8 ms·
This is terrifying. I routinely cross a bridge with a 30ton weight limit, which my car mistakes for a 30km/h speed limit sign. I would cause an average of 2 acc
by gruturo 2y ago
This is terrifying. I routinely cross a bridge with a 30ton weight limit, which my car mistakes for a 30km/h speed limit sign. I would cause an average of 2 accidents per month if I suddenly slowed from 70 to 30 and the people behind me weren't paying attention.
The technology is _not_ there and this won't save lives, potentially it will cause deaths.
(Yes I read the article, this is initially only "for the driver's information" and not (yet) a hard limit.... but it's the first step in a very wrong direction)
- shortrounddev2 2y agoThis uses GPS data, not optical recognition
- gwbas1c 2y agoFrom TFA: > Cars have been able to figure out when they're speeding for a while, thanks to GPS as well as traffic sign recognition
- Tade0 2y agoThis is going to lead to some backpedaling. On one stretch of ring road (120km/h limit) my car consistently catches 80km/h signs set up for the exit roads.
- gwbas1c 2y agoWhich, IMO, is one of the reasons why I think speed-limit based speed limiters are a poor idea now. (I didn't mention much in my other post at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40919908) Personally, I think this (speed-limit aware speed limiters) are going to trigger Congress to either fast-track legislation to disable them. Specifically, once the general public is aware of what's going on, they will stop buying new cars and car manufacturers will push on Congress. I also think the legislation was written by someone who is very naive about engineering. What I remember is they tolerate a 10% error rate. If 10% of the cars are going too slow during rush hour, it's just going to create a major traffic jam.
- stavros 2y agoIt uses both, AFAIK.
- jshier 2y agoYou can also turn it off every time you start your vehicle.
- EricE 2y agoUntil the law changes and the next firmware update happens :p
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mulmen 2y agoPresumably GPS data and a database of speed limits. The bridge to my neighborhood was closed for two years. It took Lyft over three months to notice it reopened. Why should we trust the speed limit databases?
- silisili 2y agoIf that's similar to what Google Maps uses, it's wildly inaccurate. There are three places I drive regularly that it's way, way off on.
- nexuist 2y agoAwesome, so in addition to confusing aircraft and sending them in the wrong directions, Putin can also stop everyone from driving in Europe whenever he feels like it.
- ars 2y agoThe article said it uses optical recognition. And in any case GPS is not accurate enough for this. If you drive an access road right near a freeway GPS can not tell which one your are on. GPS also doesn't work in many downtowns because of the tall buildings.
- bigfudge 2y agoGPS plus mapping/routing software with some idea of how roads connect would get you a long way though. Even Strava and similar apps do this for trails which are close but not connected.
- fifilura 2y agoThe real test is whether is able to understand that you are driving on the highway under a bridge and not on the bridge with much slower traffic. It happened to me once while driving an ID4 on a 110km/h highway and it slowed down to 50km/h under the bridge.
- ryandrake 2y agoYea, yea, people are going to get into accidents and maybe die, but think about all the shareholder value that will be created by companies as they try to make these systems barely work and sell them to car manufacturers who are mandated to buy them! Won't someone please think of the shareholder value for a change? EDIT: Jeez, nobody gets sarcasm unless you end your post with /s
- its_ethan 2y agoHere, it looks like you dropped this: https://cloudflare-cdn.ncmedical.com/images/dynamic/768x768/items/thumb2/2019_12_20_15_06_30__11_nc28611_0819_w_19.jpg https://cloudflare-cdn.ncmedical.com/images/dynamic/768x768/...
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoLiterally everything causes death. The question is: will this prevent more deaths from speeding than it causes from mistaken slowdowns?
- jvanderbot 2y agoI wonder how long we can ignore the natural human tendancy to need blame / attribution. The way I think about it is: If, in the limiting case, we replace all driver mistakes with software mistakes, and there's 1/2 as many deaths from these mistakes, but they are uniformly distributed, I am honestly not sure how acceptable this would be to the public. It's like sacrificing people randomly to disallow dangerous drivers from causing accidents, even when those accidents would probably have disproportionately affected those very same dangerous drivers (and anyone nearby).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- xnx 2y agoAs a safe driver, I am comfortable with this tradeoff. I estimate the chance of me getting killed/maimed by some other speeding/dangerous driver is much greater than getting killed/maimed by a software error.
- jvanderbot 2y agoOK, makes sense if you believe the chances are much different. I'm wondering at what point do we breakeven? 1/2 the chance? 1/4 the chance? 90% the chance? In fact, as a (ostensibly) safe driver, your odds of dying from software-related random choice might even be higher than from dangerous driving today. How many lives would you be willing to save to take on that extra risk to yourself?
- akira2501 2y agoIs the category of "deaths from speeding" large enough to justify any action whatsoever? Are "deaths from speeding" typically single vehicle or multiple vehicle accidents? Why does the Autobahn still not have speed limits on large parts of the road and why does this not cause massive problems?
- scoot 2y agoApparently you didn't. The most proactive method is "a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced", and "the system can be smoothly overridden by the driver by pressing the accelerator pedal a little bit deeper", so your hyperbolic reaction is overwrought.
- EricE 2y agoIs it though? When has government regulation ever decreased? Give them an inch...
- addicted 2y agoGovernment regulations today, at least in the U.S. and the UK, are a fraction of what they used to be in the post WW 20th century. Government regulations have been getting weaker pretty much my entire living memory.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y agoExcept for the things that most affect common Americans. Like how most housing has onerous zoning and code requirements, banking has kyc/AML and reporting, OSHA controls our work conditions, kids families can be investigated for practicing age appropriate child independence, and family law now often essentially makes the higher earner a slave on a short leash to jail if their spouse divorces them. I would take post WW by a long shot.
- leephillips 2y agoGovernment regulation is constantly decreased. Weed is now legal in most US states for recreational use (I think; at any rate, many of them). The recent US Supreme Court Chevron decision will, for better or worse, probably lead to significant deregulation.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y agoWeed is illegal everywhere in the US by federal law and defacto illegal by state law in most 'legal' states if you are anything other than a homeless bum, as driving a car with metabolites or owning a gun (or just living in same house) as a user are both crimes.
- jstummbillig 2y agoYou clearly identify the important pieces and then chose to ignore them to arrive at the weirdest of conclusions. I am confused.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- leephillips 2y agoThis is the fallacy of the slippery slope. The regulation is not necessarily a first step. It can and might very well stop at the driver alert stage. To become an automatic speed limiter would be a new set of regulations, with a new debate and regulatory process behind it.
- stavros 2y agoSure, but it's that much easier now. The limiter is already there, all they need to do is make it mandatory.
- lolinder 2y agoAt some point along the way any use of a slippery slope became a fallacy on HN, and I'm at a loss to explain how. Would it be more helpful to talk about it in terms of set points? You can change things a very small amount from the status quo without making people upset. Accepting a change in one direction makes it easier for them to later swallow what would have been more drastic changes in that direction. Obviously this is a fallacy if change A isn't actually a step towards change B, but surely you can see that having accepted already installed speed limiters in all cars makes it dramatically more likely that they'll later be required to actually limit the speed of the car?
- eigenket 2y ago>There will be four ways in which ISA systems will work to slow the vehicle down, and it will be up to the manufacturers to pick which one they want to use. The EU regulations permit a system that can use a cascaded acoustic warning, a cascaded vibrating warning, an accelerator pedal with haptic feedback, or a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced. Haptic feedback isn't gonna kill anyone anytime soon.
- SoftTalker 2y agoHow many people lift their foot from the brake pedal the first time they experience the antilock system activating?
- adrianN 2y agoThe first time you experience that should be around the third or fourth driving lesson.
- SoftTalker 2y agoWe never did skid recovery practice or emergency stops in drivers ed, but that was decades ago for me.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- parl_match 2y ago> Yes I read the article Then you'd read that automatic slowing was one of many options, and it's gradual. > but it's the first step in a very wrong direction Please explain how, because your current complaint is not based in reality.
- its_ethan 2y agoIf cars are required by law to have speed limiting, that means they can know when and where a car is speeding. Cars are closely tied to their owners in many ways (registration, insurance, etc.). One way this could be seen as being a step in the wrong direction is that it not only sets a precedent for collecting that information, but is forcing car manufacturers to start building up that ability. I personally think it's pretty obvious why people might not want an entity (public governments, or private companies) to have access to that kind of information. You might say well that's all easily mitigated by encrypting the data or making tracking individuals illegal, to which I would ask: what gives you any confidence that the EU (or any government) would enforce/protect that, when there's evidence they are actively anti-encryption and pro-snooping in other domains? If you need to be walked through the reasoning behind why it might be a bad idea to ~allow~ require these systems to be built, idk what to tell you lol
- parl_match 2y ago> that means they can know when and where a car is speeding These systems don't require reporting data back, and there is no technical reason for them to do so. In fact, nothing in the legislation suggests this. > it not only sets a precedent for collecting that information, but is forcing car manufacturers to start building up that ability. Not only have states and cities started doing this, via ALPR, but cars are increasingly being provisioned with cell modems, and have truly awful privacy policies. Manufacturers view this information as a revenue stream. So, not only does the "possible" situation you describe already exist, but the worst of it is non-state incentivized data collection from car makers. Both of those are (serious, imo) problems, but already exist, and are independent of speed alerting. So idk what to tell you lol
- croes 2y ago>or a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced. Not suddenly, gradually.
- bluefirebrand 2y agoIt still turns you into a road hazard and puts you in a dangerous situation How about we don't take control away from the people in the driver seat If we can't trust them to operate the vehicle then we should not be letting them operate the vehicle We cannot solve the problem of terrible driver training with tech
- croes 2y ago>It still turns you into a road hazard and puts you in a dangerous situation How do you know? You make assumptions about a system, that doesn't even is put in place. No car manufacture will use the forth way and risks getting sued if it doesn't work good enough.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago> How do you know? You make assumptions about a system, that doesn't even is put in place It seems obvious that any situation that unexpectedly decreases a driver's control over their vehicle creates a hazard and becomes dangerous This is true with any situation regardless of if the loss of control is caused by hydroplaning, slipping on black ice, an unexpected flat tire, or a speed limiting system misreading a road sign and reducing your maximum speed lower than the traffic around you
- croes 2y agoDepends on the degree of speed change. It is unlikely that it would be an emergency stop. The systems can also be deactivated, at least until the next time the vehicle is started.
- kivle 2y agoThere's a tunnel in my town where my Tesla hard breaks 3 separate places if I'm on cruise control / auto pilot. If this legislation will force this to happen even outside of auto pilot it will be "great" for sure...
- nedt 2y ago"[...] cause an average of 2 accidents per month if [...] people [...] weren't paying attention"