Considering my experience on the roads every day, competent human drivers are an incredibly small percentage of the driving population. Technically a human could have avoided that, but I wouldn't bet on most people being able to.
The image is pretty typical, not "hopelessly optimistic." Roads are not infinitely flat with no side vision and populated only by semi trucks and SUVs.
Even behind a truck, curves will allow you to see around them. Hills and bridges will let you see above them. Polarized sunglasses let you cut through glare. And if you're beset on all sides by vehicles that you can't see around, then you need to back the fuck off.
Here's a screencap from the BBC video. They don't give you much of a lead up to the collision, but even with the tiny snippet they use in the video, you can spot the stopped vehicle before the Tesla hits it.
A competent human driver would not have hit that.
Agreed, I think what's being missed here is most human drivers do not only look at the vehicle in front of them as an indicator of what is going on down the road. But that's all that a sensor-based assist system has to go by.
I don't disagree that if I were driving like that (blindly following the car ahead and not also looking further down the road) I would probably end up in a collision if the car ahead swerved to avoid stopped traffic suddenly.
The image is pretty typical, not "hopelessly optimistic." Roads are not infinitely flat with no side vision and populated only by semi trucks and SUVs.
Even behind a truck, curves will allow you to see around them. Hills and bridges will let you see above them. Polarized sunglasses let you cut through glare. And if you're beset on all sides by vehicles that you can't see around, then you need to back the fuck off.
Here's a screencap from the BBC video. They don't give you much of a lead up to the collision, but even with the tiny snippet they use in the video, you can spot the stopped vehicle before the Tesla hits it.
A competent human driver would not have hit that.
Which camera was that? The dash mounted one, or the one mounted to the top of the car?
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
The image is pretty typical, not "hopelessly optimistic." Roads are not infinitely flat with no side vision and populated only by semi trucks and SUVs.
Even behind a truck, curves will allow you to see around them. Hills and bridges will let you see above them. Polarized sunglasses let you cut through glare. And if you're beset on all sides by vehicles that you can't see around, then you need to back the fuck off.
Here's a screencap from the BBC video. They don't give you much of a lead up to the collision, but even with the tiny snippet they use in the video, you can spot the stopped vehicle before the Tesla hits it.
A competent human driver would not have hit that.
Which camera was that? The dash mounted one, or the one mounted to the top of the car?
Ha, I thought that second image was absurd too. That line of vision is only possible on a flat road if your eyes are higher than the roofline of the car you are following.
Random tangent: most of my driving mistakes are caused by me looking too far ahead.
Sometimes I register a green stoplight that's three blocks ahead while missing the red stoplight one block ahead.
Or I'll be watching traffic 300 yards ahead and not notice that the guy in front of me is slowing down.
Yup, humans are awful at driving and most of the 'clever techniques' mRahami talks about actually make you worse at driving by taking your attention off the critical most dangerous thing on the road, the vehicle right in front of you and the vehicles which might be about to merge right in front of you and cut you off. The way to drive safer as a human is a slow down and back off. Everything else is so unreliable as to be worthless. Humans aren't good at multitasking, or tracking multiple objects. We just believe we are. You don't even really HAVE peripheral vision. You have peripheral MEMORY and peripheral guessing. Your brain just imagines what might be there, and checks back in once in a while.
Not appreciating the air quotes there. Everything I talked about is driving 101 stuff covered in every driver's ed class in the US, even if people ignore them. I'm an automotive engineer. Because of the amount of time I spend testing vehicles, and the nature of the testing we perform, we go through advanced driver training. We practice skid control, with and without vehicle stability systems. We practice exiting and re-entering roadway shoulders at speed, we practice emergency braking without the assistance of ABS, we practice swerving to avoid collisions. Above and beyond the standard driver training, I'm part of our company sponsored amateur race team. I'm certified for "limit handling" (high G-force) maneuvers up to 105 mph and cruising speeds up to 150. I know what I'm talking about.
What I talked about are not cutesy ideas with no functionality in the real world. It's the way a competent driver should be driving every day.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Pretty much the only thing making people safer at this point is improvements in vehicle technology. Humanity isn’t getting better at handling long stretches of boredom or avoiding distractions any time soon.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
The sticky question is, at what point do we decide to allow autonomous drivers? When they're safer than 50% of humans? 75%? Do we have to wait until 95 or 99.9%? If it's a measurable, significant improvement to safety, is that enough?
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Pretty much the only thing making people safer at this point is improvements in vehicle technology. Humanity isn’t getting better at handling long stretches of boredom or avoiding distractions any time soon.
For highway driving, maybe. For urban areas, redesigning streets for more visibility and slower driving.
Pretty much the only thing making people safer at this point is improvements in vehicle technology. Humanity isn’t getting better at handling long stretches of boredom or avoiding distractions any time soon.
For highway driving, maybe. For urban areas, redesigning streets for more visibility and slower driving.
Potentially. And if autonomous vehicles still do better than people then all the better.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
Random tangent: most of my driving mistakes are caused by me looking too far ahead.
Sometimes I register a green stoplight that's three blocks ahead while missing the red stoplight one block ahead.
Or I'll be watching traffic 300 yards ahead and not notice that the guy in front of me is slowing down.
Yup, humans are awful at driving and most of the 'clever techniques' mRahami talks about actually make you worse at driving by taking your attention off the critical most dangerous thing on the road, the vehicle right in front of you and the vehicles which might be about to merge right in front of you and cut you off. The way to drive safer as a human is a slow down and back off. Everything else is so unreliable as to be worthless. Humans aren't good at multitasking, or tracking multiple objects. We just believe we are. You don't even really HAVE peripheral vision. You have peripheral MEMORY and peripheral guessing. Your brain just imagines what might be there, and checks back in once in a while.
Not appreciating the air quotes there. Everything I talked about is driving 101 stuff covered in every driver's ed class in the US, even if people ignore them. I'm an automotive engineer. Because of the amount of time I spend testing vehicles, and the nature of the testing we perform, we go through advanced driver training. We practice skid control, with and without vehicle stability systems. We practice exiting and re-entering roadway shoulders at speed, we practice emergency braking without the assistance of ABS, we practice swerving to avoid collisions. Above and beyond the standard driver training, I'm part of our company sponsored amateur race team. I'm certified for "limit handling" (high G-force) maneuvers up to 105 mph and cruising speeds up to 150. I know what I'm talking about.
What I talked about are not cutesy ideas with no functionality in the real world. It's the way a competent driver should be driving every day.
Humans aren't competent drivers. A safe driver (for themselves and those around them) drives slowly, obeys the speed limit, never conducts an unexpected lane change, and leaves a large gap to the vehicle ahead.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
Humans should not be be bad at driving != human drivers should not be bad.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+10
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
A human sure, but not millions of humans crossing paths and heading to different places
Look i got a skeleton full of metal cause i suck at driving.
It's not news i suck at driving.
Its why I'm hoping i can get a robot to do it, cause after 15 years...i don't think I'm gunna get much better considering my issue is that cars put me to sleep.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
Humans will never be perfect drivers, but neither will computers. Stronger driver training programs would go a long way toward improving the status quo.
Something I'm not clear on in that video is if the emergency braking system engaged properly. The crash dummy car didn't look to be metallic - would the radar system have picked it up?
It's been said a ton, but human's a shit drivers. Yes, even the best human drivers are still shit at it because we are consistent. I imagine once we solve some of the sensor issues, it's probably a fairly low bar for AI to clear in order to beat most drivers. I'd also say, we have a ton of people that think they are the best drivers in the word and in fact the worst drivers.
Other than technology, the only ways I can think of that make humans safer drivers.
-Slowing down and allowing more follow distance. Granted being in the Hampton Roads area of VA and have been in the DC area. That is easier said then done because there are plenty of dumb asses that think it's a travesty to leave space between vehicles when they really should and dozens of dipshits that see that space an opportunity to maybe half-ass their way to their destination just a little quicker. I've had jackasses pass me me because they see that opening and they don't get to where they are going any quicker because their are 10 vehicles ahead of me and the right just turned red.
-Solve the economic issues that encourage a ton of unsafe driving behavior. I mean fair number of assholes and idiots that are making the roads unsafe for all of us for no damn good reason. Problem is we have people that are drowsy behind the real because they aren't getting enough sleep, thanks to the multiple jobs or unpaid OT they get stuck working. Hell, probably plenty that are driving drowsy because 40 hour works weeks really are too long when you have other obligations (getting basic necessities, cooking, laundry, medical and dental appointments) or are one of those people where the "fuck off, you'll just have to train to be morning people" doesn't really work. Then of course you have the people where they aren't drowsy, but are stressed the fuck out because they have to do a shit ton of stuff and it's impossible to get a sane schedule (aka they are always one stop late or pokey driver from being late to something that is an obligation, not grounded in, "I just want to have fun").
Granted Driverless cars probably fix most of that after a certain point. Didn't get enough sleep, just sleep while the AI does the driving. For the stupid schedule stuff, well might give those people an out if they are late, but also AI isn't going to decide to apply makeup or look for a CD during a red light. Only to still be doing that 5-15 seconds after the light goes green in a turn lane, where the light is only green for 30 second and then red for 3-5 minutes.
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I'm from a relatively small town of 25,000. I started working in Kansas City and it's pretty much an encapsulation of how terrible people are at driving. For example:
1. Not using turn signals. Especially annoying at fucking four-ways. Seen at least two accidents at those alone.
2. People swerving in and out of lanes to save miniscule amounts of time. I will admit at times I will have to force my way (slowly and with my turn signal) into other lanes to get somewhere because people will never yield otherwise. However, even driving a Charger I will never do that bullshit traffic weaving thing.
3. Similar to the last one - using the exit lane to speed up and go over into the lane over at the last minute. I saw an orange Mustang do this and just barely fit into the tiny gap that was there. I was actually kind of impressed by the handling of that. Still a dick move.
I'm not the best driver. My big thing is the same as most - driving is piss boring, especially on long, repetitive commutes. It's also hard not to speed when people pass you going 80+ in a 65. I have never been in a big accident. Two fender bender due to visibility issues but that's it. My point is, I welcome technology that makes this safer. Also I think being allowed to drive (and keep driving) needs to be a lot stricter.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
Is that per capita or per mile? American spend a lot of time driving!
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm all for better training and higher requirements. Especially once autonomous vehicles become the norm. I just don't find it likely at all right now given licenses are handled at the state level.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
Is that per capita or per mile? American spend a lot of time driving!
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
Humans will never be perfect drivers, but neither will computers. Stronger driver training programs would go a long way toward improving the status quo.
Training a human to drive a car is like trying to train a ca
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
Changing the driving culture of everyone in every state is a huge task. Probably at least 10+ years? (That's a mostly baseless guess, though)
But being difficult doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. I'd be out arguing for to change US driving culture, except it's not worthwhile for another reason: we've got a better solution on the way with autonomous vehicles. At which point all the effort to change driving culture is just trashed
Changing the driving culture of everyone in every state is a huge task. Probably at least 10+ years? (That's a mostly baseless guess, though)
But being difficult doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. I'd be out arguing for to change US driving culture, except it's not worthwhile for another reason: we've got a better solution on the way with autonomous vehicles. At which point all the effort to change driving culture is just trashed
10 years is not nearly enough time.
It's taken 40+ years to really build up enough of a stigma about driving drunk to impact those rates, and it still happens often.
You mean, "British safety firm demonstrates why Autopilot behaves exactly as the user manual describes and is still safer than driving yourself in the situation they demonstrated"
I can assure you 100% that if there is a vehicle stopped in the road in front of you, and the vehicle ahead of you simply swerves around it without reducing speed or indicating and you haven't been lucky enough to get a good shadow indication of the stopped vehicle then the BEST human driver in the world is crashing into that vehicle, or swerving into traffic in lanes to the side. I would have crashed there. You would have crashed there. EVERYONE would have crashed there. When that driver in front moved aside at high speed at the last minute without deceleration he may as well have got out and shot the following driver in the gut.
Stopped vehicle (or large thing) in high speed free flowing traffic on a freeway, with a large vehicle in front of you, which hasn't yet transitioned to slow flow upstream of it is literally the most dangerous thing that you can run into on the road. Other than a stopped thing which might start moving perpendicular to you.
Uh-uh, nope. There is something very crucial you guys are missing when throwing up your hands and saying "a human would have crashed too!"
Spoiler for large image:
I borrowed this from a driver safety website, of all places. What do you notice about the green station wagon?
It has a window you can see through. There's a white vehicle moving with the flow of traffic a few hundred yards ahead of it.
If your method of driving is to stare at the bumper of the car in front of you and react to whatever it's doing, you are a horrible driver. You know what they pound into you over and over and over again if you go to any sort of performance driver training? Look ahead. No, look ahead. No, further than that. As far as you can possibly see. Your peripheral vision will take care of what's directly in front of the car, you should be looking as far down the road as you can. If you're coming up to a 90 degree turn, your head should be pointed at the side window, not the windshield. Look ahead.
A competent human driver would not have crashed. They would have noticed the stopped car from a long ways back.
And if you're behind a van or truck and can't see through it? Then you're following much too closely. A police officer at this accident would write the driver a ticket for failure to maintain a clear stopping distance.
Quote from the driver ed website I cribbed the photo from:
Highway traffic can decelerate from 65mph to 15mph in a very short time period. To avoid being caught off-guard by these quick speed changes, teach your teen to look for the brake lights of cars in the distance. By looking far down the highway (up to a quarter mile), they can get a heads up on speed changes.
As soon as your teen sees brakes lights coming on up ahead, they should immediately cover the brake. This will give them a little extra cushion in case they need to apply brake pressure.
I'm appalled there is pushback on this. Looking at the brakelights and behaviour of traffic as a whole is like one of the most basic driving skills people learn. You can absolutely see cars around the car in front of you except under certain circumstances (and that mostly comes down to SUVs being abominations that should be removed from the roads). Through the windows, over the top, around the sides because people don't drive in perfectly rigid straight lines, etc, etc.
If you are only watching the car in front of you, you are gonna rear-end people constantly because nobody actually follows at a distance where they can brake safely just looking at the car in front of them.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
Is that per capita or per mile? American spend a lot of time driving!
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
Yes, hence why I said "we choose not to" do any of those things, like design roads for better safety, design our built environment so people can make shorter trips or more trips without a car, etc.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
Humans will never be perfect drivers, but neither will computers. Stronger driver training programs would go a long way toward improving the status quo.
Training a human to drive a car is like trying to train a ca
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
It also has to do with the fact that the UK has a true national public transit system as well. A car isn't the necessity in the UK that it is in the US.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
Yes, hence why I said "we choose not to" do any of those things, like design roads for better safety, design our built environment so people can make shorter trips or more trips without a car, etc.
But I never said you couldn't make things better. I said you can't make humans better at driving. You can absolutely make driving safer and easier for humans
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
Humans will never be perfect drivers, but neither will computers. Stronger driver training programs would go a long way toward improving the status quo.
Training a human to drive a car is like trying to train a ca
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
It also has to do with the fact that the UK has a true national public transit system as well. A car isn't the necessity in the UK that it is in the US.
Yeah. "Changing the driving culture" really means "make driving more expensive", which is a big problem anywhere besides NYC or Chicago/Boston.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
This stealth trans-humanism.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
Humans will never be perfect drivers, but neither will computers. Stronger driver training programs would go a long way toward improving the status quo.
Training a human to drive a car is like trying to train a ca
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
It also has to do with the fact that the UK has a true national public transit system as well. A car isn't the necessity in the UK that it is in the US.
Yeah. "Changing the driving culture" really means "make driving more expensive", which is a big problem anywhere besides NYC or Chicago/Boston.
There's plenty you could do which wouldn't make driving itself more expensive (although, MOT tests would really be the ideal thing to implement in the US but that would be a burden on the poorest)
1) Replace every 4 way stop intersection with roundabouts other than at the smallest intersections
2) Replace two way stops with much better signage, signs should be graphically obvious, not require you to read 'two way stop' in small lettering beneath the sign. This is a key example of a common US signage mistake. All information should be in your own lane, and presented to you facing at you. No looking for the absence of things in other lanes.
3) Redo all highway signs such that the lane indication is clearly and only over the lane which you need to BE in to follow that route. Too commonly in the US excessive merging is encouraged by sign placement indicating that say, lane 2 will work for your direction when only lane 1 does.
4) Redo all highway on and off ramps to be consistent and predictable. Exits ONLY on the right, and the rightmost lane never exits unless the freeway splits. Then, if it is conceivably possible to fit one, there will be a roundabout at the bottom. US freeways suffer from excessively short on ramps, unpredictable entry and exit lane behavior, and again excessive need for lane changing due to that.
5) Speed cameras on US freeways set to 10 mph above the limit to punish aggressive drivers. Speed cameras can be bad, but people should know that exceeding 75 mph on a 65 mph freeway will almost always result in a fine, issued by a machine (thus meaning our usual racism problems can be avoided)
6) Make unpaid overtime illegal especially in salaried positions, preventing people from being incentivized to work until 8 PM and then drive home exhausted. Tired driving is as bad as drunk driving.
7) Fix the god damn potholes on the roads, especially on Urban freeways and urban thoroughfares. Too much money is spent on rural freeways making them smooth as butter. Spend that money on roads people actually use a lot.
8) Roll out variable speed limit indicators on all major freeways, where approaching traffic is told by clear bold signs in their lanes that the speed limit is now 45 mph etc. This minimizes traffic, AND prevents high speed on low speed (or stopped) traffic meeting points.
I like how we're at, "A lot of drivers are bad, so therefore we should use a computer driving system that is still bad but less bad," as though we've just completely given up on the idea that maybe human drivers should not be bad.
Well we've been trying for human drivers to not be bad for a century, so I don't know when you think we should give up.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
Yes, hence why I said "we choose not to" do any of those things, like design roads for better safety, design our built environment so people can make shorter trips or more trips without a car, etc.
But I never said you couldn't make things better. I said you can't make humans better at driving. You can absolutely make driving safer and easier for humans
This is objectively false. A trained driver is a better driver an untrained driver. A trained driver with ten years of experience will generally be superior to one with ten months of experience.
Better driver training, more frequent testing during license renewals, and a stronger driving culture will all lead to better drivers on the roads.
Posts
Agreed, I think what's being missed here is most human drivers do not only look at the vehicle in front of them as an indicator of what is going on down the road. But that's all that a sensor-based assist system has to go by.
I don't disagree that if I were driving like that (blindly following the car ahead and not also looking further down the road) I would probably end up in a collision if the car ahead swerved to avoid stopped traffic suddenly.
Which camera was that? The dash mounted one, or the one mounted to the top of the car?
Ha, I thought that second image was absurd too. That line of vision is only possible on a flat road if your eyes are higher than the roofline of the car you are following.
Not appreciating the air quotes there. Everything I talked about is driving 101 stuff covered in every driver's ed class in the US, even if people ignore them. I'm an automotive engineer. Because of the amount of time I spend testing vehicles, and the nature of the testing we perform, we go through advanced driver training. We practice skid control, with and without vehicle stability systems. We practice exiting and re-entering roadway shoulders at speed, we practice emergency braking without the assistance of ABS, we practice swerving to avoid collisions. Above and beyond the standard driver training, I'm part of our company sponsored amateur race team. I'm certified for "limit handling" (high G-force) maneuvers up to 105 mph and cruising speeds up to 150. I know what I'm talking about.
What I talked about are not cutesy ideas with no functionality in the real world. It's the way a competent driver should be driving every day.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
The sticky question is, at what point do we decide to allow autonomous drivers? When they're safer than 50% of humans? 75%? Do we have to wait until 95 or 99.9%? If it's a measurable, significant improvement to safety, is that enough?
For highway driving, maybe. For urban areas, redesigning streets for more visibility and slower driving.
Potentially. And if autonomous vehicles still do better than people then all the better.
But more seriously, at this point it's easier to engineer a system to be better at driving than it is to get the general population to be less shit at driving.
Humans aren't competent drivers. A safe driver (for themselves and those around them) drives slowly, obeys the speed limit, never conducts an unexpected lane change, and leaves a large gap to the vehicle ahead.
Humans should not be be bad at driving != human drivers should not be bad.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the general population to be less shit at driving. Our senses are not designed for doing the job of driving a car.
Longer. People were crashing into things with horses or even just on their own two feet.
I believe that with sufficient regular training, that it MAY be possible to teach a human to walk safely without crashing into other humans!
A human sure, but not millions of humans crossing paths and heading to different places
It's not news i suck at driving.
Its why I'm hoping i can get a robot to do it, cause after 15 years...i don't think I'm gunna get much better considering my issue is that cars put me to sleep.
Humans will never be perfect drivers, but neither will computers. Stronger driver training programs would go a long way toward improving the status quo.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Other than technology, the only ways I can think of that make humans safer drivers.
-Slowing down and allowing more follow distance. Granted being in the Hampton Roads area of VA and have been in the DC area. That is easier said then done because there are plenty of dumb asses that think it's a travesty to leave space between vehicles when they really should and dozens of dipshits that see that space an opportunity to maybe half-ass their way to their destination just a little quicker. I've had jackasses pass me me because they see that opening and they don't get to where they are going any quicker because their are 10 vehicles ahead of me and the right just turned red.
-Solve the economic issues that encourage a ton of unsafe driving behavior. I mean fair number of assholes and idiots that are making the roads unsafe for all of us for no damn good reason. Problem is we have people that are drowsy behind the real because they aren't getting enough sleep, thanks to the multiple jobs or unpaid OT they get stuck working. Hell, probably plenty that are driving drowsy because 40 hour works weeks really are too long when you have other obligations (getting basic necessities, cooking, laundry, medical and dental appointments) or are one of those people where the "fuck off, you'll just have to train to be morning people" doesn't really work. Then of course you have the people where they aren't drowsy, but are stressed the fuck out because they have to do a shit ton of stuff and it's impossible to get a sane schedule (aka they are always one stop late or pokey driver from being late to something that is an obligation, not grounded in, "I just want to have fun").
Granted Driverless cars probably fix most of that after a certain point. Didn't get enough sleep, just sleep while the AI does the driving. For the stupid schedule stuff, well might give those people an out if they are late, but also AI isn't going to decide to apply makeup or look for a CD during a red light. Only to still be doing that 5-15 seconds after the light goes green in a turn lane, where the light is only green for 30 second and then red for 3-5 minutes.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
1. Not using turn signals. Especially annoying at fucking four-ways. Seen at least two accidents at those alone.
2. People swerving in and out of lanes to save miniscule amounts of time. I will admit at times I will have to force my way (slowly and with my turn signal) into other lanes to get somewhere because people will never yield otherwise. However, even driving a Charger I will never do that bullshit traffic weaving thing.
3. Similar to the last one - using the exit lane to speed up and go over into the lane over at the last minute. I saw an orange Mustang do this and just barely fit into the tiny gap that was there. I was actually kind of impressed by the handling of that. Still a dick move.
I'm not the best driver. My big thing is the same as most - driving is piss boring, especially on long, repetitive commutes. It's also hard not to speed when people pass you going 80+ in a 65. I have never been in a big accident. Two fender bender due to visibility issues but that's it. My point is, I welcome technology that makes this safer. Also I think being allowed to drive (and keep driving) needs to be a lot stricter.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
There is a long way to go in the US. Other countries have way lower auto fatality rates - e.g. the US rate is like 2X the UK rate.
So this idea that you can't make things any better is bunk. We just choose not to.
Is that per capita or per mile? American spend a lot of time driving!
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
The total UK rate per miles driven is even better than the urban states only
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
Training a human to drive a car is like trying to train a ca
That because the UK has a strict and rigorous program of regular vehicle inspection which checks vehicles for functionality and safety every year. This program effectively continuously removes old or poorly maintained vehicles from the road, and makes sure every vehicle has proper tire tread and good brakes every year. The UK also has roads which are better designed for safety, using roundabouts rather than stop signs etc.
Better road safety is a function of better road layout, typically shorter journeys and safer cars.
But being difficult doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. I'd be out arguing for to change US driving culture, except it's not worthwhile for another reason: we've got a better solution on the way with autonomous vehicles. At which point all the effort to change driving culture is just trashed
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
10 years is not nearly enough time.
It's taken 40+ years to really build up enough of a stigma about driving drunk to impact those rates, and it still happens often.
I'm appalled there is pushback on this. Looking at the brakelights and behaviour of traffic as a whole is like one of the most basic driving skills people learn. You can absolutely see cars around the car in front of you except under certain circumstances (and that mostly comes down to SUVs being abominations that should be removed from the roads). Through the windows, over the top, around the sides because people don't drive in perfectly rigid straight lines, etc, etc.
If you are only watching the car in front of you, you are gonna rear-end people constantly because nobody actually follows at a distance where they can brake safely just looking at the car in front of them.
Per mile. Per capita it looks even worse!
Yes, hence why I said "we choose not to" do any of those things, like design roads for better safety, design our built environment so people can make shorter trips or more trips without a car, etc.
It also has to do with the fact that the UK has a true national public transit system as well. A car isn't the necessity in the UK that it is in the US.
But I never said you couldn't make things better. I said you can't make humans better at driving. You can absolutely make driving safer and easier for humans
Yeah. "Changing the driving culture" really means "make driving more expensive", which is a big problem anywhere besides NYC or Chicago/Boston.
There's plenty you could do which wouldn't make driving itself more expensive (although, MOT tests would really be the ideal thing to implement in the US but that would be a burden on the poorest)
1) Replace every 4 way stop intersection with roundabouts other than at the smallest intersections
2) Replace two way stops with much better signage, signs should be graphically obvious, not require you to read 'two way stop' in small lettering beneath the sign. This is a key example of a common US signage mistake. All information should be in your own lane, and presented to you facing at you. No looking for the absence of things in other lanes.
3) Redo all highway signs such that the lane indication is clearly and only over the lane which you need to BE in to follow that route. Too commonly in the US excessive merging is encouraged by sign placement indicating that say, lane 2 will work for your direction when only lane 1 does.
4) Redo all highway on and off ramps to be consistent and predictable. Exits ONLY on the right, and the rightmost lane never exits unless the freeway splits. Then, if it is conceivably possible to fit one, there will be a roundabout at the bottom. US freeways suffer from excessively short on ramps, unpredictable entry and exit lane behavior, and again excessive need for lane changing due to that.
5) Speed cameras on US freeways set to 10 mph above the limit to punish aggressive drivers. Speed cameras can be bad, but people should know that exceeding 75 mph on a 65 mph freeway will almost always result in a fine, issued by a machine (thus meaning our usual racism problems can be avoided)
6) Make unpaid overtime illegal especially in salaried positions, preventing people from being incentivized to work until 8 PM and then drive home exhausted. Tired driving is as bad as drunk driving.
7) Fix the god damn potholes on the roads, especially on Urban freeways and urban thoroughfares. Too much money is spent on rural freeways making them smooth as butter. Spend that money on roads people actually use a lot.
8) Roll out variable speed limit indicators on all major freeways, where approaching traffic is told by clear bold signs in their lanes that the speed limit is now 45 mph etc. This minimizes traffic, AND prevents high speed on low speed (or stopped) traffic meeting points.
This is objectively false. A trained driver is a better driver an untrained driver. A trained driver with ten years of experience will generally be superior to one with ten months of experience.
Better driver training, more frequent testing during license renewals, and a stronger driving culture will all lead to better drivers on the roads.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.