[1]https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-revela...
[1]https://mybroadband.co.za/news/wireless/11099-massive-revela...
Honestly, it sounds like the same kind of frustration I hear with people reacting to elderly, overly cautious drivers.
> One woman said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn
By following the correct speed limit and following distance, you will have ample time to react to any silly behavior. Not that I for one second believe that a self-driving car would make a sudden stop in order to make a predetermined turn.
Did you really mean this or is it sarcasm?
How often will a brick wall shoot up in front of a car like life is a video game? Probably a really low percentage, but cats, deer, blown tires, trailers falling off, jackknifing trucks - all can have similar effects.
Even knowing my car may get the brick wall, which I can't avoid, I can at least do the best I can to avoid someone else's.
Google's challenge however, is that we are in a very very small minority.
No, that's just boolean programmer-think.
I my state, at least, the law makes specific exceptions for things like this.
Maybe the cars would do better if they were vetted against lawyers and not debuggers.
Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars? Isn't that annoying? Why not just speed up a few mph and join the herd?
I'm honestly asking; I just do not get the appeal.
Cars are objects that have an extreme amount of kinetic energy. The point isn't to avoid getting pulled over, the point is to avoid dying or killing.
> 60mph in a 55mph
Air resistance increases at a squared rate. The amount of fuel you use (and your emissions) is not linearly associated with your speed. So does your kinetic energy. Going at 25, 5 over is not the same as going at 55, 5 over.
> Do you ever find yourself on a road getting passed by all the other cars? Isn't that annoying?
All the time, but it's not annoying because I don't care about being in front of everyone - I have left for my destination with ample time to make my appointment. I'm on the road to reach a destination, not to win the race. I don't care if people cut in front of me, because I have chosen not to and give them the safe room to do so.
Driving aggressively is stressful, you [not specifically you] are fighting with everyone else on the road. You're going to risk your health in order to be directly ahead of me at a red traffic light two minutes later? I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me. I try my best to get out of the way of aggressive driving; the further those drivers are away from me, the better.
In those two minutes where you've [again, generalized "you"] been racing everyone else on the road, I've probably let someone in front of me - saving them minutes and costing me seconds (before the next traffic light equalization). I feel good about myself, you are in the throws of fight or flight.
The only appeal of courteous driving is that there is less than an appeal to aggressive driving. The only way to win is not to play.
> Driving aggressively is stressful, you [not specifically you] are fighting with everyone else on the road. You're going to risk your health in order to be directly ahead of me at a red traffic light two minutes later? I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me. I try my best to get out of the way of aggressive driving; the further those drivers are away from me, the better.
the problem here is that you are (socially) forcing more cars to overtake in what sounds like nonstandard manners (from "I'll just pull to the right and give you room to pull in front of me" I can't tell if you're moving out of the left lane or pulling into the shoulder). by driving slower than other cars, you're impeding the ability for traffic to flow evenly which results in more frustration and more lane changes. both of these increase the likelihood of accidents occurring as they lead to more dangerous maneuvers occurring more frequently and with more emotion.
or rather, do you not see how your slow driving could be the cause of their aggressiveness? which doesn't really fit the adjective "courteous".
Not moving into the shoulder, that's illegal and dangerous.
Once I've overtaken traffic that is _actually_ slow, I move to the right lane. There is nothing nonstandard about letting traffic pass me on the left when multiple lanes are available. Because I am not tailgating, they have ample room to safely move in front of me (5 seconds at highway speeds is a very large distance).
> both of these increase the likelihood of accidents occurring
Speeding and tailgating is a process that occurs all the way to a destination - it is a consistent threat. Lane switching doesn't need to occur frequently and can be done well in advance when it is generously safe to do so - it is a momentary threat.
> by driving slower than other cars, you're impeding the ability for traffic to flow evenly
By tailgating or anything between safe following distance, you are not giving adequate room for people to merge into traffic. Traffic that is entering is forced to come to a near-stop because they can't find an opening, slowing down or stopping traffic behind them when they do eventually enter the highway.
Everyone traveling at an agreed speed, with ample room for traffic to enter and leave is traffic flowing evenly.
> slow driving
Driving at the speed limit is not slow.
> which doesn't really fit the adjective "courteous"
You have _moved_ that word completely out of the context that it was used in. "Courteous" is letting people in (which aids traffic flow, especially in gridlock).
Yes it is, as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority goes ~5mph over and are constantly overtaking you.
If you may, try my style for no more than a week. See what it does for your mood. Be friendly on the road, stick to the law - if going slightly over is your line stick to that line. Just try to be safe and nice.
While true, engine efficiency might peak at higher engine speeds, which, depending on gear ratios, may reduce the impact of air resistance on your overall fuel economy.
I drive a 2016 BRZ with a manual transmission. It is stickered at 24 mpg city, 30 mpg highway. I usually drive 60-70 mph on the highway, depending on which highway. You know what my average fuel economy is? 33.5 mpg.
> Driving aggressively is stressful [...]
There's nothing aggressive about maintaining a speed that is equal to surrounding traffic, and by forcing so many people to change lanes and move around you, you're not only creating unnecessary stress in other drivers, but you're making the roads less safe.
If the speed limit is 55 mph, but everyone is driving 60 mph, then the safest speed is 60 mph. Within reason, reducing speed differential between cars is safer than keeping within the speed limit.
Maybe where you are, but someone I work with got pulled over for 63 in a 60 recently.
She also got nailed recently for 93 in an 80MPH zone. Her excuse was that she was just keeping up with everyone else. The cop didn't buy it.
I'm honestly asking; I just do not get the appeal.
I like keeping my money, instead of risking it in fines and higher insurance rates to satisfy the peer pressure of a bunch of strangers.
If I had to guess I'd say DC, Maryland, Virginia area since they go full 1984 on traffic stuff there but unfortunately any non-white driving a beat up older car is a magnet for fishing cops which leads to unreasonable tickets like what you've described so it really could be anywhere.
Yes, often.
>Isn’t that annoying?
No, it is much less stressful when everyone else is passing me than it was when I was driving about 5 mph over and always coming up behind cars trying to find space and time to pass them. (Or even now, the few times I come up on someone who is going under the speedlimit and I have to safely pass them.)
The problem is that in heavy traffic (e.g. middle of many large cities at 5pm), it's not actually possible to both follow the law and actually make progress towards your destination in a given hour.
One example: Try to make a left turn in gridlocked traffic. You're supposed to avoid moving across an intersection until there is enough room for your vehicle, so that if a light changes, you will not block traffic. The problem is that in rush hour traffic, if you actually do that, you will sit there for an hour or more as other cars see the gap and take a right turn, never giving you a spot to turn into.
Or that the letter of the law is not a useful abstraction for how systems optimally perform.
Of course, the answer here is probably the most boring: following the letter of the law ensures the least liability.
On the other hand... if everyone were to obey all of the impractically-low speed limits at once - like a "work-to-rule" strike - perhaps that would create enough political pressure to get them raised up to a more reasonable level.
In addition to being adjusted for the engineering of the road, they also create gaps in traffic allowing people to change lanes, or other people to enter traffic, or — in the case of roads with intersections — allow other people to make left turns, especially on curves.
Just because you don't understand why a speed limit exists doesn't mean it's wrong. A lot of science goes into these decisions.
And explain to me how the laws of physics or “science” change across state lines. Because if you’ve ever driven from one state to the next in the US you will quickly learn that each DOT has its own theory of how to do things and how to assign speeds. The PA turnpike is 70 mph now and I refuse to believe you have any science to back up why that 70 mph is more appropriate than the 65 mph for the NYS thruway which is wider, straighter, flatter, better lit , in overall better shape throughout the state...also why is the speed 65 in bumblefuck as well as an hour outside of nyc (I lived through the politics of northeast road transportation and bud shuster so spare me your science counterargument, I already know it’s a pile).
I feel like you are or might be related to a traffic engineer and I honestly don’t want to hurt your feelings.
200 square miles where people want to make left turns and forming gaps in traffic make sense.
Unless you live in a city where no one ever makes a left turn; dogs, children, and sports balls are outlawed; and you're the only person on the road ever.
You do realize there are other people out there driving, don't you?
According to community consensus, as expressed in everyday common practice, legal speed limits are usually set too low.
For example, it is required in California to signal lane changes/turns for at least 100 feet before the maneuver. (Other states may have different requirements, so better hope your GPS is functioning.) If little Sally runs out into the road and can only be avoided by swerving, heck, even crossing double yellow lines, the letter of the law would be to strike Sally without swerving since the swerve maneuver can't be legally executed. Is that what is being programmed [Y/N]?
Indeed, they are not being programmed to obey the letter of the law:
https://venturebeat.com/2014/08/19/google-cars-are-designed-...
And you might be right that the robocar companies aren't trying to program their cars to drive strictly legally for every possible situation, it is in fact a reasonable presumption.
If you can reasonably avoid Sally but don't, that's careless driving. You're avoiding a misdemeanor to commit a possible felony.
That's an unreasonable standard. You may be driving too fast for conditions, but being unable to stop in time when something unpredictably enters the roadway is, by itself, neither proof nor definition.
The average stopping distance for a passenger vehicle at 20 mph is 20 feet; to say nothing of a heavily-laden delivery truck. That's not including reaction distance. Sally might step out from behind a van. Or a large branch might fall from a tree. Or the wind might push over a garbage can. A dog may wander onto the interstate. Some accidents are unavoidable by simply applying the brakes, except by forgoing non-ambulatory transportation altogether.
I know there's the big hatred of cars here on HN, but in the real world NOBODY thinks that way. Accidents do happen and it's going to be fatal because the pedestrian screwed up.
Also, some of the cited examples sound like clear errors and lane discipline issues that sounds too blatant to just be perception. The original author's Twitter thread even illustrates a tangible example[2] of a potentially dangerous driving error the technology made, where a turning vehicle apparently reacts to an oncoming vehicle intending to turn in behind it (signalling and possibly moving a little early) by hard braking in mid turn, obstructing the oncoming vehicle intending to merge and possibly giving a following vehicle a surprise as well. A reminder that coming to a stop is not always the most sensible response to uncertainty. If the human driver wasn't involved in restarting that car, that incident probably doesn't appear in its much-trumpeted disengagement statistics though...
[1]https://www.theinformation.com/articles/waymos-big-ambitions... - probably worth the annoying email harvest if you're interested [2]https://twitter.com/amir/status/1034443909341106177
Disclosure: I've never seen one in action, just stating a possibility.