Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#81

Post by zamalek »

rhacker wrote: post #70
camjohnson26 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a minority because following the letter of the law isn't always the safe decision. It's illegal to cross the double yellow lines, but if a car is pulled over on the shoulder then I'll cross the lines to give them more space. It's illegal but it increases safety for me and them.

I do safe, illegal things too, so good point in mentioning this. I should have clarified that I was mostly talking about speed limits, tailgaiting etc.. I was just picking up the above poster's phrase. I don't think I could accurately sum up my driving style in a phrase, but that's probably the best short way to do it.

Agreed, I definitely do illegal things - especially when there are cyclists on the road.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#82

Post by cptskippy »

rizzom5000 wrote: post #74
mikestew wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 irratio…

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.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#83

Post by cptskippy »

gizmo686 wrote: post #69
Pxtl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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?

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#84

Post by guiomie »

cgriswald wrote: post #59
umvi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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…

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.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#85

Post by GreaterFool »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #35
GreaterFool wrote: post #23

US desperately needs self-driving cars. Desperately. I don't think most people realize how much. Because they've never seen a city with good public transport where most people don't own or care about cars. But achieving good public transport in US is impossible for cultural reasons. So there's no public transport so most expensive areas will fight to the death to keep population density low. Because more people means…

> achieving good public transport in US is impossible for cultural reasons Self-driving cars are not going to solve congestion - quite the opposite. Personal transport will remain extremely inefficient in space and fuel compared to public transport.

(Good) Public transport is better than (shared) personal transport which is better than individual car ownership.

But from what I've observed about US culture, public transport is never going to happen :) So if you take that off the list, what's the alternative?

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#86

Post by jrockway »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #54
jstanley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#87

Post by _0w8t »

mikestew wrote: post #78
umvi wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#88

Post by cgriswald »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #76
jellicle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#89

Post by loco5niner »

guiomie wrote: post #84
cgriswald wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

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.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#90

Post by marssaxman »

cozzyd wrote: post #20
vorpalhex wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a real problem that I'm curious to see how Alphabet solves. In many areas of the country, the posted speed limit is often much lower than the realistic speed cars are going - following the letter of the law becomes unsafe behavior when you're going 15mph slower than everyone else. Of course, the answer here is probably the most boring: following the letter of the law ensures the least liability.

Automated vehicles could finally follow speed limits, stop blocking buses and bike lanes, and yield to pedestrians. What's not to like about that?

Why would we want other vehicles to follow speed limits? Then everyone would be stuck moving slowly.

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.

Post reply on HN