Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkerside | Hacker News Reader

The "right" answer to the question as posed does seem to be for the car not to deviate from its intended lane and right of way. However, the likely conclusion of this technology is streets that are totally unsafe for any kind of illegal crossing. As acceptable mortality thresholds are established, speed limits on automated cars are certain to increase, considering the unchecked thirst for convenience by owners of any technology. Once we have cars whizzing down the road at high speed, with an established social understanding that cars do not cede right of way, streets will essentially become off limits. Compare this to 100 years ago when playing outside and in the street was commonplace and relatively risk free. I'm not a Luddite, but is the freedom we're giving up over our world worth the convenience of automated driving?

View on HN

Compared to 100 years ago roads are already pretty locked down, we have traffic lights and dedicated pedestrian crossings. And we're fine with it.

Realistically, speed limits will probably stay low (or might even decrease) in any residential area you'd want to play in. Additional barriers will be put up where parks / schools are located on busy streets. Only arterial roads will see an increase in speed limits.

All of this is decades away, more than enough time to accept the new reality as the norm.

Great points. Design of our cities, zones, and infrastructure can and will make an impact.

I think you're missing an important detail: human drivers speed, all the time. I live on a small residential street with a speed limit of 25 MPH, and it's not at all uncommon for drivers to take it at 35 MPH--sometimes even at 45. This situation isn't uncommon. Even if the speed limit were to increase slightly, it might still be a net improvement, especially given that robot cars may have better reaction times than human drivers.

A slight speed limit increase, sure. But if cars could move at 100+ mph and keep within an established mortality rate, what would stop us as a society from letting them?

Laws? Many things can be convenient and logical, but a myriad of laws stop such things from taking over our society. I'm sure by the time self driving cars become commonplace designated streets with enforced speed limits will arise in school and residential zones, and self driving cars will (in theory) never speed, unlike human drivers.

You are 90 years too late with your phobia. It's called Autobahn, or Freeway. And whether it's 70, 100, or 150 Mph, they have proven themselves an integral part in our transportation systems. No one is replacing existinf residential 5mph zones with pedestrian right of way with Freeways. We're talking about having a glass of wine and a good view from a sidewindow during your safe trip throughout existing rules of the infrastructute, instead of current "Gas, brake, honk. Brake, brake, honk. Gas, gas, punch". Imagine being more rested on your trip, you could even have mini offices in cars. You won't need to travel 100mph through the city. 25mph will do just fine. And if you need fast, nearest freeway is never too far, just like it isn't now.

Mainly preventing performance/externalities (e.g. noise/pollution).

Please note: even zero-emissions vehicles output tire particulate which exacerbates many allergies/asthma.

This is a decision that can be made city-by-city, I believe. My local suburb has a 10,000 population, so it's not difficult to get a couple hundred people together to petition the city to set speed limits.

New York might be busy enough that there's never empty streets, I don't know.

For cities of a couple million people or less, I imagine so few people petition the city council for adjustments to the traffic law that they'd probably hear your concern.

In New York and California local rules are often / always overruled by the state. New York City can't even change the speed limits without the permission of the state government. It is unlawful for them to install speed enforcement cameras. In states where the state can override cities, it will always happen that convenience-obsessed drivers from suburbs and exurbs will be able to force their worldview on urban areas.

Reminds me of Fahrenheit. Bradbury envisioned roads where cars go really really fast, can barely see where they're going since all is a blur. Social norm is that stepping on the road means you die and that you were an idiot for having done it. Cars don't break or swerve for people or animals on road. They might feel inconvenienced by the splash of blood on their car.

Bradbury certainly had a strong sense for how society/technology evolve. Are such accidents worth the cost of essentially creating additional free time for the majority of car-operating humanity? Sorry for the leading question.

Are school shootings worth the cost of guns you can buy easily? US sure thinks so.

Sorry for the loaded answer.

A sincere apology if you took my previous post as flippant. If it wasn't clear, I believe we need to think twice any time we value convenience over safety.

I agree, and my reply was also unnecessarily flippant.

Historically speaking, we don't have a good tack record of assessing infrequent but catastrophic risk versus consistent but small reward. As a society we tend to consistently choose the latter. Then try to retroactively reduce probability of catastrophic failure.

100 years ago people drove a lot slower.

Back when city streets were still contested between pedestrians and automobiles, there were many cases of cars going in excess of 40mph on city streets. Due to the many fatalities, people pushed for requiring governors to keep cars from exceeding 30mph, to the resistance of automobile owners. The details of this were in some article posted to HN in the last few years. The result was, instead of governors, making "jaywalking" a crime.

An interesting thing is that NYC has a speed limit of 25mph now.

Good luck getting past 25mph in some parts of the city though. Traffic, pedestrians/jaywalkers, hazards, and stop lights every other block act as a more natural governor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com