6 ms·

Literally everything causes death. The question is: will this prevent more deaths from speeding than it causes from mistaken slowdowns?

jvanderbot 2y ago
I 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 ago
  As 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 ago
    OK, 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 ago
Is 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?
- wongarsu 2y ago
  > Why does the Autobahn still not have speed limits on large parts of the road and why does this not cause massive problems? That's a bit like asking "Why are guns freely available in the US and why does this not cause massive problems?" Not having speed limits on the Autobahn does cause problems. Accident numbers are fine because of good road design and good driver education, but every study says that introducing a speed limit would make the situation even better. But people like their freedoms, and powerful lobbies are against the limit.
- masterj 2y ago
  > Is the category of "deaths from speeding" large enough to justify any action whatsoever? Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year, and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. > Why does the Autobahn still not have speed limits on large parts of the road and why does this not cause massive problems? It's designed for these speeds. Most speeding issues do not occur on highways, but on local roads.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year, and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. But what actually causes crashes? Speed alone does not cause crashes It's reckless driving, distracted driving, poor driver training, drunk or otherwise inebriated driving, poor road design, drivers suffering medical emergencies behind the wheel, etc Why so much focus on fixing speeding and so little on training people to be better and more responsible drivers? Or removing terrible drivers from the road?
    - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      At least in the US - between 30-40% of all auto deaths are caused by speeding: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/speeding-deaths/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/speeding-deaths/
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year Not quite. 8k of those are motorcycles. 8k are pedestrians. Half of those are drivers who had drugs or alcohol in their system. One quarter are male drivers under 25. Most fatalities happen at night. > and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. Not quite. It's mostly lack of seatbelt usage. > Most speeding issues do not occur on highways, but on local roads. Not quite. It's about 50/50. To add to all of this, more people die on Texas roads than California roads. Not per capita, but TOTAL. California has 10m more people in it than Texas. This alone should give pause.
nasmorn 2y ago
I used the ACC with automatic speed recognition for about two months but it did too many stupid brakings. I think using GPS to limit to the highest possible speed for highway/roads/city would be fine. But as long as the car can decide that on this highway it really thinks the 40 sign is for the main lane and not the off ramp, I would rather not have it
- bsimpson 2y ago
  There are many places where roads are too close together for GPS to be reliable (for instance, frontage roads or spaghetti bowl interchanges). If you're driving adjacent to or above/below a slower road, the technology needs to know that you're entitled to drive at the faster speed.
  - nasmorn 2y ago
    I guess you are right it is the same problem really. Where I live you could at least limit it to 80km/h in the city limits since there is no higher limit anywhere. But more granular limits might be hard
umvi 2y ago
> The question is: will this prevent more deaths [than the alternative] I hate that question. It's pure utilitarianism and is used all the time to rationalize removing/limiting freedoms in exchange for safety and security. Deaths prevented should not be the ultimate metric unless a totalitarian police state that keeps everyone perfectly safe at all times is the desired end goal. In this case I would rather have the freedom to intentionally speed (because I need to get my wife to the hospital more quickly, because I'm in the middle of nowhere and want to, or any other reason I deem rational) than be marginally more "safe" thanks to my vehicle nannying me.
- matsemann 2y ago
  Driving above the limit isn't a "freedom". Driving is a privilege. Hence why it needs training and a certificate.
  - bigfudge 2y ago
    I completely agree let’s just frame this as my freedom not to be mown down by speeding distracted drivers and be done with it. If you want to speed, pay for a track day.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that line. > In this case I would rather have the freedom to intentionally speed (because I need to get my wife to the hospital more quickly, because I'm in the middle of nowhere and want to, or any other reason I deem rational) than be marginally more "safe" thanks to my vehicle nannying me. It's not you that your vehicle is keeping safe. It's the other people you put at risk with your decision to speed. Your actions affect other people. "Because you need to get your wife to the hospital more quickly" is not a good reason to speed. I'm a first responder, and one of the things they teach you in the cert class is to not make more patients. There are numerous examples of people making bad situations worse by taking risks that don't meaningful improve their patient's chances. And the reality is, people who try to justify speeding, mostly just speed because they're impatient. The "taking wife to hospital" hypothetical is rare and even in the rare cases where it happens, speeding isn't helpful.

jvanderbot 2y ago

I 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 ago
As 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 ago
  OK, 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 ago

Is 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?

wongarsu 2y ago
> Why does the Autobahn still not have speed limits on large parts of the road and why does this not cause massive problems? That's a bit like asking "Why are guns freely available in the US and why does this not cause massive problems?" Not having speed limits on the Autobahn does cause problems. Accident numbers are fine because of good road design and good driver education, but every study says that introducing a speed limit would make the situation even better. But people like their freedoms, and powerful lobbies are against the limit.
masterj 2y ago
> Is the category of "deaths from speeding" large enough to justify any action whatsoever? Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year, and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. > Why does the Autobahn still not have speed limits on large parts of the road and why does this not cause massive problems? It's designed for these speeds. Most speeding issues do not occur on highways, but on local roads.
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
  > Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year, and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. But what actually causes crashes? Speed alone does not cause crashes It's reckless driving, distracted driving, poor driver training, drunk or otherwise inebriated driving, poor road design, drivers suffering medical emergencies behind the wheel, etc Why so much focus on fixing speeding and so little on training people to be better and more responsible drivers? Or removing terrible drivers from the road?
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    At least in the US - between 30-40% of all auto deaths are caused by speeding: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/speeding-deaths/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/speeding-deaths/
- akira2501 2y ago
  > Cars kill 40k+ people in the US each year Not quite. 8k of those are motorcycles. 8k are pedestrians. Half of those are drivers who had drugs or alcohol in their system. One quarter are male drivers under 25. Most fatalities happen at night. > and speed (really momentum) is a large factor in the lethality of crashes. Not quite. It's mostly lack of seatbelt usage. > Most speeding issues do not occur on highways, but on local roads. Not quite. It's about 50/50. To add to all of this, more people die on Texas roads than California roads. Not per capita, but TOTAL. California has 10m more people in it than Texas. This alone should give pause.

nasmorn 2y ago

I used the ACC with automatic speed recognition for about two months but it did too many stupid brakings. I think using GPS to limit to the highest possible speed for highway/roads/city would be fine. But as long as the car can decide that on this highway it really thinks the 40 sign is for the main lane and not the off ramp, I would rather not have it

bsimpson 2y ago
There are many places where roads are too close together for GPS to be reliable (for instance, frontage roads or spaghetti bowl interchanges). If you're driving adjacent to or above/below a slower road, the technology needs to know that you're entitled to drive at the faster speed.
- nasmorn 2y ago
  I guess you are right it is the same problem really. Where I live you could at least limit it to 80km/h in the city limits since there is no higher limit anywhere. But more granular limits might be hard

umvi 2y ago

> The question is: will this prevent more deaths [than the alternative] I hate that question. It's pure utilitarianism and is used all the time to rationalize removing/limiting freedoms in exchange for safety and security. Deaths prevented should not be the ultimate metric unless a totalitarian police state that keeps everyone perfectly safe at all times is the desired end goal. In this case I would rather have the freedom to intentionally speed (because I need to get my wife to the hospital more quickly, because I'm in the middle of nowhere and want to, or any other reason I deem rational) than be marginally more "safe" thanks to my vehicle nannying me.

matsemann 2y ago
Driving above the limit isn't a "freedom". Driving is a privilege. Hence why it needs training and a certificate.
- bigfudge 2y ago
  I completely agree let’s just frame this as my freedom not to be mown down by speeding distracted drivers and be done with it. If you want to speed, pay for a track day.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kerkeslager 2y ago
The limit of freedom is generally agreed to be "one person's freedom ends when it begins to infringe the freedom of others". Speeding definitely crosses that line. > In this case I would rather have the freedom to intentionally speed (because I need to get my wife to the hospital more quickly, because I'm in the middle of nowhere and want to, or any other reason I deem rational) than be marginally more "safe" thanks to my vehicle nannying me. It's not you that your vehicle is keeping safe. It's the other people you put at risk with your decision to speed. Your actions affect other people. "Because you need to get your wife to the hospital more quickly" is not a good reason to speed. I'm a first responder, and one of the things they teach you in the cert class is to not make more patients. There are numerous examples of people making bad situations worse by taking risks that don't meaningful improve their patient's chances. And the reality is, people who try to justify speeding, mostly just speed because they're impatient. The "taking wife to hospital" hypothetical is rare and even in the rare cases where it happens, speeding isn't helpful.