undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdeathanatos1y ago0 comments

> Hopefully it generally avoids no-win scenarios.

But unavoidable no-win scenarios exist on the road. "What does the vehicle do?" is a reasonable question to ask.

In the case of bike lane traffic or heavy pedestrians, if no avoidance options are available, your suggestion could easily restrict traffic to sub 10 mph. (E.g., to be able to stop with minimum impact if a pedestrian suddenly darted into the street.)

(I am glad to see that in this video, the Waymo crosses a double-yellow, using a dead zone between the two sides of the road to avoid the collision, thus bending the rules to avoid the hit, which is great.)

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

bryanlarsen1y ago

There are gradations. Yes, it might be unreasonable to never get in a situation where hitting a pedestrian is impossible, but it's not unreasonable to expect to never get in a situation where hitting a pedestrian at more than 20mph is impossible. Below 20mph a pedestrian collision is usually non-fatal.

That might mean limiting speed to 30mph or lower in residential area. That is fine.

Just like airplanes and surgery and almost every other dangerous activity, it should be impossible to have a road fatality with only a single failure. Only multi-systems failure should result in a fatality from any form of technology.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse