171–180 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article says it will save a estimated 362 lives per year at a cost of 82$ per car or 354 M$/yr. The actuarial value of a human life is usually around 5 M$, so that is a societal ROI of 5 if we only count fatalitys.
Your model assumes a even distribution of funds across society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing to keep in mind is when is the breaking point? If one person drives 100mph, should every single driver match that speed? What about 90? 80? What is the cutoff? There is a reason there are speed limits. They are the cutoff.
> If one person drives 100mph, should every single driver match that speed? What about 90? 80? What is the cutoff? Completely irrelevant to my scenario. Let me try to be more clear. If everyone is driving 65 mph, then the person driving 80 mph is in the wrong. If everyone is driving 80 mph, then the person driving 65 mph is in the wrong.
The only experience I have with automatic emergency braking was with a large box truck several years ago. It was quite horrible, false positives often, and never was necessary. Once it braked for no apparent reason while going downhill around a turn and almost caused us to wreck since the truck didn't turn as well under heavy braking. I hope better implementations exist.
Yeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition - I've seen false positives, I've seen no reaction where there should be one. By far the safest driving for me is simply having experience and no assistants enabled, ever. I know this begs question how to get to that level, these flawed helpers can maybe statis…
It has known (not published maybe) failure modes such as driving into a roundabout where the car is initially pointing towards the keep left sign (Australia) but then the road turns left. This is easy to remember and compensate for and while unnerving, not generally a problem.
I’m totally in favour of it, especially since rear end crashes are the most prevalent, accounting for 31% of crashes [0], this would avoid a large percentage of them I’d guess. [0] https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is t…
More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
If the speed limit is 60MPH, and everyone is driving 80MPH, it is safer to drive 80MPH than to drive the speed limit and get hit from behind by someone going 20MPH faster than you.
Of course, every single person driving 80MPH in this scenario is breaking the law (in most states this is reckless driving), and making the road less safe for everyone, especially motorist obeying the law. The status quo isn't great if we just accept that everyone has to drive recklessly because the people around them are. That's a problem in need of a solution - a solution that can include mandatory speed governors and geo-fencing.
If you require governors and geo-fencing, the condition of "everyone is driving 20MPH over the limit" doesn't exist, because everyone's cars will be capped at the legal speed limit. Driving with traffic will only entail speeds up to the speed limit, not up to the fastest speed that drivers around you feel like driving.
Thus why I said that regulators would have to go all-in on this technology, rather than allowing slow roll-out, because a transition period would make the roads more dangerous allowing older vehicles to drive recklessly fast while not allowing newer vehicles to safely drive according to road conditions (created by reckless drivers).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is t…
Freedom is not an on off switch. You can argue against freedom under any context with that kind of argument. Seeing it as a min max problem is better. Maximize freedom while minimizing problems or something.
The context I am talking about is a logistical issue that kills between 35,000-40,000 Americans every year. Nearly twice as many annual deaths as all forms of murder combined. It's the leading cause of accidental death.
There aren't that many "freedoms" that have such a staggering human cost. There are already laws that exist that prohibit you from driving at unsafe speeds, so it isn't even a freedom to begin with. You don't have the freedom to break the law. I see no issue with enforcing those laws proactively rather than reactively when that many lives are on the line.
Why are people commenting on Hacker News so negative? This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. I think if Hacker News was around when seat-belts were invented there would be some looney tunes claiming it's an abuse of first amendment rights or some rubbish. The next thing should be mandatory lane keeping.
It may save 24,000, but kill, say, 50,000 in new ways due to bugs.
Why are people commenting on Hacker News so negative? This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. I think if Hacker News was around when seat-belts were invented there would be some looney tunes claiming it's an abuse of first amendment rights or some rubbish. The next thing should be mandatory lane keeping.
I misjudged a tight pass on the highway this past weekend. It was stupid on my part but I will faux righteously blame the clown camping in the passing lane. My car's warning system lost its mind as I approached the car in the right lane. I accelerated through the situation and into the left lane because I knew speeding up was contextually appropriate. Had the car possessed an automatic braking system, the car disastr…
Why are people commenting on Hacker News so negative? This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. I think if Hacker News was around when seat-belts were invented there would be some looney tunes claiming it's an abuse of first amendment rights or some rubbish. The next thing should be mandatory lane keeping.
Because people here understand information technology. Any system that can accomplish this will be complex enough to fail regularly. It will be a net decrease in road safety. It will be a decrease in vehicle movement predictability. And it will be a significant decrease in vehicle operational lifetime as well as increased mantainence cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because It would make roads less safe. Speeding makes roads less safe too. Wouldn’t you agree that there would be a net reduction in serious injury and death from enforcing the speed limit? > It’s very common to need to accelerate in emergency situations Very common to accelerate past the speed limit when you’re already at/above it? Acceleration is usually useful as a safety tool when you’re at a stop and want to c…
I think there are soft mechanisms which could enforce speed limits which would need both needs. Even an obnoxious beeper like for seatbelts. I prefer the seatbelt beeper to having seatbelts which won't unfasten until the car has come to a complete stop, or cars which don't start without seatbelts. Not everything needs to be enforced with force.
Seatbelt laws are important, however they have much less impact on the people around the vehicle. Speeding kills pedestrians and other drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am very skeptical of the claim. A driver glance down to change the station, going 110 kms, with less than 15 meters and the car in front of you full stop breaks, you are going to crash, but yet folks still continue to do it and still they believe they'd be able to stop in time even with all the experience of driving. I don't believe most drivers today would be able to pass the present driver test successfully the f…
You are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point
As another commenter said, even reducing 10km more than a human will reduce the consequences.