5 ms·

The interesting thing is that, based on my experience with the cruise control/driver assist on the 5 Series, it's far better at responding quickly to changing r

The interesting thing is that, based on my experience with the cruise control/driver assist on the 5 Series, it's far better at responding quickly to changing road situations, like when somebody in front of you just jumps hard on the breaks. The car will take it all the way down to a stop in just a few seconds - quite often before the driver would have even realized something was happening, and way before they could have reacted to prevent an accident. I'm guessing once the technology is widespread, we'll see almost total elimination of rear-end accidents on the freeway - the technology really is quite amazing.

matthiasb 12y ago
Better than what? The average human driver?
- atom-morgan 12y ago
  That seems to be the logical comparison.
  - treehau5 12y ago
    Yeah but can the computer be situationally aware to see the kid in the 2003 3 series bmw ahead of him on his cell phone and preemptively switch lanes when his head bobs down to send another text to the furthest lane away from him before he ever has a chance to pose a risk to you in the first place? We can increase the efficiency of reactionary driving as much as we want with computers, but for me, you just can't beat defensive driving. Just curious, How well do these systems handle potential rear threats as well? How would it handle tailgaters? Some tailgaters are more aggressive than others. Some just need a friendly reminder that you do not appreciate the tailgating by a nice easy slow down, or a slight tapping of the breaks. Others -- such as the guy in F250 super duty with 30 inch tires and a lift kit, you might just want to go ahead and move over when you see them coming.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      > Yeah but can the computer be situationally aware to see the kid in the 2003 3 series bmw ahead of him on his cell phone and preemptively switch lanes when his head bobs down to send another text to the furthest lane away from him before he ever has a chance to pose a risk to you in the first place? Probably about as much as the average driver. Hell, a lot of drivers on the road don't even notice a turn signal and get pissed that they're stuck behind a turning car in the lane.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Around here, I'd say the average driver probably thinks that an active turn signal is just faulty wiring.
    - moskie 12y ago
      But the gauge for success shouldn't be whether it handles every situation better than humans, it should be whether the use of these tools leads to a lower rate of accidents/injuries/deaths. Just pointing out that there might specific situations where humans would do better, while downplaying all the situations where an automated system would do better, isn't all that useful. I mean, it works on an emotional level, but we should try to be objective by looking at the numbers. Saying everyone should just drive defensively isn't a solution. The evidence for that is the fact that that's what we currently try to tell everyone to do, and it's still a problem that people drive poorly.
      - treehau5 12y ago
        Right. Saying everyone should just drive defensively is most definitely not a solution.
        moskie 12y ago
        I'm not really sure what you're implying... We need better enforcement? We try to do that by writing laws and issuing tickets. And, again, poor driving is still a problem. How about we FORCE people to drive defensively? That sure sounds like what automated driving is trying to do.
danielweber 12y ago
Ideal human reaction time is around 200 milliseconds[1]. At 60mph that's more than 1 car length. How many milliseconds does it take the 5 Series to notice what's going on and start applying the brakes? [1] If you are a) early 20's, b) male, c) responding to a audio cue, and d) doing exactly one thing on the cue (as opposed to making even a very simple decision based on the cue), you can get down to 150ms.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  > Ideal human reaction time is around 200 milliseconds. Sure, if they're not looking down at the radio or at the accident on the other side of the freeway.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    And then there's the time to actually make your movements. Getting your foot onto the brake pedal and pushing on it takes appreciable time, both for the foot to make the movement and for the nerve impulses to get there to make it move. I recall from looking into this stuff a bit that a good reaction time from "oh shit" to "brakes are applied" is around 750ms. Accounting for people who aren't fully on top of their game (distracted, tired, injured, old, etc.), road designers assume more like 1.5-2s delay for applying brakes. And even that will be optimistic in some cases, as many car crashes demonstrate.
    - nkrumm 12y ago
      There's that, but also the realization that you need to brake "as hard as possible"-- we're not trained to do that often so there's additional delay before that happens.
  - emergentcypher 12y ago
    Hence why he said "ideal".
    - ceejayoz 12y ago

matthiasb 12y ago

Better than what? The average human driver?

atom-morgan 12y ago
That seems to be the logical comparison.
- treehau5 12y ago
  Yeah but can the computer be situationally aware to see the kid in the 2003 3 series bmw ahead of him on his cell phone and preemptively switch lanes when his head bobs down to send another text to the furthest lane away from him before he ever has a chance to pose a risk to you in the first place? We can increase the efficiency of reactionary driving as much as we want with computers, but for me, you just can't beat defensive driving. Just curious, How well do these systems handle potential rear threats as well? How would it handle tailgaters? Some tailgaters are more aggressive than others. Some just need a friendly reminder that you do not appreciate the tailgating by a nice easy slow down, or a slight tapping of the breaks. Others -- such as the guy in F250 super duty with 30 inch tires and a lift kit, you might just want to go ahead and move over when you see them coming.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    > Yeah but can the computer be situationally aware to see the kid in the 2003 3 series bmw ahead of him on his cell phone and preemptively switch lanes when his head bobs down to send another text to the furthest lane away from him before he ever has a chance to pose a risk to you in the first place? Probably about as much as the average driver. Hell, a lot of drivers on the road don't even notice a turn signal and get pissed that they're stuck behind a turning car in the lane.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Around here, I'd say the average driver probably thinks that an active turn signal is just faulty wiring.
  - moskie 12y ago
    But the gauge for success shouldn't be whether it handles every situation better than humans, it should be whether the use of these tools leads to a lower rate of accidents/injuries/deaths. Just pointing out that there might specific situations where humans would do better, while downplaying all the situations where an automated system would do better, isn't all that useful. I mean, it works on an emotional level, but we should try to be objective by looking at the numbers. Saying everyone should just drive defensively isn't a solution. The evidence for that is the fact that that's what we currently try to tell everyone to do, and it's still a problem that people drive poorly.
    - treehau5 12y ago
      Right. Saying everyone should just drive defensively is most definitely not a solution.
      - moskie 12y ago
        I'm not really sure what you're implying... We need better enforcement? We try to do that by writing laws and issuing tickets. And, again, poor driving is still a problem. How about we FORCE people to drive defensively? That sure sounds like what automated driving is trying to do.

danielweber 12y ago

Ideal human reaction time is around 200 milliseconds[1]. At 60mph that's more than 1 car length. How many milliseconds does it take the 5 Series to notice what's going on and start applying the brakes? [1] If you are a) early 20's, b) male, c) responding to a audio cue, and d) doing exactly one thing on the cue (as opposed to making even a very simple decision based on the cue), you can get down to 150ms.

ceejayoz 12y ago
> Ideal human reaction time is around 200 milliseconds. Sure, if they're not looking down at the radio or at the accident on the other side of the freeway.
- mikeash 12y ago
  And then there's the time to actually make your movements. Getting your foot onto the brake pedal and pushing on it takes appreciable time, both for the foot to make the movement and for the nerve impulses to get there to make it move. I recall from looking into this stuff a bit that a good reaction time from "oh shit" to "brakes are applied" is around 750ms. Accounting for people who aren't fully on top of their game (distracted, tired, injured, old, etc.), road designers assume more like 1.5-2s delay for applying brakes. And even that will be optimistic in some cases, as many car crashes demonstrate.
  - nkrumm 12y ago
    There's that, but also the realization that you need to brake "as hard as possible"-- we're not trained to do that often so there's additional delay before that happens.
- emergentcypher 12y ago
  Hence why he said "ideal".
  - ceejayoz 12y ago