Hacker News Reader

Comment by jellicle | Hacker News Reader

Has Google (or any other company) ever said "we are programming our cars to follow the letter of the law"? I don't believe so. This seems to be something that programmers and lazy reporters have inferred to be true, without evidence.

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-...

View on HN

If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions. You cannot rely on being able to swerve into the oncoming lane, it might be occupied.

If you can reasonably avoid Sally but don't, that's careless driving. You're avoiding a misdemeanor to commit a possible felony.

> If little Sally runs out into the middle of the road and you cannot avoid her by slamming on the brakes, you were going too fast for conditions.

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.

The key is not to stop completely, it's to get down to a speed that's highly unlikely to be fatal to a pedestrian, 15-20 mph. So if you're on a street with obstructed sight lines, that means your max speed should be 15-20 mph.

Your just making stuff up. There will always be roads where objects obstruct sight lines and little Sally is going to get mowed down and killed because she screwed up and ran into the street when she shouldn't have.

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.

Google it yourself. The fatality rate at different speeds. Below 30 kph fatalities are very rare.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about your example being legally impossible.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com