The part about OTA update being a benefit to all - yes I agree.
But aggressive autopilot being evil? That's a stretch.
Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense.
But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different. Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way.
Computers are different from humans. They drive differently. Insisting they behave the same way, is like insisting drivers have a person on foot proceeding ahead honking a horn and waving a flag (as early localities insisted drivers of the new automobile should have to do) because they might scare the horses.
Yes, in states where stopping at a stop sign is the norm, come to a stop even when no one is there. This ensures predictability, which is important for both driver and pedestrian safety.
If you are in a state like Massachusetts where a rolling stop is the norm, then for the same reason it's best if the car does not come to a complete stop, regardless of whether someone is there, because it makes your vehicle's motion more predictable. Ideally laws in those states should also be adjusted to reflect what people actually do.
Genuine question: are there any states where full-stopping at a stop sign is the norm whether or not anyone is there? I've done a whole lot of cross-country driving and I've never been to a place where the norm is coming to a complete stop even if there is traffic present.
My first time visiting Boston I came to a four-way stop leaving the airport. I was surprised that not a single car came to a full stop in the other three directions. They did not yield to the vehicle on the right as is the norm in my state; since I had come to a full stop, they perceived me as voluntarily yielding the right-of-way. When I explained to a local that the other drivers weren't yielding, the reply was "oh, you didn't come to a full stop, did you? Don't do that.".
I live in SC. For us a full stop is still the norm, regardless of whether there are other cars at the intersection, though this is changing as more people move here from other states. I have seen other drivers make a rolling stop, but nowhere outside of Boston have I ever been penalized by other drivers for obeying the sign.
In SC, the law requires a stop (making no distinction between a full stop and a rolling stop) at a stop sign or red stop light, prior to the intersection, either at the stop line or before the near side of the crosswalk. AFAIK the only provision we have for a rolling stop is for emergency vehicles.
I'm not talking about "if no one is there will you be ticketed", I'm asking where is it the norm to come to a full stop even if there are multiple people at the intersection? In the midwest and southwest it's common to "California roll" through a stop sign, and given the name of the maneuver, I assume this is also common out west.
In my state (SC), the people I personally know who have been ticketed for a rolling stop have typically been the only vehicle at the intersection (sometimes the only vehicle on the entire road). I suspect this is because the infraction is more visible (it's illegal either way afaik).
It is important to know both that no one else is at the intersection and that no one else is approaching the intersection. Consider a two-way stop where an approaching car is exceeding the legal speed limit (as is the norm everywhere I've driven in the US); would you still argue that a rolling stop makes no (zero) impact on safety?
'Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way.' <-- That's quite a sterile, abstract way to say 'We can change how the computer behaves if the computer causes an accident.' Which is to say if the computer damages property and non-consenting people.
Rolling stops are illegal because they're dangerous. If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me, I could very well be paralyzed given the multiple structural issues with my spine.
My bodily health is more than an 'issue' which can be coded away. Because Tesla can fix their code, but that code fix isn't going to fix my back.
> Rolling stops are illegal because they're dangerous.
> If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me, I could very well be paralyzed given the multiple structural issues with my spine.
How are these two statements in any way related? A computer malfunction can cause an automated car to run a stop sign and t-bone you whether or not that car is programmed to slow down to 0mph or 5mph.
You're stuck thinking about the way that humans make mistakes, computers can still make mistakes, but they're of a completely different nature.
Consider a thought exercise - In your opinion which of these is a better way for an automated car to approach a stop sign?
1) Slow down to 5mph as it approaches the intersection and evaluate if it's safe to continue; if it is the car may continue without coming to a complete stop. The acceleration profile is designed so that the car has 15 seconds total to evaluate the situation before continuing through the intersection.
2) Slow down to a stop at the intersection and immediately continue if it's deemed to be safe. The acceleration profile is designed so that the car has 10 seconds total to evaluate the situation before continuing through the intersection.
If we were talking about a human there is certainly an argument that option 2 is safer since human are generally bad at multitasking and requiring a period of time dedicated to looking for hazards is a good idea. However, a computer does not have the same issue and option 1 could be considered safer due to the increased time spent observing for hazards.
People cause accidents too. If an autodrive car becomes (is already?) safer than a person, should we not revisit the rules?
Rolling stops are illegal for a person, because a person suffers from inattentiveness and has slow reactions. The rules for a computer start from a different place, and likely will end up different from the rules for people.
Traffic is never going to be completely safe. We accept that now. To hold autodriving to a higher standard is reasonable, but there's a limit. And it should be a rational limit, not just hyperbole.
Strawmen like 'I'll be maimed!' are not really helping the conversation.
> If a computer malfunctions, runs a stop sign and t-bones me,
If the computer malfunctions then the software telling it to come to a complete stop at a stop sign isn't going to save your bacon. You're t-boned either way.
If the computer malfunctions, it could t-bone you even though it fully stopped first. It's basically anthropomorphizing the computer to say that a full stop makes it safer.
Ensuring sufficient reaction time isn't the only reason for a full stop. A full stop is a signal to those around you that you are yielding the right of way. If there is another way to signal (e.g. all other cars are a autonomous vehicles communicating wirelessly and there are no pedestrians) then there is no need for a full stop. In other cases the lack of a clear signal can create confusion as to who has the right of way, leading to a collision.
I see nothing in parent/grandparent/ancestors of my comment qualifying whether or not other cars are at the intersection at the time of the rolling stop. The original comment that spawned this discussion was "If it keeps Teslas with 'aggressive' autopilot from doing illegal and dangerous things like rolling stops, I don't care what concern it stems from."
There is a another thread on which is definitely about whether rolling stop are okay when nobody else is at the intersection (note this is subtly different from whether nobody else is around, especially for a two-way stop instead of a four-way).
The vast majority of stop signs have plenty of visibility, and could and should have been yield signs instead. Still, as a driver that isn't looking for extra hassles, I need to come to a full stop - despite the time wasted, jostling of my cargo, and needless clutch wear. Self driving vehicles shouldn't be allowed to escape the draconian regulations that we all have to bear, rather the regulations should be reformed for everybody. And this uniformity goes doubly for driving, where being able to understand and predict the actions of other vehicles is paramount.
I hadn't seen anyone say they should "escape the draconian regulations". Non-Tesla's are perfectly capable of rolling stops. I'm assuming a cop can and will still write tickets for this. Not stopping at a stop sign is on the driver whether it's a Tesla or not.
The comment I responded to was directly advocating having different laws for self driving cars, or at least I took it that way:
> Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense. But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different.
That seems strange - a robot should have the same rules as a human? Why-ever would that be? It's a reasonable idea, that we will have more nuanced rules for automation vs human operators.
There is significant added risk. Failure to observe traffic rules by a subset of vehicles means that the drivers - human or otherwise - have to guess the intention and actions of vehicles with less information, and greater uncertainty. A driver rolling through an all-way stop intersection is a threat to other vehicles, as it is not signalling it's intention to abide by the round-robin rule of all-way stops, e.g.
And frankly, in the case of Tesla autopilot, the vehicle is not autonomous, and the responsible party for the motion of the vehicle is still the operator, regardless of how much the computers are doing on their behalf. Under these circumstances, correct observation of traffic laws is mandatory.
That's ignoring the premise that there's no one else there. Humans do it all the time (rolling stop when alone at an intersection) and civilization hasn't fallen.
But aggressive autopilot being evil? That's a stretch.
Sure human operators need to stop every time, look both ways, proceed cautiously. Makes sense.
But a car with sensors operating 24x7, never getting tired or taking an intersection for granted? The rules can be different. Should be different. Because there's no added risk; because we can adjust them should an issue arrive, and they will always, always do it the new way.
Computers are different from humans. They drive differently. Insisting they behave the same way, is like insisting drivers have a person on foot proceeding ahead honking a horn and waving a flag (as early localities insisted drivers of the new automobile should have to do) because they might scare the horses.