undefined | Better HN

0 pointsURSpider948y ago0 comments

My bigger point, which is getting lost, is that there are rules to traffic (pedestrian, bike and auto) that we are all expected to obey. I do not agree that we can simply assume that a self-driving car assumes all liability for any accident (which is what the parent to my original comment posited). The rules of the road let us operate vehicles at tolerances that make it physically impossible to avoid every kind of collision - for example, as I’ve mentioned, a pedestrian that suddenly sprints into cross traffic traveling 40 mph.

I fully agree that autonomous vehicles can and should do everything they can to avoid accidents. We are in violent agreement there. However, I also think that if we set some kind of unrealistic standard for safety, then we are going to make self-driving vehicles completely unappealing to everyone, because they are going to drive like a cross between my grandmother and a startled squirrel.

This is not a new idea of mine - the issue of the too-polite autonomous car has been extensively studied and reported on. See https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/t... for just one example.

0 comments

cmsj8y ago

> they are going to drive like a cross between my grandmother and a startled squirrel.

That genuinely might not be a bad thing, at least in the initial phases. They should be ruled by an abundance of caution until we're sure they can actually make more aggressive decisions.

Uber seems to be defaulting to maximum aggression from the outset, which is hardly surprising from them, but seems extremely over-confident (in fairness, like most new drivers are ;)

DanBC8y ago

> is that there are rules to traffic (pedestrian, bike and auto) that we are all expected to obey

The point of defensive driving is that you can't rely on other people not to be incompetent.

You have a green signal at a traffic light. That does not mean "go", it means "proceed with caution".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse