Totally. On the 280 near the 85 interchange — human drivers apparently think merging involves slowing down to let cars enter rather than the entering cars accelerating to the speed of traffic. Creates this yo-yo effect because Silicon Valley drivers have been badly programmed in how to drive.
And then there are the PITAs on the merging lane who slow down to a stop and wait for an opening. I actually hit someone that way once because this is exactly the opposite of what you're supposeud to do. fortunately, we were both driving big gas guzzler beaters and no damage was done to either car. We joked that they sure don't make them like they used to and went along our merry way.
Ironically, this incident happened on the way to my first day at Google but that's another story. And that story didn't end anywhere near as well when I refused to agree with Jeff Dean that GPUs had no future at Google (2011). Or to paraphrase Jim Croce: "You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger and you don't disagree with Jeff."
I am guessing some people think the above story is not relevant to this thread but I note that Waymo is owned by the parent company of Google and that those Waymo cars rely heavily on GPUs.
I'm really curious whether this frustration is truly because of the limitation of the technology(which is totally possible) or because of some sort of cognitive bias/confirmation. Would they feel the same frustration if the van had no decals or visible sensors? Are they more frustrated at the cars more than the other drivers? Community "anger" can be really perplexing like how a community of people were complaining about the ailments from a phone tower when the company already turned off the tower six weeks prior.
I’m guessing people see them as surplus unnecessary vehicles adding to the congestion they already experience. The alternative is that they are anti-automation, perhaps.
As someone who attempts to follow the letter of the law, I experience quite a few incidents of aggressive driving. The complaints here are really just demonstrating how bad humans are at driving - the frustration probably arises due to the fact that they are unable to intimidate the driver in front of them with aggressive behavior.
> One woman said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn
By following the correct speed limit and following distance, you will have ample time to react to any silly behavior. Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn.
My first thought when reading the "suddenly stopped" quote is that it was probably at a stop light or sign, and the car actually stopped as directed by the law, then proceeded to move forward to turn, versus the progressive rolling stop that nearly everyone does.
This is the truth here. I also try to follow the letter of the law. I always assume that a brick wall may suddenly shoot up in front of the car in front of me, stopping it instantly and killing everyone in it. So following closer than the recommended distance, is idiotic.
How often will a brick wall shoot up in front of a car like life is a video game? Probably a really low percentage, but cats, deer, blown tires, trailers falling off, jackknifing trucks - all can have similar effects.
Even knowing my car may get the brick wall, which I can't avoid, I can at least do the best I can to avoid someone else's.
Google's challenge however, is that we are in a very very small minority.
You're a minority because following the letter of the law isn't always the safe decision. It's illegal to cross the double yellow lines, but if a car is pulled over on the shoulder then I'll cross the lines to give them more space. It's illegal but it increases safety for me and them.
I do safe, illegal things too, so good point in mentioning this. I should have clarified that I was mostly talking about speed limits, tailgaiting etc.. I was just picking up the above poster's phrase. I don't think I could accurately sum up my driving style in a phrase, but that's probably the best short way to do it.
Why do you attempt to follow the letter of the law? Not even traffic officers follow the letter of the law; it's rare to get pulled over for going 60mph in a 55mph zone, for example.
Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars? Isn't that annoying? Why not just speed up a few mph and join the herd?
I'm honestly asking; I just do not get the appeal.
> Why do you attempt to follow the letter of the law?
Cars are objects that have an extreme amount of kinetic energy. The point isn't to avoid getting pulled over, the point is to avoid dying or killing.
> 60mph in a 55mph
Air resistance increases at a squared rate. The amount of fuel you use (and your emissions) is not linearly associated with your speed. So does your kinetic energy. Going at 25, 5 over is not the same as going at 55, 5 over.
> Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars? Isn't that annoying?
All the time, but it's not annoying because I don't care about being in front of everyone - I have left for my destination with ample time to make my appointment. I'm on the road to reach a destination, not to win the race. I don't care if people cut in front of me, because I have chosen not to and give them the safe room to do so.
Driving aggressively is stressful, you [not specifically you] are fighting with everyone else on the road. You're going to risk your health in order to be directly ahead of me at a red traffic light two minutes later? I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me. I try my best to get out of the way of aggressive driving; the further those drivers are away from me, the better.
In those two minutes where you've [again, generalized "you"] been racing everyone else on the road, I've probably let someone in front of me - saving them minutes and costing me seconds (before the next traffic light equalization). I feel good about myself, you are in the throws of fight or flight.
The only appeal of courteous driving is that there is less than an appeal to aggressive driving. The only way to win is not to play.
> All the time, but it's not annoying because I don't care about being in front of everyone - I have left for my destination with ample time to make my appointment. I'm on the road to reach a destination, not to win the race. I don't care if people cut in front of me, because I have chosen not to and give them the safe room to do so.
> Driving aggressively is stressful, you [not specifically you] are fighting with everyone else on the road. You're going to risk your health in order to be directly ahead of me at a red traffic light two minutes later? I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me. I try my best to get out of the way of aggressive driving; the further those drivers are away from me, the better.
the problem here is that you are (socially) forcing more cars to overtake in what sounds like nonstandard manners (from "I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me" I can't tell if you're moving out of the left lane or pulling into the shoulder). by driving slower than other cars, you're impeding the ability for traffic to flow evenly which results in more frustration and more lane changes. both of these increase the likelihood of accidents occurring as they lead to more dangerous maneuvers occurring more frequently and with more emotion.
or rather, do you not see how your slow driving could be the cause of their aggressiveness? which doesn't really fit the adjective "courteous".
Not moving into the shoulder, that's illegal and dangerous.
Once I've overtaken traffic that is _actually_ slow, I move to the right lane. There is nothing nonstandard about letting traffic pass me on the left when multiple lanes are available. Because I am not tailgating, they have ample room to safely move in front of me (5 seconds at highway speeds is a very large distance).
> both of these increase the likelihood of accidents occurring
Speeding and tailgating is a process that occurs all the way to a destination - it is a consistent threat. Lane switching doesn't need to occur frequently and can be done well in advance when it is generously safe to do so - it is a momentary threat.
> by driving slower than other cars, you're impeding the ability for traffic to flow evenly
By tailgating or anything between safe following distance, you are not giving adequate room for people to merge into traffic. Traffic that is entering is forced to come to a near-stop because they can't find an opening, slowing down or stopping traffic behind them when they do eventually enter the highway.
Everyone traveling at an agreed speed, with ample room for traffic to enter and leave is traffic flowing evenly.
> slow driving
Driving at the speed limit is not slow.
> which doesn't really fit the adjective "courteous"
You have _moved_ that word completely out of the context that it was used in. "Courteous" is letting people in (which aids traffic flow, especially in gridlock).
It's amazing how in driving that selfish and dangerous behavior is the zeitgeist. I agree to disagree.
If you may, try my style for no more than a week. See what it does for your mood. Be friendly on the road, stick to the law - if going slightly over is your line stick to that line. Just try to be safe and nice.
I don't understand why you conflate keeping speed with being aggressive. I can drive perfectly safely at 50mph just as I can at 45, with the added benefit of not creating a bottleneck.
> Air resistance increases at a squared rate. The amount of fuel you use (and your emissions) is not linearly associated with your speed. So does your kinetic energy. Going at 25, 5 over is not the same as going at 55, 5 over.
While true, engine efficiency might peak at higher engine speeds, which, depending on gear ratios, may reduce the impact of air resistance on your overall fuel economy.
I drive a 2016 BRZ with a manual transmission. It is stickered at 24 mpg city, 30 mpg highway. I usually drive 60-70 mph on the highway, depending on which highway. You know what my average fuel economy is? 33.5 mpg.
> Driving aggressively is stressful [...]
There's nothing aggressive about maintaining a speed that is equal to surrounding traffic, and by forcing so many people to change lanes and move around you, you're not only creating unnecessary stress in other drivers, but you're making the roads less safe.
If the speed limit is 55 mph, but everyone is driving 60 mph, then the safest speed is 60 mph. Within reason, reducing speed differential between cars is safer than keeping within the speed limit.
So instead of going with the flow of traffic you force people to go around you (yes, force, because few people actually stick right at the speed limit, and why would you?) and cause traffic congestion. And you think you're being a good driver. Going the same general speed as everyone else doesn't make you an aggressive driver; it makes you a reasonable one.
Is it not annoying to stop at every traffic light? The traffic lights are tuned to the speed limit. I stopped going faster than the speed limit(maybe 5 over sometimes max) and it’s a smoother experience.
Wanna tell us where this place is so we can all avoid it?
If I had to guess I'd say DC, Maryland, Virginia area since they go full 1984 on traffic stuff there but unfortunately any non-white driving a beat up older car is a magnet for fishing cops which leads to unreasonable tickets like what you've described so it really could be anywhere.
>Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars?
Yes, often.
>Isn’t that annoying?
No, it is much less stressful when everyone else is passing me than it was when I was driving about 5 mph over and always coming up behind cars trying to find space and time to pass them. (Or even now, the few times I come up on someone who is going under the speedlimit and I have to safely pass them.)
>By following the correct speed limit and following distance, you will have ample time to react to any silly behavior.
The problem is that in heavy traffic (e.g. middle of many large cities at 5pm), it's not actually possible to both follow the law and actually make progress towards your destination in a given hour.
One example: Try to make a left turn in gridlocked traffic. You're supposed to avoid moving across an intersection until there is enough room for your vehicle, so that if a light changes, you will not block traffic. The problem is that in rush hour traffic, if you actually do that, you will sit there for an hour or more as other cars see the gap and take a right turn, never giving you a spot to turn into.
That is a real problem that I'm curious to see how Alphabet solves. In many areas of the country, the posted speed limit is often much lower than the realistic speed cars are going - following the letter of the law becomes unsafe behavior when you're going 15mph slower than everyone else.
Of course, the answer here is probably the most boring: following the letter of the law ensures the least liability.
Why would we want other vehicles to follow speed limits? Then everyone would be stuck moving slowly.
On the other hand... if everyone were to obey all of the impractically-low speed limits at once - like a "work-to-rule" strike - perhaps that would create enough political pressure to get them raised up to a more reasonable level.
This just demonstrates that you don't understand what speed limits are for. They're not some arbitrary number imposed on you to make your life inconvenient.
In addition to being adjusted for the engineering of the road, they also create gaps in traffic allowing people to change lanes, or other people to enter traffic, or — in the case of roads with intersections — allow other people to make left turns, especially on curves.
Just because you don't understand why a speed limit exists doesn't mean it's wrong. A lot of science goes into these decisions.
That’s funny that the municipal speed limit for a 200 sq mile area including urban and rural densities is 30 mph. What a coincidence that most of the roads just so happen to have conditions that 30 mph is always the right speed. It’s 30 mph in the city which seems pretty reasonable but in fact seems too fast in some parts (this is an old non grid city)... meanwhile oh they bump it to 35 mph for a county road that is suburban to rural and two lanes wide in each direction. That same basic road with similar traffic patterns and construction is 45 mph the next county over. And then.. the next state over everything urban is 25 now.. even though that state gets a lot less rain and snow.
And explain to me how the laws of physics or “science” change across state lines. Because if you’ve ever driven from one state to the next in the US you will quickly learn that each DOT has its own theory of how to do things and how to assign speeds. The PA turnpike is 70 mph now and I refuse to believe you have any science to back up why that 70 mph is more appropriate than the 65 mph for the NYS thruway which is wider, straighter, flatter, better lit , in overall better shape throughout the state...also why is the speed 65 in bumblefuck as well as an hour outside of nyc (I lived through the politics of northeast road transportation and bud shuster so spare me your science counterargument, I already know it’s a pile).
I feel like you are or might be related to a traffic engineer and I honestly don’t want to hurt your feelings.
That’s funny that the municipal speed limit for a 200 sq mile area including urban and rural densities is 30 mph.
200 square miles where people want to make left turns and forming gaps in traffic make sense.
Unless you live in a city where no one ever makes a left turn; dogs, children, and sports balls are outlawed; and you're the only person on the road ever.
You do realize there are other people out there driving, don't you?
Yeah, people also don't eat healthily, don't comment their code and have terrible taste in music. Speed limits are often set at unsafe speeds that are dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, or people trying to turn onto a road.
There seems to be a huge disconnect between posted speed, design speed, and speeds that are safe in areas with pedestrians, scooters, and bicyclists. Engineers have been designing for highway speeds everywhere. It's going to take a long time to get everything adjusted so that the three things match up.
When a self driving vehicle is ticketed for going too slow when it was doing the posted speed limit as happened with a Google vehicle; Googles' response should be "please post the appropriate speed".
Has Google (or any other company) ever said "we are programming our cars to follow the letter of the law"? I don't believe so. This seems to be something that programmers and lazy reporters have inferred to be true, without evidence.
For example, it is required in California to signal lane changes/turns for at least 100 feet before the maneuver. (Other states may have different requirements, so better hope your GPS is functioning.) If little Sally runs out into the road and can only be avoided by swerving, heck, even crossing double yellow lines, the letter of the law would be to strike Sally without swerving since the swerve maneuver can't be legally executed. Is that what is being programmed [Y/N]?
Indeed, they are not being programmed to obey the letter of the law:
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about your example being legally impossible.
And you might be right that the robocar companies aren't trying to program their cars to drive strictly legally for every possible situation, it is in fact a reasonable presumption.
If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions. You cannot rely on being able to swerve into the oncoming lane, it might be occupied.
If you can reasonably avoid Sally but don't, that's careless driving. You're avoiding a misdemeanor to commit a possible felony.
> If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions.
That's an unreasonable standard. You may be driving too fast for conditions, but being unable to stop in time when something unpredictably enters the roadway is, by itself, neither proof nor definition.
The average stopping distance for a passenger vehicle at 20 mph is 20 feet; to say nothing of a heavily-laden delivery truck. That's not including reaction distance. Sally might step out from behind a van. Or a large branch might fall from a tree. Or the wind might push over a garbage can. A dog may wander onto the interstate. Some accidents are unavoidable by simply applying the brakes, except by forgoing non-ambulatory transportation altogether.
The key is not to stop completely, it's to get down to a speed that's highly unlikely to be fatal to a pedestrian, 15-20 mph. So if you're on a street with obstructed sight lines, that means your max speed should be 15-20 mph.
Your just making stuff up. There will always be roads where objects obstruct sight lines and little Sally is going to get mowed down and killed because she screwed up and ran into the street when she shouldn't have.
I know there's the big hatred of cars here on HN, but in the real world NOBODY thinks that way. Accidents do happen and it's going to be fatal because the pedestrian screwed up.
If you read the article, though, people are particularly frustrated about how the cars, which are purposefully programmed to err on the conservative side, are slow and halting where other drivers could handle a T-intersection with ease.
Honestly, it sounds like the same kind of frustration I hear with people reacting to elderly, overly cautious drivers.
It's possible the human drivers frustrated at waiting behind slow Google cars reluctant to turn left in traffic are perceiving the vehicles as more cautious than they actually are because they know they're automated (as well as because they're so numerous), but in all probability they actually are calibrated to be more cautious than even fairly sensible human drivers when driving across oncoming traffic. And ultimately, if autonomous vehicles are ever going to make it onto normal roads, they're going to have to live with human perceptions of them as well, accurate or otherwise. The original article[1] cites an example of a human driver admitting that he got so frustrated waiting for them to turn left at junctions he dangerously and illegally overtook them there, which is a reminder that taking or being perceived to take a cautious approach doesn't necessarily lead to a net safety increase where it is likely to have an effect on the behaviour other drivers.
Also, some of the cited examples sound like clear errors and lane discipline issues that sounds too blatant to just be perception. The original author's Twitter thread even illustrates a tangible example[2] of a potentially dangerous driving error the technology made, where a turning vehicle apparently reacts to an oncoming vehicle intending to turn in behind it (signalling and possibly moving a little early) by hard braking in mid turn, obstructing the oncoming vehicle intending to merge and possibly giving a following vehicle a surprise as well. A reminder that coming to a stop is not always the most sensible response to uncertainty. If the human driver wasn't involved in restarting that car, that incident probably doesn't appear in its much-trumpeted disengagement statistics though...
> The anecdotes highlight how challenging it can be for self-driving cars, which are programmed to drive conservatively, to master situations that human drivers can handle with relative ease, like merging or finding a gap in traffic to make a turn.
Human drivers are terrible at both of these. I'm regularly getting stuck behind people who won't make a right turn even as a line of people are making the left turn that shields the turn they're trying to make. I see a lot more promise of computer-driven cars at least being able to improve over time as a group.
I'm assuming here that you mean an uncontrolled right turn, where the right turn is at a red light or stop sign.
Is that Left Turn lane also uncontrolled in that moment that you are complaining about? That is, are you talking about the situation where people in the next lane are making a left turn at a green left turn only light or is it the uncontrolled stop sign (though rare to have a multi-lane stop sign) or more common flashing yellow left turn light (or jurisdictional equivalent; as some states allow uncontrolled left turns on red lights, and some drivers think all states do though they do not)?
In the case of people making an uncontrolled left turn when you are attempting an uncontrolled right turn you have an interesting relative to the prisoner's dilemma. As you point out, there should be some "shield" from mistakes in opposing traffic by nature of the person to your left making a left turn. But that same "shield" also blocks your vision of intersection, so you have to trust that the person making the uncontrolled left turn is situationally aware of their surroundings to not make a mistake. Even as a physical "shield" in that moment, basic physics will remind you that momentum is a jerk (terrible pun intended) and there is no guarantee that the left turning car will absorb any or all of an impact. In making that right turn you may not be risking a direct impact, but you can still be risking a three or more car pile-up.
To cover both bases, if the left turn is controlled at that moment, with a green left turn light, at least where I live that often means the opposite left turn light is also on, which is not a good opportunity for an uncontrolled right turn either. (Also too because depending on intersection size and layout here too the people making the controlled left turn to your immediate left may decrease the visibility of oncoming traffic making the left turn on the other side of the intersection.)
I get honked at somewhat routinely for precisely these scenarios, and I doubt most of the people think of that sort of risk calculus in their impatience in those moments (and they certainly don't have my assessment of intersection visibility from behind me).
I wouldn't program a car to make an uncontrolled right turn in those situations either, and it certainly sounds like that sort of behavior is what is causing some of the complaints in the linked article.
Yes, I'm talking about an uncontrolled right turn. The left turn I'm talking about isn't from the next landed, but the one you'd make if you made a U-turn immediately after your right and then a left to go back the way you came. If the road is clear enough for several people to make that left, it's clear enough to make your right turn.
> The company has previously said that it plans to launch a commercial self-driving taxi service before the end of the year, but that its service will still include a Waymo employee in each car as a "chaperone."
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they like conservative driving. "I would have risked that left turn, so you should have too. The person with the green light would have slowed down to avoid an accident, probably, and I would have gotten to the next red light 10 seconds sooner!"
You will also hear this when talking about less-capable drivers ("get off the road, grandma!") or less-capable vehicles ("I hate having to slow down for bikes and drive carefully around them.").
And of course, nobody ever says "you're going 80, the speed limit is 55! slow down!"
As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24.
Yeah. Totally incorrect: I say it all the time when I am driving my kids around -- or when idiot teenagers rip through my neighborhood where my kids are playing at 35-45 mph (1).. before kids? - Maybe not.
(1) - It's official: I am now a crotchety old man.
I'm not sure if you're crotchety. I had a grandma frantically signal me to slow down when she was out walking with her grandchildren. I was doing 12 mph in a 25mph zone. The road is sketchy in spots, but this stretch is perfectly straight and fairly wide and I gave them about 15 feet of clearance by essentially driving as far as I could on the opposite side of the road. She's definitely crotchety.
That said, I think people are terrible at judging speeds. I keep my car in a low gear on the hills around here for control. As a result the revs are sometimes on the higher end and my car is generally pretty loud and looks fast. So people assume I'm going some great speed when I'm actually going relatively slow.
Even when I was a kid, my parents would be speeding and yelling at other cars that were speeding much faster than them. Perhaps those exact words weren't used, but they were definitely complaining about people driving too fast.
> As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24.
"As a result" is a pretty big stretch. Traffic accidents result from unexpected situations. People who drive a lot learn to read the environment and the drivers around them and anticipate what will happen next.
When those anticipations are violated, it runs the risk of creating a surprise that can't be managed. That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction.
Learning to drive is an empirical process based on observed behavior, not a deductive process from the rules of the road. So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked. They don't drive like people, and thus violate the heuristics that human drivers have built up to predict traffic behavior.
And perhaps more importantly, they look different, so they can feed into confirmation bias about how annoying they are. If it was impossible to distinguish self-driving cars (if they exhibited the same visual diversity as cars in general), it would be harder for people to build mental associations about them.
> That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction.
I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.
Yellow doesn't mean "you can go through if you can beat the red". It means "stop if it is safe to do so". If it's just firm braking and not actual tires-squealing stop? The driver probably did the right thing.
Safe is relative. If he almost got rear ended, it probably wasn't safe.
Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that.
At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have seen people stop on yellow in a way that seemed unsafe.
So what you're saying is that drivers should endanger themselves by taking risky maneuvers to spare the person driving behind, who are endangering them by following too closely, from an accident?
Driving is a risky maneuver. The question is what is the less risky way of handling a stop light. The point of yellow lights is so that drivers can continue through the intersection after the light left the green state, because not green=stop is unsafe.
Running a yellow is less dangerous to the person driving then stopping for yellows. That is why we have yellow
It's not risky to go through an intersection when the light is yellow. If your light is yellow, the cross light is red. Proceeding through a yellow is no riskier than a green.
Traffic lights originally only had red and green. Municipalities added yellow specifically to prevent brake-slamming stops that led to crashes. Slamming the brakes on yellow is contrary to its purpose.
> I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red)
I have seen people who have so egregiously missed the yellow that the cross-signal turned green before they entered the intersection. Saying that running a yellow is safer than not trains people to be entitled to running yellow lights, and that is going to make their actions much less safe.
If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light. That is a very simple rule to follow and is going to be safe to follow. If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.
Slamming the brakes means different things for a sports car vs a SUV.
In my Subaru STI I can stop faster than some Escalade with only 2/3rds the brake pedal pressure. I'm not even close to maximum braking force. It's even more true in a lighter car like a Porsche 911.
Just as if they were driving a large commercial truck it is the SUV driver's responsibility to not be too close to me.
> I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light.
I witnessed an accident where a tiny little compact slammed on his brakes the second a light turned yellow. Unfortunately, he was being followed by a large SUV. The SUV hit him and pushed him into the intersection.[0] The very next day, at the very same intersection, I saw the now dented compact do the very same thing under the very same circumstances. He had learned nothing.
[0]To make matters worse, he left his perfectly drivable car in the middle of the intersection instead of pulling ahead. He got out of his car, made a phone call, and just stood there in the intersection having a conversation (with police or insurance I would assume), endangering himself and others.
Well, technically he doesnt have anything to learn, because he is right. The person behind him should always keep enough distance to stop according to the speed he is driving. The person who rear-ended him is in wrong and is responsible for the damages.
Sure, but you are still relying on the fact that other people never make mistakes so if you are not keeping the appropriate distance you are counting on other people to drive predictable all the time which will never be the reality (medical emergency, dropping your coffee in your lap,...)
Yeah, but you have to be following the car in front of you at a distance that takes into account your reaction time and the actual braking distance. This time, the guy slammed on his brakes because of a yellow light which is maybe not a good reason... but it could have easily been someone running the red light, some kid running out into the street after a ball, the car's wheel flying off, etc.
Given that in California a yellow light has no meaning other than as an indicator of a pending red light, a competent lawyer could argue that he has partial liability in this case. The driver's handbook suggests stopping if it is safe to do so, otherwise proceeding with caution; but this is neither legally binding nor was it safe for him to stop by slamming on his brakes either time.
But the legality of it is orthogonal to whether his behavior was right. It wasn't. It was unexpected, reckless, and very unsafe.
No. If they didn't have proper distance, they would have rear-ended. Instead, they had to slam on their brakes to avoid an accident. The leading driver caused a slam-on-brakes situation when they should not have.
Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable. The vast majority of drivers coast through yellow lights if they are reasonably close to the line. Breaking this predictability by abruptly halting at yellow (while reasonably close to the intersection) is going to be a risk multiplier - regardless of if you are "blameless" for doing so.
Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable.
The problem is, if I relied on other drivers to be predictable, I'd probably already be dead. I tell other motorcycle riders, "ask yourself what the stupidest thing that driver in front/next to/behind you can do. Now plan for that." It's not too often that plan needs to be executed, but it's handy when the time comes. (Anecdotally, I've found WA to be the hardest to plan for; man, they're a creative bunch.)
So, yes, be predictable; but expect the unexpected. As Red Green said, "we're all in this together."
One cannot follow that in Moscow and drive. Their in heavy traffick to change lines one signals the turn for few seconds and drives into the line without waiting the cars there to give the way. One just has to assume that people are reasonable and want to avoid crashing into your car. Otherwise one may just drive in the initial line forever as nobody gives the way until the car moves into their line. I was told Paris is similar.
I disagree, if OP was following too closely the collision would have happened. Instead OP had to take evasive action to avoid collision because driver in front did something unexpected.
I look forward to the day that self-driving cards are mandatory. Driving is one of the most excruciating things I endure in daily life and only because of the huge number of people on the roads exhibiting random and completely irrational behavior. If there is absolutely no rational reason to stop your car in the midst of moving traffic, then why do it?
Reaction times vary between individuals and even between an individual depending on context. Being hungover, tired, on the phone, lost in thought, reading a billboard, or fiddling with a stereo can significantly impact reaction time. Additionally the stopping distance varies between vehicles and even base on external factors like road conditions, weather or ol'Musky pushing a firmware update. Following too closely is vague and only enforced after an accident because of these variances.
I was once told by a driving instructor that the safe following distance behind a car is always 3 seconds regardless of speed. At 3 seconds distance there are no evasive stopping actions and your underwear remains unsoiled.
>So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked.
Assuming you're implying that self-driving cars won't have behavior that's easy to learn, I'm not so sure.
Even self-driving cars should fall into certain patterns (maybe those will vary with the tech, depending on if they're run on Waymo or some other company's version of it).
Every single time someone honks at me for this, I'm tempted to stay in place longer than necessary. Fortunately--most of the time--I think better of being this petty and passive aggressive.
I find the vaaaast majority of honking is driven by impatience not any actual practical consideration (alerting others to your presence, trying to get someone's attention.)
Honking to provoke someone into taking risks you don't have to incur the consequences of yourself is mild sociopathy.
> Honking to provoke someone into taking risks you don't have to incur the consequences of yourself is mild sociopathy.
I agree. The fact that the risk is theirs and that they are obviously not confident drivers is exactly why I don't honk. I neither want that on my conscience nor want to be secondary damage when they pull out at the wrong time and cars and debris go flying.
My favorite is watching a chain of cars honk at a red light. Some day, when I become the mayor of New York City, I will install sound-detecting traffic signals. If you honk at a red light, it stays red for an additional 10 seconds. The city will descend into chaos, and I will greatly enjoy watching it.
Some people are very timid at things like left turns and roundabout entry because they are not confident in their judgment of oncoming car speed, etc. (mostly Americans on that second one; Europeans seem generally seem comfortable entering roundabouts).
They may also be uncertain what another driver will do. For example, turning right onto a two lane road may be safe if the right lane is open. However, despite it not being legal, a driver in the left lane may change lanes mid intersection. I'd prefer not to risk it to save myself a few seconds.
Doesn't matter, if there isn't a dedicated arrow for the turn, I'll go when I damned well feel like it. Your definition of "yield" might differ from mine, but that is just too bad, according to the law.
And I say this is the kind of driver cuts my left turns closer than most. You know the driver that's already started their left turn before you've cleared the intersection, and it looks like they're going to hit you (but won't)? That's me; keep it movin' folks. But if the driver in front of me is less aggressive (to a point), that's cool.
About as confident as I can be without having insight into their perspective. I'm mostly referring to right turn on red scenarios where I'm not comfortable with the risk. Although, the occasional honking immediately after a light turns green also occasionally happens.
They could be honking because there is something you don't see, like a little child about to run onto the road, a problem with your vehicle, et cetera. So stopping until you can figure out why they are honking really should be the correct response.
When I was younger, I used to get impatient but probably never or rarely angry.
At some point I decided that I really have no idea why any given person is driving slowly or seemingly over-cautiously or in whatever strange way. Maybe something is going wrong? Maybe out of their control?
I have since strived to be charitable and patient. I sometimes fail, but on the whole I find that I am much less stressed when driving now than when I was younger.
I just say, usually out loud to my little kids' extreme delight, "WTF ever, people be crazy."
I do still yell at people who are driving excessively fast to slow down. Also to my kids' delight. My preschooler says, "we should call the police," which makes me laugh everytime.
Except in Pittsburgh. I am always super super stressed when driving in and around Pittsburgh.
I also yell at cyclists who don't obey traffic laws (silently, in my head, at least).
Not quite so, you'd have to be Dr. Doolittle to give a horse a direction and then have it navigate there on its own. I imagine it might perhaps be possible in limited circumstances in the countryside, but definitely not in the city.
US desperately needs self-driving cars. Desperately. I don't think most people realize how much. Because they've never seen a city with good public transport where most people don't own or care about cars. But achieving good public transport in US is impossible for cultural reasons.
So there's no public transport so most expensive areas will fight to the death to keep population density low. Because more people means more cars means more traffic means whole place becomes terrible. End result: cost of living is too high, commutes too long. Not exactly the way I'd like to live.
> achieving good public transport in US is impossible for cultural reasons
Self-driving cars are not going to solve congestion - quite the opposite. Personal transport will remain extremely inefficient in space and fuel compared to public transport.
If self-driving cars were an adequate solution to public transportation we'd have solved this with taxi dispatch algorithms or smart bus route planning a century ago (and let's face that this is exactly what the auto industry encouraged most American cities to do, when most of America dismantled trolleys/passenger train travel/elevated trains). Self-driving cars are just the current distraction from solving real public transportation.
Right? I feel like we'd do a lot of service to the arguments here if we could just get people to stop saying "the US" like it is some monolithic entity
Once self driving cars come to Boston, locals will just figure out how to go around them. If you honk and ride an AV’s tail close and it pulls over, everyone will do that. It’s a guarantee
As a Bostonian, I'm very curious to see how self-driving cars will play out here. Our roads are much more narrow and "unpredictable" than the west coast, and jaywalking is a given on most streets.
When i honk at another car it is always to correct bad behavior of some sort, normally when someone doesnt notice when a light turns green. But can these cars learn from being honked at? If they are doing 50 in a 90[1] clearly because they missed a sign, is there anything we can do to communicate to them that they are making a mistake?
Still wondering if they are capable of handling a police stop. Can they know that the cop wants them to pull over? can they know that the firetruck wants them to drive through a red light to let them by?
[1] Just had to honk at someone for this. Highway drops from 90 to 50 for road work but he missed the "resume speed" sign.
You might be aware already (I see that you're an attorney), but at least in California, honking is illegal except for safety purposes.
> (a) The driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn.
> (b) The horn shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm system which operates as specified in Article 13 (commencing with Section 28085) of this chapter.
Honking when someone doesn't notice a green light seems perfectly reasonable, if technically illegal. But I'm glad we have that law (albeit not much enforcement), since most honking just conveys impatience and increases stress for everyone without communicating anything useful.
Do these cars ever go at the speed of traffic even if it's above the speed limit? Practically if everyone is driving 5-10mph above the speed limit then it actually seems more dangerous if the Waymo car is driving at the exact speed limit here?
> One woman said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn, while another man said that he gets so frustrated waiting for the cars to cross the intersection that he has illegally driven around them.
I.e. obnoxiously bad human drivers hate impeccably good drivers that happen to be robots.
Suddenly stopped trying to make a right turn? I'm not convinced by that without evidence that it was not a required stop, like turning into a road that has right-of-way.
Passing cars at intersections is not only illegal but a dangerous dickhead move. I don't care what a dangerous dickhead thinks about self-driving cars or any other cars; please don't repeat it and convey it as news.
Eh, I can sympathize with the lady. It's really annoying when someone needs to come to a near complete stop to make a right turn in otherwise flowing traffic.
Yes, you don't need to whip into the parking lot at 45mph, but at the same time you don't need to take 15 seconds to creep around the corner and build up a big line of cars. There is a goldilocks zone and some people just plain miss it.
I'd sympathize with the lady if there were more information about that intersection. Is there a stop sign? Is it an uncontrolled intersection with poor visibility?
Since this is a evidently a news story on CNBC, and not just someone's blog rant, it is reasonable to assume they are presenting the best evidence that they are able to come up with in support of its topic.
I've been in situations where I'm waiting to make a tricky left turn safely while people behind me literally yell at me to go faster. Now those same people have to contend with cars that can't be intimidated into making risky turns by the driver behind them yelling, honking, or tailgating. I hope it plays out like this:
1. Driver tailgates at an intersection or stop sign to try to intimidate the driverless car in front of him into going faster.
2. Driverless car ignores it, and gets rear-ended.
3. Google helpfully provides the tailgater's insurance company with a copy of the 360 degree video, conclusively proving his guilt under law.
4. Tailgater's insurance rates skyrocket after his insurer is forced to pay the maximum to repair the expensive driverless car.
I think there may be a problem in step 5. Human nature is not that malleable and anyone that would be so dumb to rear end a car because it’s not turning soon enough will likely not change.
I upvoted you. But now that I reread the post above, I think that the implication there might have equally well been different - that the driver would not be able to afford alinsurance anymore and thus forced out of the privileged position of being able to (legally) drive. So the person might still be a jackass, but no longer a jackass driver.
While relatively ideal, that ignores potential edge cases like the real driver driving with enough momentum to cause the driverless car he/she rear-ends to hit the car or curb or some other obstacle in front of them.
Hopefully by that point the driverless system's smart enough to apply all emergency braking to reduce the chance of that, but it's one possible scenario.
That sounds like it just changes step 4 into "Tailgater's insurance rates skyrocket after his insurer is forced to pay the maximum to repair the expensive driverless car and the maximum to repair everything the expensive driverless car was forced to hit."
Yesterday, as I was taking a left turn with my motorcycle on a big intersection with flashing red signals, I couldn't help but wonder if I'd be able to communicate with self driving cars that it's my turn. It was chaotic and required some level of consensus among the vehicles involved.
I had to deal with fully self-driving cars in SF a couple times and i actually became more aggressive about my right-of-way ("well, it's not going to hit me" i thought).
I think the degree to which driving is a social behavior is underappreciated.
By social behavior, I mean we learn to read the "body language" of the drivers (cars) around us, pedestrians, bikers, etc. Have you ever thought to yourself, "that dumbass is just about to pull into my lane" or something like that? That's you being a social animal, making a social judgment about a fellow animal.
This is ancient stuff. Nature is full of animals who have no spoken language, and even no verbalization at all, who nonetheless operate together physically to great effect.
Think of a herd of buffalo, or a school of fish, or a murmuration of swallows. Now, you want to put a robot in there, and have it keep up with the animals? That's a hard problem.
I would argue that we work the same way when driving. So a robot trying to operate in human traffic is going to face the same hard problem.
Instead of tackling that problem, self-driving cars fall back on the written rules of the road. But it's crucial to understand that the rules were written by humans for interpretation by humans. They are not a fool-proof algorithm for safe robot driving, and they were never intended to be that.
Sure, you can argue that conservative driving is safer. I'd argue that that is a cop-out that simply delegates the argument to how we define "conservative." It's conservative to drive 5mph in a 25mph zone; it's also totally legal. But is it good driving?
We can design a conservative robot to put into a school of fish. The real fish will avoid it and leave it behind. The robot fish is safe, in that there are no collisions. But is it fulfilling the mission of being a good fish?
>I think the degree to which driving is a social behavior is underappreciated.
I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
>We can design a conservative robot to put into a school of fish. The real fish will avoid it and leave it behind. The robot fish is safe, in that there are no collisions. But is it fulfilling the mission of being a good fish?
Has anyone even built a robot fish that can operate fairly seamlessly in a school of fish?
Obviously there's less resources being devoted to this because there's less incentive to do so because there isn't the same demonetization potential as self driving cars but it seems like technology capable of acting like a fish in a school is a prerequisite of a properly self driving car.
Luckily not all self driving approaches are trying to hard-code rules into their algorithms. See comma.ai , they use ML to have the driving agent learn from millions of miles of human driving data.
A thought that has just occurred to me. I wonder if self driving cars should have L plates? They are, after all, learning how to drive. It might change the way other drivers behave around them as well since people in general give learners more leeway for their errors.
Waymo has a long-standing problem with being rear-ended at entry to an intersection. Read their California DMV accident reports. This is because their system, quite properly, insists on seeing the absence of cross traffic before entering an intersection. So, when the view to the side is obstructed, the vehicle will advance slowly into the intersection to get a better view, detect cross traffic, and stop.
There's one intersection in Mountain View where Google self-driving vehicles have logged two accidents of that type. There's a tree in the median. At human driver height for cars (but not for trucks) the cross street can be seen. At roof height, where the scanner is, the tree blocks a side view. So the vehicle has to advance past it to see cross traffic.
This just needs a convention. Perhaps blinking the brake lights rapidly in such situations.
I think there are still so many aspects that need to be perfected and fixed by the automakers before these cars could be operated on public roads freely. I have just read an article at https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accid... that talks about this. Hopefully car companies will think seriously about this.
165 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadI'm sure you could also find more than a dozen locals who hate other human drivers
Ironically, this incident happened on the way to my first day at Google but that's another story. And that story didn't end anywhere near as well when I refused to agree with Jeff Dean that GPUs had no future at Google (2011). Or to paraphrase Jim Croce: "You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, you don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger and you don't disagree with Jeff."
I am guessing some people think the above story is not relevant to this thread but I note that Waymo is owned by the parent company of Google and that those Waymo cars rely heavily on GPUs.
http://www.startribune.com/sidewalks-get-some-love-in-edina/...
[1]https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-revela...
Disclosure: I've never seen one in action, just stating a possibility.
> One woman said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn
By following the correct speed limit and following distance, you will have ample time to react to any silly behavior. Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn.
Did you really mean this or is it sarcasm?
How often will a brick wall shoot up in front of a car like life is a video game? Probably a really low percentage, but cats, deer, blown tires, trailers falling off, jackknifing trucks - all can have similar effects.
Even knowing my car may get the brick wall, which I can't avoid, I can at least do the best I can to avoid someone else's.
Google's challenge however, is that we are in a very very small minority.
No, that's just boolean programmer-think.
I my state, at least, the law makes specific exceptions for things like this.
Maybe the cars would do better if they were vetted against lawyers and not debuggers.
Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars? Isn't that annoying? Why not just speed up a few mph and join the herd?
I'm honestly asking; I just do not get the appeal.
Cars are objects that have an extreme amount of kinetic energy. The point isn't to avoid getting pulled over, the point is to avoid dying or killing.
> 60mph in a 55mph
Air resistance increases at a squared rate. The amount of fuel you use (and your emissions) is not linearly associated with your speed. So does your kinetic energy. Going at 25, 5 over is not the same as going at 55, 5 over.
> Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars? Isn't that annoying?
All the time, but it's not annoying because I don't care about being in front of everyone - I have left for my destination with ample time to make my appointment. I'm on the road to reach a destination, not to win the race. I don't care if people cut in front of me, because I have chosen not to and give them the safe room to do so.
Driving aggressively is stressful, you [not specifically you] are fighting with everyone else on the road. You're going to risk your health in order to be directly ahead of me at a red traffic light two minutes later? I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me. I try my best to get out of the way of aggressive driving; the further those drivers are away from me, the better.
In those two minutes where you've [again, generalized "you"] been racing everyone else on the road, I've probably let someone in front of me - saving them minutes and costing me seconds (before the next traffic light equalization). I feel good about myself, you are in the throws of fight or flight.
The only appeal of courteous driving is that there is less than an appeal to aggressive driving. The only way to win is not to play.
> Driving aggressively is stressful, you [not specifically you] are fighting with everyone else on the road. You're going to risk your health in order to be directly ahead of me at a red traffic light two minutes later? I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me. I try my best to get out of the way of aggressive driving; the further those drivers are away from me, the better.
the problem here is that you are (socially) forcing more cars to overtake in what sounds like nonstandard manners (from "I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me" I can't tell if you're moving out of the left lane or pulling into the shoulder). by driving slower than other cars, you're impeding the ability for traffic to flow evenly which results in more frustration and more lane changes. both of these increase the likelihood of accidents occurring as they lead to more dangerous maneuvers occurring more frequently and with more emotion.
or rather, do you not see how your slow driving could be the cause of their aggressiveness? which doesn't really fit the adjective "courteous".
Not moving into the shoulder, that's illegal and dangerous.
Once I've overtaken traffic that is _actually_ slow, I move to the right lane. There is nothing nonstandard about letting traffic pass me on the left when multiple lanes are available. Because I am not tailgating, they have ample room to safely move in front of me (5 seconds at highway speeds is a very large distance).
> both of these increase the likelihood of accidents occurring
Speeding and tailgating is a process that occurs all the way to a destination - it is a consistent threat. Lane switching doesn't need to occur frequently and can be done well in advance when it is generously safe to do so - it is a momentary threat.
> by driving slower than other cars, you're impeding the ability for traffic to flow evenly
By tailgating or anything between safe following distance, you are not giving adequate room for people to merge into traffic. Traffic that is entering is forced to come to a near-stop because they can't find an opening, slowing down or stopping traffic behind them when they do eventually enter the highway.
Everyone traveling at an agreed speed, with ample room for traffic to enter and leave is traffic flowing evenly.
> slow driving
Driving at the speed limit is not slow.
> which doesn't really fit the adjective "courteous"
You have _moved_ that word completely out of the context that it was used in. "Courteous" is letting people in (which aids traffic flow, especially in gridlock).
Yes it is, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority goes ~5mph over and are constantly overtaking you.
If you may, try my style for no more than a week. See what it does for your mood. Be friendly on the road, stick to the law - if going slightly over is your line stick to that line. Just try to be safe and nice.
While true, engine efficiency might peak at higher engine speeds, which, depending on gear ratios, may reduce the impact of air resistance on your overall fuel economy.
I drive a 2016 BRZ with a manual transmission. It is stickered at 24 mpg city, 30 mpg highway. I usually drive 60-70 mph on the highway, depending on which highway. You know what my average fuel economy is? 33.5 mpg.
> Driving aggressively is stressful [...]
There's nothing aggressive about maintaining a speed that is equal to surrounding traffic, and by forcing so many people to change lanes and move around you, you're not only creating unnecessary stress in other drivers, but you're making the roads less safe.
If the speed limit is 55 mph, but everyone is driving 60 mph, then the safest speed is 60 mph. Within reason, reducing speed differential between cars is safer than keeping within the speed limit.
Maybe where you are, but someone I work with got pulled over for 63 in a 60 recently.
She also got nailed recently for 93 in an 80MPH zone. Her excuse was that she was just keeping up with everyone else. The cop didn't buy it.
I'm honestly asking; I just do not get the appeal.
I like keeping my money, instead of risking it in fines and higher insurance rates to satisfy the peer pressure of a bunch of strangers.
If I had to guess I'd say DC, Maryland, Virginia area since they go full 1984 on traffic stuff there but unfortunately any non-white driving a beat up older car is a magnet for fishing cops which leads to unreasonable tickets like what you've described so it really could be anywhere.
Yes, often.
>Isn’t that annoying?
No, it is much less stressful when everyone else is passing me than it was when I was driving about 5 mph over and always coming up behind cars trying to find space and time to pass them. (Or even now, the few times I come up on someone who is going under the speedlimit and I have to safely pass them.)
The problem is that in heavy traffic (e.g. middle of many large cities at 5pm), it's not actually possible to both follow the law and actually make progress towards your destination in a given hour.
One example: Try to make a left turn in gridlocked traffic. You're supposed to avoid moving across an intersection until there is enough room for your vehicle, so that if a light changes, you will not block traffic. The problem is that in rush hour traffic, if you actually do that, you will sit there for an hour or more as other cars see the gap and take a right turn, never giving you a spot to turn into.
Or that the letter of the law is not a useful abstraction for how systems optimally perform.
Of course, the answer here is probably the most boring: following the letter of the law ensures the least liability.
On the other hand... if everyone were to obey all of the impractically-low speed limits at once - like a "work-to-rule" strike - perhaps that would create enough political pressure to get them raised up to a more reasonable level.
In addition to being adjusted for the engineering of the road, they also create gaps in traffic allowing people to change lanes, or other people to enter traffic, or — in the case of roads with intersections — allow other people to make left turns, especially on curves.
Just because you don't understand why a speed limit exists doesn't mean it's wrong. A lot of science goes into these decisions.
And explain to me how the laws of physics or “science” change across state lines. Because if you’ve ever driven from one state to the next in the US you will quickly learn that each DOT has its own theory of how to do things and how to assign speeds. The PA turnpike is 70 mph now and I refuse to believe you have any science to back up why that 70 mph is more appropriate than the 65 mph for the NYS thruway which is wider, straighter, flatter, better lit , in overall better shape throughout the state...also why is the speed 65 in bumblefuck as well as an hour outside of nyc (I lived through the politics of northeast road transportation and bud shuster so spare me your science counterargument, I already know it’s a pile).
I feel like you are or might be related to a traffic engineer and I honestly don’t want to hurt your feelings.
200 square miles where people want to make left turns and forming gaps in traffic make sense.
Unless you live in a city where no one ever makes a left turn; dogs, children, and sports balls are outlawed; and you're the only person on the road ever.
You do realize there are other people out there driving, don't you?
According to community consensus, as expressed in everyday common practice, legal speed limits are usually set too low.
For example, it is required in California to signal lane changes/turns for at least 100 feet before the maneuver. (Other states may have different requirements, so better hope your GPS is functioning.) If little Sally runs out into the road and can only be avoided by swerving, heck, even crossing double yellow lines, the letter of the law would be to strike Sally without swerving since the swerve maneuver can't be legally executed. Is that what is being programmed [Y/N]?
Indeed, they are not being programmed to obey the letter of the law:
https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-...
And you might be right that the robocar companies aren't trying to program their cars to drive strictly legally for every possible situation, it is in fact a reasonable presumption.
If you can reasonably avoid Sally but don't, that's careless driving. You're avoiding a misdemeanor to commit a possible felony.
That's an unreasonable standard. You may be driving too fast for conditions, but being unable to stop in time when something unpredictably enters the roadway is, by itself, neither proof nor definition.
The average stopping distance for a passenger vehicle at 20 mph is 20 feet; to say nothing of a heavily-laden delivery truck. That's not including reaction distance. Sally might step out from behind a van. Or a large branch might fall from a tree. Or the wind might push over a garbage can. A dog may wander onto the interstate. Some accidents are unavoidable by simply applying the brakes, except by forgoing non-ambulatory transportation altogether.
I know there's the big hatred of cars here on HN, but in the real world NOBODY thinks that way. Accidents do happen and it's going to be fatal because the pedestrian screwed up.
Honestly, it sounds like the same kind of frustration I hear with people reacting to elderly, overly cautious drivers.
Also, some of the cited examples sound like clear errors and lane discipline issues that sounds too blatant to just be perception. The original author's Twitter thread even illustrates a tangible example[2] of a potentially dangerous driving error the technology made, where a turning vehicle apparently reacts to an oncoming vehicle intending to turn in behind it (signalling and possibly moving a little early) by hard braking in mid turn, obstructing the oncoming vehicle intending to merge and possibly giving a following vehicle a surprise as well. A reminder that coming to a stop is not always the most sensible response to uncertainty. If the human driver wasn't involved in restarting that car, that incident probably doesn't appear in its much-trumpeted disengagement statistics though...
[1]https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions... - probably worth the annoying email harvest if you're interested [2]https://twitter.com/amir/status/1034443909341106177
Human drivers are terrible at both of these. I'm regularly getting stuck behind people who won't make a right turn even as a line of people are making the left turn that shields the turn they're trying to make. I see a lot more promise of computer-driven cars at least being able to improve over time as a group.
Is that Left Turn lane also uncontrolled in that moment that you are complaining about? That is, are you talking about the situation where people in the next lane are making a left turn at a green left turn only light or is it the uncontrolled stop sign (though rare to have a multi-lane stop sign) or more common flashing yellow left turn light (or jurisdictional equivalent; as some states allow uncontrolled left turns on red lights, and some drivers think all states do though they do not)?
In the case of people making an uncontrolled left turn when you are attempting an uncontrolled right turn you have an interesting relative to the prisoner's dilemma. As you point out, there should be some "shield" from mistakes in opposing traffic by nature of the person to your left making a left turn. But that same "shield" also blocks your vision of intersection, so you have to trust that the person making the uncontrolled left turn is situationally aware of their surroundings to not make a mistake. Even as a physical "shield" in that moment, basic physics will remind you that momentum is a jerk (terrible pun intended) and there is no guarantee that the left turning car will absorb any or all of an impact. In making that right turn you may not be risking a direct impact, but you can still be risking a three or more car pile-up.
To cover both bases, if the left turn is controlled at that moment, with a green left turn light, at least where I live that often means the opposite left turn light is also on, which is not a good opportunity for an uncontrolled right turn either. (Also too because depending on intersection size and layout here too the people making the controlled left turn to your immediate left may decrease the visibility of oncoming traffic making the left turn on the other side of the intersection.)
I get honked at somewhat routinely for precisely these scenarios, and I doubt most of the people think of that sort of risk calculus in their impatience in those moments (and they certainly don't have my assessment of intersection visibility from behind me).
I wouldn't program a car to make an uncontrolled right turn in those situations either, and it certainly sounds like that sort of behavior is what is causing some of the complaints in the linked article.
Is this new information?
You will also hear this when talking about less-capable drivers ("get off the road, grandma!") or less-capable vehicles ("I hate having to slow down for bikes and drive carefully around them.").
And of course, nobody ever says "you're going 80, the speed limit is 55! slow down!"
As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24.
incorrect
(1) - It's official: I am now a crotchety old man.
That said, I think people are terrible at judging speeds. I keep my car in a low gear on the hills around here for control. As a result the revs are sometimes on the higher end and my car is generally pretty loud and looks fast. So people assume I'm going some great speed when I'm actually going relatively slow.
"As a result" is a pretty big stretch. Traffic accidents result from unexpected situations. People who drive a lot learn to read the environment and the drivers around them and anticipate what will happen next.
When those anticipations are violated, it runs the risk of creating a surprise that can't be managed. That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction.
Learning to drive is an empirical process based on observed behavior, not a deductive process from the rules of the road. So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked. They don't drive like people, and thus violate the heuristics that human drivers have built up to predict traffic behavior.
And perhaps more importantly, they look different, so they can feed into confirmation bias about how annoying they are. If it was impossible to distinguish self-driving cars (if they exhibited the same visual diversity as cars in general), it would be harder for people to build mental associations about them.
I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.
Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that.
At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have seen people stop on yellow in a way that seemed unsafe.
Running a yellow is less dangerous to the person driving then stopping for yellows. That is why we have yellow
Traffic lights originally only had red and green. Municipalities added yellow specifically to prevent brake-slamming stops that led to crashes. Slamming the brakes on yellow is contrary to its purpose.
I have seen people who have so egregiously missed the yellow that the cross-signal turned green before they entered the intersection. Saying that running a yellow is safer than not trains people to be entitled to running yellow lights, and that is going to make their actions much less safe.
If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light. That is a very simple rule to follow and is going to be safe to follow. If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.
> If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light.
Can I plan on running a green? Because greens turn into yellows abrubtly.
> If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.
If someone slams their breaks in the middle of a clear road and I rear end them, then I am at fault. That doesn't mean it was safe to do so.
if you have to slam on your brakes, it is (arguably) not safe to stop.
In my Subaru STI I can stop faster than some Escalade with only 2/3rds the brake pedal pressure. I'm not even close to maximum braking force. It's even more true in a lighter car like a Porsche 911.
Just as if they were driving a large commercial truck it is the SUV driver's responsibility to not be too close to me.
Try to be smooth and predictable.
I witnessed an accident where a tiny little compact slammed on his brakes the second a light turned yellow. Unfortunately, he was being followed by a large SUV. The SUV hit him and pushed him into the intersection.[0] The very next day, at the very same intersection, I saw the now dented compact do the very same thing under the very same circumstances. He had learned nothing.
[0]To make matters worse, he left his perfectly drivable car in the middle of the intersection instead of pulling ahead. He got out of his car, made a phone call, and just stood there in the intersection having a conversation (with police or insurance I would assume), endangering himself and others.
Smooth and predictable is safe.
I'm not advocating NOT keeping appropriate distance. You should.
I AM advocating NOT slamming your brakes needlessly.
Even when keeping appropriate distance, when the driver in front of you slams on their brakes, you will need to also.
But the legality of it is orthogonal to whether his behavior was right. It wasn't. It was unexpected, reckless, and very unsafe.
There, FTFY. I tend to follow too closely, too, but let's call it what it is and not blame the driver in front of us.
The problem is, if I relied on other drivers to be predictable, I'd probably already be dead. I tell other motorcycle riders, "ask yourself what the stupidest thing that driver in front/next to/behind you can do. Now plan for that." It's not too often that plan needs to be executed, but it's handy when the time comes. (Anecdotally, I've found WA to be the hardest to plan for; man, they're a creative bunch.)
So, yes, be predictable; but expect the unexpected. As Red Green said, "we're all in this together."
I look forward to the day that self-driving cards are mandatory. Driving is one of the most excruciating things I endure in daily life and only because of the huge number of people on the roads exhibiting random and completely irrational behavior. If there is absolutely no rational reason to stop your car in the midst of moving traffic, then why do it?
I was once told by a driving instructor that the safe following distance behind a car is always 3 seconds regardless of speed. At 3 seconds distance there are no evasive stopping actions and your underwear remains unsoiled.
Assuming you're implying that self-driving cars won't have behavior that's easy to learn, I'm not so sure.
Even self-driving cars should fall into certain patterns (maybe those will vary with the tech, depending on if they're run on Waymo or some other company's version of it).
Honking to provoke someone into taking risks you don't have to incur the consequences of yourself is mild sociopathy.
I agree. The fact that the risk is theirs and that they are obviously not confident drivers is exactly why I don't honk. I neither want that on my conscience nor want to be secondary damage when they pull out at the wrong time and cars and debris go flying.
And I say this is the kind of driver cuts my left turns closer than most. You know the driver that's already started their left turn before you've cleared the intersection, and it looks like they're going to hit you (but won't)? That's me; keep it movin' folks. But if the driver in front of me is less aggressive (to a point), that's cool.
Should, but isn't, unfortunately.
Oh yes they do! Remember the old rule: anyone going slower than you is a moron, and anyone faster is an asshole.
People broadly disapprove of those who engage more deeply in excess than they do.
At some point I decided that I really have no idea why any given person is driving slowly or seemingly over-cautiously or in whatever strange way. Maybe something is going wrong? Maybe out of their control?
I have since strived to be charitable and patient. I sometimes fail, but on the whole I find that I am much less stressed when driving now than when I was younger.
I just say, usually out loud to my little kids' extreme delight, "WTF ever, people be crazy."
I do still yell at people who are driving excessively fast to slow down. Also to my kids' delight. My preschooler says, "we should call the police," which makes me laugh everytime.
Except in Pittsburgh. I am always super super stressed when driving in and around Pittsburgh.
I also yell at cyclists who don't obey traffic laws (silently, in my head, at least).
So there's no public transport so most expensive areas will fight to the death to keep population density low. Because more people means more cars means more traffic means whole place becomes terrible. End result: cost of living is too high, commutes too long. Not exactly the way I'd like to live.
Self-driving cars are not going to solve congestion - quite the opposite. Personal transport will remain extremely inefficient in space and fuel compared to public transport.
But from what I've observed about US culture, public transport is never going to happen :) So if you take that off the list, what's the alternative?
Pretty sure autonomous vehicles don’t have audio sensors.
The image of someone honking at an AV in frustration seems amusingly quixotic.
All "self-driving cars" have drivers in them to take over each time it fails.
It's as if Ford cars had backup horses with them to take over every few miles.
Still wondering if they are capable of handling a police stop. Can they know that the cop wants them to pull over? can they know that the firetruck wants them to drive through a red light to let them by?
[1] Just had to honk at someone for this. Highway drops from 90 to 50 for road work but he missed the "resume speed" sign.
> (a) The driver of a motor vehicle when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation shall give audible warning with his horn.
> (b) The horn shall not otherwise be used, except as a theft alarm system which operates as specified in Article 13 (commencing with Section 28085) of this chapter.
Honking when someone doesn't notice a green light seems perfectly reasonable, if technically illegal. But I'm glad we have that law (albeit not much enforcement), since most honking just conveys impatience and increases stress for everyone without communicating anything useful.
The cali law basically states that the cop can ticket you for being a jerk about honking.
It sounds odd but one driver who is too cautious may be OK for them but it makes everyone around them go out of their minds.
Go with the flow.
https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-...
I.e. obnoxiously bad human drivers hate impeccably good drivers that happen to be robots.
Suddenly stopped trying to make a right turn? I'm not convinced by that without evidence that it was not a required stop, like turning into a road that has right-of-way.
Passing cars at intersections is not only illegal but a dangerous dickhead move. I don't care what a dangerous dickhead thinks about self-driving cars or any other cars; please don't repeat it and convey it as news.
Yes, you don't need to whip into the parking lot at 45mph, but at the same time you don't need to take 15 seconds to creep around the corner and build up a big line of cars. There is a goldilocks zone and some people just plain miss it.
Since this is a evidently a news story on CNBC, and not just someone's blog rant, it is reasonable to assume they are presenting the best evidence that they are able to come up with in support of its topic.
1. Driver tailgates at an intersection or stop sign to try to intimidate the driverless car in front of him into going faster.
2. Driverless car ignores it, and gets rear-ended.
3. Google helpfully provides the tailgater's insurance company with a copy of the 360 degree video, conclusively proving his guilt under law.
4. Tailgater's insurance rates skyrocket after his insurer is forced to pay the maximum to repair the expensive driverless car.
5. Tailgater is forced to stop being a jackass.
You can’t legislate civility. Attempting to force it with technology is even less effective.
Hopefully by that point the driverless system's smart enough to apply all emergency braking to reduce the chance of that, but it's one possible scenario.
By social behavior, I mean we learn to read the "body language" of the drivers (cars) around us, pedestrians, bikers, etc. Have you ever thought to yourself, "that dumbass is just about to pull into my lane" or something like that? That's you being a social animal, making a social judgment about a fellow animal.
This is ancient stuff. Nature is full of animals who have no spoken language, and even no verbalization at all, who nonetheless operate together physically to great effect.
Think of a herd of buffalo, or a school of fish, or a murmuration of swallows. Now, you want to put a robot in there, and have it keep up with the animals? That's a hard problem.
I would argue that we work the same way when driving. So a robot trying to operate in human traffic is going to face the same hard problem.
Instead of tackling that problem, self-driving cars fall back on the written rules of the road. But it's crucial to understand that the rules were written by humans for interpretation by humans. They are not a fool-proof algorithm for safe robot driving, and they were never intended to be that.
Sure, you can argue that conservative driving is safer. I'd argue that that is a cop-out that simply delegates the argument to how we define "conservative." It's conservative to drive 5mph in a 25mph zone; it's also totally legal. But is it good driving?
We can design a conservative robot to put into a school of fish. The real fish will avoid it and leave it behind. The robot fish is safe, in that there are no collisions. But is it fulfilling the mission of being a good fish?
I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
>We can design a conservative robot to put into a school of fish. The real fish will avoid it and leave it behind. The robot fish is safe, in that there are no collisions. But is it fulfilling the mission of being a good fish?
Has anyone even built a robot fish that can operate fairly seamlessly in a school of fish?
Obviously there's less resources being devoted to this because there's less incentive to do so because there isn't the same demonetization potential as self driving cars but it seems like technology capable of acting like a fish in a school is a prerequisite of a properly self driving car.
There's one intersection in Mountain View where Google self-driving vehicles have logged two accidents of that type. There's a tree in the median. At human driver height for cars (but not for trucks) the cross street can be seen. At roof height, where the scanner is, the tree blocks a side view. So the vehicle has to advance past it to see cross traffic.
This just needs a convention. Perhaps blinking the brake lights rapidly in such situations.