5-mile long section with fewer lanes and a 5.5-mile long section with fewer lanes will have almost the same throughput. Everyone staying split across two lanes until the end and aligning themselves to do a clean zipper merge also goes fine. What makes everything go wrong is when people drive down the nice empty lane that's ending and intend to do a normal merge at the end, but they don't start it early enough. Then everything slows down as they squeeze over.
        plaidfuji 2y ago
        In my experience what causes the slowdown are the people who merged too early who then resentfully close the gap in front of them when people try to merge later than them, simultaneously increasing the likelihood that they’ll rear end the car in front of them and making it harder for the people trying to merge properly to do so.
- epolanski 2y ago
  The wiki you link finds the theory to be biased and without solid backing data. Not sure why did you link it.
tomp 2y ago
There is approximately 0% chance that the speed limit decreed by faceless bureaucrats is the optimal speed for the current circumstances on a given road.
- badpun 2y ago
  If you want to optimize for least deaths and injuries, thr optimal speed limit is 0 km/h. Everything else is a tradeoff between convenience and potential harm.
- scrollaway 2y ago
  You're the one calling them faceless bureaucrats. Most speed limits are set in place by a mix of safety boards and urban planners, who do take these limits into account. Explain to me what makes them faceless and detached from the situation?
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    Because everyone drives 40mph on that main road that is marked 25mph, and there is no string of accidents or fatalities after decades of this.
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Once you are doing 40 or 50 any accident you do have with a pedestrian is almost sure to be fatal. Lower speeds offer more of a chance.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        Not driving cars at all offers the lowest. There has to be a degree of nuance when evaluating this. Ironically in my town, we did have a "string" (3 people in 5 years) of pedestrian fatalities. All of which took place downtown where people actually do drive 25.
        kjkjadksj 2y ago
Ygg2 2y ago
> Probably 100% safer too Not really. Because speed works in relative. I.e. if everyone drives at 200mph it is much safer than if half drive 100mph and other half drives 200mph. Granted you can't have things appearing at 200mph. Speed is not the problem deceleration is. Which happens more often when some percent of people drives slower than others. Decreasing speed limits has the counterintuitive effect of increasing vehicle to vehicle accidents, and intuitive effect of increasing ticket fees. Pedestrian safety isn't that imprcted since a portion of drivers drives above limit anyway.
katbyte 2y ago
No it is not. Distracted or impaired driving is the most dangerous aspect.
czl 2y ago
> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles Speed difference is dangerous. So yes the difference in speed between vehicle and stationary objects it can hit (trees, poles, parker cars). On highways without a divider the danger is from incoming cars as that will double the impact speed. On highways with dividers having speed different from cars around you can be dangerous because it means you are changing lanes often else others are changing lanes to get around you.

by worik 2y ago

josephcsible 2y ago

> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles Not in the way you think. If you're going 55 because it's the speed limit, but everyone else is going 70, you're the most likely driver to cause a collision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Indeed. Much as buying a smaller car makes you a hazard to everyone nearby because they cannot see you as easily. The most sensible thing for everyone is ever larger and more heavily armored vehicles. Won't someone think of the children. `/s` All that said. If you cannot maneuver safely around drivers going the speed limit then they are not the problem.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Mawr 2y ago
The mental hoops drivers go through to justify their unsafe behaviour...
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Oh please. Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle, since that's usually the case. In that situation, the behavior you're calling out as unsafe is simply "going faster". Now, in a technical sense that's true, but it's always true. Going faster reduces safety when you're above the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're at the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're below the speed limit. If you reduce safety to black and white, then you should always go slower, until you're barely moving. If the speed limit is 40, that doesn't magically make it safe to go 40. Black and white thinking leads to a bad conclusion, so let's add nuance back in. Speed is dangerous but roads are designed to let you go a certain speed while minimizing the danger. You're not being dangerous until you go over that speed. And that speed is almost always higher than the speed limit, especially in good weather. Going over the speed limit is not itself a problem. It's going over the design speed of the road that's a problem.
  - vkou 2y ago
    > Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle Let's not, because most of the speeding I see is from people who very mistakenly think they know what speed the road's designed to handle, because they don't give a crap about pedestrians, bicyclists, visibility, other vehicles, or really, anything but getting to the next red light faster. Perhaps you drive in a utopia that's solely populated by traffic architects, but here in the real world, it's populated by normal people, many of whom are bad drivers, and bad judges of road safety, but are really good at hitting the gas. Our high death rates reflect this.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > Perhaps you drive in a utopia that's solely populated by traffic architects I drive in an area that has a lot of overbuilt roads, and I don't think that's a very uncommon situation. > they don't give a crap about pedestrians, bicyclists, visibility, other vehicles, or really, anything but getting to the next red light faster That's very dangerous even if you strictly follow the speed limit. It's a separate problem.
    - katbyte 2y ago
      Overbuilt roads aka “strodes”are real common in North America and as people tend to drive the speed they feel is correct not the limit it leads people to going faster and create unsafe situation. There’s a great not just bikes video on this iirc A sign doesn’t really change behaviour but narrowing roads , separated bike lanes, pedestrian controlled crossings, roundabouts, and generally making the road “feel slower” does
      - vkou 2y ago
        I'm aware of this phenomenon. My point is that until the road is narrowed, the safe speed on it may be lower than the average backseat traffic architect might think.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    Kinetic energy is proportional to square of velocity. It doesn't take large speed reduction to halve energies involved and thus the danger. Even not taking into account how crappy human perception and reflexes are.
bpodgursky 2y ago
Regardless, Waymo is under the spotlight and they can't risk the regulatory hit of openly breaking laws, even if it's a perfectly normal thing for a human to do.
senordevnyc 2y ago
Rear-ending someone going slower than you is not their fault.
- serf 2y ago
  >Rear-ending someone going slower than you is not their fault. who gives a shit who is at fault when they're in an accident? the goal is to avoid the event all together, not to have a scapegoat.
  - level1ten 2y ago
    The type of people who see a "lane ends ahead" and immediately merge, blocking up traffic and wasting a half mile of empty lane. "I'm in my assigned place and I did what I was supposed to!!"
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      The thing that blocks up traffic at a merge is when people can't get over smoothly. If everyone gets over at the first opportunity, then things go fine. The empty lane isn't wasted, it absorbs brief bursts in traffic that need more time to get over. But even if it was wasted, that wouldn't be a big deal. A 5-mile long section with fewer lanes and a 5.5-mile long section with fewer lanes will have almost the same throughput. Everyone staying split across two lanes until the end and aligning themselves to do a clean zipper merge also goes fine. What makes everything go wrong is when people drive down the nice empty lane that's ending and intend to do a normal merge at the end, but they don't start it early enough. Then everything slows down as they squeeze over.
      - plaidfuji 2y ago
        In my experience what causes the slowdown are the people who merged too early who then resentfully close the gap in front of them when people try to merge later than them, simultaneously increasing the likelihood that they’ll rear end the car in front of them and making it harder for the people trying to merge properly to do so.
epolanski 2y ago
The wiki you link finds the theory to be biased and without solid backing data. Not sure why did you link it.

tomp 2y ago

There is approximately 0% chance that the speed limit decreed by faceless bureaucrats is the optimal speed for the current circumstances on a given road.

badpun 2y ago
If you want to optimize for least deaths and injuries, thr optimal speed limit is 0 km/h. Everything else is a tradeoff between convenience and potential harm.
scrollaway 2y ago
You're the one calling them faceless bureaucrats. Most speed limits are set in place by a mix of safety boards and urban planners, who do take these limits into account. Explain to me what makes them faceless and detached from the situation?
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  Because everyone drives 40mph on that main road that is marked 25mph, and there is no string of accidents or fatalities after decades of this.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Once you are doing 40 or 50 any accident you do have with a pedestrian is almost sure to be fatal. Lower speeds offer more of a chance.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      Not driving cars at all offers the lowest. There has to be a degree of nuance when evaluating this. Ironically in my town, we did have a "string" (3 people in 5 years) of pedestrian fatalities. All of which took place downtown where people actually do drive 25.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago

Ygg2 2y ago

> Probably 100% safer too Not really. Because speed works in relative. I.e. if everyone drives at 200mph it is much safer than if half drive 100mph and other half drives 200mph. Granted you can't have things appearing at 200mph. Speed is not the problem deceleration is. Which happens more often when some percent of people drives slower than others. Decreasing speed limits has the counterintuitive effect of increasing vehicle to vehicle accidents, and intuitive effect of increasing ticket fees. Pedestrian safety isn't that imprcted since a portion of drivers drives above limit anyway.

katbyte 2y ago

No it is not. Distracted or impaired driving is the most dangerous aspect.

czl 2y ago

> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles Speed difference is dangerous. So yes the difference in speed between vehicle and stationary objects it can hit (trees, poles, parker cars). On highways without a divider the danger is from incoming cars as that will double the impact speed. On highways with dividers having speed different from cars around you can be dangerous because it means you are changing lanes often else others are changing lanes to get around you.