5 ms·

No, the inference they have isn't reliable enough to predict anything except with broad groups. Swerving to avoid road debris or hard braking to avoid a deer a

No, the inference they have isn't reliable enough to predict anything except with broad groups. Swerving to avoid road debris or hard braking to avoid a deer as examples of what have cost commercial drivers jobs. Look at the CDL world for a view into this. I have 30 years of clean driving records BTW, so not trying to justify risky driving BTW

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
This is how all the tech bro mass management of people systems work. Do away with any customer service, throw away randos impacted by any situations outside the norm because your system is large enough to keep the needed critical mass even without those people. Scale over nuanced edge cases to minimize cost/friction/complexity. The future world will become more and more brittle/brutal for us randos because we are 100% disposable in the future tech bro libertarian dystopia. If any situation puts us outside their standard use cases and automated support systems ability to resolve issues we are purged from the system. And when all of society is manage by those types of systems you are hit.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 2y ago
  Plot twist: at some point in our lives we're all in the "randos" group. So these policies are default inhumane to some portion of the populace all the time.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    That's the fun part.
nemomarx 2y ago
I guess you could argue that driving near deer at all is still more risk of accidents and damage to the car than a driver who never goes out of their suburb?
- caminante 2y ago
  Absolutely. Time of day (night driving especially) and speeding are major parameters for hazard avoidance. Minor nit: I expect someone driving in a suburb to pay more in premiums because...deer can't sue you.
  - nyrikki 2y ago
    90% of drivers consider themselves above average, and where I grew up we had pronghorns, which could pass you and cut in front of you even at 55. While reducing speed when you see deer is important, you won't see the one you hit. In my case it jumped over a road barrier from below, it would have been impossible to see. But human perception is limited, the best drivers I know (not including myself in this) respect their limits. Urban areas have higher rates because there tend to be more conflicts, it is just mathematics. Pedestrians, dogs, etc.. all work as replacements for deer above.
    - caminante 2y ago
      > While reducing speed when you see deer is important, you won't see the one you hit. In my case it jumped over a road barrier from below, it would have been impossible to see. "Won't see it?" You can't argue that all else equal, driving during the day is as likely to hit a pronghorn as driving at night. Not calling you a liar, but I'm skeptical.
      - nyrikki 2y ago
        Never made that claim, but dawn and dusk are the most risky. Mine happened on a lunch break, can't see through rock either. But you only see a fraction of the wildlife that is there. If your sole stratagy is to see them you may be surprised how many deer hit the sides of cars. Complacency and selective attention are very real human problems. The classic basketball game example of selective attention if you don't buy it. https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo
    - potato3732842 2y ago
aziaziazi 2y ago
If you drive slower you’ll break smoother. I hate insurances and their hidden shenanigany-like algorithms but at the end it is a fair game I when you look at the big picture. I never owned a car but I feel deeply concerned as I use the road by foot, bike and rentals and am often scared by the drivers usage of the road. You know : texting, updating gps, driving full speed in turns without visibility, taking over as Schumacher in the last lap… I’m mean yes it’s safe for the other ones in bigger cars and themselves until no deer encounter. The speed limit is a LIMIT not a requirement. And don’t start me with "you’re dangerous driving so slow" lol.
- hiatus 2y ago
  > The speed limit is a LIMIT not a requirement. And don’t start me with "you’re dangerous driving so slow" lol. There are many places that have minimum speed limits as well.
  - gruez 2y ago
    There's no jurisdictions where the minimum is higher than the speed limit though.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  >> The speed limit is a LIMIT not a requirement. And don’t start me with "you’re dangerous driving so slow" lol. It certainly is. Speed differential is a huge cause of serious accidents. That can be driving too fast or too slow. Many roads have minimum speeds, and as a commuting cyclist I can tell you the biggest threat is not being able to move with the general flow of traffic. I'm also not sure how you came up with driving slower and smooth breaking being correlated, especially if you do limited driving.
  - aziaziazi 2y ago
    I don’t known roads with minimum speed limit here in France but the highway (80km.h). I agree it’s a good idea to respect the min and max limit when they exist. I also 100% agree that its way safer to move at the speed of the flow. I’m also a commuter and don’t engage in flows I can’t follow. However I see too much people on low traffic condition driving at full speed where they couldn’t stop in case of… a deer/cyclist/dizzy child. Things happen and blaming random hazards won’t make the road safer. Slowing down, will. > slower and smooth breaking being correlated The energy of a moving object is proportional to the square of the speed, but your braving force is constant. If you want to decelerate from Xkm.h to 0km.h before the deer at 100m ahead, you’ll have a smoother stop if you drive slower. And that don’t even take reaction time into account. > especially if you do limited driving. Limited on a daily basis but it’s been 20 years I learned to drive and do it regularly for occasions like week ends, road trips, helping parents, going to buy heavy appliances etc… also riding a bicycle share many thinks with driving a car, a truc or a motorcycle.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

This is how all the tech bro mass management of people systems work. Do away with any customer service, throw away randos impacted by any situations outside the norm because your system is large enough to keep the needed critical mass even without those people. Scale over nuanced edge cases to minimize cost/friction/complexity. The future world will become more and more brittle/brutal for us randos because we are 100% disposable in the future tech bro libertarian dystopia. If any situation puts us outside their standard use cases and automated support systems ability to resolve issues we are purged from the system. And when all of society is manage by those types of systems you are hit.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 2y ago
Plot twist: at some point in our lives we're all in the "randos" group. So these policies are default inhumane to some portion of the populace all the time.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  That's the fun part.

nemomarx 2y ago

I guess you could argue that driving near deer at all is still more risk of accidents and damage to the car than a driver who never goes out of their suburb?

caminante 2y ago
Absolutely. Time of day (night driving especially) and speeding are major parameters for hazard avoidance. Minor nit: I expect someone driving in a suburb to pay more in premiums because...deer can't sue you.
- nyrikki 2y ago
  90% of drivers consider themselves above average, and where I grew up we had pronghorns, which could pass you and cut in front of you even at 55. While reducing speed when you see deer is important, you won't see the one you hit. In my case it jumped over a road barrier from below, it would have been impossible to see. But human perception is limited, the best drivers I know (not including myself in this) respect their limits. Urban areas have higher rates because there tend to be more conflicts, it is just mathematics. Pedestrians, dogs, etc.. all work as replacements for deer above.
  - caminante 2y ago
    > While reducing speed when you see deer is important, you won't see the one you hit. In my case it jumped over a road barrier from below, it would have been impossible to see. "Won't see it?" You can't argue that all else equal, driving during the day is as likely to hit a pronghorn as driving at night. Not calling you a liar, but I'm skeptical.
    - nyrikki 2y ago
      Never made that claim, but dawn and dusk are the most risky. Mine happened on a lunch break, can't see through rock either. But you only see a fraction of the wildlife that is there. If your sole stratagy is to see them you may be surprised how many deer hit the sides of cars. Complacency and selective attention are very real human problems. The classic basketball game example of selective attention if you don't buy it. https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo
  - potato3732842 2y ago

aziaziazi 2y ago

If you drive slower you’ll break smoother. I hate insurances and their hidden shenanigany-like algorithms but at the end it is a fair game I when you look at the big picture. I never owned a car but I feel deeply concerned as I use the road by foot, bike and rentals and am often scared by the drivers usage of the road. You know : texting, updating gps, driving full speed in turns without visibility, taking over as Schumacher in the last lap… I’m mean yes it’s safe for the other ones in bigger cars and themselves until no deer encounter. The speed limit is a LIMIT not a requirement. And don’t start me with "you’re dangerous driving so slow" lol.

hiatus 2y ago
> The speed limit is a LIMIT not a requirement. And don’t start me with "you’re dangerous driving so slow" lol. There are many places that have minimum speed limits as well.
- gruez 2y ago
  There's no jurisdictions where the minimum is higher than the speed limit though.
skeeter2020 2y ago
>> The speed limit is a LIMIT not a requirement. And don’t start me with "you’re dangerous driving so slow" lol. It certainly is. Speed differential is a huge cause of serious accidents. That can be driving too fast or too slow. Many roads have minimum speeds, and as a commuting cyclist I can tell you the biggest threat is not being able to move with the general flow of traffic. I'm also not sure how you came up with driving slower and smooth breaking being correlated, especially if you do limited driving.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  I don’t known roads with minimum speed limit here in France but the highway (80km.h). I agree it’s a good idea to respect the min and max limit when they exist. I also 100% agree that its way safer to move at the speed of the flow. I’m also a commuter and don’t engage in flows I can’t follow. However I see too much people on low traffic condition driving at full speed where they couldn’t stop in case of… a deer/cyclist/dizzy child. Things happen and blaming random hazards won’t make the road safer. Slowing down, will. > slower and smooth breaking being correlated The energy of a moving object is proportional to the square of the speed, but your braving force is constant. If you want to decelerate from Xkm.h to 0km.h before the deer at 100m ahead, you’ll have a smoother stop if you drive slower. And that don’t even take reaction time into account. > especially if you do limited driving. Limited on a daily basis but it’s been 20 years I learned to drive and do it regularly for occasions like week ends, road trips, helping parents, going to buy heavy appliances etc… also riding a bicycle share many thinks with driving a car, a truc or a motorcycle.