3 ms·

There's a difference between tailgating and using one's space though. I'm a Swiss who's driven in France (countryside) and I've always found French driving styl

There's a difference between tailgating and using one's space though. I'm a Swiss who's driven in France (countryside) and I've always found French driving style quite pleasant. Quick on the outer lane, giving you space on the inner/middle lane. What I mean is: Legal limits usually don't really reflect what's safe with today's cars, so using the space a bit better shouldn't be a problem as long as you're respectful and reasonable. So yeah, parent raises interesting questions - since autonomous cars will probably have to follow legal limits, what about driving culture? If it were me I'd solve the issue by giving drivers a slider going from the most aggressive yet still safe distance to the legal distance - with legal warnings you have to tap through if you want to change the slider.

martindale 12y ago
Intelligence-driven cars will likely fly "under the radar" for a half-decade or so while regulators catch up. Once they do, the industry will be more than ready to accelerate traffic 100% to 300% and ultimately flip the regulatory pressure from machine to human. Humans will need to prove their ability to drive at something like 500 kph.
ghshephard 12y ago
"Legal limits usually don't really reflect what's safe with today's cars," Correct - Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if the Limits were more strict. People who violate even those rather dangerous limits, result in even more carnage. I find it fascinating how overconfident people are when it comes to cars, and just feel that because they aren't getting into accidents, that cars are safe. There isn't a single country in the world that believes that human life is worth more than the convenience of speeding around in cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero is a great concept, but until automation is fully extended, most of the traffic laws, speeds, car spacing will continue to result in people dying in numbers greater than if there were more strict regulations.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  > Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if the Limits were more strict. Source on this please. Let's take speed limits as an example. Looking at [1], the data for the US doesn't seem to be conclusive to me - some times speed limit decreases didn't have a significant effect, sometimes increases lead to more crashes, sometimes to less crashes. So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't use such a blanket statement. Also, Europe often has higher speed limits, but significantly less fatalities than the US[2], both by miles driven and by number of cars. That may or may not be causal, but the world is not as simple as it's the law so it must be good. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... Edit: I've been looking for regulations on following distance, but I can't actually find any. There's lots of rules that are given to driving learners but I can't find anything legally binding, whether for the US nor for European country. Obviously keeping a safe distance is necessary for reducing accidents, but lacking any data I can't really say what distance is safe. In Switzerland we learn the 'two second rule', in the US it seems to be three seconds - which seems excessively much to me - at that distance you'd have driver after driver using the gap in front of you since half the distance would seem close enough to the two-second-rule to them - thus creating way more critical situations where you have to be careful.
  - jabakobob 12y ago
    "Doesn't seem conclusive"? I find it hard to believe you could read that table you linked to and claim that speed limits are not effective. Most of the data presented show double digit correlations between speed limit changes and fatalities!
    - m_mueller 12y ago
      I'm quoting the data entries for the US that are either nation-wide or multi-state: decreases * US (22 states) (1992) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) decreases No significant changes increases * US (1989) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatal crashes increased by 21% * US (40 states) (1990) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatalities increased by 15% Decrease or no effect in 12 States * US (40 states) (1994) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant in 14 of 40 states) * US (22 states) (1997) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) increase No significant changes So no, I don't see the defining answer here. I'm not saying that the limits should be raised across the board, I'm also not saying that decreases aren't good - all I'm saying is that legal limits should be assessed from time to time (which they are), because of changes in society, technology and new data. Laws are not perfect.
toast76 12y ago
The current model Subaru already has this feature for it's "adaptive cruise control". It has 4 presets for distance it will follow the car in front. It's obviously only appropriate on the freeway of course. On my commute I will have it set at the second shortest distance because it's frankly a little disconcerting when the person in front of you stops in a hurry. It does, however, mean that people merge in front of you... but somehow, with adaptive cruise, I no longer care.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
And you can't have legal limits reflecting anything useful because traffic authorities play catch-up with drivers who are so full of themselves they think they're smarter than everyone and can ignore the rules because they know better. You need people obeying the rules, however bad they may be, for traffic engineers to be able to optimize said rules. That's why I think traffic laws should be enforced ruthlessly and in automated fashion.
leohutson 12y ago
It's not about the performance of the car that your driving, but about giving you enough time to react. In theory, if your car and the car you were following had same stopping distance, and you could react instantaneously, then you could drive bumper to bumper without incident. Even with anti lock brakes, the car in front of you probably has them too, so you still have the same time to react as you always did. Pile-ups still happen pretty frequently, and they could be avoided completely if people were following at a safe distance, and were alert. You could definitely argue that autonomous cars should be able to follow closer than human operated ones, and I'd buy that.
- m_mueller 12y ago
  I agree with everything you wrote. My post was meant to be a reaction to GP's post that implied tailgating to be equal with driving in a way that minifies cars cutting in front of you. I maintain that there is a sweet spot that is both safe as long as you're alert as well as keeps the traffic around you in sort of a steady state where everyone can just keep following. If you let the gap become larger, others will start cutting in - if you then have to use the breaks you basically rely on the guy behind you doing the right thing as well, thus increasing the risk of accidents.

martindale 12y ago

Intelligence-driven cars will likely fly "under the radar" for a half-decade or so while regulators catch up. Once they do, the industry will be more than ready to accelerate traffic 100% to 300% and ultimately flip the regulatory pressure from machine to human. Humans will need to prove their ability to drive at something like 500 kph.

ghshephard 12y ago

"Legal limits usually don't really reflect what's safe with today's cars," Correct - Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if the Limits were more strict. People who violate even those rather dangerous limits, result in even more carnage. I find it fascinating how overconfident people are when it comes to cars, and just feel that because they aren't getting into accidents, that cars are safe. There isn't a single country in the world that believes that human life is worth more than the convenience of speeding around in cars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero is a great concept, but until automation is fully extended, most of the traffic laws, speeds, car spacing will continue to result in people dying in numbers greater than if there were more strict regulations.

m_mueller 12y ago
> Legal Limits results in many deaths a year that would not occur if the Limits were more strict. Source on this please. Let's take speed limits as an example. Looking at [1], the data for the US doesn't seem to be conclusive to me - some times speed limit decreases didn't have a significant effect, sometimes increases lead to more crashes, sometimes to less crashes. So I don't know about you, but I wouldn't use such a blanket statement. Also, Europe often has higher speed limits, but significantly less fatalities than the US[2], both by miles driven and by number of cars. That may or may not be causal, but the world is not as simple as it's the law so it must be good. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#Effectiveness [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r... Edit: I've been looking for regulations on following distance, but I can't actually find any. There's lots of rules that are given to driving learners but I can't find anything legally binding, whether for the US nor for European country. Obviously keeping a safe distance is necessary for reducing accidents, but lacking any data I can't really say what distance is safe. In Switzerland we learn the 'two second rule', in the US it seems to be three seconds - which seems excessively much to me - at that distance you'd have driver after driver using the gap in front of you since half the distance would seem close enough to the two-second-rule to them - thus creating way more critical situations where you have to be careful.
- jabakobob 12y ago
  "Doesn't seem conclusive"? I find it hard to believe you could read that table you linked to and claim that speed limits are not effective. Most of the data presented show double digit correlations between speed limit changes and fatalities!
  - m_mueller 12y ago
    I'm quoting the data entries for the US that are either nation-wide or multi-state: decreases * US (22 states) (1992) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) decreases No significant changes increases * US (1989) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatal crashes increased by 21% * US (40 states) (1990) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Fatalities increased by 15% Decrease or no effect in 12 States * US (40 states) (1994) 55 mph to 65 mph (89 km/h to 105 km/h) Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5% (Significant in 14 of 40 states) * US (22 states) (1997) 5 mph to 15 mph (8 km/h to 24 km/h) increase No significant changes So no, I don't see the defining answer here. I'm not saying that the limits should be raised across the board, I'm also not saying that decreases aren't good - all I'm saying is that legal limits should be assessed from time to time (which they are), because of changes in society, technology and new data. Laws are not perfect.

toast76 12y ago

The current model Subaru already has this feature for it's "adaptive cruise control". It has 4 presets for distance it will follow the car in front. It's obviously only appropriate on the freeway of course. On my commute I will have it set at the second shortest distance because it's frankly a little disconcerting when the person in front of you stops in a hurry. It does, however, mean that people merge in front of you... but somehow, with adaptive cruise, I no longer care.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

And you can't have legal limits reflecting anything useful because traffic authorities play catch-up with drivers who are so full of themselves they think they're smarter than everyone and can ignore the rules because they know better. You need people obeying the rules, however bad they may be, for traffic engineers to be able to optimize said rules. That's why I think traffic laws should be enforced ruthlessly and in automated fashion.

leohutson 12y ago

It's not about the performance of the car that your driving, but about giving you enough time to react. In theory, if your car and the car you were following had same stopping distance, and you could react instantaneously, then you could drive bumper to bumper without incident. Even with anti lock brakes, the car in front of you probably has them too, so you still have the same time to react as you always did. Pile-ups still happen pretty frequently, and they could be avoided completely if people were following at a safe distance, and were alert. You could definitely argue that autonomous cars should be able to follow closer than human operated ones, and I'd buy that.

m_mueller 12y ago
I agree with everything you wrote. My post was meant to be a reaction to GP's post that implied tailgating to be equal with driving in a way that minifies cars cutting in front of you. I maintain that there is a sweet spot that is both safe as long as you're alert as well as keeps the traffic around you in sort of a steady state where everyone can just keep following. If you let the gap become larger, others will start cutting in - if you then have to use the breaks you basically rely on the guy behind you doing the right thing as well, thus increasing the risk of accidents.