Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say they like conservative driving. "I would have risked that left turn, so you should have too. The person with the green light would have slowed down to avoid an accident, probably, and I would have gotten to the next red light 10 seconds sooner!"

You will also hear this when talking about less-capable drivers ("get off the road, grandma!") or less-capable vehicles ("I hate having to slow down for bikes and drive carefully around them.").

And of course, nobody ever says "you're going 80, the speed limit is 55! slow down!"

As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24.

View on HN

> As a result, traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for people from 8-24.

"As a result" is a pretty big stretch. Traffic accidents result from unexpected situations. People who drive a lot learn to read the environment and the drivers around them and anticipate what will happen next.

When those anticipations are violated, it runs the risk of creating a surprise that can't be managed. That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction.

Learning to drive is an empirical process based on observed behavior, not a deductive process from the rules of the road. So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked. They don't drive like people, and thus violate the heuristics that human drivers have built up to predict traffic behavior.

And perhaps more importantly, they look different, so they can feed into confirmation bias about how annoying they are. If it was impossible to distinguish self-driving cars (if they exhibited the same visual diversity as cars in general), it would be harder for people to build mental associations about them.

> That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction.

I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.

I've been caught by surprise before when I've been following too closely...

There, FTFY. I tend to follow too closely, too, but let's call it what it is and not blame the driver in front of us.

Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable. The vast majority of drivers coast through yellow lights if they are reasonably close to the line. Breaking this predictability by abruptly halting at yellow (while reasonably close to the intersection) is going to be a risk multiplier - regardless of if you are "blameless" for doing so.

Either way, a key to preventing accidents is being predictable.

The problem is, if I relied on other drivers to be predictable, I'd probably already be dead. I tell other motorcycle riders, "ask yourself what the stupidest thing that driver in front/next to/behind you can do. Now plan for that." It's not too often that plan needs to be executed, but it's handy when the time comes. (Anecdotally, I've found WA to be the hardest to plan for; man, they're a creative bunch.)

So, yes, be predictable; but expect the unexpected. As Red Green said, "we're all in this together."

One cannot follow that in Moscow and drive. Their in heavy traffick to change lines one signals the turn for few seconds and drives into the line without waiting the cars there to give the way. One just has to assume that people are reasonable and want to avoid crashing into your car. Otherwise one may just drive in the initial line forever as nobody gives the way until the car moves into their line. I was told Paris is similar.

I disagree, if OP was following too closely the collision would have happened. Instead OP had to take evasive action to avoid collision because driver in front did something unexpected.

I look forward to the day that self-driving cards are mandatory. Driving is one of the most excruciating things I endure in daily life and only because of the huge number of people on the roads exhibiting random and completely irrational behavior. If there is absolutely no rational reason to stop your car in the midst of moving traffic, then why do it?

Reaction times vary between individuals and even between an individual depending on context. Being hungover, tired, on the phone, lost in thought, reading a billboard, or fiddling with a stereo can significantly impact reaction time. Additionally the stopping distance varies between vehicles and even base on external factors like road conditions, weather or ol'Musky pushing a firmware update. Following too closely is vague and only enforced after an accident because of these variances.

I was once told by a driving instructor that the safe following distance behind a car is always 3 seconds regardless of speed. At 3 seconds distance there are no evasive stopping actions and your underwear remains unsoiled.

> I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light.

I witnessed an accident where a tiny little compact slammed on his brakes the second a light turned yellow. Unfortunately, he was being followed by a large SUV. The SUV hit him and pushed him into the intersection.[0] The very next day, at the very same intersection, I saw the now dented compact do the very same thing under the very same circumstances. He had learned nothing.

[0]To make matters worse, he left his perfectly drivable car in the middle of the intersection instead of pulling ahead. He got out of his car, made a phone call, and just stood there in the intersection having a conversation (with police or insurance I would assume), endangering himself and others.

Well, technically he doesnt have anything to learn, because he is right. The person behind him should always keep enough distance to stop according to the speed he is driving. The person who rear-ended him is in wrong and is responsible for the damages.

Given that in California a yellow light has no meaning other than as an indicator of a pending red light, a competent lawyer could argue that he has partial liability in this case. The driver's handbook suggests stopping if it is safe to do so, otherwise proceeding with caution; but this is neither legally binding nor was it safe for him to stop by slamming on his brakes either time.

But the legality of it is orthogonal to whether his behavior was right. It wasn't. It was unexpected, reckless, and very unsafe.

My country of origin treats a yellow light legally as if it's a red light.

Slamming on your breaks when you don't need to and forcing everyone behind you to slam on their brakes to avoid hitting you is a bad idea.

Smooth and predictable is safe.

Yeah, but you have to be following the car in front of you at a distance that takes into account your reaction time and the actual braking distance. This time, the guy slammed on his brakes because of a yellow light which is maybe not a good reason... but it could have easily been someone running the red light, some kid running out into the street after a ball, the car's wheel flying off, etc.

Already addressed this. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17870971

Sure, but you are still relying on the fact that other people never make mistakes so if you are not keeping the appropriate distance you are counting on other people to drive predictable all the time which will never be the reality (medical emergency, dropping your coffee in your lap,...)

> if you are not keeping the appropriate distance you are counting on other people to drive predictable all the time

I'm not advocating NOT keeping appropriate distance. You should.

I AM advocating NOT slamming your brakes needlessly.

Even when keeping appropriate distance, when the driver in front of you slams on their brakes, you will need to also.

So, you nearly rear-ended someone because you didn't hold proper distance? What's your point?

No. If they didn't have proper distance, they would have rear-ended. Instead, they had to slam on their brakes to avoid an accident. The leading driver caused a slam-on-brakes situation when they should not have.

Yellow doesn't mean "you can go through if you can beat the red". It means "stop if it is safe to do so". If it's just firm braking and not actual tires-squealing stop? The driver probably did the right thing.

Safe is relative. If he almost got rear ended, it probably wasn't safe.

Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that.

At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have seen people stop on yellow in a way that seemed unsafe.

> I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red)

I have seen people who have so egregiously missed the yellow that the cross-signal turned green before they entered the intersection. Saying that running a yellow is safer than not trains people to be entitled to running yellow lights, and that is going to make their actions much less safe.

If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light. That is a very simple rule to follow and is going to be safe to follow. If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.

And saying that stopping on yellow is safer than not trains people to slam the breaks when the light turns yellow.

> If there is someone in front of you, do not plan on running a yellow light.

Can I plan on running a green? Because greens turn into yellows abrubtly.

> If you planned on running the light, and the driver in front of you did not plan on doing so, it is you who is going to be at fault.

If someone slams their breaks in the middle of a clear road and I rear end them, then I am at fault. That doesn't mean it was safe to do so.

So what you're saying is that drivers should endanger themselves by taking risky maneuvers to spare the person driving behind, who are endangering them by following too closely, from an accident?

Driving is a risky maneuver. The question is what is the less risky way of handling a stop light. The point of yellow lights is so that drivers can continue through the intersection after the light left the green state, because not green=stop is unsafe.

Running a yellow is less dangerous to the person driving then stopping for yellows. That is why we have yellow

It's not risky to go through an intersection when the light is yellow. If your light is yellow, the cross light is red. Proceeding through a yellow is no riskier than a green.

Traffic lights originally only had red and green. Municipalities added yellow specifically to prevent brake-slamming stops that led to crashes. Slamming the brakes on yellow is contrary to its purpose.

That's not what they are saying...

> It means "stop if it is safe to do so".

if you have to slam on your brakes, it is (arguably) not safe to stop.

Slamming the brakes means different things for a sports car vs a SUV.

In my Subaru STI I can stop faster than some Escalade with only 2/3rds the brake pedal pressure. I'm not even close to maximum braking force. It's even more true in a lighter car like a Porsche 911.

Just as if they were driving a large commercial truck it is the SUV driver's responsibility to not be too close to me.

Even following at a safe distance, if you stop suddenly, they will have to stop suddenly. The point is, don't stop suddenly unless you HAVE to.

Try to be smooth and predictable.

>So I'm not surprised that self-driving cars are disliked.

Assuming you're implying that self-driving cars won't have behavior that's easy to learn, I'm not so sure.

Even self-driving cars should fall into certain patterns (maybe those will vary with the tech, depending on if they're run on Waymo or some other company's version of it).

>And of course, nobody ever says "you're going 80, the speed limit is 55! slow down!"

incorrect

Yeah. Totally incorrect: I say it all the time when I am driving my kids around -- or when idiot teenagers rip through my neighborhood where my kids are playing at 35-45 mph (1).. before kids? - Maybe not.

(1) - It's official: I am now a crotchety old man.

I'm not sure if you're crotchety. I had a grandma frantically signal me to slow down when she was out walking with her grandchildren. I was doing 12 mph in a 25mph zone. The road is sketchy in spots, but this stretch is perfectly straight and fairly wide and I gave them about 15 feet of clearance by essentially driving as far as I could on the opposite side of the road. She's definitely crotchety.

That said, I think people are terrible at judging speeds. I keep my car in a low gear on the hills around here for control. As a result the revs are sometimes on the higher end and my car is generally pretty loud and looks fast. So people assume I'm going some great speed when I'm actually going relatively slow.

Pedestrians generally judge speed by noise.

Agreed. I say this to people I am riding with all the time that are speeding.

Same here, but his point is still somewhat correct, while not specifically accurate.

Even when I was a kid, my parents would be speeding and yelling at other cars that were speeding much faster than them. Perhaps those exact words weren't used, but they were definitely complaining about people driving too fast.

"Anyone driving slower than you is a moron, and anyone driving faster is a maniac."

Every single time someone honks at me for this, I'm tempted to stay in place longer than necessary. Fortunately--most of the time--I think better of being this petty and passive aggressive.

They could be honking because there is something you don't see, like a little child about to run onto the road, a problem with your vehicle, et cetera. So stopping until you can figure out why they are honking really should be the correct response.

Should, but isn't, unfortunately.

If people are honking at you, are you sure you're being safe and not just being annoying?

I find the vaaaast majority of honking is driven by impatience not any actual practical consideration (alerting others to your presence, trying to get someone's attention.)

Honking to provoke someone into taking risks you don't have to incur the consequences of yourself is mild sociopathy.

My favorite is watching a chain of cars honk at a red light. Some day, when I become the mayor of New York City, I will install sound-detecting traffic signals. If you honk at a red light, it stays red for an additional 10 seconds. The city will descend into chaos, and I will greatly enjoy watching it.

> Honking to provoke someone into taking risks you don't have to incur the consequences of yourself is mild sociopathy.

I agree. The fact that the risk is theirs and that they are obviously not confident drivers is exactly why I don't honk. I neither want that on my conscience nor want to be secondary damage when they pull out at the wrong time and cars and debris go flying.

Most of the time I honk it is because someone is playing on their phone and have not noticed that the light turned green 5 seconds ago.

I have a friend who uses his phone at red lights and never goes until someone honks at him. Just leaves it up to them to watch for the light change.

You should encourage your friend to change their behavior.

Doesn't matter, if there isn't a dedicated arrow for the turn, I'll go when I damned well feel like it. Your definition of "yield" might differ from mine, but that is just too bad, according to the law.

And I say this is the kind of driver cuts my left turns closer than most. You know the driver that's already started their left turn before you've cleared the intersection, and it looks like they're going to hit you (but won't)? That's me; keep it movin' folks. But if the driver in front of me is less aggressive (to a point), that's cool.

About as confident as I can be without having insight into their perspective. I'm mostly referring to right turn on red scenarios where I'm not comfortable with the risk. Although, the occasional honking immediately after a light turns green also occasionally happens.

Some people are very timid at things like left turns and roundabout entry because they are not confident in their judgment of oncoming car speed, etc. (mostly Americans on that second one; Europeans seem generally seem comfortable entering roundabouts).

They may also be uncertain what another driver will do. For example, turning right onto a two lane road may be safe if the right lane is open. However, despite it not being legal, a driver in the left lane may change lanes mid intersection. I'd prefer not to risk it to save myself a few seconds.

When I was younger, I used to get impatient but probably never or rarely angry.

At some point I decided that I really have no idea why any given person is driving slowly or seemingly over-cautiously or in whatever strange way. Maybe something is going wrong? Maybe out of their control?

I have since strived to be charitable and patient. I sometimes fail, but on the whole I find that I am much less stressed when driving now than when I was younger.

I just say, usually out loud to my little kids' extreme delight, "WTF ever, people be crazy."

I do still yell at people who are driving excessively fast to slow down. Also to my kids' delight. My preschooler says, "we should call the police," which makes me laugh everytime.

Except in Pittsburgh. I am always super super stressed when driving in and around Pittsburgh.

I also yell at cyclists who don't obey traffic laws (silently, in my head, at least).

> And of course, nobody ever says "you're going 80, the speed limit is 55! slow down!"

Oh yes they do! Remember the old rule: anyone going slower than you is a moron, and anyone faster is an asshole.

People broadly disapprove of those who engage more deeply in excess than they do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com