I don't disagree that Tesla's software is partly to blame here, but the null experiment also has a lousy track record.
Also, anything that fails to assume that emergency traffic may be at a vastly differing speed from other traffic, or that emergency lights should _almost exclusively result in an autopilot disengagement_ (because their behavior should but is not always entirely predictable, particularly to a machine without sufficient context and/or experience) is to me inherently poorly designed.
That's pretty clever. I don't know why I didn't think of that myself.
Very interesting idea! You wouldn't even need a dedicated bay for it because who cares if it gets faded in the sun or rained on? An old tender that still holds water would be perfect for this.
The person staffing the control point indicated with hand signals for me to stop on the highway in the lane I was in.
So I slowed down to walking speed and pulled off the highway into the car park next to the office.
The agent then lectured me about not following instructions and that she could fine me for disobeying.
I then calmly explained to the agent the reason I didn't stop in the lane on the highway: drivers of cars and heavy vehicles are known to have a terrible habit of not seeing other vehicles stopped on the road.
I'd estimate it's about 10% of the time. But on the contrary, I've also had them express appreciation for doing the same thing.
https://insurify.com/insights/car-models-with-the-most-speed...
Some people will immediately see lights flashing and pull over straight away without checking for a safe location, so by delaying their lights - it removes that out of the equation.
At least according to my anecdotal evidence.
Further, in Netherlands an ambulance is not allowed to use the shoulder at high speed. Meaning, they'll prefer driving on the normal lanes (even if a bit crowded) over the shoulder.
I guess it's a bit safer when the speed limit in Australia is 110km/h
Here it's mostly tractors and other farm equipment driving at those speeds.
Imagine being rear ended while you are stopped at a stop sign. The difference in momentum is small and there is no significant damage.
Now imagine going 80mph down the highway and someone going 81mph hits the back of your car. Still a very small difference in momentum, but your car is very likely to lose control and roll or hit other cars. It's not always the initial impact that does all the damage.
Conveniently, your delta-v with this massive body you don't want to run into is also the one conventionally reported for your speed.
Also, I would often go less than 20 down a pass during the winter because I didn’t have snow tires or chains, and was passed by plenty of locals doing 60+ because they were equipped for it.
I wouldn't assume that the driver going slowly was much under the speed limit, if at all.
It was NOT a freeway.
It’s hard to tell that something directly in front of you is approaching. It’s just not something our brains are good at, compared to detecting lateral movement. Especially when it’s so unexpected. One of the first things they tell you in motorcycle safety class is that “constant bearing, decreasing range” situations are extremely dangerous.
Australian driving law/principles state that "drivers should drive at the _maximum_ possible speed that is: within the speed limit, and safe for the conditions". Notably absent in this is "within your ability" as if you're not capable of safely driving on all roads, the balance of probabilities says you probably shouldn't be driving on _any_ roads.
Example (Dutch, use Google Translate): https://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/124541/Flinke-boete-voor-te-l...
A truck got a fine of 1500 EUR. The example was dangerously slow (eventually 40km/h), not just slow.
Ultimately yes, it’s the other driver’s fault because it’s always your job to not hit things in front of you. But OP made his vehicle into a hazard.
Autopilot is supposed to be safer than humans, not equivalent to the worst drivers.
This particular driver isn't what makes the story special or newsworthy. The nature of the incident is. Our choice of statistical cohort should reflect this data selection effect, ie "all Autopilot miles driven," not "all miles driven by <person's name>."
I'm a partner in an auto insurance company, and most of our no-accident records will stay that way, statistically speaking.
If this driver had a one in a billion miles chance of crashing and Autopilot (with an inattentve driver, as they all tend to be) had a one in a million miles chance, then Autopilot is decreasing safety.
At a certain level of safety, Autopilot would make everyone safer, but it's definitely not there yet.
Fatal human accidents are on the order of 1-10 every billion miles of driving in the US, yes. Tesla Autopilot crashes seem to be much, much, much more common.