
Self-driving car accidents: Robot drivers are ‘odd, and that’s why they get hit’ - mji
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/self-driving-car-accidents-robot-drivers-are-odd-and-thats-why-they-get-hit/?utm_content=buffer0acdd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=owned_buffer_tw_m
======
mikeash
"Humans violate the rules in a safe and principled way...."

Thanks, it's nice to start my morning with a good laugh.

Maybe the author lives in some magical wonderland filled with good drivers,
but this is not what I observe at all. People drift out of their lane for no
reason. They careen past the stop line because they can't be bothered to push
the brake pedal a bit farther down. They refrain from signaling because they
just don't care. They blast through stop signs and red lights without heed to
traffic or pedestrians. They brake spontaneously in the middle of a fast
moving road. They drive fast in dangerous conditions and slow in safe
conditions. They _spend half their drive texting because they think they 're
the one person on the planet who is able to safely text and drive_. How is any
of that safe or principled?

~~~
Bartweiss
Would you accept "humans violate the rules in a safe and principled way, plus
lots of other ways"?

I mean, you're obviously correct, human drivers do idiotic and deadly things
all the time. But I think we can distinguish that from the behavior in the
article.

Gently rolling a stop sign at a high-visibility intersection sounds like a
safe and principled violation. Driving around a car waiting to turn left is a
bit less safe, but still a principled or predictable violation. The Pittsburgh
left is a (fairly) safe and principled violation.

None of those things are comparable to texting and driving, or ignoring a red
light. They're informal adjustments to the traffic code that other drivers
really do anticipate, and which aren't nearly as dangerous as general "bad
driving".

~~~
reaperducer
> Gently rolling a stop sign at a high-visibility intersection

I've always heard this called a "California stop." Are you in California?
Looking for a point of data.

~~~
Bartweiss
Eh? I'm not in CA, and like the other answers I see this everywhere in the
country. I suppose it's rarer in places where intersections are almost never
quiet and empty, but I've seen it all over New York (not NYC), Ohio,
Wisconsin, and a half-dozen other states. It's standard practice anywhere
rural, and in a lot of suburbs.

------
manicdee
"They drive funny" claims human, regarding high level of reporting of
accidents where computer drivers are required to report encounters but humans
are not.

If humans were required to report every bump and scrape, what would we find
out? I suspect we would find that humans are just poor drivers overall, and
"they don't drive like I do" is the number one cause of minor incidents
worldwide.

My main submission to this argument is the ubiquitous rear-ending in the
turning lane where the first car's driver starts to roll and then stops, while
the second driver is turned to watch approaching traffic and thus oblivious to
the behaviour of the car in front.

~~~
omarforgotpwd
The issue isn't that the cars are worse drivers than humans. They're obviously
going to be much better statistically. The article is just making the point
that they're going to have to be programmed to break the rules just like
humans do i.e. with speeding, stopping too often etc. If they are not
programmed to break the rules, they will frustrate people and even cause
accidents as humans try to interact with them. There's not always a good way
to know that the car in front of you is being driven by a computer.

~~~
captainmuon
This will be an opportunity to fix the traffic rules to be more realistic.
Often, the speed limits are too low in the US, and "everybody" goes faster.
This leads to the problem of selective enforcement, and people not trusting
speed limits when they are really neccessary.

In contrast, I've found most speed limits in Germany to be reasonable absolute
maximum limits - except on one or two places on streets I know very well. And
I'm not talking about the Autobahn - if I see 70 km/h in Germany (45-ish mph),
its probably dangerous to go faster. If I see 45 mph in the States, it seems
to mean "everybody go 55 mph".

~~~
czep
> Often, the speed limits are too low in the US, and "everybody" goes faster.

Excessive speed is the primary cause of a third of all fatal accidents and a
contributing factor in at least half. Instead of training the self-driving
cars to be more human, we ought to train humans to act more like the
computers! Speeding is one of the stupidest norms that exists in our society.
We should definitely not try to encourage it.

~~~
0xfeba
No, difference in speed causes those accidents:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve)

> Speeding is one of the stupidest norms that exists in our society.

Politicians arbitrarily setting the speed limits is the root cause.

The EU has many countries which have higher freeway limits, yet lower
accidents per mile driven. They also have more stringent licensing.

~~~
ameister14
Yeah, that's not a great study (though it was admittedly pretty
groundbreaking,) and it doesn't actually prove that there is no relation
between speed and accidents. Multiple studies since the 60's have shown
different results.

>Politicians arbitrarily setting the speed limits is the root cause.

Of speeding, or accidents?

~~~
0xfeba
> Yeah, that's not a great study (though it was admittedly pretty
> groundbreaking,) and it doesn't actually prove that there is no relation
> between speed and accidents. Multiple studies since the 60's have shown
> different results.

The link sourced multiple studies. The originals were dubious, subsequent ones
not so much.

But the issue the Solomon curve and other similar studies points out is that
humans (and largely Americans) will ignore the rules if they feel _they_ can
safely go faster.

And sure, you can't ignore overall average speed. Crashes on roads where the
average speed is 100 mph are going to be much more prone to fatalities than 55
mph roads. So, there are two rough equations: Lower average speeds mean less
severe crashes; speed limits set to the 85th percentile mean fewer crashes. As
the speed limit is raised (from 0), there will be at least one solution that
satisfies both of those equations and results in the fewest fatal crashes (if
that's your goal).

In certain situations the lower speed limits can make things less safe. For
example, a straight, well maintained toll road with wide lanes, clear vision
ahead, and say wildlife barriers that was designed for 75mph max speeds is
constructed in a state with statewide 55mph speed limits. Construction uses
the latest traffic easing and safety techniques, since you don't want to
construct all roads to enforce speed limits that may change in the future.

So now most truckers and cautious drivers go 55mph, while people with less
inhibitions are weaving in and out of them.

~~~
ameister14
Are you talking about the wikipedia link? All the subsequent studies save one
that it sourced disproved the first's premise or drew attention to serious
questions as to its validity. Did you read them?

------
TeMPOraL
I'd say that instead of making self-driving cars as reckless as typical
drivers, we should keep the cars driving by the book, and fine the people who
collide into them. Will it cause frustration? Yes, but even today, people who
try to drive safely and with respect to the law cause frustration too. And I
think self-driving tech has enough momentum now that, frustrating or not, they
_will_ get accepted anyway.

~~~
eleebad
The other way to look at it is that the traffic laws, taken to the letter, are
too conservative in some circumstances, and there are perfectly safe, more
efficient limitations that can be employed (The 100% complete stop for
example, frivolous waste of potential energy!) Maybe instead of teaching self-
driving cars to break the laws like everyone else does, we should change the
laws to reflect more how people drive.

~~~
jamesrcole
> _there are perfectly safe, more efficient limitations that can be employed
> (The 100% complete stop for example, frivolous waste of potential energy!)_

Genuine question: what do you think is the better alternative to the 100%
complete stop? I'm not saying I think there is or isn't a better alternative,
just wanted to know what you had in mind.

~~~
balabaster
In the UK we have very few stop signs. In fact, in my entire life, I only
recall ever coming across 2. We usually have a yield action at intersections
so that you only even need to slow if the line of sight at the intersection is
impeded to the point you cannot see the flow of traffic. Consequently there is
no need to come to a full and complete stop unless the flow of traffic
prevents your ability to turn where the yield sign actually requires that you
come to a stop while you wait to merge into traffic. This functions far better
than the ridiculousness that is stop signs that require you to come to a
complete stop even if you are the only car on the road.

~~~
justinhj
I’m a British person who had immigrated to North America. A four (or more) way
stop sign is not replacing a yield at an intersection, it is replacing a
roundabout. The reason you must come to a full stop is to signal to other
drivers the time you arrived, since that is strictly the order that people use
to go. It’s also a safety issue since you need to check right and left for out
of control cars, bikes and so on. As s system I prefer roundabouts as they
keep the traffic flowing, but anecdotally the stop sign seems much safer.
Finally it’s a an enforcement issue. Cops don’t have to argue that you didn’t
slow enough. If you didn’t stop completely you broke the law.

~~~
balabaster
Roundabouts instead of 4 way stops... you know what happens to a roundabout
when the power goes out? Nothing.

~~~
justinhj
Exactly the same happens with a four way stop. It needs 4 sign posts with stop
written on

------
Animats
I wrote something similar on this subject a few days ago.[1] Autonomous
vehicles (the good ones) have sensor-generated maps of what's around them, and
those maps indicate what's unknown due to occlusion. Cautious behavior at
intersections comes from that. If visibility is good, there's no hesitation.

This is fine. There are no CA DMV reports of "autonomous vehicle entered blind
intersection and was hit by cross traffic". Near term solution: put a rear
bumper on your autonomous vehicle which meets the old 5MPH bumper standard
from the 1980s. Longer term solution: manually driven cars need basic anti-
collision radar, which is now standard on many high-end cars and all Volvos,
and may be mandated in the US just as ABS is now.

Useful temporary fix: brake lights that go up to super-bright ambulance level
when the autonomous vehicle's sensors indicate something close behind and
there's a need to brake.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15437322](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15437322)

~~~
notatoad
"Useful temporary fix: brake lights that go up to super-bright ambulance level
when the autonomous vehicle's sensors indicate something close behind and
there's a need to brake."

this seems like a pretty clever solution if it would actually encourage the
correct behaviour in human drivers. unexpectedly bright tail-lights might just
have the opposite effect though, and further distract the driver who is about
to rear end you.

------
wyldfire
> the reality is that the self-driving vehicles are overly cautious.

Humans contribute to lots of accidents when they unconventionally yield the
right of way. Other drivers which should be yielding are now faced with the
unpredictability of the too-cautious ("dangerously" cautious IMO) driver re-
claiming their right of way. Or they face the problem of other drivers in
other lanes who don't notice that the incorrectly-yielding driver is letting
another vehicle into their right-of-way.

~~~
yipopov
Inappropriate yielding should be penalised just like lack of appropriate
yielding.

At sea the COLREGS require ships with right of way to maintain their course
and speed (unless of course they have to give way to another ship, or make
evasive maneuvers). Of course fishermen tend to ignore this rule, changing
their course and speed whenever convenient to them.

~~~
emodendroket
> Inappropriate yielding should be penalised just like lack of appropriate
> yielding.

Uh, yeah, I've had too many close calls with people merging to just blindly
assert my right of way every time.

~~~
yipopov
COLREGS don't say do it blindly, why should you?

------
DonHopkins
My friend was driving in Boston for the first time, and was rear-ended when he
stopped for a light that just turned red, while the rain was just starting to
sprinkle (so the oil was freshly slicking up the road). The guy was PISSED
OFF: "I thought you were going to run the red light too!"

~~~
khalilravanna
Almost got rear ended on my motorcycle because of this absurd behavior. Guy
just blew by me on the right and ran the red light after I stopped. If there
was a car parked on my right I would likely ended up on the pavement and
likely the hospital. I've lived in MA most of my life but (and especially
after spending the last four years in Austin), Boston is some next level bad
driving.

I think the most infuriating part about driving in Boston is every week I can
feel myself drifting farther and farther from the rules. I _always_ stop at
stop signs and red lights. I mean, as a motorcycle rider, you follow the rules
or you die. But here, I'm often forced to break the rules so I don't get hit
by all the other people breaking the rules. My road-humanity is slowly
slipping away.

I always used wonder how people get to be so absolutely terrible at driving.
It's not like a minor slip up, a rolling stop here, a cutoff that they feel
bad about there. It's this insane either A) extreme aggressiveness and willful
disdain for the safety of other drivers around them or B) a complete and utter
lack of awareness of where they are in relation to other cars and pedestrians.
Usually a mix between the two. But what I realized is a good portion of the
drivers around cities like Boston have _only_ ever driven around Boston.
They've only ever driven in a place that, due to its layout, is a hodgepodge
of hard-to-read intersections, a mish-mash of people who don't know where
they're going and people who needed to be where they're going 30 minutes ago
and heaven forbid you slow them down by another 2 minutes. They learned the
rules of Boston, not the rules of a sane, conscientious, _safe_ driver.

I swear, if all these people rode a motorcycle for a month or took a MSF
class, they'd all become much better drivers and realize the heinous unsafe
conditions they perpetuate on a daily basis. That or they'd die because that
behavior does _not_ work on a motorycle. At least, not for very long.

------
Symmetry
If autonomous cars become more common this seems like a problem that would
solve itself. If more cars on the road are following the letter of the law
then people will stop being so surprised to find a car following the law and
won't be caught by surprise.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Exactly. And then there will be a tipping point where autonomous cars are the
norm with people 'riding' in them and all of our lives will be made easier
because autonomous cars will do the driving, and the traffic laws pretty much
will be obsolete. It will just be routing autonomous cars various places.

------
noonespecial
At first (and probably for quite a while) self-driving cars probably need a
big sticker that's easy to see so people know that they are going to be
"different" on the road.

People will rapidly learn to recognize those "damn robot drivers" and adapt
the same way they do now when they see the "student driver" placard or the
unmistakable sway and surge of an intoxicated driver.

~~~
mst
I wonder if having the sign the same colour as the L plates but with an A
would help, given that learners are often much closer to following the rules
and the colour might help human drivers pattern match even if they're not
really aware of the A plate yet.

------
btbuildem
I take this as evidence to support my argument that (at least in North
America) stop signs are mostly unnecessary and utilized badly. 90% of them
could go, some replaced by yield signs, some just removed. An intersection
with a line of sight onto cross traffic should not have a stop sign.

Maybe the robot drivers will finally drive home how dumb some of our road
infrastructure is.

~~~
hamstercat
This is purely an anecdote, but in my city it's hard to cross a road as a
pedestrian even when there's a stop or a priority light for pedestrians. I've
been honked and yelled at for "not crossing fast enough" or whatever. Of
course it's not the norm and most drivers are respectful and doing just fine,
but even a couple of those in a month gets annoying.

I shiver at the thought of having to cross any of these if there was only a
yield sign. The principle that I have priority is not important enough over
not getting hit by a bad driver.

TL;DR: I agree 100% with your point, but I do think bad drivers should be
taken into consideration.

~~~
macNchz
You're definitely correct that yield signs make it harder to be a
pedestrian–most American cities are awful for pedestrians to begin with,
outside of a small core downtown area. Even intersections with proper
crosswalks and lights are often massively wide with no middle refuge, have
traffic crossing the crosswalk from multiple directions/lanes and poor sight
lines, require multiple long waits at lights to cross all the various lanes
etc.

There seems to be a growing use of traffic circles (with yield signs) in the
US, which are very much like playing real life Frogger as a pedestrian: cars
coming quickly around the circle, often not 100% comfortable with how it
works, watching for cars around them instead of paying attention to people
crossing at the exits. In a busy intersection you sort of have to step out and
try to get someone to stop for you or dash across a gap in traffic–a firm stop
required for cars makes for a much more pleasant crossing.

------
perlgeek
> "Humans violate the rules in a safe and principled way"

I don't share this optimism. I've been driven by folks who violate the rules
in totally unsafe and scary ways (though "principled" in a way, in that they
do it consistently -- unless a cop is looking).

~~~
grecy
Spend some time driving in Latin America or West Africa.

The rules mean nothing, everyone drives freestyle. In towns and cities, it
works extremely well because everyone is very attentive and ready for anyone
else to do anything, at any time.

My experience in over 60,000 miles in those parts of the world through more
than 30 countries would say they are an order of magnitude less crashes there
than in US/Australia/Europe, in the towns and cities.

(Note: highway driving is a whole different story)

~~~
marvin
> My experience in over 60,000 miles in those parts of the world through more
> than 30 countries would say they are an order of magnitude less crashes
> there than in US/Australia/Europe, in the towns and cities.

Do you have any statistics that indicate that there are 90% fewer accidents in
Latin American and West African cities than in Western, adjusted for the
number of drivers? Seems rather optimistic.

~~~
grecy
No stats, because they would include highway, which will show Latin America
and West Africa having much, much, much worse stats.

Certainly not scientific, though other people I know that have driven the
world agree, driving "freestlye" is safer than following the rules.

------
Saaster
As the number of autonomous vehicles increase, people's behavior will change
in time. It is shortsighted to relax the rules for the benefit of current
human drivers. Once there is a critical mass of autonomous vehicles, then you
can then start modifying the rules to make traffic more efficient with the
guarantee that the rules will be followed.

If and when rear ending an autonomous vehicle becomes a common problem,
awareness will rise and it will become less of a problem. Besides, rear-ending
something with a dozen cameras and indisputable telemetry is just a bad idea,
financially speaking.

------
Booktrope
This article is a good example of stupid tech reporting. Someone who's
supposed to be a knowledgeable reporter does some speculating, without
bothering with any actual data, and comes up with a so-called "problem" and
idiotic suggestion for "solution".

The article suggests that, though self-driving cars don't crash into other
cars, they "cause" crashes (mostly fender-benders) by driving in a different
manner than humans. No evidence that they cause more fender-benders than
humans, who drive all sorts of different ways. Apparently, the author thinks
this is so obvious, no data is required.

Then, the article seems to propose that self-driving cars should be like
humans, who allegedly violate laws in a "safe and principled" way. This
ridiculous statement ignores the tens of thousands of people killed in crashes
caused by human-driven cars every year, and the many tens of thousands
severely injured, by these "safe and principled" violation of driving laws.
Most accidents do not involve complying with traffic laws, actually. That's
why we have traffic laws -- to prevent this carnage. Individually, however, we
still tend to believe that even if we engage in risky behavior like speeding
or running lights, we're not the one personally who will crash.

As to some people who think self-driving cars should speed because so many
people speed, please check the mortality rates for accidents at various speeds
(they're widely published) -- survival rates go down lots as speed goes up,
especially if a pedestrian is involved. On the other hand, if you do the math,
on most trips the amount of time actually saved is much smaller than the
exhilarating sense of going faster than the next guy you get from even moving
a couple of mph faster. This is why many major cities are reducing speed
limits and taking other steps to reduce traffic speeds. Speeding, the most
common rule violation in driving, is neither safe nor reasonable, and the
author, supposedly an expert on driving, cannot provide any evidence to
indicate that it is. Well, except that he seems to assume that tens of
thousands of traffic deaths are acceptable and unavoidable.

Perceptive readers will notice that I haven't cited stats to support my
assertions in this comment. That's because it's a comment and I'm not holding
myself out as a journalist who's done sufficient research to report on issues
of motor vehicle safety. I'm a mere commenter, but be sure, if you do the work
to find out what the real numbers are (regarding both driving safety and
actual driving times) it bears out what I'm saying.

------
lostconfused
Same deal as [https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/8/11391840/us-navy-
autonomou...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/8/11391840/us-navy-autonomous-
ship-sea-hunter-christened)

"One consideration in implementing the ship's autonomous functions was making
its movements seem human-like. Any maneuvers it makes to avoid collisions have
to be detectable by crew on other boats, so changes in direction (which are
more easily spotted) are preferable to changes in speed that might be just as
effective but are less obvious signals."

Obeying rules is nice but you need to account for behaviour of human actors as
well.

------
ChuckMcM
Basically there are the 'rules' and there is 'how people drive'. As I recall
Flocking behavior is largely group consensus driven, where members that
disrupt the flock are penalized, ones that conform move at the flock rate, and
small optimizations propagate by example.

I would expect lines of self driving cars along the right lane of the freeway
driving at the speed limit while the non-autonomous drivers speed by them on
the left. Merging into that would look scary but would be fairly straight
forward as the robot cars would always yield rather than collide.

Going to be interesting to see how this evolves out in practice.

------
saosebastiao
One of the many ways that drivers can be more predictable to other drivers is
to disobey the laws regarding pedestrian rights of way and safety. Drivers not
only disobey these laws all the time, but they _expect you to do so too_ ,
lest they honk and use their car as a weapon to show you how angry they are
that you let someone cross the street at an unmarked crosswalk.

Unfortunately for all those with fantastical fantasies about our autonomous
car future, when they finally get here they’re going to be slow. And that’s a
good thing, even if it means the utopia is still slow and congested.

~~~
btbuildem
A crosswalk by definition is marked.

Drivers expect other drivers to follow the rules of the road, not to be nice.

Did you hear about the woman in Canada [1] who tried to "be nice" and stopped
in the middle of a highway to let some ducks cross? She killed a motorcyclist
and his passenger.

Don't be nice -- be predictable.

Same is the reason why the bots get rear-ended -- everyone expects them to
roll through a stop, who in the world does a complete, 3 second stop?

[1]
[https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec+woman+stopped+for+duck...](https://www.google.ca/search?q=Quebec+woman+stopped+for+ducks+fatal+crash+-who)

~~~
dragonwriter
Anytime a vehicle gets rear-ended, fault belongs with the rear-ending
vehicle’s driver for either failing to maintain safe following distance or
failing to pay adequate attention to conditions in front.

And rolling a stop is not following the rules of the road, it is a dangerous
violation.

~~~
dingo_bat
> Anytime a vehicle gets rear-ended, fault belongs with the rear-ending
> vehicle’s driver for either failing to maintain safe following distance or
> failing to pay adequate attention to conditions in front.

I don't think that's true on a highway or similar road. Stopping in the middle
of the highway is very dangerous. You cannot blame the 150km/h+ cars to be
able to stop safely in all situations.

~~~
Saaster
Absolutely you can always blame the car that does the rear-ending, it is your
responsibility to maintain distance and speed such that you can stop if the
car in front of you slams on the brakes. Which can happen for a multitude of
valid reasons, like something dropping of a truck in front, or an accident.

You will absolutely be at fault and stuck with the bill in every single rear-
ending case, good luck arguing otherwise.

------
paulajohnson
I love the statement “Humans violate the rules in a safe and principled way”.
Really sums up the problem.

So when you break the rules, what principles (i.e. rules) are you following?

~~~
StavrosK
You assess the road conditions and conclude that the speed limit is set too
low for a road that is in broad daylight and has no other cars. Are you
implying that the speed limit is binarily safe, no matter the road conditions
(night, rain, snow, congestion, etc)?

~~~
dx034
I doubt many drivers know their car and tyres well enough to assess the safe
speed given current conditions. People either adapt to others or choose a
speed they feel comfortable with. Speed limits are not perfect for every
condition but humans are certainly not good at choosing a better one while
driving.

------
Chinjut
Shocked and saddened to see such blatant, disgusting victim-blaming…

------
occultist_throw
So, in other words, the law is wrong. And the is kept as such for purposes of
revenue enhancement (illegal taxation)?

I can see a few interesting govt things coming out of "Autos":

1\. Revenue from bad laws drops to 0. These vehicles follow the letter of the
law. And they have the logs to prove any sort of claim against the former.

2\. A false claim is filed (BLM makes about a point about this..) and says
driver did X. Is this the person's responsibility, or the company who wrote
the AI?

------
zellyn
This seems at least lazy, and at worst click-mongering, in light of the recent
article on Waymo's testing regime.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/insid...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/inside-
waymos-secret-testing-and-simulation-facilities/537648/)

It has several discussions on making self-driving cars act more human-like:

> It turns out that the hard part is not really the what-if-a-zombie-is-
> eating-a-person-in-the-road scenarios people dream up, but proceeding
> confidently and reliably like a human driver within the endless variation of
> normal traffic.

> Waymo seems like it has driving as a technical skill—the speed and direction
> parts of it—down. It is driving as a human social activity that they’re
> working on now. What is it to drive “normally,” not just “legally”? And how
> does one teach an artificial intelligence what that means?

------
pipio21
When I was in university we made a project for the Statistics class: Measure
the velocity of cars from bridges for cars going outside and inside a big city
in Europe.

We controlled all big highways.

The result: Over 95% of the cars were going way faster than what the rules
were and nothing wrong happens. That is, rules are wrong because politicians
decide them and they are always extra cautious, so they are not responsible
for accidents, and they make money out of fines.

I see a big problem if everybody follows the law every time, like robots do,
because rules are so wrong in the first place.

One of the big things with robots is that you could have real feedback with
real data measuring in the real world. You don't need to guess, just test in
the real world and measure the consequences for example, of increasing the
velocity.

You could also change the parameters on real time when you know there is ice
or snow in the road... you don't need to have the same parameters when it is
sunny in summer and in winter.

~~~
euyyn
> rules are wrong because politicians decide them

I would have thought speed limits are decided by technicians, based on
statistics. I don't think it's elected politicians who decide them.

~~~
Aloha
They are decided with a political idea in mind, consider that the design speed
for interstate highways in the US is 75 MPH

~~~
euyyn
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. How is 75 mph some political goal?

------
joejerryronnie
Perhaps we need an "autonomous vehicle" sign prominently displayed on the car,
similar to how we display "student driver" signs. When I see a student driver,
I automatically assume their driving behavior will be significantly different
than the other cars on the road and I adjust my driving accordingly.

------
lttlrck
Perhaps there should be a visual indication on self-driving cars. Not
something ridiculous on the roof, maybe something glowing in the license plate
area, or upper window area.

I imagine most people are more considerate around learner drivers because of
the signs, without which you could (quite rationally) get frustrated.

------
FilterSweep
How much is this exposing humans who are not paying attention (ie: on their
phone) while driving?

I would like to know to what extent are accidents caused by robot drivers
being "odd" versus humans not paying attention and then blaming the robot for
being odd.

(ED: grammar)

------
bischofs
I think most people discount the effect that connected cars will have on
safety even when you have mixed levels of human operated and level 1-5 AVs. If
a car operated by a human has even a basic connected control system in it then
a AV can simply communicate that the driver is about to hit the AV and the
human operated car will take some basic corrective action.

The interesting tech is not only AV but the infrastructure where cars
communicate automatically about which lanes there in, what their intentions
are etc.

The current use case I think is cool is a car comes up to a slow truck and the
truck communicates to the car that the passing lane is clear.

~~~
dx034
> The interesting tech is not only AV but the infrastructure where cars
> communicate automatically about which lanes there in, what their intentions
> are etc.

I don't think that this will really work. Considering how interaction between
tech of different manufacturers works in other areas, I doubt that cars will
be able to safely communicate within milliseconds in high risk situations. But
they won't need to, they can just use their own sensors to detect what happens
around them.

------
tonyquart
I have just also read an article that talks about this matter at
[https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-
accid...](https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accident-
injury-lawyers-attorneys/). I actually haven't been able to imagine how if we
all use this kind of car. I personally will always choose manual cars if
possible.

------
DecoPerson
In Australia, stop means stop. If it’s safe for you to roll through, there
will be a GIVEWAY sign. But if you roll through a STOP you’re an absolute fool
who’s risking the lives of yourself and others. We don’t have four-way stop
signs. We have roundabouts, or give one street priority and the other STOP
signs in cross-streets.

I recently passed my California driving test, and I’ve observed that the
placement of STOP signs here does not correlate with safety in the same way as
Australia and lots of people roll through them.

I think self-driving cars would do a lot better in Australia.

~~~
funkymike
You've hit on what I see as the big problem with stop signs in the US - they
are inconsistent. Sometimes they are used at intersections where failing to
stop is very dangerous, but much more often they are used when a yield sign
would be sufficient. It conditions people in their normal driving to think of
stop signs as recommendations, not requirements. This would seem to increase
the danger of intersections where stopping fully is really necessary since
people are more inclined to roll pass the stop sign.

------
stcredzero
I think I was in a low speed collision of this nature before autonomous cars
even existed, and I was in the role of the autonomous car. I was inching
forward at a stop sign because I couldn't see on coming traffic from the left.
The driver behind didn't understand what I was doing, lost patience, and
deliberately bumped me. (I'm not going to commit to merging into traffic
without being able to see what's coming towards me, naturally.)

------
eleebad
People mention "when there are no more human drivers" like it's the inevitable
endgame (probably people who work for autonomous driving companies I'm
guessing) I hope I don't live long enough to see the day the law prevents me
from riding a bike down the street, or walk down it for that matter. The
implication of the above assumption is there is no freedom. (Analogous to gun
ownership controversy, btw)

------
nickthemagicman
Lol. I love how they say humans need to drive more like robots when it comes
to traffic cameras, insurance, and making big money for insurance and gov't.

However, when it comes to something that threatens these industries...it's
suddenly the humans that need to lighten up?

I'm ready to get rid of the entire auto industry once and for all, along with
all of the insane amount of income they generate off the backs of regular
people.

------
otakucode
I'm sure that when you're trying to engineer a participant in a complex
system, factoring in your own impact on that system and how it might come back
to affect you is as simple as it sounds. I mean, it's not like self-reference
is the generator of intractable complexity in every situation it is found,
right?

------
pmontra
Instead of making their cars more human like self driving companies could
start a campaign similar to the one against jaywalking 90 years ago. This time
against human driven cars.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797)

~~~
aj_g
Yes, I think this is the solution. Do not conform to the pre-existing culture.
Force a new one. Through marketing/consumerism, sheer numbers of self driving
cars on the road, I don't care. The current culture needs to die. It's cool
that it got us here, but it has so many drawbacks that it's not worth using as
a starting point for a new generation of autonomous vehicles.

------
protomyth
There is an interesting tangent to this story that I think would answer some
of the written rules of the road versus custom. By and large, do the people
designing robot cars like to drive? Do they like getting out on the road and
driving around?

------
rijoja
This might be a problem with the ways roads are "signed". I believe that stop
signs are much more common in the US than in Europe where there are signs that
are more relaxed. I.e that you have to stop only in case of another car.

------
norswap
Tangential to the article, but I'm still waiting to see how these self-driving
cars fare in European villages (& elsewhere), which are, shall we say, more
_challenging_ to navigate than Californian roads.

------
upofadown
In other words, bad drivers tend to run into things. It isn't really the case
that no one ever conservatively follows the rules of the road while driving
manually.

------
_pmf_
Rationalization hamstering at full speed.

