[HN Gopher] A road safety plan that will lead to cars communicat...
___________________________________________________________________
A road safety plan that will lead to cars communicating with each
other
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 122 points
Date : 2024-08-18 15:29 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.engadget.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.engadget.com)
| tocs3 wrote:
| I like the modern world and its safety features. Things (cars,
| planes, food, etc.) are generally safer but I just do not really
| trust any of the people that would be writing these rules. I fear
| the regulatory capture aspect of it and what it might mean to me
| trying to get to the grocery store. I only drive a three or four
| times a week (most of that is short duration rural driving).
|
| It is not that I think some one will take my car from me so much
| as the industry may just work to make everything not new
| obsolete. A new $30K car (or even $8$15K used) is a steep price
| for an individual to pay to meet regulations.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| It's worth noting that this is 100% about providing more
| information to vehicles rather than requiring vehicles to use
| the feature.
|
| Think of it in the same category as driver assistance
| technologies (like radar cruise control, forward collision
| warning, lane assist, rear cross warnings, rear cameras, or
| blind spot warnings/cameras).
|
| It'll almost certainly never be mandatory to be road legal but
| it'll probably be a standard feature on most new vehicles.
| ItsBob wrote:
| > It's worth noting that this is 100% about providing more
| information to vehicles rather than requiring vehicles to use
| the feature.
|
| I'm calling it here and now: this absolutely will become
| mandatory in the nearish future. 100%.
|
| Same as in Europe with the speed regulator thingy in the
| cars... advisory at first now mandatory in many places.
| madrox wrote:
| * For some definition of near and mandatory
|
| Even when they started mandating airbags in new vehicles,
| it took something like seven years to go into effect so car
| manufacturers had time to plan. And then they didn't make
| cars that didn't have airbags illegal.
|
| Even the most universally embraced ideas take time to roll
| out.
| ItsBob wrote:
| I agree: it won't happen overnight.
|
| It will happen within a handful of years though. Too much
| potential for control to let it pass...
| pixxel wrote:
| Airbags aren't a useful tool for data/control.
| micahdeath wrote:
| We have to get the `internet` or some other network
| rolled out first.
| whartung wrote:
| Rear cameras are required now, or will be in a few years.
| Dunno if this is a California thing or national, but just
| like the third brake light, this is already happening.
|
| California is also working on legislation to require cars
| to be aware of where they are so they can notify the driver
| if they're speeding.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > It'll almost certainly never be mandatory to be road legal
| but it'll probably be a standard feature on most new
| vehicles.
|
| I think many of us said the same thing about backup cameras,
| but since 2018 you can't buy a car in the USA without one. So
| you have to get a screen in your car whether you want it or
| not.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I think they meant legal to drive, not just required for
| new cars
| trte9343r4 wrote:
| We already have safety rules, but those are ignored!
|
| If you cycle into grocery store, you may get chased and
| attacked by dangerous dogs. Many people gave up cycling and
| jogging for that! And in grocery store more dogs and
| excrements! There are rules against all of that, yet it is
| widely ignored.
|
| Lidars will get vandalized pretty fast, because they will
| impede flow of traffic. Or thugs will use it to stop passing
| vehicles to make kidnapping easy!
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > thugs will use it to stop passing vehicles to make
| kidnapping easy!
|
| We already have this thing, it's called a red light.
|
| Is there a name for this, when people come up with a
| plausible sounding scenario for crime driven disaster, but it
| does not actually have basis in real world? The 'razor blades
| in candy' scares parents every Halloween but is completely
| made up and has never been reported.
|
| Peter Thiel had a similar moment on Joe Rogan podcast where
| he explained his elaborate social theory based on how chimps
| behave, but got the basics of chimp behaviour totally wrong
|
| TL DR: tech people suck at predicting human behaviour
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| People do get kidnapped at traffic lights. Here's an
| incident of it happening in Florida a few months ago.
|
| The ability to arbitrarily stop vehicles would be very
| useful for this kind of crime because it could be done in
| less crowded areas. And criminals could more readily select
| for expensive vehicles, young women or whatever else
| they're wanting.
|
| [1] https://www.crimeonline.com/2024/04/12/video-florida-
| woman-a... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usuo0jOcHJA
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| But the comparison we are making is different - do people
| create a fake traffic light, because that is really easy;
| and I have never heard of it happening.
|
| Ofcourse there are places where vehicles have to stop
| naturally, you can't avoid that.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| A convincing set of fake traffic lights requires a
| meaningful amount of time and equipment, as well as a
| plausible set of crossroads or roadworks.
|
| To steel man your position though, a fake police costume
| would probably be just as effective at stopping vehicles
| arbitrarily. And despite being cheap it's a relatively
| rare occurrence.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| I'd imagine that a fake police uniform is a bit harder to
| explain than an encrypted laptop and a SDR dongle?
| someguydave wrote:
| In the US it is a crime to impersonate police that most
| police zealously prosecute
| micahdeath wrote:
| Construction cones and stop signs are easy to move. *hint
| hint*
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| > Is there a name for this, when people come up with a
| plausible sounding scenario for crime driven disaster, but
| it does not actually have basis in real world?
|
| It reminds me of Scott Alexander's "The Buying Things from
| a Store FAQ": https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-buying-
| things-from-a-st...
|
| Also I agree with ChatGPT that it's midway between these
| two things:
|
| > Urban legend: This is a widely circulated but false story
| or belief that often serves as a cautionary tale. The
| "razor blades in candy" story is a classic example, as it's
| a narrative that spreads fear but lacks evidence.
|
| > Moral panic: This term refers to a situation where public
| fears and anxieties about a perceived threat (often related
| to crime or social issues) are exaggerated by the media or
| other influential sources, even though the threat may be
| minimal or non-existent. This can lead to widespread but
| unfounded concerns, like the Halloween candy scare.
| jjav wrote:
| > Is there a name for this, when people come up with a
| plausible sounding scenario for crime driven disaster, but
| it does not actually have basis in real world?
|
| Movie plot threats:
|
| https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/09/movie-
| plot_th...
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Hey it's you again! You were making a very similar point in a
| thread about cell phone bans in schools the other day.
| someguydave wrote:
| Dogs are a major problem in cities as people choose them over
| children
| handsclean wrote:
| Soon:
|
| "Your honor, it may be true that my client's driving speed in
| combination with the thick fog prevented him from reacting to
| obstacles, and that his car then struck and violently killed this
| man while he used the crosswalk. However, it was not the fog or
| my client's speed that caused standard crash avoidance safety
| mechanisms to fail, but the crash-ee's negligent decision to go
| outside without a phone with a functioning and active location
| beacon."
| jacoblambda wrote:
| The crosswalk pedestrian detection is using LIDAR fwiw.
| Provided the vehicle was equipped with V2X and the crosswalk
| had pedestrian detection it'd go something like this:
|
| 1. The crosswalk announces itself to the vehicle via a P2P 3G,
| LTE, or 5G connection.
|
| 2. The vehicle notifies the driver or the adaptive cruise
| control (if enabled) slows down while approaching the
| crosswalk.
|
| 3. The post with the crosswalk button on it has a LIDAR sensor
| that looks down the length of the crosswalk (and presumably
| another one facing from the opposite direction) and a
| relatively low power DSP digests the LIDAR input looking for
| approximately not-car shaped forms on the crosswalk.
|
| 4. The crosswalk announces a pedestrian on the crosswalk to the
| vehicles if a pedestrian presses the button on the crosswalk
| post or if a pedestrian form is detected on the crosswalk.
|
| 5. The vehicle alerts the driver or the adaptive cruise control
| comes to a complete stop, prompting the driver to resume when
| the route is clear (or when it no longer reports pedestrians
| using the crosswalk.
|
| 6. When the crosswalk timer is complete and no pedestrian forms
| are visible on LIDAR, the crosswalk announces an empty
| crosswalk to the vehicles.
|
| So the "they didn't have their phone on them" defense wouldn't
| even begin to come into consideration.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| You missed the point entirely - imagine LIDAR is broken, same
| outcome results - tech based excuse for dangerous behaviour.
|
| We already have people trusting google maps instead of their
| own eyes, and driving into fields, swamps and lakes. Taking
| right turns when they are forbidden, ignoring road markings,
| etc.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| I didn't miss the point. That's an entirely separate
| argument.
|
| The OP's argument is that you could blame the pedestrian
| for failing to carry technology on their person.
|
| Your argument is that you could blame the tech.
|
| Those are separate.
|
| Blaming the tech in a viable defense is blaming the
| infrastructure for being insufficient which in some cases
| is legitimate (i.e. this crossing should be a
| signaled/puffin crossing because it's inherently unsafe).
|
| Blaming the tech as not being responsible for them however
| is not and no even half reasonable judge or jury would
| accept it.
|
| And if the tech is broken, it really should gracefully
| degrade/fail or in a sense it is to some degree at fault.
| And even in that case, you are almost always still at fault
| even if you hit a pedestrian who is crossing the street
| without using a crosswalk so it's not like it changes the
| situation at all from the legal status quo.
| 1659447091 wrote:
| "Your Honor, the towns bored teens or some other joker
| tampered with the senors/devices and my client/'s car never
| got the message."
| jacoblambda wrote:
| You are still at fault for hitting a pedestrian who isn't
| even using a crosswalk but is just walking across the road
| so that argument still doesn't work.
|
| At best if they can prove that was the case, it opens the
| city up to liability for failing to maintain infrastructure
| or allow the infrastructure to gracefully degrade/fail.
|
| Also a similar system to this already exists outside the US
| (ex: Pedestrian Crossing or Kerb detectors [1] at Puffin
| crossings in the UK) to extend the crosswalk time if
| pedestrians are still using the crosswalk.
|
| 1. https://www.agd-systems.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/03/326_-...
| kkfx wrote:
| My actual commercial, real car, have some ADAS, some times
| every let's say 1000km driven it decide I'm nearly crushing
| on someone else triggering not needed "phantom" breaks, while
| I might have some other cars/bike nearby my rear bumper,
| normally with automatic braking on parking it does not sense
| the void so if I trust the system and go back without looking
| I might and up downhill...
|
| Aside the car is so safe and well done in software terms I
| often have my car's companion app to open,
| activate/deactivate A/C etc connect to another car in another
| country for unknown reasons and I potentially can control
| some function of that car, while I imaging someone else could
| control mine...
|
| Do you really want to trust these systems? Do you really want
| to trust instructions from another peer automatically without
| any means of human correction? Let's image a trigger to stop
| an armored bank van somewhere for a robbery...
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| The current status quo is that forty thousand people die
| from car crashes in a single year.
|
| I think we need to try to use technology to improve the
| situation, yes.
| gambiting wrote:
| And vast majority of them are due to drunk drivers, so if
| you used technology to detect a drunk person behind the
| wheel you'd cut this number in half if not more, but
| somehow this has less political support than mandating
| all cars to have expensive and complicated systems which
| don't do anything about the main problem of drunk
| driving.
| northwest65 wrote:
| Only nerds are dumb enough to think that adding LIDAR to
| every crosswalk in the world isn't a completely ridiculous
| idea.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| Just make it precise enough to identify individuals, and
| some government secret agency will find a way to foot the
| bill.
| didntcheck wrote:
| If you mean the ones that are just a painted strip on the
| ground, then OK, but for existing traffic lights controlled
| ones it doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Sensors to detect
| pedestrian and/or car presence are already extremely
| common. E.g. all modern [1] pedestrian crossings in the UK
| have similar sensors, which can extend the crossing time if
| it detects someone still in the road. And of course your
| local drive thru can detect your car pulling up, though
| usually by induction coil
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffin_crossing -
| standard since 2016
| jacoblambda wrote:
| Not every crosswalk. This is explictly only for signaled
| intersections/crosswalks. i.e. those that already have a
| pushbutton, a walk sign, and a stoplight.
|
| That only covers a very small portion of crosswalks and is
| generally done for crosswalks in high throughput areas or
| areas where risks of a pedestrian/vehicle collision are
| high. i.e. the places where you'd want additional
| augmentation to notify drivers and prevent collisions
| gruez wrote:
| >However, it was not the fog or my client's speed that caused
| standard crash avoidance safety mechanisms to fail, but the
| crash-ee's negligent decision to go outside without a phone
| with a functioning and active location beacon."
|
| This already happens today. Who do you think is going to get
| the blame if you use an at-grade railway crossing, didn't check
| for trains, and got run over?
| akira2501 wrote:
| Even sooner:
|
| "My client didn't know that motorcycles are not equipped with
| the traffic warning system."
|
| And now people will see even less of them. We need systems to
| _enhance_ situational awareness. This is hard to do without
| active training on the systems. Vehicle users will never do
| this.
| beAbU wrote:
| This is a strawman argument and you know it. Cars already have
| pedestrian avoidance technologies, and pedestrians are not
| required to do anything special to avail themselves of the
| benefit of those features.
| david-gpu wrote:
| I wish that the safety of the people outside of motor vehicles
| received at least as many resources (funding, research, legal) as
| the safety of motorists -- who are cause of these risks in the
| first place.
|
| Motorists already have strong incentives to make their vehicles
| safer for themselves, but they have very little incentive to make
| things safer for people outside of their vehicle. For that reason
| we need better regulations and infrastructure that account for
| those externalities.
| tocs3 wrote:
| And everything is so partisan. It does not seem to matter what
| is up for discussion. If party A is for it then party B is
| against (or vise versa). I like the notion that cars could have
| extra safety features but as is noted in other posts there are
| low hanging, lower cost, existing solutions that are not being
| implemented.
|
| By all means lets look into some of the tech solutions. But
| politicians (policy makers and pundits) are not the ones to
| listen to.
| bestouff wrote:
| Cars are a social problem - safety, ecology, economy, city
| shaping, etc. The solution goes through politics. Tech won't
| save us.
| zeekaran wrote:
| > (or vise versa)
|
| Is it really though? Is it?
| cogman10 wrote:
| The solution is one that is unpopular to a good number of
| consumers, it's to make cars smaller, lighter, and slower.
|
| While I'm sure it's happened, death via golfcart is a pretty
| rare occurrence. Death via a Dodge ram, on the other hand,
| happens all the time. [1]
|
| Giant trucks are super popular and super deadly. I was nearly
| killed by one myself (driver ran a red light while I was in the
| cross walk). While I wouldn't outright ban them, I definitely
| would be up to something like requiring a CDL before you can
| buy one.
|
| [1] https://www.autoblog.com/article/most-deadly-cars-other-
| driv...
| david-gpu wrote:
| I completely agree on all accounts. Heavy vehicles such as
| pickup trucks should require a CDL... and drivers should lose
| it when they are found driving recklessly.
|
| I have no interest in unproven high-tech approaches when we
| haven't even implemented very basic proven pedestrian safety
| measures like eliminating street-level parking around
| pedestrian crossings to increase visibility, or mandating
| pedestrian safety tests for motor vehicles.
| echelon wrote:
| > Heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks should require a
| CDL...
|
| I'm guessing you don't live in the south. Pickup trucks are
| a major way of life for a lot of people. They certainly
| wouldn't be happy about increased regulatory burden.
|
| Attitudes on roads vary wildly based on the community in
| question. There's a large surface area of this country that
| doesn't care to have non-vehicular traffic sharing the
| roadways.
|
| Urban communities will prioritize different needs than
| suburban and rural communities. The two ends of the
| spectrum aren't really compatible because these are wholly
| different lifestyles that are geographically separable.
| dmd wrote:
| We don't let people carry around lethal weapons just
| because some people think it's a "way of life", so why
| should it be diff...... oh wait
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Not relevant. Neither the right to drive, nor the right
| to drive a pickup truck, is guaranteed in the
| constitution.
| r-w wrote:
| Does that make it any less entrenched?
| darkhorn wrote:
| Okay, then they should require CDL when entering a town
| or any other urban location.
| chad_oliver wrote:
| I grew up in rural New Zealand, on a dairy farm. I agree
| that the needs of suburban and rural communities are very
| different from the needs of urban communities, but what
| confuses me is why Americans (and increasingly, Kiwis)
| need a vehicle the size of a Dodge Ram rather than one
| the size of a 1990 HiLux ute [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_(vehicle)#/media/Fi
| le:1990...
| jjav wrote:
| > what confuses me is why Americans (and increasingly,
| Kiwis) need a vehicle the size of a Dodge Ram rather than
| one the size of a 1990 HiLux ute
|
| Well depends what you need to do with, of course.
|
| A quick search suggests that this Toyota can tow 3300lb
| (if the trailer has its own brakes, or only 1650lb if
| not).
|
| So if you need to tow more than that, it won't work.
| 3300lb is very little, even our tiny (19ft) and light
| travel trailer is over 4000lb.
|
| Of course, what is silly is the people with trucks that
| are never used to tow or carry anything heavier than a
| bicycle!
| walleeee wrote:
| The reality is that many people with a Ram are towing
| toys (boats, ATVs, etc) or, as you say, a travel trailer,
| not a work trailer. Which brings us to the question of
| need vs want.
|
| Plus, if work vehicles became lighter, work trailers
| would be forced to as well.
| jjav wrote:
| > Plus, if work vehicles became lighter, work trailers
| would be forced to as well.
|
| Try shopping for utility trailers. Anything affordable is
| very heavy steel & lumber. You can get light(er) trailers
| in aluminum but the price is much higher. I've never
| actually seen a contractor with one of those, too
| expensive.
|
| And of course there is all the materials & equipment
| they're towing on it for the job. How do you suggest any
| of that become lighter?
| sgu999 wrote:
| > Well depends what you need to do with, of course.
|
| given your example it's "want", not "need"
|
| > 3300lb is very little, even our tiny (19ft) and light
| travel trailer is over 4000lb
|
| Quick googling tells me that most European caravans are
| sub 1500kg / 3300lb, even the more spacious ones, "very
| little" and "tiny" are really subjective
| jjav wrote:
| > given your example it's "want", not "need"
|
| Yes, how is this relevant? "Wants" are what drive
| humanity forward, not mere subsistence.
|
| > Quick googling tells me that most European caravans are
| sub 1500kg / 3300lb, even the more spacious ones
|
| Can you post a few links? Tried to find the most popular
| travel trailer models in Europe but not finding a good
| list.
|
| Unless you're building the whole thing from carbon fiber,
| anything spacious is necessarily going to have some
| weight.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Let me help you with that. They don't. If 1 in 50 1500
| owners ever hook the thing up to anything heavier than a
| utility trailer (these can cheerfully be towed by a VW
| golf) I'll kiss your ass. They're also bullshit for
| hauling materials since a big chunk of the cargo space
| got eaten by the now pervasive luxury full sized back
| seat. The following is an abridged list of tells that a
| truck owner would be better off with a station wagon:
|
| - the wheel wells are clean
|
| - it's got a tonneau cover on
|
| - no hitch receiver, it's empty, or there's no rust on
| the ball
|
| - aftermarket anything (lights, step bumpers, lift kit,
| etc
|
| - no dents, major scratches, or foreign materials on the
| bed or tailgate
|
| Full disclosure: I have a Dodge 1500 in the driveway
| right now. In my defense the used truck market is fucking
| insane, I got this basically new for 60% of what a
| thoroughly used mid-sized truck would have cost me, and I
| actually do construction and timber work so the thing
| gets worked.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| The best of all, the bed of their truck is spotless with
| no scratches meaning at most those trucks just carry
| grocery bags.
| micahdeath wrote:
| I half fit in this.
|
| Mine is also used to haul a bed full of gravel when my
| drive needs repair or dirt for lawn correction. Not to
| mention I have a family.
|
| Rear facing child seats while being 6 feet tall. Most
| cars I've tested don't support this. (Prius) Or no
| children can sit behind me because my front seat is
| sitting so close to the back seat that legs don't fit
| between. (Camero/Mustang)
|
| Camry and Pasat seem to work, but warranties wouldn't
| cover things like bad child safety locks.... Not to
| mention, you can't haul things like gravel. =/
| beAbU wrote:
| How frequently does your driveway need new gravel that
| you are justifying a vehicle for that purpose? Do you
| transport gravel more frequently for your driveway than
| your children?
|
| You go from full truck down to flat cars, completely
| ignoring the vehicles in between like soft-roader SUVS or
| the venerable minivan. Does none of these vehicles meet
| your people carrying needs?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I went down a similar path where I considered getting a
| pickup for hauling the occasional project material
| around. I ended up with a hatchback that covers 90% of
| use cases. The other 10% I can just rent a truck for a
| few hours to cover.
|
| People pay double (or more) for gas every year so they
| can drive around an empty bed and maybe save $50 on a
| rental once a year.
| waveBidder wrote:
| Back in Sacramento I saw a 1500 with a decal of mud on
| their shiny spotless truck. They went out of their way to
| announce how useless the vehicle actually was.
| marssaxman wrote:
| > Pickup trucks are a major way of life for a lot of
| people.
|
| That is the problem which needs to be solved.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The industry is taking care of that - the trucks cost has
| increased like 200% in 20 years.
| micahdeath wrote:
| Several SUV's are the same size as trucks. Even some
| Vans.
|
| Small cars don't usually fit families well. =(
|
| LOL - I'm imagining a Prius for a family of 6 =P
| marssaxman wrote:
| Who says the car has to be small? There were no SUVs when
| I was a kid; people drove small families around in
| sedans, and larger ones in station wagons - later,
| minivans. It worked fine, and this could all be done
| again.
| mattw2121 wrote:
| I'm not a fan of the truck driving crowd, but why do you
| get to dictate that someone should drive a minivan
| instead of a truck?
| marssaxman wrote:
| Who's pretending I should - I'm just some schmuck on the
| internet! But it's a matter of plain historical fact that
| trucks and SUVs took over the American market as a
| consequence of policies established by the US federal
| government which made trucks more profitable for
| manufacturers and ordinary cars less so. Why should we
| not propose that the mistakes made in one session of
| Congress ought to be corrected by another?
| david-gpu wrote:
| _> They certainly wouldn 't be happy about increased
| regulatory burden._
|
| And many of us aren't happy about the number of
| pedestrian deaths caused by these behemoths. Which one
| should we prioritize?
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| As a southerner and an owner of a 1500 I say absolutely
| prioritize to cut down on pedestrian deaths. I can get a
| different truck and it'd piss off all the right people.
| impendia wrote:
| I live in the Deep South, where I've gotten around on
| foot, on a bicycle, and by car. It's clear that some
| drivers see me as a nuisance when I'm walking, but I
| don't really see that as my problem.
|
| In my observation, vehicular traffic _anywhere_ doesn 't
| care to have non-vehicular traffic sharing the roadways.
| That doesn't mean that pedestrians, cyclists, or
| regulators should necessarily defer to their wishes.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| > Heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks
|
| What about electric vehicles?
| jjav wrote:
| > Heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks should require a CDL
|
| Just note that looks can deceive on weight.
|
| A Ford Maverick pickup truck is under 3800lb. A Tesla Plaid
| Model X is over 5300lb!
| toast0 wrote:
| > Heavy vehicles such as pickup trucks should require a CDL
|
| Pickup trucks don't need to be heavy. Japan has kei
| pickups, in the US, we had small pickups in the 80s and
| 90s. And then they disappeared throughout the early 00s.
|
| A small truck with a small engine does small truck things,
| and has decent fuel economy and tremendous visibility.
|
| But we can't buy those new anymore because you can't get a
| small truck to hit cafe standards, so large trucks it is.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| It's even more ridiculous than all that. We had "large"
| work-ready trucks as long as vehicles have been on the
| road that were all noticeably smaller in every dimension
| except payload. At some point suburban dads flipping the
| fuck out over their own notional masculinity drove the
| truck market off a damn cliff. Now 100/1500 series trucks
| are complete bullshit for towing and can't even fit a
| full sheet of plywood in the back without dropping the
| tailgate or propping it up on something. I swear I'm
| -this- close from trading my full sized truck in for one
| of those weird little Japanese deals with the actual full
| sized bed and built in dump (!!) and just hire out my
| towing to someone else.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| It's really silly how few trucks you see with 8 foot beds
| anymore. Half of the stuff built now has a shorter bed
| than one of my S10s (6-7ft), and loading sheet lumber in
| a shorter bed really really sucks (you've either got to
| leave the tailgate open or prop it up on the tailgate,
| and either way you've now got a pretty serious liability
| that you've got to strap down real well). The trend
| towards unibody trucks is also strange since it means you
| can't pitch the pickup bed for a more useful flatbed or a
| Reading bed. I used to wonder why trucks didn't come off
| the lot with at least a tommy gate and a ladder rack, but
| I've since come to realize the vast majority of people
| (especially people purchasing half ton trucks) would
| never use or even know what to do this those.
|
| The kei trucks aren't really a good replacement even for
| an S10 since so far as I can tell they won't run at
| highway speeds, but they're really good replacement for
| the Canam and Polaris money pits people buy (and are
| certainly way more capable of real work).
| dugmartin wrote:
| I owned two separate small sized Nissan trucks and they
| were great for hauling. When I needed to haul full 4'x8'
| sheets of stuff I used a little box frame I made from
| 2"x6" lumber that I put near the tailgate so that sheets
| rested on that and the wheel wells.
|
| I don't own a truck anymore and now my "hack" is to
| remove the middle seats from my minivan and fold down the
| back row seats. That creates enough room that I can fit
| full 4'x8' sheets in it (with zero room to spare). I've
| hauled drywall and plywood in it with no problem. I
| sometimes get weird looks from folks when I roll up to
| the back of my minivan with a cart of plywood at the big
| box store.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| I keep 2 8 foot 2x4s in the back of my truck at all times
| for hauling sheet materials. Having hard skids in place
| makes loading and unloading easier and ensures stuff like
| drywall and doorskin doesn't get taco'd up. This is a
| deeply stupid problem to have and I often wish I had a
| 70's era Ranger or F100 with a new-ish power train
| shoehorned in.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yup. I'm from a farming community and basically all the
| farmers keep around circa 90s trucks because those had
| sensible beds and weren't 20ft off the ground.
|
| Pretty sure the tiny bed on my grandfather's 1970 Datsun
| is larger than the beds on some of these behemoths.
| bluGill wrote:
| > suburban dads flipping the fuck out over their own
| notional masculinity drove the truck market off a damn
| cliff.
|
| Is it really dads? I've seen claims that is actually moms
| demanding this, dads just go along. (dads would be happy
| in a minivan, but their wife won't let their husbands be
| seen in one)
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Lol what.
| sumtechguy wrote:
| It has to do with wheel base and fuel consumption. Trucks
| are exempt from many parts of the fuel guidelines. Yet
| there is a segment of our population that need/want
| trucks. However, try buying a small truck in the US. It
| is pretty tough to do so, because of those regulations.
| The regulations need to be revisited to make more sense,
| but for some reason they are set in stone.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| The what now? Tacomas are still a thing are they not? And
| both Ford and Chevy revamped and reintroduced their mid-
| sized truck offerings in the last 5 years.
| fy20 wrote:
| Where I am in Europe almost all the 'trucks' used by
| construction and road repair crews are Mercedes Sprinter
| or similar with a bed at the back and fold down sides.
| Usually they have a higher load rating which requires a C
| license (equivalent of CDL), but some can be driven on a
| standard car license (max gross weight 3.5t).
|
| If you need construction materials delivered, this can
| accommodate almost anything. However usually for things
| like a stack of drywall, you would order a truck with a
| crane - simply because it's quicker to unload. For
| personal use the answer is simply to get a trailer. Here
| a lot of gas stations rent trailers by the hour for a
| reasonable fee, so it's very easy.
|
| RVs also fit into this category. Most of them are under
| 3.5t, so you just need a standard car license. Some
| larger B class variants (which I guess in the US would
| still be considered small) need a C license. Caravans
| (travel trailers) are designed to be ok to tow on a
| standard car license, but in some countries you need
| extra training. Larger RVs don't make much sense here, as
| you won't be able to go anywhere with them.
|
| People who have boats either leave them docked, or have
| boats that fit on a trailer that can be towed by a
| standard car. Nothing special needed. Same for cars, just
| put them on a trailer and drive away. Professionals often
| use car carrier variants of the Mercedes Sprinter et al,
| which can carry one or two cars, and another towed
| behind.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| As a bicyclist, Dodge Rams are easily the hardest (un-raised)
| vehicles on me for visibility, short of full sized tractor-
| trailers. I cannot see over the hood while on my bicycle, so
| presumably neither can anyone on the other side see me.
| Despite being sold as light-duty, the engine compartment
| appears to me to be much larger than even a medium-duty box
| truck (many, but not all of these are cab-forward designs
| which complicates comparison).
|
| As a driver of a compact car, the fact that they put the
| headlights at the very top of the massive grille is just
| terrible, and there seems to be an arms race between pickup
| manufacturers to place the headlights as high as possible.
|
| Again, by comparison to medium-duty vehicles, the
| Freightliner M2 106 puts the headlights right above the
| bumper.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Dodge Rams are also #1 with drunk drivers[1]:
| [...] one in every 22 Dodge Ram 2500 drivers has a drunk
| driving conviction on their record. The national average is
| one in 56 drivers, meaning Dodge Ram 2500 drivers are more
| than twice as likely to have a DUI conviction on their
| record compared to all other drivers on the road.
|
| 1: https://aacriminallaw.com/the-most-common-vehicles-for-
| drunk...
| iambateman wrote:
| My takeaway from this is that 1-in-50 drivers have a DUI.
|
| That's an order of magnitude higher than I would've
| guessed. Unbelievable!
| erikaww wrote:
| It's crazy these individuals are forgiven.
| Spivak wrote:
| You would love the planet Rubicun III.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Someone with 2 previous DUIs on their record hit a car
| while extremely drunk, fled the scene, and ended up in a
| fight with a police officer who tracked them down. They
| still have their driver's license. There's a lot of space
| between where we are now and the death penalty for
| damaging a few plants.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Rubicon III was a planet in Star Trek with draconian
| capitol punishment laws, what does that have to do with
| revoking driver licenses from DUI convicts?
| Spivak wrote:
| Did you not watch the episode? In addition to the ethics
| of whether to honor what you view as an unjust law simply
| because it's the law it also explores a society where all
| crimes are unforgivable and there is no notion of "paying
| your debt to society." It being capital punishment is the
| least interesting thing about it.
|
| Taking away someone's driver's license forever is the
| milder version of the situation. Does it feel just for
| someone in their 40s to not be allowed to drive because
| they got a DUI in their 20s? Can someone who has a DUI
| really never regain full status and privilege in society?
| If you knew they would never drive drunk again does
| society still benefit from this indefinite punishment? If
| they are forever corrupted by their crime would it be
| okay to kill them if that's what we decided the
| punishment was?
| david-gpu wrote:
| _> Can someone who has a DUI really never regain full
| status and privilege in society?_
|
| So you recognize that your neighborhoods are planned so
| poorly that lacking a driving license relegates you to a
| lesser status and privilege? Why not address that car
| dependency, rather than letting drunks continue to drive?
| Because, believe it or not, there are people out there
| living without a driving license through no fault of
| their own.
| Spivak wrote:
| Because the justice system will be waiting until long
| after I'm dead for that to happen. My city is this year
| removing large swaths of our public transportation. If
| you want to work a job in the _department of
| transportation_ they don 't allow you to rely on public
| transportation to get to work. It would be funny if it
| wasn't so sad.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Jesus, we're talking about taking away someone's
| *privilege* to drive a dangerous object around their
| fellow people after they've shown multiple times they
| aren't responsible enough.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Well, that number doesnt impress me at all. Coming from
| Austria, my gut feeling tells me the rate here is likely
| around 1-in-10 to 1-in-20.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > there seems to be an arms race between pickup
| manufacturers to place the headlights as high as possible.
|
| And make them both as small as possible and as bright as
| possible, resulting in pinpoint sources of very bright
| light which completely destroy the night vision of any
| oncoming drivers.
|
| DOT used to regulate headlight brightness, placement, and
| beam pattern, it seems that if these regulations are still
| in force they are being completely ignored without
| consequence.
| analog31 wrote:
| I believe the regulations are still in force. But I have
| a hunch that the regulations have not kept up with
| progress in the technology of light sources, and may be
| based on the assumption that the source is an
| incandescent filament.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > may be based on the assumption that the source is an
| incandescent filament.
|
| That stopped being true in the late 90's/early 2000's
| when HID headlights entered the market, and the standard
| was further updated a few years ago (after a decade's
| delay) to allow for adaptive-shape headlights (ie ones
| that can control the shape of the high beam, for example
| to still provide high beams, but not in areas occupied by
| oncoming traffic.)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| First off, your night vision is 'destroyed' by light
| coming back from the road etc from your own headlights.
| It takes minutes to develop, and even very low levels of
| light 'destroy' night vision.
|
| DOT still does regulate all or most those things and many
| other elements about vehicle lights you probably never
| thought about (and I'll get back to headlights in a
| couple of paragraphs.)
|
| Ever notice that most cars with "animated" turn signals
| have a portion that lights up immediately, or the entire
| signal lights up full brightness immediately and then
| fades, versus fading up or gradually lighting up a larger
| area? That's because of a DOT regulation that says X
| amount of area / brightness has to come on when the
| signal first lights up. This is why Audi's animated tail
| lights, for example, usually have two areas - one that is
| animated and 'grows'...and another that lights up fully.
| Ditto for Mazda's 'pulsing' turn signals.
|
| Ever notice that a lot of "cute utes" and crossovers with
| hatches have either brake/turn signals in the bumper
| awkwardly very low, sometimes in addition to ones on the
| hatch? That's because DOT regulations require turn,
| brake, and marker lights be mounted in/on a non-moving
| part of the body. Got a friend with an Audi Q-series?
| have them step on the brake / use a turn signal, then
| open the hatch and do it again. Bam, those red lights way
| down in the bumper you never see light up...now light up
| in place of those on the hatch.
|
| DOT has standards around placement of turn signals near
| other lights (DRLs and headlight beams.) That's why on
| many vehicles the DRLs go out when the turn signal comes
| on, or in fancier european/japanese cars, the DRL and
| turn signal are the same element and it switches from
| white to blinking yellow.
|
| DOT also used to require that only two sets of lights on
| the front of the car be turned on at once. This is why
| some cars deactivate fog lights when the high beams are
| turned on, and some older cars don't turn on the lows and
| highs at the same time.
|
| Fun fact: DOT used to require rear facing fog lights only
| be on one side. I'm not sure if the regulation still
| exists, but back in the mid to late 90's, european car
| manufacturers started ignoring the regulation, installing
| bulbs in both tail lamps, because they would be inundated
| with customers complaining to dealers that "one of my
| tail lights is out." Thus the whole damn point of a rear
| fog light - is it one very bright light, driver's side -
| which is different from two or three very bright lights
| (brake lights!) - was largely erased.
|
| But...back to headlights. DOT regulations used to require
| sealed-beam headlights well past when the rest of the
| world had moved to 'aero' headlights with reflectors
| shaped to better distribute light across the road surface
| and limit light spillage where it would blind oncoming
| traffic or be wasted.
|
| DOT regulations used to require a crazy amount of light
| spillage off to the sides _because they predated
| reflective road sign technology._ I 'm not joking when I
| say that DOT headlight regulations up until some time in
| the 80's had not been updated in around forty years. Many
| EU and Asian cars had to be sold with US-only sealed beam
| headlights when ROW (Rest Of World) they were sold with
| aero headlights, because they had to meet inferior,
| outdated DOT standards. This raised costs for imported
| vehicles and allowed US manufacturers to save costs by
| not developing better headlights, and US manufacturers
| and their unions liked that because it was effectively a
| tariff on imported cars.
|
| Why did the standards eventually get updated? Ford bet
| the company - billions _in late 1970 's early 1980s
| money_ on the Taurus (successfully. It saved the
| company.) Ford needed aero headlights to meet its
| aerodynamic drag goals (which were insanely good even by
| today's standards.) So, suddenly Ford wanted aero
| headlights to be legal. Bam. Aero headlights became
| legal. And suddenly ever ford was getting aero
| headlights. They were still garbage compared to what was
| sold in Europe; many car enthusiasts with 80's/90's era
| cars illegally imported and installed european headlights
| because the beam patterns were so much better.
|
| Nothing happens to US vehicle regulations unless US auto
| manufacturers want it. We lag the rest of the world in
| almost every standard imaginable. We lag on passenger car
| features (it took until something like the mid 2000's for
| ABS to be required!)
|
| For example, in the EU, trucks are required to have:
|
| - ABS, stability control, _and_ automatic emergency
| warning /braking systems (and I think side collision
| warning systems? not sure.) - Full mirror coverage -
| bumper features that keep them from riding up a passenger
| car they rear-end - trailer rear end crash bars that keep
| cars rear ending trailers from going under the trailer
| and decapitating the occupants - modern emissions
| controls - electronic logbook systems
|
| In the US? A 1970's peterbuilt that belches black smoke,
| has sealed beam headlights, flat side mirrors looking
| back, no ABS much less stability control/braking...is
| A-OK. Similarly, our rear collision safety standards for
| trailers are very watered down because of trucking
| industry lobbyists. Saves the trucking industry tens of
| billions, and costs the rest of society probably hundreds
| of billions if not trillions between
| injuries/deaths/property damage/lost productivity and
| health impacts from essentially unregulated emissions.
|
| There are "coach builders" that focus on skirting
| emissions regulations - completely legally - via
| regulations that let an old, pre-emissions-control truck
| engine be installed into a brand new truck body.
|
| I could go on and on about how asinine, outdated, and
| ineffective US motor vehicle safety and equipment
| regulations are. I could go on even further about how
| completely ineffective motor vehicle inspections are even
| in states that require them, because they're conducted by
| a private business with a vested interest in ignoring
| customers not meeting standards or purposefully violating
| them.
| fingerlocks wrote:
| > I could go on and on
|
| And you should. This is fascinating! You answered so many
| nagging questions I've had for _years_ about the weird
| behavior of fog lamps and DRLs.
|
| Any reason why some manufacturers allow the lights to
| remain on when the ignition is killed with an obnoxious
| beep (Ford, VW), and others don't (Subaru, Toyota)?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| All of that notwithstanding, I'm still blinded much more
| by the oncoming headlights (ultra bright white LED
| pinpoints) of new cars and trucks than I am by older
| cars.
| mastercheif wrote:
| To add on to this: We need to regulate the use of PWM
| modulation in external LEDs on vehicles. Too many
| manufacturers are using 120Hz - 200Hz modulation
| frequency which are easily detectable by the human eye
| when motion is involved. You'll know when you're looking
| at a car with PWM headlights when at night they look like
| they are blurring.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5JzxjWtFaY
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Why do they use PWM instead of simply passing less
| current?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| According to [1] the maximum height since 1968 is 54"
| which is almost undoubtedly too high for passenger
| vehicles. [2] Shows a huge jump in following-glare
| discomfort going from 870mm (34.25") to 1120mm (44").
|
| 1: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2001/09/28/0
| 1-2443...
|
| 2:
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/810-947.pdf
| rpcope1 wrote:
| Most recent light duty pickups drive like ass too. I've
| rented a Ram and a Silverado recently and between them
| sitting absurdly high stock, having a ludicrously high belt
| line, and both too much sound deadening in the cab and the
| most distant dead feeling pedals and steering, it's sort of
| surprising people don't hit more stuff with these. Sitting
| in those trucks feels like I'm in a bigger class 5 truck,
| for no good reason. The beds sit stupidly high too. It's
| way easier to be attentive and connected in older trucks
| (mid-2000s and older Chevys for me), and they don't drive
| like total ass.
|
| It boggles the mind that people drop absolutely inordinate
| amounts of money on the King Ranch Escalade doo-doo trucks
| that don't seem to do work any better than any truck I've
| owned, but cost an arm and a leg when something goes wrong.
| The Telsa truck looks like one of the worst offenders: it's
| rare to see a vehicle that is THAT stupidly designed inside
| and out.
| bluGill wrote:
| There are trucks and there are truck shaped cars. The law
| should differentiate between them. You want a truck
| exemption from fuel mileage - then it better be a truck.
|
| If it is a truck then dents from loading and hauling
| cargo are normal (though cargo should be tied down).
| Likewise scratched paint caused by off road driving are
| normal things for trucks with 4 wheel drive (buy a 2
| wheel drive if you are only driving on road). If it is a
| truck you cannot consider cosmetic damage in the value,
| if it is road worthy then the value is about how many
| hours are on the engine and nothing else. (this just
| killed the used and trade in market for trucks so if you
| buy one you better keep it for 15000 engine hours)
| aidenn0 wrote:
| I came of age to drive in the 90s, and the first two
| pickups I drove were a 1984 ford ranger and a 1990 Toyota
| Pickup. Those were both what I would call "value" pickup
| trucks. They weren't fancy, but they moved shit around
| well.
|
| I know everyone says that the EPA killed small trucks in
| 2008[1] but Toyota replaced the "Toyota Pickup" with the
| less-practical Tundra in '95, and embiggened it in 2004,
| so I'm not convinced that companies would make them even
| were they legal.
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azI3nqrHEXM
| marinmania wrote:
| I don't completely disagree with you, but the main factor is
| really speed. Golf carts top out at 15mph and at that speed
| pedestrians don't die when they are hit by trucks either.
|
| https://mobikefed.org/2020/10/research-risk-death-
| pedestrian...
| david-gpu wrote:
| Speed, tall and blunt hoods, and the piss poor visibility
| all affect how dangerous a vehicle is. That is why I
| singled out pickup trucks; not that they are the only
| problematic motor vehicle on the roads nowadays.
| bfrog wrote:
| Giant trucks are entirely unnecessary. Most work is done with
| a work van not truck now. Trucks can't even carry sheet goods
| sensibly even more. Even if they can the beds are so high as
| to be impractical loading and unloading.
|
| Modern pick ups are urban tanks meant to out weigh other
| vehicles protecting the occupants. That's why people buy
| them, because they are scared. Of the other scared idiots in
| the other urban tanks.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| The other, equally unpopular, solution is more stringent
| standards for getting a license and mandatory periodic re-
| tests to confirm you still know how to drive. It's way too
| easy to get a license in North America and many people forget
| everything they needed to learn to get one in short order.
| hoosieree wrote:
| Within city limits, certain types of large vehicles should
| always be allowed, like public transit, emergency response,
| and commercial delivery trucks. Those drivers already get
| special training and/or special licensing.
|
| Otherwise there should be nothing bigger/faster/louder than a
| standard gas-powered golf cart.
|
| Bonus: golf carts are _fun_. When was the last time you had
| _fun_ driving at 25mph?
| Lance_ET_Compte wrote:
| This is exactly my feeling. Cars have gotten so huge now,
| erasing the fuel savings and causing the deaths of so many
| pedestrians and cyclists.
|
| I would like to see the cost to register these behemoths to be
| commiserate with the actual cost to society.
| 14 wrote:
| What is a behemoth in your opinion? I drive a Camry and if I
| have my step daughter I am short a seat. If I have an adult
| friend and all my kids I am short 2 seats. If I travel and
| don't even take my step daughter or another adult it is
| extremely cramped with any sort of baggage. The next sized up
| vehicle like an suv or minivan still is not that big for me.
| So I am just curious do you have an example of a car that you
| would consider a behemoth?
| fragmede wrote:
| Anything in the BMW 7-series-size or MB S-class, which
| Toyota does not make, though the Lexus LS is, so that's
| arguable.
| Swizec wrote:
| > What is a behemoth in your opinion? I drive a Camry
|
| Toyota Camry 1979 - 980-1,060 kg (2,161-2,337 lb)
|
| Toyota Camry 2024 - 1,480-1,660 kg (3,262-3,659 lb)
|
| This is the problem: All cars are getting bigger and
| heavier. By a lot. But us squishy humans still have the
| same impact tolerances we did 40 years ago.
| giobox wrote:
| > erasing the fuel savings
|
| While cars are undoubtedly heavier now than in the past, they
| are also in most cases the most fuel efficient they have ever
| been. Some of the weight is a direct result of fuel saving
| technologies in many cases; hybrid systems and traction
| batteries often weigh more than less efficient legacy ICE
| powertrains did.
| everdrive wrote:
| Fuel savings are not erased, but they are eroded. With the
| technology we have small, lightweight gas cars could be
| incredibly efficient. Consumer preferences as well as
| safety regulations have kept fuel economy down.
| giobox wrote:
| Weight wouldn't improve fuel efficiency as much as some
| people might think, especially at highway speeds, drag is
| a big factor. The huge reduction in most EV range when
| towing arises not really from the towed mass but mainly
| the increased drag, as one example of this. There are
| loads of other good reasons cars should be lighter
| though.
| everdrive wrote:
| But it would help some. Less than the weight, you would
| simply just need a much less powerful engine. So the
| model is not: "imagine a 3,500 lbs sedan if it only
| weight 3,200 lbs." -- the model is "imagine an 86
| horsepower engine which is sufficient because the car
| weighs 1,500 lbs." That would be significantly more
| efficient.
| xyst wrote:
| > I would like to see the cost to register these behemoths to
| be commiserate with the actual cost to society.
|
| I would like these vehicles to be sent to the landfill
| immediately.
| jjav wrote:
| >I would like these vehicles to be sent to the landfill
| immediately.
|
| So you'll never have anything delivered anymore nor have a
| contractor be able to show up and work on anything. How
| will that work with your plan?
| dom3k wrote:
| So deliveries and contractors suddenly need bigger
| vehicles than before?
| jjav wrote:
| Why bigger? Just the ones they use now, which the post I
| responded to suggested to junk them all. If that
| happened, then what?
| ksplicer wrote:
| Cars are built for drivers, any inconvenience they cause for
| others is a problem for someone else to solve /s
|
| One example of this that drives me crazy is how soundproof
| vehicles have become. Horns and sirens keep getting louder to
| make up for it, which makes being near traffic incredibly
| painful. Sirens are often 120+ decibels, a volume that is
| unsafe for listeners for more than 10 seconds. All cars should
| be mandated to easily be able to hear a 100 decibel siren.
| aners_xyz wrote:
| I find it much easier to judge my speed in my 90s car than
| any modern slightly nice car. Insulated to the point of being
| impairing...
| livinglist wrote:
| Imagine all these money being invested in building and refining
| public transportations and improving the zoning laws so the
| city don't spread out but "spread up".
| lynx23 wrote:
| This is exactly why I, a blind pedestrian, are getting more and
| more weary of the future. AV freaks always tell me I am not
| supposed to be afraid. That doesnt help at all. We are a small
| minority that gets forgotten about regularily. I would be
| surprised if the same didn't apply to AVs.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Why would motorists care? About 1/4th of killed car occupants
| didn't care about their own life when they decided not to put
| on the seat belt before the last car trip.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| Meanwhile musk with his truck is like "YOU won't be the one who
| gets injured if there's an accident!"
| barbazoo wrote:
| A tax on gross weight might help to pay for externalities, that
| might incentivize people to buy smaller cars that are less
| dangerous.
| occz wrote:
| Gross weight cubed, of course.
| barbazoo wrote:
| To cover the "negative weight" loophole?
| occz wrote:
| To account for how road wear scales in relation to
| vehicle weight.
| barbazoo wrote:
| That makes more sense than what I said :)
| beardyw wrote:
| But you can still drive a Cyber Truck.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I'm not pro Cybertruck. But people collectively losing their
| mind over it is ridiclous. Other trucks are more common and
| more unsafe.
|
| I have heard 100x more people making Cybertruck jokes but
| almost never about actually improving safety in any signifcant
| way. Farming browny points by with low-hanging anti-Musk stuff
| seems to be more important then anything else for most people.
|
| There is a whole cottage industry of anti-Cybertruck stuff all
| over the internet, if all those people put their energy into
| actually explain how to actually improve safty, we would be
| much better off.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > I have heard 100x more people making Cybertruck jokes but
| almost never about actually improving safety in any
| signifcant way.
|
| That's a weird kind of blame shifting.
|
| 1. Many things that ought to change have _already been laid
| out well in advance_. Things like defined limits on how
| "sharp" the outsides can be or having a crumple-zone front
| instead of a pedestrian meat-tenderizer. This is especially
| true in jurisdiction where those recommendations are
| requirements, and the vehicle cannot be legally sold.
|
| 2. Many critiques have obvious solutions like "don't do the
| dumb thing" or "do it the normal way."
|
| 3. Improving safety is normally the job of the car
| manufacturing company, why would Tesla be any different?
|
| 4. If your want very detailed engineering fixes from the
| internet, tell Tesla to open-source their manufacturing
| process and pay people for time.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| More info, from the source:
|
| https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/program_areas/ops-cavet.htm
|
| There is a link to an ongoing test in the downtown area of Tampa,
| FL. They've installed lidar near crosswalks; when a pedestrian is
| in a crosswalk it broadcasts a "pedestrian in crosswalk" signal
| that nearby compatible cars hear (they've installed receivers in
| 1000 cars).
| panick21_ wrote:
| How to waste the maximal amount of money for minimal benefit.
| Lidar at ever intersection. The idiocy is incrdible.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| I'm totally in support for reserving RF spectrum for this and
| can imagine many scenarios where low-cost, low-power RF
| transmissions would improve road safety (I've just braked
| really hard; I've just crashed; I'm an emergency vehicle
| stopped in the road; etc).
|
| But yeah, lidar at every intersection is just plain bonkers.
| kfarr wrote:
| Sells a lot of v2x chips tho
| bdavbdav wrote:
| 1000 cars doesn't sound like many as an accident reduction
| survey, unless it's just to prove the tech itself works.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I really don't want connected cars. It introduces way too much
| remote attack surface where there was zero before.
| dylan604 wrote:
| do the cars need to be connected to communicate with each other
| though? I think you're beating on a dead horse of an unrelated
| subject
| Arainach wrote:
| Could you elaborate? Communication is itself a connection.
| The complaint isn't that the cars are connected to the
| internet, it's that they're connected and communicating with
| each other.
|
| In an oversimplified system where Car A broadcasts "I'm
| braking" allowing Car B to slow down and avoid a collision,
| the attack vector is a simulated "I'm braking" message that
| causes car B to slow down/stop even though Car A is not
| braking (or may not even exist).
| dylan604 wrote:
| Maybe I missed the meaning, but with all of the other
| threads about connected cars, it's all about connected to
| the internet.
|
| Broadcasting current mode of operation doesn't really seem
| connected in the same way to me. Sure, it might be a way to
| "attack" another car by sending the same signal, but that's
| totally different from someone accessing the car remotely
| for other purposes. If you fake a hard braking signal, to
| my car, then my car will respond by slowing down and then
| transmitting that as well to other cars.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| They need to communicate somehow. That is a large a attack
| surface and bad actors could inflict a whole lot of damage.
| I'd say we take it slowly before we jump headfirst into this.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Thing is, there's absolutely no way to make this safe,
| ever. Not going to happen. No software of even the tiniest
| complexity has ever been secure, and pre-zero days are used
| for years often prior to discovery.
|
| It's not safe. It never will be safe. Ever. Self driving
| cars should have absolutely zero networking capability, at
| all.
|
| Anyone saying otherwise is ignoring te reality of software
| development history, and extremely naive.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| How do you do remote assistance without networking? Is
| your idea for data offload and system updates that
| someone walks over and plugs an Ethernet cable into the
| side every night?
| bbarnett wrote:
| "My idea"?! I am not espousing an idea, simply stating
| actual fact. Software is not secure, never has been,
| never will be, and its use should be considered with the
| logical concept that "this will be hacked".
|
| Thus if your car needs to communicate with anything for
| "system updates", it's been designed wrong. People had
| cars for decades, with digital control systems and zero
| networking capability. It's literally not required, at
| all, to develop, maintain, or have a car that operates
| perfectly.
|
| One of the main problems is that cars literally have too
| much software onboard. There is no need for an app store
| for a car. No need for networking. No need for update-to-
| date info. None. You have a smartphone, and that can
| connect to an entirely isolated screen in the car, if you
| want maps displayed for your own edification. Anything
| networked, eg bluetooth, etc, should be entirely isolated
| from the rest of the car.
|
| In terms of self-driving, updates can be applied
| manually. USB sticks aren't that uncommon. Dealers are
| available. The amount of times new city streets are
| created is extremely rare, and you can always close-
| destination and direct manually beyond that point. Cars
| can then remember a location, and draw in a street as if
| finds it, thus enabling easy return.
|
| The truth is it doesn't matter how "convenient" something
| may be, you don't just brush security and safety aside to
| do it. You don't make people's lives easier, at the
| expense of safety, security, and so on. You just don't.
|
| And that's what every networked car represents. Brushing
| aside safety for convenience.
|
| I've been waiting for hackers to remote-hack the battery
| charging module in cars for quite some time. Depending on
| the unit's configuration, some car models could be hacked
| to all explode and burst into flames due to overcharging,
| at specific times.
|
| How would society respond, in 1 in 10 houses caught fire
| at 2am on the same night?
|
| * There'd be fires everywhere, and those fires would
| spread, as there are not enough fire departments to deal
| with even 1 in 100 houses catching fire in a night
|
| * Massive amounts of infra would be compromised
|
| * Massive amounts of transportation capability would be
| gone
|
| Society would be devastated. It'd be worse than an air
| bombing campaign.
|
| Yet I'm willing to bet there is a path from most car's
| networking -> charge controller, along with it being
| remote flashable with a new firmware too.
|
| Madness. Stupidity. Insanity.
|
| Other discussions are about how people coordinate cars in
| a group. This is ripe for trouble, even with just people
| messing about. People would game this system to push
| other cars out of the way, using it to gain pseudo
| priority. Teenagers and malign actors would cause all
| cars in a swarm to emergency brake, but sending emergency
| brake intentions. Cars would be manipulated into running
| into each other, or into guardrails, after being sent
| "emergency swerve" info from cars in front, or "I'm
| beside you but I'm emergency swerving into your lane!"
| messages.
|
| If anyone looks at the current state of almost all lane-
| keep tech, it's a joke and dangerous. Forums are repleted
| with "turn off this functionality" panic messages, as
| people are having to constantly fight their cars to keep
| them from doing very dumb things.
|
| Real self-driving is at least 20 to 30 years away. Even
| those at the forefront (like Waymo) are not self-driving.
| Instead, they've super-mapped the areas that Waymo
| operates in, warm climates with low amounts of rain, no
| snow, city areas with unchanging landscapes and an
| immense amount of cues and markers.
|
| Take a Waymo to an unmapped location and it's useless.
| That's not self-driving.
|
| Take a Waymo to a Northern US rural area in the winter,
| where there are no road lines to be seen due to slush and
| snow on the road. It will fail completely and utterly.
| That's not self driving. Any local driver handles that
| daily without issue.
|
| Waymo still has a phalanx of people monitoring all
| aspects of how its cars are performing, ready to step in
| at a moment's notice. They get edge-case stuck in dumb
| places, do weird things (like waking up entire blocks of
| people due to honking senselessly all night long), they
| are not self-driving capable.
|
| Instead, they are "we mapped all these streets a billion
| times over, and with human intervention and the
| absolutely perfect weather in SF and the US South, can
| get a car to kinds sorta almost self-drive", but "It'll
| never work in the rest of the world".
|
| By the time true self-driving is a real thing, it'll be
| hand in hand with AI that is capable of handling "I don't
| have that address" and "Show me the closest address" and
| "where do I go from here", where you say "Go down two
| streets and then turn left" works.
|
| We do not need networking in our cars. The internet is a
| poison.
|
| One side note.
|
| This is an excellent business opportunity for someone
| such as SpaceX. They _could_ create entirely isolated
| vlan, non-internet traffic for car manufacturers far more
| isolated than anyone. Such traffic could be isolated and
| never have direct connection to the internet, which would
| reduce the attack surface dramatically.
|
| It would still be dangerous. Just less so than the
| absolutely absurd and ridiculous scenario where we have
| cars connect to the most hostile environment known, the
| internet.
|
| To end this blathering and spewing, I'll say this. Would
| you want brain surgery done by a robot that is receiving
| instructions over the internet? Then why do you want
| tonnes of vehicles flying down the road at 70mph being
| connected to the internet?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| It's clear from that wall of text that you're not super
| familiar with autonomous vehicles. That's fine, no one
| knows everything. I'll try to clear up a few of the more
| glaring misconceptions.
|
| First, the idea that you rarely need to update maps is
| wrong. The minimum you can really get away with is
| monthly. Weekly is preferable. Daily is the standard,
| with serious pressure from operations and government
| relations support up-to-the-minute updates to handle
| things like avoiding emergency services routes, route
| obstructions like downed trees, traffic updates, and
| unannounced construction zones detected by another
| vehicle.
|
| Secondly, you missed the "data offload" part of what I
| said. One of the main limitations on operating time for
| autonomous vehicles isn't charging, it's running out of
| space to store collected data. This includes data that
| will be used to update maps, detailed logs of how the
| vehicle is running and what errors sensors are
| encountering, as well as the basic sensor outputs and
| analysis results (e.g. where other vehicles are in
| space). This is often terabytes _after_ compression and
| log reduction. Good luck loading that to a USB drive in
| any reasonable time.
|
| Thirdly, good luck making USB devices secure against evil
| maid attacks. It's a hell of a lot easier and there's a
| hell of a lot more bandwidth available with mutually
| authenticated wireless APs.
|
| As for taking Waymo to a northern state, they've been
| testing in Tahoe for years and they used to test in New
| York. This coming winter they'll be doing heavy testing
| in both of those as well as Northern Michigan (including
| UP).
|
| Waymo _are_ autonomous. They 're not on rails or anything
| else you've heard. The computers are given a destination
| and route themselves to it, handling all driving tasks
| along the way. When remote assistants step in, all they
| can do is augment the robot with new observations. It
| still has to do all of the driving in light of that new
| information.
| micahdeath wrote:
| +1
|
| We don't have cell towers everywhere so there are 'blind'
| spots for miles.
| Axsuul wrote:
| Sorry but it'll happen regardless since the incentives are too
| strong. Imagine highway lanes in the future that only allow
| cars that support communication protocols - say goodbye
| traffic.
| 14 wrote:
| Yes it will be called the grandma protocol. "Unfortunately
| you are not driving to the standards of this road and will
| now be pulled off the road to wait for others who can
| actually drive to get home. If you are experiencing an
| emergency please say emergency and assistance will be sent to
| your location. Would you like to watch some ads while you
| wait?"
| Axsuul wrote:
| You don't even need to drive. As soon as you enter in the
| lane, the car drives for you since every car needs to be in
| sync.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Holy shit I'd support this. Far too many incompetents on
| the road, and yes they should be required to wait for
| better drivers.
|
| Germany has so much better driving norms on its highways
| since the lack of speed limits enables those who are fast
| to force those who are slow to stay in the right lane where
| they belong.
| floydnoel wrote:
| it's never gonna happen. teslas and waymos can't even
| implement this, as if 100 different companies are going to
| agree to comply. not to mention the privacy nightmare! pure
| nerd fantasy that ignores reality.
| Axsuul wrote:
| There's no communication protocol standard yet, so there's
| nothing to implement. Once a standard is developed, every
| car company will be onboard.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Will they ban older cars that do not support the latest
| protocols? Will we be forced into a 5-year upgrade cycle like
| we are with phones, because the manufactures stop supporting
| their older products?
| Axsuul wrote:
| Yes but that's progress. You can still drive in the other
| lanes.
| m463 wrote:
| You know, I think the way to get these protocols in place
| is to offer new capabilities to cars with these systems.
|
| What if you could do 100mph with perfect congestion control
| in the e-lane?
| mjevans wrote:
| I would gladly give up my ability to drive (under normal
| circumstances) on the freeway if it ended the reign of
| terror that rubberneckers and people that don't keep
| right except to pass (the law in at least WA state if not
| where you are too).
|
| Just imagine a world where rush hour didn't mean
| slowdowns. Oh and also get rid of the onramp metering;
| it's worse than useless when traffic can't zipper and
| accommodate the influx of new vehicles.
| micahdeath wrote:
| What is an e-lane? Usually e- means e-mail or electronic.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I guess it's an express lane, but limited to cars that
| fully participate in these imaginary traffic management
| protocols that don't exist.
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| A train. Pretty sure that's a reinvented train, yet
| again.
| arcticbull wrote:
| It's like the memes about how 'Americans' will use any
| insane representation to avoid metric. It applies equally
| well to avoiding rail infrastructure. Instead of putting
| two metal sticks down and getting a big metal box for it,
| we are leaning into AGI and quadratic complexity
| infrastructure to stop a problem in a space we absolutely
| refuse to constrain because reasons.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| A train that takes you directly from the inside of your
| garage to the front door of your destination, in a
| private cabin, with no transfers or unnecessary stops at
| locations you aren't traveling to. So... still more a car
| than a train.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I imagine that the manufacturers' fleets will be driving
| 24/7--a parked car is an investment that's not paying off
| at this moment. If they last 5 years, that'll be doing
| pretty good.
|
| If you want to own one for exclusive personal use, you'll
| be doing so in an environment that's increasingly
| unsympathetic to your needs as somebody with a fleet size
| of one and a customer base of one.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| I don't understand what you mean when you say incentives?
| Politicians are strongly incentivized to avoid enraging their
| constituency. HOV lanes have ended more than one politician's
| career and that's as close as we've ever gotten to the kind
| of lane discrimination you're describing.
| Axsuul wrote:
| As long as there's soul-sucking traffic, the public will
| demand solutions. Traffic has been getting worse in LA and
| they've already gone beyond HOV lanes. Now there's toll
| lanes on most of the major freeways where you can pay to
| bypass traffic. The next step after that will be congestion
| pricing just to enter the city (Metro is already studying
| it).
| treyd wrote:
| The solution to traffic is to build better, more
| efficient transit infrastructure that doesn't involve
| everyone driving their own giant metal boxes everywhere
| when for most trips they just don't need to.
| Axsuul wrote:
| Sure but you are still going to have people want to drive
| in their own metal boxes, like those who prefer to have
| their own space. And for a sprawling city like LA, it's
| not possible to build efficient public transit
| connections between each point. It's not realistic for
| everyone to take the train or bus.
| treyd wrote:
| But most people who drive metal boxes would actually take
| long fast metal tubes that don't have issues with traffic
| if they were given the opportunity to. This means all the
| people who really want to drive metal boxes or _have_ to
| drive metal boxes don 't have as much traffic.
|
| Tokyo is of comparable size to LA and they don't have
| these issues. LA _used_ to have the largest streetcar
| network in the country but they stripped most of it out
| circa WWII. See also NYC, London, etc.
| Axsuul wrote:
| > But most people who drive metal boxes would actually
| take long fast metal tubes that don't have issues with
| traffic if they were given the opportunity to. This means
| all the people who really want to drive metal boxes or
| have to drive metal boxes don't have as much traffic.
|
| Even if most people would take the tube, that still
| leaves millions who need to drive into LA for work. Since
| everyone has a backyard and the population density in the
| suburbs doesn't come anywhere close to Tokyo's, it's
| neither economical nor practical to build public
| transportation options out there.
|
| > Tokyo is of comparable size to LA and they don't have
| these issues. LA used to have the largest streetcar
| network in the country but they stripped most of it out
| circa WWII. See also NYC, London, etc.
|
| Used to, but those days are gone and it's now 100x harder
| to reverse that decision. Los Angeles is currently
| spending the most money out of all the cities in the US
| on its metro system in preparation for the 2028 Olympics,
| and even that is still scratching the surface.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Mass transit makes sense in the places mass transit makes
| sense. Everywhere else it's a waste of infrastructure
| spend.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Most makers are trying to implement some form of self driving,
| even if it's just self parking while the owner is outside.
|
| Isn't there already a significant attack vector ?
|
| And the pressure is high for makers to bring more of these
| sooner than later, so having a more public and wider discussion
| on what this means on the security side is I think beneficial.
| Right now they're burying their head in the sand.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| I'm willing to trade off a very slightly increased chance of my
| fully insured car being stolen to be able to remotely activate
| my air conditioning.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| > remotely activate my air conditioning.
|
| We can do that today with remote start on a hot day. And on a
| cold day, it remotely activates the heater.
| new299 wrote:
| The number of negative comments here seems odd to me.
|
| If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars widely
| deployed it seems obvious that instrumenting roads and making
| them a better platform for self-driving vehicles is an important
| part of this process.
|
| To me this work seems like a part of the process of evolving
| roads from a Ad-Hoc and poorly documented system involving a lot
| of human guess work into a more robust and reliable platform for
| self-driving and human driven cars.
| adrianN wrote:
| We don't even instrument all the train tracks, a small portion
| of the network relies on the conductors. I think it's unlikely
| that the people commenting today will live to see a sizable
| portion of the road network instrumented for self driving.
| drtgh wrote:
| As the article and the linked PDF quickly mention,
| cybersecurity is a concern, a really big problem difficult to
| solve.
|
| A cracked traffic or car signal, a spoofed radio signal, or
| more simply a malfunctioning sensor from both, is something to
| watch out for. Then, at what point could the data received be
| trusted without a real trusted source like a visual of what is
| really happening?
|
| Collapsing a city or causing an accident could be as simple as
| tricking vehicles into thinking they have another vehicle in
| front of them by receiving false data with the codes of
| legitimate vehicles or traffic signals for example.
|
| IMHO vehicles should not react to data from third
| parties/external, but to a own -and mandatory redundant-
| sensoring data within the vehicle.
|
| But even nowadays there are problems with this as owners of
| cars with automatic proximity braking systems could explain.
| There is also another problem, when the vehicle is connected to
| a network to receive an OTA or to modify any type of
| engineering parameter, it already has its own vector of attack,
| homologous to when one use the remote key to open and start the
| car, and the signal is captured and cracked by a third party;
| We didn't saw manufacturers solving this across all this years.
|
| The article concludes like if the problem were political, a
| sabotage, but without explaining why the cybersecurity is a
| real problem.
|
| I'm European, so I'm not sure what lobbies are involved there,
| for sure they exist, but if we ignore it and look at it from a
| technical point of view, IMHO the cybersecurity problem should
| be solved -which I'm not sure can be solved- before moving the
| money.
| latortuga wrote:
| > If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars
| widely deployed
|
| I can't speak for everyone in this thread but personally this
| sounds like a nightmare. If we're dreaming about possible
| future worlds that are better than what we have, I'd rather
| have less or no cars. Much cheaper to maintain, not hackable.
| matsemann wrote:
| > _If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars
| widely deployed_
|
| That's a big if ;)
|
| Not to be a luddite, but we are many that don't enjoy our
| cities being designed around car usage. That they take up all
| space that could have been used for nicer things.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Thing is, those who like cars and driving don't want autonomous
| cars; those who only see cars as a way to transport humans and
| goods should stop pretending they want cars and simply use Uber
| or Rent-a-Van. Self-driving cars are a solution to a non-
| existent problem.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _those who only see cars as a way to transport humans and
| goods should stop pretending they want cars and simply use
| Uber or Rent-a-Van_
|
| Amazingly enough, working out a cost-benefit calculation
| between renting on demand vs owning _will_ in fact sometimes
| turn out in favor of owning.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Depends on your location. As the global population
| relocates to cities the cost-benefit maths work out in
| favour of not owning. New residential developments in
| Europe are planned and built without enough space to park
| at least one vehicle per apartment. Insurance, parking, and
| extra "emissions" charges (that EVs have to pay too), are
| all killing car ownership. There are places in London where
| you will not get a parking permit for your vehicle unless
| you meet certain criteria. The US was built for life where
| cars are an essential part of daily routine, Europe wasn't.
| philsnow wrote:
| > If you actually want practical and safe self driving cars
| widely deployed
|
| I don't, though.
|
| If we're going to propose a sci-fi future state of the world
| that will take a mind-boggling amount of investment, not to
| mention a giant leap of faith that we'll ever actually get
| there, I would prefer to reclaim all the space that's currently
| devoted to car infrastructure and be able to walk to
| everything.
|
| > practical and safe
|
| This isn't even enough; it would need to be _cheap_ and
| universally accessible as well. I don 't want to live in a
| society where we've agreed that cars are necessary despite a
| high and growing number of vehicle fatalities per year, and
| then provide miraculously-effective safety features [0] that
| only 1% (or 10% or whatever) of people can afford.
|
| [0] if about_to_collide() dont();
| schoen wrote:
| I agree with that. But almost every cool convenience-enhancing
| or safety-enhancing "connected" technology has been implemented
| in a way that makes it easier to track individuals.
|
| If we take aviation as an inspiration, where there are lots of
| great safety-enhancing uses of radio (for navigation, approach,
| air traffic control, giving information to autopilots,
| collision avoidance...), we also end up with "every vehicle can
| be publicly tracked in real time".
|
| No one seems to have managed to get a "don't facilitate mass
| surveillance" bullet point into the requirements lists for the
| majority of transportation innovations. And if you don't have
| that requirement and you build a system using radio signals,
| then by default you typically _do_ facilitate mass
| surveillance.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > The number of negative comments here seems odd to me.
|
| Really ? Individual cars aren't sustainable, you can add more
| internet of shit in them it doesn't make anything better.
|
| At the end of the day you're still moving 70kg of meat in a
| 2500kg cage of metal that cost my entire yearly net salary. All
| we're doing is making them more expensive, more failure prone,
| harder to repair, &c.
|
| > To me this work seems like a part of the process of evolving
| roads from a Ad-Hoc and poorly documented system
|
| This is a code monkey take, people in real life do not give a
| fuck about any of this. It's a road, just be sober, keep your
| eyes open and drive, it's really not that complex.
|
| That's modern tech doing the only thing it knows, solutions
| looking for problems nobody has.
| bankcust08385 wrote:
| Self-driving cars able to communicate intent and negotiate could
| be extremely efficient by reducing collisions and traffic.
|
| From a standstill, all vehicles waiting could accelerate
| simultaneously rather than create pressure waves due to human
| reaction times.
|
| With fully-autonomous coordination, might also be possible to do
| away with traffic lights and other control elements to negotiate
| scheduling of vehicles moving across each other so they cross
| intersections using precisely-allocated time slots without
| stopping.
| psini wrote:
| Sounds like reinventing trains, but honestly why not with all
| the existing road infrastructure
| BoringTimesGang wrote:
| The 'tech bros reinventing trains' refrain fails to take into
| account that the same people would love 1/100th of the
| coverage of the global road network for rail.
| xen0 wrote:
| This is a terrible world for pedestrians, bicycles, or anything
| other than an autonomous vehicle.
| patapong wrote:
| Not necessarily? This depends on how the system is set up.
|
| For example, cars could share the positions of pedestrians
| and bikes with each other to ensure that even cars with no
| direct line of sight are aware of them, making the roads
| safer for everyone.
|
| Likewise, if traffic lights are integrated into the system,
| the waiting times could be much shorter as cars can
| dynamically slow down to allow pedestrians to cross, wihtout
| being contrained by fixed time blocks of green/red.
| xen0 wrote:
| We already have systems that permit pedestrians to cross
| with priority over cars; they don't need lights.
|
| They don't scale to really busy streets, and one of the
| failure modes would be perpetually blocked vehicles.
|
| And this still leaves other road users that aren't
| autonomous cars up in the air.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Why, could integrate the beacons into signal pedestrian
| crossings forcing the cars to stop (whereas currently an
| absent minded driver might go through it), also doesn't stop
| development of other safety systems like object detection.
| xen0 wrote:
| If you want to avoid traffic 'waves', so all vehicles
| accelerate and decelerate at the same time, you must remove
| _everything_ that might introduce unexpected variance.
|
| Which basically removes people.
|
| A simple fact is that faster moving traffic is necessarily
| less dense; the gaps between vehicles must be larger to
| account for small variations that matter more and more at
| speed.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| I'd say it's more about reducing unnecessary stoppages
| where possible. The wave is triggered by someone braking
| ahead for whatever reason, we're looking to prevent the
| unnecessary wave, not necessarily stop the initial
| braking event as it may have been necessary.
| maxwell wrote:
| Let's improve driver's ed and impose more licensing
| restrictions. Seems like pretty wide variations in
| standards between States.
|
| Let's ban distracting billboards in more States, as in
| Maine, Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii.
|
| Let's expand annual vehicle inspections to more States.
|
| More surveillance tech, automation, and regulations
| aren't the answer.
| itishappy wrote:
| > you must remove _everything_ that might introduce
| unexpected variance
|
| I'm not sure that follows. Cars that communicate can
| accelerate and brake together even in unexpected
| situations.
| xen0 wrote:
| You need the increased space, which means you have the
| traffic waves.
|
| You need the space because of variations in cars; some
| have better brakes than others, some may be heavier so
| need more time to slow down, others may be on wetter
| patch of road, etc.
|
| And one car may not even get the signal, so only slows
| down when it observes the vehicle ahead of it doing, an
| observation that needs time.
|
| Or a car starts accelerating as the one in front just
| stalls.
|
| It may all be better than human reaction times, but for
| robustness, which is really very necessary, you're going
| to get the same dynamics.
|
| And this all assumes only good actors; somewhat
| optimistic in my view.
| itishappy wrote:
| Waves are caused by starting at different times, and
| connected vehicles can coordinate their start time. Yes,
| you need more space with speed, but a fleet can handle
| that with different acceleration curves instead of varied
| starts.
|
| This isn't entirely true, connected vehicles would still
| have some delay due to radio propagation time, but it's
| ns per vehicle instead of hundreds of milliseconds.
| Additionally, you can entirely compensate for it in ways
| you really can't with humans.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Also a connected vehicle could potentially tell much if
| the car ahead is actively accelerating. Reducing it's
| need to brake if it can tell there's sufficient distance
| to negate braking (a bit more risky).
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > Cars that communicate can accelerate and brake together
| even in unexpected situations.
|
| A horde of cars where 100% of them consistently operate
| in a failure-free state and have comms that can't be
| hampered by the environment - that group could maybe do
| this.
| itishappy wrote:
| Fair. If coms fail though, you're no worse than today.
| Vehicles don't need to travel any closer, just start
| together.
| globular-toast wrote:
| There won't be any. If you want to do that kind of stuff
| you'll take a wheelchair to the nearest "activity centre"
| where you'll be able to move your appendages around to
| simulate some kind of neolithic locomotion. It will be
| considered quite a niche pastime, though, as you can just
| take pills to remain happy and in shape.
| 6510 wrote:
| I've been advocating for railside cameras so that the driver
| can see things further down the track. The accidents happen
| at crossings of which there are relatively few.
|
| If you put a cam and a computer with a crosswalk it can
| rigorously figure out (and transmit) someone is crossing the
| road. Very much more so than a vehicle approaching from
| around the corner.
| matsemann wrote:
| It will just be the new victim blaming: the cyclist got run
| over because they didn't have an expensive responder on their
| back!
| hammock wrote:
| It would be awesome on any grade-separated highway
| bobthepanda wrote:
| all grade separated highways eventually exit onto not-grade
| separated roads, and often tailbacks are the result of
| delays happening off the highway system.
| hammock wrote:
| > often tailbacks are the result of delays happening off
| the highway system.
|
| Only if there is something seriously wrong with the road
| system. A highway ought to have higher throughput than
| any surface road. What you describe is not normal or
| nominal
| bobthepanda wrote:
| City centers are often places with intense demand aimed
| only at one or two exits off of a highway. Other cases
| are airports, sufficiently large shopping centers, large
| events, etc.
| itishappy wrote:
| Is it? "Large blocks of vehicles moving in tandem" is a
| technology we have today: trains. Are trains that bad for
| pedestrians and bikes?
| wanderinghogan wrote:
| You mean the trains that go by once every 15+ minutes, and
| are confined to a track with no way for the operator to do
| anything but brake or speed up, compared to every few
| seconds with the ability for the driver to take control at
| any moment?
|
| But I guess this would work/be status quo for non-autos if
| we kept the signals so peds and bikes knew they could still
| cross and probably not get run over by someone who decided
| to switch back to manual control.
| itishappy wrote:
| > You mean the trains that go by once every 15+ minutes,
| and are confined to a track with no way for the operator
| to do anything but brake or speed up, compared to every
| few seconds with the ability for the driver to take
| control at any moment?
|
| Yup, those trains! They'd have a shorter and more
| irregular schedule, but autonomous convoys would behave
| pretty similarly to that. Outside of emergencies like
| drivers assuming control to swerve into pedestrians, I
| guess.
|
| Plus, like you say, no need to remove any of the
| infrastructure of really safety assumptions of today,
| just augment.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| how many pedestrians and bikes are directly crossing busy
| train tracks at grade? traffic lights signal cycle every
| minute or so.
|
| the issue is that unlike trains, roads are so numerous that
| they are hard to avoid, and it is financially unrealistic
| to bridge or tunnel for non-motorized users across every
| road, particularly if you want that crossing to be
| accessible.
| itishappy wrote:
| > how many pedestrians and bikes are directly crossing
| busy train tracks at grade?
|
| Near me? A few. Not sure how busy, but I get caught on my
| commute about once a week.
|
| While I totally agree with your points, I don't see how
| this is any worse than today. Connected convoys don't
| need to go at every green light (like that one robot
| planet from Futurama) they can wait for pedestrians. The
| biggest difference would be clearing intersections
| quicker.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| You say it would not make things any worse and I
| disagree.
|
| If anything, it might codify how hostile parts of the US
| already are to pedestrians, with beg buttons that may or
| may not work properly. More efficient cycles with less
| gaps may give people even less time to dart across during
| a cycle where they may not have the green but there is no
| cross traffic.
| itishappy wrote:
| If traffic clears the intersection faster, you can have
| more efficient cycles without changing the cycle time.
| The effect would be larger, not smaller, gaps.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| That would assume that transportation departments in the
| US would step away from trying to boost car throughput at
| all costs. That's their current MO; car travel is like a
| gas that expands to fit all available space.
| xen0 wrote:
| The intersection of paths taken by pedestrians and trains
| is much more limited than that for pedestrians and cars.
|
| And notably, trains don't stop for pedestrians.
|
| Or another way:
|
| Roads are a shared resource. Train tracks are not.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| No, because they're confined to completely separate tracks,
| which they don't share with pedestrians or bikes at all. In
| fact, when the two meet, we call it a "train crossing" and
| have special "cross guards" to keep pedestrians, bikes, and
| other vehicles well away from the train. Otherwise, we
| generally try to keep the tracks away from other modes of
| transit, by either putting them in tunnels ("subways") or
| elevating the tracks, or just not putting them near roads
| to begin with and giving them special right-of-way.
|
| None of this resembles the way we treat cars at all.
| belorn wrote:
| I guess different countries have different rules, but my
| country have classes of roads which are not shared with
| pedestrians or bikes. There are generally not that many
| traffic lights, but there are exceptions.
|
| The biggest use of simultaneously acceleration in those
| situations would be around road maintenance and other
| situation where road speed or number of lanes are
| reduced, with heavy congestion as a result.
| mjevans wrote:
| As both a driver and a pedestrian I would love that
| engineering solution.
|
| PLEASE build human scaled walkways _away_ from roadways.
| In my climate zone, please also provide roofing over them
| to shade from solar and downpour events.
| itishappy wrote:
| Crosswalks. The "car crossings" for pedestrians and bikes
| are called crosswalks. They're dedicated sections of
| road, typically selected for high visibility, specially
| demarcated and often even specifically signaled. High-
| speed traffic is generally kept away from other modes of
| transit by means of elevated highway sections (in high-
| density areas).
|
| My dude, this is literally exactly what I had in mind.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Good. Go to any society on earth with excellent transit
| (Singapore, Korea, Japan, etc). They all HATE using it and
| love cars so much it makes American car enthusiasts look mass
| transit lobbyists.
|
| Cars are freedom, cars are status, and the people who don't
| want them are peons in relation to those who do. This is a
| fact of living in societies with the best transit in the
| world. Using it is simply admitting that you're poor.
| tetris11 wrote:
| sounds great in the US where cars are first class citizens in
| cities, but it feels like a loss for pedestrians in more mixed
| cities.
|
| Though I suppose, mixed cities will ultimately push cars out,
| which will separate the two better and allow the car world to
| do whatever automated works it wants without harming anyone
| maccard wrote:
| Not all roads are in cities, though. I'd be fine with
| "manual" driving in a city if I could turn on smart-cruise-
| control on the motorway and let it do its thing at 40/60/70
| knowing that I can relax just a little bit more. Doubly so if
| in an EV world, the cars can talk to each other and a central
| network to say "I'm going to need to charge in X km, so I can
| use charger A, B, or C" and they communicate to minimise wait
| times across the board.
| kkfx wrote:
| Unless someone, for instance from remote, crack some cars to
| send false signals, let's say a police mandating stop when an
| armored bank van pass by, signaling to also open doors
| meanwhile another armored semi-autonomous car from a very
| active activist suddenly accelerate crashing onto an elementary
| school group on a trip stating was the activist driving, and
| the smart-blood test state he/she is on drugs and alcohol while
| he/she was effectively not and wasn't driving at all or
| controls was not operational being by wires... etc etc etc...
|
| You can't design the world as anyone is a good actor. Most are
| indeed good actors, but most and all are different quantities.
| 7952 wrote:
| It turns the whole world into a computer science problem. A
| distributed database of state with some malicious data. With
| various asynchronous processes that have different versions
| of the data. All needing to make decisions with incomplete
| data.
| kkfx wrote:
| The point is that the holistic approach can't work because
| there no "single complex system" but "many individual
| actors" under our control: we can't program the world, we
| can only program some specific actor between semi-
| independent others. Yes, we have States, rules in them,
| agreements, standards etc but we can't still program the
| whole not considering the program a valid model of the
| reality.
|
| That's why the approach should be very careful in what to
| trust or not. Not only: there are various situation where
| it's not possible to avoid a crash but there are few
| possible crash options, the human might choose badly (for
| him/her, for someone else) but it's a personal choice. A
| machine choice it's the responsibility of the machine
| vendor if any. So even if today there are essentially a
| lack of norms on that topic being "so new essentially not
| existent", tomorrow we will need to state clearly it a car
| crash while self-driving ALL consequences, positive and
| negative must be on the car's OEM. As a result such ADAS
| will be less and less "acting" trying to protect their OEM
| more than anyone else, defeating the initial purpose.
|
| The sole solution for this responsibility is that such
| systems are not made by a company but by an open community,
| so they are a product of humanity not of some vendor, and
| we are all partially responsible and partially in control
| of them. This of course can only exists in a society where
| universities are OPEN and FREE for all, funded by the
| public not some private interests, so all can participate
| depending on individual skills and will, not on wealth.
| FLOSS must be mandatory to avoid making it a business at
| all.
|
| Something theoretically possible of course, but very
| unlikely in current societies...
| textlapse wrote:
| I can almost squint at this and see 'self driving cars over a
| long enough period of time in reality are just .... trains with
| cars connected by wifi instead of physical beams'.
| p51-remorse wrote:
| Except able to go to different places, with the much lower
| cost of road infra vs. rail infra.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| I wouldn't want all cars to accelerate simultaneously since I
| don't think they can all brake simultaneously
| kstrauser wrote:
| Not arguing for this, just thinking it though from a purely
| technical approach.
|
| If the cars could come to a consensus about the maximum
| common braking ability between them, they could also
| coordinate all of them stopping at that rate.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| The results of a brake failure would probably propagate
| through a larger amount of traffic if everyone was packed
| more densely.
| UltimateEdge wrote:
| It seems this comment is paraphrasing the following video by
| CGP Grey: https://youtu.be/iHzzSao6ypE
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| The system will not be used for efficiency in the wider sense,
| merely in the car centric sense of increased throughput.
|
| As another commenter has pointed out such a system makes life
| for other road users: cyclists, pedestrians, horses, most
| uncomfortable (to put it it exceedingly mildly).
| snapcaster wrote:
| >From a standstill, all vehicles waiting could accelerate
| simultaneously rather than create pressure waves due to human
| reaction times.
|
| How would this work? If even a single car has a malfunction it
| would cause a massive pile up? The amount of work people will
| do to avoid using trains is insane
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I assume the cars automatic braking and collision detection
| will just override whatever would cause an accident. Or a
| person's foot.
|
| I was at a stoplight the other day and I was about 30 cars
| back. I could still see when the light turned green. I
| counted ~30 seconds before the car in front of me moved at
| all. I did not make it through the light.
|
| If the cars could talk to each other, they could all start
| moving together (slowly) and then accelerate and spread out,
| resulting in much higher throughput and preventing traffic
| jams.
| nxobject wrote:
| The article doesn't make it clear to me when the DOT talks about
| "V2X being deployed", what the full scope of that is - does it
| refer to just the physical technologies, or the lowest layers of
| the OSI model? Or does "V2X deployment" here mean more
| application-level stuff, i.e. a series of minimum requirements
| about what information classes of devices will broadcast to other
| classes of devices, with what limitations?
|
| Without that clarification, I think the first thing readers of HN
| will think, justifiably, is "is all of my car's information being
| broadcast all the time to everything", for plenty of reasons -
| dragnet surveillance, disruptive attacks ranging from Flipper
| pranks to state actors, etc.? It's not clear whether that's true
| or expected of this V2X initiative.
|
| After some quick digging, it looks like so far, it looks like
| only very domain-specific features have been "implemented with
| V2X", and will be for the forseeable future (see p7+ in [1]) -
| oversize vehicle complaince, pedestrian in crosswalk, blind spot
| warnings. How that's implemented will probably need a lot more
| digging.
|
| [1] https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/68128
| Havoc wrote:
| Makes sense to me. Even if it's just a "hint" that could
| massively alter outcomes. eg braking a second earlier could be
| the difference between crash and no crash
| jonplackett wrote:
| Is it just me or does this seem like it could be abused?
|
| Like, could you just stand on a bridge on a freeway and send
| 'I'm max braking' signals to all the cars and then they all
| react to that and stop?
|
| Bearing in mind the incredibly poor tech of most cars - like
| the keyless entry that you can just boost the signal while the
| keys are in a house and open the car - I don't have much faith
| in car companies to do a good job.
|
| I don't mind my car reacting to real events actually happening
| before I know about them, but reacting to signals scares me a
| bit.
|
| Is there some clever way that they'll avoid this?
| Havoc wrote:
| Yes definitely worth some careful consideration.
|
| The current situation of 2 tons hunks of stupid metal flying
| around with only slow reacting humans to maintain safety
| isn't optimal either though.
|
| There has got to be some sort of happy medium here
| h_tbob wrote:
| As an American there are few times when I think the government
| did something awesome.
|
| But I'm amazed they are thinking of this. This so awesome.
|
| Plus the FAA will need to do this as we get more electric
| personal aircraft
| xnx wrote:
| Like other networks, dumb pipes (roads) and smart endpoints
| (self-driving cars) will serve us best in transportation. Vehicle
| to vehicle communication makes almost no difference to the
| remaining hard problems Waymo is working on. E.g. Vehicle to
| vehicle doesn't help a Waymo car identify and properly handle
| downed power lines during a snowstorm.
| eth0up wrote:
| My morning $0.02:
|
| I have thought for many years that we need to make driving a part
| of both middle and highschool. Not merely the principles of motor
| vehicle operation, but the humanities aspect too.
|
| For example, psychology, basic physics and sociology would be
| integral to the curriculum. It is important to view
| transportation as closely as possible for what it is. As
| conscientious driver, I do my best to be courteous and safe, for
| both selfish and altruistic reasons. I try to apply my
| understanding of traffic dynamics every time frustration is
| detected. It is impossible for me to drive without observing
| stupidity, inefficiencies and systemic flaws. Realizing that I am
| part of it and not an exception, I try to view others (drivers,
| bystanders, pedestrians, cyclists etc) with equal or greater
| importance to myself. I do not tailgate, unless it is a
| collective circumstance, eg slow high-density traffic. I heed
| speed limits, general laws, and remain cognizant of signs. I
| expect unexpected behavior and try to not react beyond necessary
| correction.
|
| And I piss off a lot of drivers. Traveling the speed limit in the
| right lane in low density traffic, I will be tailgated or worse.
| Yet, while mostly driving well within legal parameters, I make
| good time and often end up ahead of erratic impatient drivers.
|
| I believe that most collisions can be avoided through rational
| driving practices. But many are never exposed to the concept. A
| mere pulse is sufficient to receive a driver's license.
|
| Traffic enforcement also seems to be more revenue than safety
| driven and lacks consistency, eg ephemeral speed traps.
|
| An essay or book could be easily written on this subject. As such
| an integral, ubiquitous part of society, it is amazing that such
| minimal attention is placed upon it. The fact that so many lives
| are at stake seems enough to make a religion of it. We really
| should do much more, without sloughing responsibility onto
| technology and the lottery of enforcement. For me it is one of
| the most outrageously glaring contradictions of expressed values
| there is, with carnage universally and quietly accepted as
| collateral damage.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| This would work if we had the ability to deny licenses to
| people, which would require us to have a real alternative to
| driving in more cities :(
|
| > And I piss off a lot of drivers. Traveling the speed limit in
| the right lane in low density traffic, I will be tailgated or
| worse. Yet, while mostly driving well within legal parameters,
| I make good time and often end up ahead of erratic impatient
| drivers.
|
| The impatient drivers overtake me but curiously I've never
| gotten a single ticket nor been in a collision. (I was forced
| off the road exactly one time)
| eth0up wrote:
| No tickets nor collisions... Keep it up!
|
| I know a bit about being forced off the road. Last time it
| was road rage, but typically it's unintentional.
|
| What I know without any doubt, is that we need to take more
| responsibility and proactive measures. If we leave it all to
| technology, we'll all have regrets.
|
| Ride safe!
| someguydave wrote:
| Go watch a cop show on youtube, they are always pulling over
| unregistered cars with drivers that have a suspended license.
| My point being that people will commit crimes no matter how
| many alternate transportations you make.
| neonate wrote:
| https://www.its.dot.gov/research_areas/emerging_tech/pdf/Acc...
| Joker_vD wrote:
| How about Google and Apple teaming up, taking all the data they
| receive from Google Maps/Apple Maps telemetry, including the
| destination waypoints, using it to calculate globally optimal
| routing for every car on the road, and then making the cars
| execute it? Like, sure, this may sound like a central planning
| caricature but we _do_ actually have enough computing power to
| pull it off in this case! It will be glorious! And pedestrians
| can be easily taken into account since they all carry small GPS
| /radio-trackers on them anyhow.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| The main issue I see is one of privacy and government control.
| Kill switches, speed governors, cars communicating with other
| cars ... soon we're on the doorstep of the same ability the CCP
| has to restrict transit.
| slackfan wrote:
| We are not on the doorstep, we are very much already there. And
| we do. Quiet Skies exists, and all intercity Amtrack trains
| fall under TSA as well.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| I don't mind governors, you can set all US cars around 80 MPH
| without putting any cars on the Internet.
|
| The risk to privacy isn't a government nefariously shutting
| down my car, it's a bunch of corporations trading my personal
| information, and I'm already losing the war
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The other problems with capturing peoples freedom of movement, is
| the liability it creates in insurance and or legal
| accountability.
|
| It will lead to countless edge-cases that usurp normal judgement
| by rational drivers. Example: "The school bus stopped on the
| railway crossing, because some drunk in a Tesla passed out in the
| turning lane."
|
| What a silly policy from naive nerd hubris. =3
| Mistletoe wrote:
| Honestly a neat idea, making cars not run into each other seems
| like an almost trivial idea to implement if they can talk to each
| other.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| >The timeline for the DoT's plan extends to 2036, by which time
| it hopes to have fully deployed V2X across the National Highway
| System, for the top 75 metro areas to have the tech enabled at 85
| percent of signalized intersections and to have 20 vehicle models
| that are V2X capable. In the shorter term, the agency aims to
| have V2X tech installed across 20 percent of the National Highway
| System and 25 percent of signalized intersections in major metro
| areas by 2028.
|
| So the same government department that took around 10 just years
| to get adaptative headlights approved thinks this will happen in
| 11 years. Yeah, not going to happen this century.
| xyst wrote:
| Americans will do anything but build alternative transportation
| options to cars, build more efficient cities to allow for
| biking/walking to be more viable (car independence), or replacing
| useless parking garages, parking lots with scalable housing and
| living.
|
| Automated vehicle transportation is a bust. Now Americans think
| installing a backdoor into a vehicle is going to solve the
| problem. Smh.
|
| All of this while a majority of the country is suffering from
| intense heatwaves, increased intensity of storms due to climate
| change.
| nightshift1 wrote:
| About time. I like to drive and wish to keep my liberty on the
| road as much as anyone else but I think it would be easy to send
| basic just-in-time telemetry to the other neighboring cars to
| improve cruise control, emergency braking and heavy traffic
| situations.
|
| The car in front of you could easily send its exact speed,
| throttle/brake position. If it is following gps, it could
| broadcast the next turn on its route to help you predict its
| intentions (turn signals are often lacklusters or too complicated
| for some drivers)
|
| In traffic, it could help stiffen the elastic by reducing the
| reaction time either by either telling the driver to get ready or
| accelerating for them.
|
| The possibilities are infinite once you have a minimum of
| telemetry.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Hot take, but if a turn signal is too complicated for someone,
| said person should NOT be driving a 2-ton land torpedo.
| mjevans wrote:
| Might be a perception bias, but I DO notice that many, at
| least not infrequently, drivers near me either do not use
| their turn signals, or activate them _way_ too late.
|
| It's like they were never told "the turn signal is to
| communicate your intent, in advance" Like at least 0.5 - 1
| blocks in advance (depending on speed) on normal surface
| streets. The whole goal is to give the driver behind you at
| least 5 seconds to react to that intent.
| darby_nine wrote:
| I'm far more worried about pedestrians with these larger cars
| than most vehicle/vehicle interactions. I'd much rather move away
| from cars than lean into them.
| userbinator wrote:
| The drive down the path of authoritarian dystopia continues... as
| everyone is so focused on "safety" that they lose sight of what
| it means to live.
| bfrog wrote:
| I see nothing about the humans outside of the metal clown cars.
| Meanwhile e-bikes are growing, and pedestrians and other road
| user die needlessly to oversized vehicles driven by anyone with a
| pulse due to lax licensing rules.
|
| Fix licensing, make vehicles safe for those walking/biking not
| just those in other clown cars.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Wear retro reflectors and high visibility at night:
|
| No amount of driver training can change the fact we have the
| oldest average driving age in history, and with that comes poor
| eyesight.
| renewiltord wrote:
| No amount of reflectors will help you when the guy who kills
| you only notices you as a bump he felt after looking up from
| the phone. Just put concrete down on the bike lane divider.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's about turning the risk knob, everything help.
| bfrog wrote:
| You could wear something brighter than the sun blasting train
| horn sounds in a 360 and still get nailed by some clown
| mobile. It'll be deemed an accident, person will get at most
| a ticket.
|
| As the addage goes, wanna murder someone? Use a car, it's an
| accident don't you know?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| That's always true, even for motorcyclists.
| cratermoon wrote:
| I agree. DOT needs to be more than the Department of Cars and
| Highways.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If it doesn't involve the cellular network authentication won't
| work. The killer app will be something I can put in my house that
| makes anyone driving by thinks a demolition derby is going on so
| they'll slow down.
|
| If it does involve the cellular network it will face opposition
| because people don't want to buy another plan and coverage will
| never really be satisfactory, even if the cell phone industry is
| able to force every driver to buy a plan for their car.
| Animats wrote:
| Oh, that's back? I thought that died with the "V2V" scheme, which
| was used as a justification for 5G cellular. The document [1]
| comes across as a solution looking for a problem. Like much of
| IoT.
|
| Waymo cars do not have, or need, a vehicle to vehicle
| communication system. They talk to their HQ, but that's not part
| of the main control loops. Most of the problems Waymos have to
| avoid don't communicate much, if at all. Traffic cones,
| pedestrians, bicyclists, and people in wheelchairs have to be
| sensed directly. Once you have the sensing to do that, large
| vehicles should not be a problem. (Yes, Tesla has had trouble
| sensing fire trucks, semis, etc., but that's a Tesla problem)
|
| It doesn't seem to be necessary that traffic lights and signs
| broadcast their status to vehicles. It's not something Waymo has
| asked for.
|
| So what is this "V2X" thing supposed to be for? Surveillance,
| probably.
|
| [1]
| https://www.its.dot.gov/research_areas/emerging_tech/pdf/Acc...
| ghssds wrote:
| > V2X enables vehicles to stay in touch with each other as well
| as pedestrians, cyclists, other road users and roadside
| infrastructure.
|
| I understand this as traffic cones, pedestrians, bicyclists,
| and people in wheelchairs being V2X-enabled too, somehow.
| falcor84 wrote:
| Oh, that sounds dystopian - "Ma'am, I'm sorry to inform you
| that your husband was fatally hit by a car as he attempted to
| cross the street without his government-mandated V2X tracker;
| as you are aware, by doing so he triggered the suicide
| exclusion clause in his insurance policy and forfeited his
| eligibility"
| TomK32 wrote:
| All just because he once signed up for a Disney+ trial.
| carlmr wrote:
| I really like how in German law anything that could be
| regarded as surprising in a ToS is just thrown out.
| TomK32 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure you can also find that in some EU
| regulation.
| carlmr wrote:
| Yes, Germany introduced them in 1976 and the EU based
| their regulation (Directive 93/13) on it in 1993.
| immibis wrote:
| Not a universal principle in Germany though. Today I was
| awoken by government thugs breaking into my room and
| telling me that even though I paid my rent, someone else
| didn't pay theirs so I'm homeless now (collective
| punishment). If only I was joking.
|
| I refused to leave, so they called more government thugs
| (i.e. the police) to help them drag me out, but the
| police told _them_ they have to give people three weeks
| notice before making them homeless so fuck off.
| jerf wrote:
| Nominally that is the case in US law too. Contracts can
| not have "unconscionable" clauses in them, and certainly
| a free trial for a streaming service that you never even
| paid for several years ago affecting an interaction with
| an amusement park is insane. But common law (a term of
| art, not just an adjective stuck to a noun) has a lot of
| inconvenient principles in it that limit the power of the
| government, and as the rule of man progresses in the US,
| this becomes increasingly hypothetical.
| Piskvorrr wrote:
| RIP Elaine Herzberg.
|
| _Somehow_ , as in handwave: "Unless everything is equipped
| with a correctly working, charged and network-connected
| tracker, it has no business being on a road." Well good luck
| with that, outside of a fully instrumented testing area.
|
| Well, there's a less compassionate reading of this, too:
| "wasn't tracked, therefore not our problem, sincerely:
| vendors, insurance companies, et al."
| numpad0 wrote:
| Yep, that's why V2X never took off. Everything has to have
| radio tags, and failed tags could easily cause deaths and
| catastrophic failures. No way that scales or even works at
| limited scale.
|
| Lots of metro trains systems use a lunchbox sized wireless
| tags placed strategically in stations for redundant safety
| and precision braking control. Said train systems also goes
| down daily for rather extensive maintenance(cost justified by
| scale).
|
| Few people knows what oils for cars is. No way they can
| readily transition into verifying electronic tag signal
| integrity reports for every individual traffic cones in the
| shed.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Cyclist here, I only communicate with motorists by means of
| rude hand gestures... V2V should still help to avoid phantom
| traffic jams, but really I wish all that tech in cars could
| block motorists from overtaking cyclist without a safe distance
| to the cyclist or when they actually want to take a turn with
| their car that would cross the cyclists path going straight
| ahead.
| wiredfool wrote:
| I have to keep reminding myself to use the 5 finger wave
| instead of 1.
|
| But they didn't signal, they came from nowhere, blah blah.
| There's only one hand sign drivers recognize.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Take more space if you need it for whatever reason is what
| I recommend to other cyclists. Dooring is a big issue, and
| motorists overtaking in blind corners, narrow steets or
| when you want to turn left. See the marks on the road where
| the outer tyre of vehicles leave there mark? That's the
| line a cyclist should ride on.
| lupusreal wrote:
| When I ride my bike on the street, I exercise an
| abundance of caution and assume all cars are out to kill
| me (through negligence if not outright malice.). But some
| cyclists seem to have another mentality, where if they
| merely do as they're supposed to while exercising their
| rights then they are personally in the clear. _Why should
| I avoid that busy multi-lane road, I have as much right
| to it as the cars. They 're the ones that suck._ True in
| the legal sense, but being in the right won't unsquish
| me.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Motorists will try to squish through if you give them
| just a little too much space. Please do no cycle with
| just a foot of space towards the side of the road as this
| is always an invitation for motorists to overtake when
| it's not safe.
| bdamm wrote:
| Generally, it's the right thing to do, but sometimes it
| leads to motorists feeling that you're in their space and
| getting angry about it. They simply don't recognize your
| place on the road. There is no easy answer other than an
| abundance of space for small (e.g. bikes, euc, e-scooter)
| vehicles.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| They'll just have to learn to deal with that.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| Or they get angry and make aggressive maneuvers that put
| you and others at greater risk. Yes, motorists should
| just get used to sharing the road with cyclists, but
| reality is usually a compromise between what is the
| theoretically safest option vs what is the safest
| practical option given the current road conditions and
| the skill of surrounding drivers.
| beeboobaa3 wrote:
| That's for their insurance to deal with.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Their insurance isn't going to bring you back to life
| after they hit you.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| My friend used to carry a copy of the driving regulations
| and confront motorists who got angry when he took up a
| lane. Obviously though this doesn't scale (either time or
| quantity wise).
| rangestransform wrote:
| If drivers are angry at me, at least they see me
| andrepd wrote:
| Eh, you're looking at it the wrong way. Would you walk in the
| highway or in the middle of a 4-lane road? No, because
| there's 3 ton vehicles there speeding around. Ergo you need
| proper separated infrastructure: sidewalks, etc.
|
| Likewise, why would you ride a bicycle there? You need proper
| separated infrastructure, i.e. a segregated bike lane.
|
| There's more than enough space for that, but drivers scream
| bloody murder if you take away one of their 8 lanes to make a
| bike lane or a proper sidewalk or a speed bump or whatever
| (even though this would actually ease congestion for cars!)
| Myrmornis wrote:
| Motorists need to understand that they cannot use their horn
| in close proximity of a cyclist, even if it is "at" a cyclist
| who has annoyed them. The noise is much louder when you're
| not inside a car, and it causes such a jolt that it's easy to
| lose control of the bike or stray into a road position you
| shouldn't be occupying.
| efields wrote:
| /s/cyclist/person/
|
| But yes horns are for car-to-car.
| jajko wrote:
| Yes and no. For sure, they are dangerous to hearing and can
| easily provoke bad reflexive reactions that bypass our
| evaluation.
|
| But - where I live, good 80-90% of cyclists on the roads
| are absolutely mad a-holes, and I try desperately not using
| more appropriate words. Red light with all traffic stopped
| doesn't exist for them. Unfortunately they are part of road
| traffic on many places, even though some good additional
| cycling lanes appeared recently.
|
| I've personally as pedestrian have been almost hit 2x by
| cyclist going above 30-40kmh who zoomed through crowd of
| pedestrian crossing without even touching breaks, on red
| light. He drove not further than say 5cm from me, felt
| quite powerful wind wave he generated. This can easily end
| up in me being dead or permanently crippled (wife worked at
| emergency and they had exactly same case few years ago, the
| 40 year old pedestrian hit by cyclist on red light came in
| full consciousness, was dead within 2 days).
|
| If you have such a person doing very dangerous stuff,
| rather than quietly tolerating and enabling him/her, horn
| is way more appropriate if it can make a positive
| difference. And as a car driver I've seen _so_ many cases
| like that. I 've seen probably drunken cyclist trying to
| smash kick side mirrors of cars stuck in traffic jam.
|
| Just to be clear, I talk about Switzerland here. But not
| places are created equal - Geneva in this case is literally
| on french border from 3 sides, has tons of french folks
| living in it and even much more commute daily for work
| there. Suffice to say, Geneva has absolutely horrible
| traffic of all types compared to rest of the country (plus
| also highest crime).
|
| Bikes should be on dedicated lanes, if Dutch or Danes can
| do it and managed to put it into tightly built medieval
| cities, many others can too. Then all the power to you
| guys. But mixing with traffic where every cyclist is an
| hard-to-avoid obstacle, on very narrow roads, thats recipe
| for many unhappy participants and some bad situations. In
| US this should be easier since every city US road I've ever
| seen is absolutely massively wide, often equivalent of 2
| lanes here.
| amrocha wrote:
| Think about what you're saying here because you know
| you're wrong.
|
| Confirmation bias everywhere.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| >But - where I live, good 80-90% of cyclists on the roads
| are absolutely mad a-holes
|
| Maybe because you have to be one to have the courage to
| share the streets with inattentive car, scooters and
| moped drivers, and don't forget pedestrians who walk
| around like zombies looking at their phones.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > But - where I live, good 80-90% of cyclists on the
| roads are absolutely mad a-holes
|
| You have a 2-4 ton hunk of machinery that's oozing safety
| features designed to destroy every part of itself,
| including all of it, in order that you survive. In
| contrast: I have a bike. Who do you think comes out worse
| if our two selves collide?
|
| Next time you're going on the road, park your persecution
| complex.
| amrocha wrote:
| Horns should be as loud inside the car as outside of it
| Bhilai wrote:
| Since we are generalizing.
|
| Runner here, I only communicate with cyclists by means of
| rude hand gestures because cyclists think they own the road
| and leave no room for pedestrians. At the stop sign near my
| house, not one cyclist slows down or stops and infact many
| have yelled at me when I am running across. V2V probably wont
| solve this problem but I wish cyclists start to yield to
| pedestrians and stay a safe distance away from us runners
| because we dont want to get hit by cyclist folks.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Honestly, as a runner I have a similar problem with _other_
| pedestrians. So many people walk in groups of three plus
| abreast taking up the entire sidewalk, pay no attention
| whatsoever to whether anyone else is on the sidewalk coming
| their way, and even single people stray back and forth
| wandering in a zig zag pattern, wearing noise-canceling
| earphones, and won 't look up from their screen, making it
| all but impossible to safely pass them except by luck.
|
| Nobody has common courtesy and they all think they own the
| road. Everyone. It isn't just drivers. But drivers are
| nonetheless the most dangerous because they're operating
| heavy machinery that kills you on impact.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| Its also a problem on the roads for cars/motorcycles; 4+
| lanes wide, with a car in each lane going 3mph under the
| speed limit totally oblivious to the world around them,
| as traffic piles up behind them.
|
| Common courtesy should be a more important component of
| the whole education process.
| TomK32 wrote:
| Hehe, luckily I'm both a cyclist and a runner. I am quite
| annoyed by fellow cyclists who ride on sidewalks but I
| understand that many don't feel safe on roads that I
| consider a nice sprint segment despite (or because of) lots
| of fast moving cars around me when I try to beat that
| Strava KOM...
|
| It's a lot about subjective safety feeling: Many cyclists
| feel safer on sidewalks, runners feel safer without
| cyclists, scooters and cars around them and motorists feel
| quite safe all the time in their metal box. Separating
| traffic, slowing down cars in towns and cities is the only
| way forward and even though it might seem very slow going
| or even small reversals like in Spain are taking place: It
| will happen within our lifetime.
| philamonster wrote:
| Former bike messenger in large eastern US cities in late
| 90's/early 2000's here, just started commuting by bike this
| summer again after having not done so since probably late
| 2000's. I have mostly MTB'd the last decade or so.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/29/upshot/traffi.
| ..
|
| https://archive.ph/M2yod
|
| It is a totally different world on US roads these days. There
| is so much dumb shit I've done on a bike in my 20's that I
| refuse to tell my kids about and that makes me cringe
| thinking how lucky I have been and after about 2 weeks of
| commuting this summer I have abandoned that dream and instead
| choose to ride where the cars can't go. I am fortunate to
| have access to a massive trail system outside my front door
| but will avoid as much vehicle interaction as I can here on
| out. Aside from the crazy, impatient drivers there are so
| many other ways you can get destroyed by a massively
| oversized car or truck that the distracted driver can barely
| see out of. Not to mention the erosion of trust that people
| are going to actually behave on the roads, as illustrated in
| the above article. Riding on city streets was always
| something that put my faith in other humans to the test and
| since I already know the answer, the safest thing one could
| do is to simply remove yourself from the equation.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| For real. Biking for a commute in the United States should
| come with hazard pay. So many drivers just absolutely, from
| the word go, hate cyclists with a burning passion. And the
| best you can hope for outside of that, is benign neglect,
| and since you don't pose the same threat a 3-ton suburban
| does to their suburban, they just don't look for you and
| don't give a shit where you are. I've been nearly hit so
| many times, and not in the way you think: it's low-speed
| stuff where someone is trying to make a turn out of a
| driveway, or backing out of their own, or waiting to go
| left across busy traffic, and they're so focused on looking
| for cars that pedestrians and bikes just fade into the
| background.
|
| And I know I'll probably get some dickhead typing an angry
| reply about how one time a cyclist didn't obey a stop sign
| or something and therefore we're the scum of the road fit
| only to coat the tread of his tires, but just like, this is
| not the same goddamn situation. I'm moving about a hundred
| pounds of light metal and rubber, and you're moving between
| 2 and 4 tons of machinery. Fuck off with this ridiculous
| equivalence.
| Alupis wrote:
| Cyclists need to do a better job following the conventions
| and laws of the road. That would, on its own, dramatically
| increase safety of riders.
|
| Cyclists are pretty much the least predictable "vehicle" on
| the road.
|
| Are we a car today and following the laws? Or are we going to
| blaze right through that red light intersection because we're
| a bike! We're so close to a new Strava PR, after all! Sudden
| left turn across traffic - look out for me, I don't even look
| over my shoulder!
| mtwshngtn wrote:
| Drivers need to do a better job following the conventions
| and laws of the road. The number of times that a driver has
| merged into my bike lane to make a right hand turn without
| checking over their shoulder (or merging into me on
| purpose, if they're in a killing mood) is (metaphorically)
| uncountable. And no, only checking your mirror doesn't
| count! You reduce your blind spot if you actually turn your
| head, which is why you have to turn your head in your
| driver's license exam!
|
| I have been pushed off the road by a Tesla merging into a
| right turn lane -- a vehicle with a million sensors that
| should have been screaming at its driver. My friend, who
| was on a bicycle and following the conventions and laws of
| the road, was killed by a driver making a right hand turn.
|
| Many states (in the US) have minimum safe passing distances
| required for drivers to adhere to when passing a bicycle.
| Maybe 90% of the time (anecdotally, in very liberal-
| leaning, bike-heavy areas of the Bay Area in California!)
| they don't. And so in return, we take the lane (as we are
| permitted to do, by law), and pissed-off motorists try to
| kill us.
| Alupis wrote:
| These things also happen to motorcycle riders.
|
| The biggest difference is motorcycle riders don't ride in
| the bike lane until suddenly and without warning they pop
| into the road lane and ride straight through stop signs
| and red lights.
|
| Cyclists are often the plague of the road. Can't decide
| if they want to be treated like a real vehicle, or a
| pedestrian. They often choose both, whichever being
| convenient for them at the time. This often leads to the
| interactions you have described.
|
| Can cars be better around cyclists? Sure, without any
| doubts. But... cyclists need to do better around cars
| too. After all, the cyclist will always lose that fight.
| occz wrote:
| It's extremely poor form to victim blame cyclists. Cars are
| the killers in the equation, and cars are the problem.
| Alupis wrote:
| A cyclist rides through a red light (as they frequently
| do) and gets hit by a car - car's problem?
|
| I think not.
| occz wrote:
| I highly doubt that the source of cyclists being killed
| is to any significant fraction from them running red
| lights. Feel free to provide a factual basis for the
| claim.
| waterhouse wrote:
| Some googling yielded: https://www.bikeattorney.com/bike-
| accident-common-causes.htm... 18 percent
| - driver failed to see cyclist 24 percent - cyclist
| ran a red light or failed to stop for a stop sign
| 22 percent - driver or passenger opened a car door into
| an oncoming cyclist
| Alupis wrote:
| 24% is quite significant indeed.
|
| It is arguable the 22% caused by open car doors is also
| negligence on the cyclist's part. Riding that fast and
| that close to doors that may or may not suddenly open
| without warning is negligent. It would be akin to a lane-
| splitting motorcyclist failing to anticipate someone
| might change lanes without warning during heavy traffic.
| ctidd wrote:
| Putting the blame on cyclists for dooring requires
| missing problems up the chain which cause them to be in
| the door zone. Road designs (marked bike lanes that are
| 80% or more in the door zone) and automotive traffic
| overtaking unsafely are two contributors that directly or
| indirectly push cyclists into an unsafe space.
|
| To ride out of the door zone in many cases requires
| taking the lane and riding outside of a marked bicycle
| lane, if present. Cyclists can and should do this, but it
| is no surprise that many don't, and it is no surprise
| that drivers complain of those who do.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| >the 22% caused by open car doors is also negligence on
| the cyclist's part.
|
| disagree. the most typical bike lane in America is
| nicknamed "dooring lane" - a painted lane that forces
| cyclists to ride in the dooring zone. As for speed, I've
| been stopped at a light and had a parked driver open
| their door into me without even looking. If riding next
| to parked cars is dangerous, then it's the street
| designers who are to blame.
| isthatafact wrote:
| The problem could be avoided if the intersection had
| cameras able to notice the approaching bicycle and give
| it a green light.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I see bicycle cops riding on the sidewalk on the wrong side
| of the road as if they were entirely ignorant of the law
| around bicycles. If they were chasing suspects or some
| other urgency I'd let it slide but often they seem to just
| be out for a spin.
|
| I've had cyclists collide with me as a pedestrian and run
| right into parked cars because they aren't looking where
| they are going. Way too many of them think that everybody
| is responsible for their safety except for them.
| hoosieree wrote:
| This happened during my morning commute _today_ :
|
| Another cyclist and I stop at a stop sign, him waiting to
| turn left, I waiting to turn right, onto a main road (which
| notably does not have a stop sign).
|
| A car traveling straight on the main road comes to a
| complete stop and waves at us cyclists with a "go ahead"
| hand gesture. We remain stopped, because the car has right
| of way.
|
| Meanwhile there's a small traffic jam forming on the main
| street as some maintenance vehicles are waiting for the car
| to move so they can turn onto the side street. If us
| cyclists were to follow the car driver's "instructions" we
| would have to violate right-of-way for multiple flows of
| traffic.
|
| Finally the car driver gets fed up at everyone else's
| insistence on following the law. Makes a rude gesture,
| shakes their head, and continues straight. The maintenance
| guys can finally turn, then the bikes.
|
| I guess my point is: car drivers need to do a better job of
| following the conventions and laws of the road.
| Alupis wrote:
| You're hinting at one of my personal pet peeves - people
| who make up new road "conventions" then insist everyone
| else follow them... which usually leads to less-safe
| situations, exactly like you have described here.
|
| This includes people who put on their hazard lights when
| slowing down in traffic on the freeway. The entire world
| has decided brake lights are the universal signal for
| slowing down and/or stopping - yet these knuckle heads
| think that's not enough. So they do unexpected things and
| unintentionally create more unsafe conditions where
| people might not understand what's going on and try to go
| around thinking it's a disabled vehicle, etc.
|
| In general, people need to stick to the well-defined and
| accepted rules and conventions of the road. That's how
| everyone stays safe.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| >Cyclists need to do a better job following the conventions
| and laws of the road.
|
| I cannot but believe that every person that says that has
| never done any significant cycling on an urban area. If
| you're riding a bike you don't need to do a "stop" and
| every sign, (note that I said "need" not "should") just pay
| attention and slow down as needed, same as red lights.
| Stopping means wasted energy but you also have to remember
| that you are the one losing in ANY crash, doesn't matter if
| you're right or not.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The V2V killer app for most people is a device they can put
| in their house that will make drivers slow down in their
| neighborhood.
|
| For cyclists it is a device that makes your bike have the
| electronic image of a huge oversize truck and escort vehicles
| or a whole battalion of Hell's Angels or something.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I rode a scooter in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, for about six months.
| It was fascinating because the road traffic controls are largely
| ignored, in favour of communicating via body language with the
| vast numbers of other scooters around you, pretty much treating
| the odd car as a stationary obstacle. There's also a strong
| feeling of "we're all in this together and we co-operate to keep
| things moving and get where we need to go".
|
| Crossing the road there is a matter of slowly and clearly walking
| into oncoming traffic, trusting that they will stop or go around
| you [0]. It kinda works the same on a scooter - you slowly and
| clearly do the utterly illegal thing that you want to do, and
| everyone will stop for you or go around you. Riding the wrong way
| up one-way streets, or on the wrong side of the road, is common
| and perfectly safe as long as you take it slow and keep your eyes
| open.
|
| I think this concept of clear communication works better than the
| conventional system of road traffic controls. IIRC there have
| been tests done in the UK where removing road traffic controls
| led to people slowing down and communicating their intentions
| more, with greater flowthrough and reduced collisions.
|
| Automating this will be interesting. Yes it'll probably work, and
| accidents will be reduced. But it moves us further into making
| the act of driving illegal. If we are all safer when the robots
| drive, then it's reasonable for humans to be disallowed from
| driving. But is the world a better place if we don't drive our
| own cars any more?
|
| [0] I have had to explain this to very confused German tourists a
| few times. "The light is green for me to walk, why are they not
| stopping?" cries a worldview being shattered.
| zarzavat wrote:
| The reason it works in asia is because people drive slower - by
| necessity. You can't barrel down one of those chaotic streets
| at 30mph, you'll kill someone. You need to slow down to deal
| with all the chaos.
|
| We can have the same advantages in the west while still keeping
| the rules-based system, by making roads narrower.
| femto wrote:
| If you want to know where this is heading, keep an eye on the
| fortunes of Cohda Wireless.
|
| https://www.cohdawireless.com/
|
| Cohda was started in 2004 by three very smart Information
| Theorists (Grant, Alexander, Rasmussen), who basically solved the
| problem of how to get a WiFi/OFDM signal to/from a vehicle moving
| at speed through a built up city. The company name is Ad Hoc, as
| in Ad Hoc network, spelled backwards. Cohda's original version
| was effectively a preprocessor between the WiFi and the antenna,
| that tamed the multipath channel. Back then they had some
| impressive coverage maps of the Adelaide CBD, whereby plain WiFi
| struggled to get coverage in a 100m radius, whilst the Codah
| system had seamless coverage out to about 1km. They were (and
| still are?) the leaders in this space.
| danw1979 wrote:
| YC summer '28 entry: V2X-connected kids shoes, that constantly
| broadcast the position and heading of your child to nearby
| traffic.
| andrepd wrote:
| Anything but addressing the underlying issue of car-centric
| city design!
| truculent wrote:
| If we want a system that produces safe and effective motor
| transportation with increasing automation, we should probably
| look at air travel, which is both remarkably safe and uses a
| large degree of automation.
|
| How would the air travel regulators evaluate this proposal? How
| does this compare to similar methods in air travel?
| batch12 wrote:
| Maybe these cars could get their own lanes, or better yet,
| tracks...
| furyg3 wrote:
| It's kind of crazy to me that we focus on things like this, which
| would only work for the most modern of new cars, but don't focus
| on other, simple things.
|
| In many European countries all cars need to undergo a yearly road
| worthiness check. So not just the emissions checks, but also the
| lights, tires, brakes, seatbelts, shocks, steering, and other
| basic things. It seems like such a system (even every 2 or 5
| years) would result in major reductions in accidents and injuries
| and be applicable across all cars.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Some states in the US (comparable to countries in europe) do do
| this (my state included)
| Wissenschafter wrote:
| Yes, let's just focus on small stuff we already do instead of
| the big elephant in the room of automated cars with less human
| error...
|
| Sometimes I can't even on this website with supposedly some of
| the smartest folks.
| oneplane wrote:
| > Yes, let's just focus on small stuff we already do
|
| No, you don't
|
| > automated cars with less human error.
|
| The comment you replied to already noted that this has no
| effect on existing cars, of which many magnitudes more exist
| than automated cars (those do not exist on the road, not to
| the degree that is proposed).
|
| > Sometimes I can't even on this website with supposedly some
| of the smartest folks.
|
| Oh, the irony.
| Wissenschafter wrote:
| >Oh, the irony.
|
| Yes, quite funny. The claim is absurd. Cars communicating
| with each other is feasible even for older vehicles.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Very interested in how you would suppose this works.
| Diti wrote:
| Wild guess, but probably with a transponder:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder
| Wissenschafter wrote:
| Every driver has a cellphone in their pocket, I'm sure
| it's more than possible to integrate people with modern
| vehicles in a mesh net to older vehicles by using an app
| or something. It's not hard to think about, c'mon now.
| What website am I on ffs?
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| The problem is reliability. The cellphone is not
| constantly connected to a network, depending on its
| location, battery, age of electronics, software
| updates,... You would need a system that works with a
| mesh with holes. Not much better than today's situation i
| would guess.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Yes, why bother with incremental change that's already
| possible and well understood when we can go all-in on a
| technology that's not yet proven and will require cars to get
| _even more_ expensive and complicated.
|
| This is the same thinking that got everyone chasing
| "Hyperloop" pixie dust instead of just putting in the work to
| build high speed rail.
| justin66 wrote:
| > It seems like such a system (even every 2 or 5 years) would
| result in major reductions in accidents and injuries
|
| I bet such a system's impact would be _vanishingly_ small and
| the money would be better spent elsewhere. Certainly not
| "major reductions." I'm not sure it's a terrible idea - we're
| bringing cars in for emissions checks anyway so sure, check the
| seatbelts for some reason - but let's not pretend it's going to
| do much.
|
| It would be strange but weirdly reassuring to learn that almost
| all auto accidents are not caused by carelessness,
| recklessness, drunkenness, impatience and general incompetence.
| That they are caused by... neglect of routine maintenance. That
| would be very far from the world we are living in.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| I actually think it would have an astonishingly high effect.
| It would reduce the number of cars on the road without proper
| maintenance, which would generally correlate with drivers who
| don't care enough to prioritize their vehicle's condition
| (and therefore other's safety).
|
| The second order effect might be very strong.
|
| That being said, this will never happen because in America
| without a car you (avg. american) lose nearly all your
| ability to contribute to the economy and navigate your
| surroundings. We can barely align on taking licenses away
| from people who kill pedestrians in direct fault accidents
| [1]
|
| 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/friends-
| identify-v...
| mcgrath_sh wrote:
| Some states already require annual inspections, Pennsylvania
| being one of them.
| justin66 wrote:
| Yeah. My state includes an OBDII emissions check which
| catches a lot of non-emissions related things.
| bluGill wrote:
| The average car on the road is 12 years old. So if we make a
| change today the average car will have it in 12 years, and the
| majority a few years latter. This isn't instant, but it is fast
| enough if the change is good.
| iAMkenough wrote:
| Seems "simple" until you start thinking about the logistics of
| an equitable federal mandate and the US (not European) legal
| and political challenges it would have to find a way to work
| around.
|
| We can't even do something as "simple" as make election day a
| national holiday to make sure everyone has time to participate.
| yabones wrote:
| This won't work. None of the "safety technology" we've added in
| the last decade has worked. Not that the individual subsystems
| don't work effectively on their own, but that the entire vehicle
| is becoming a less safe place.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
|
| There's two main contributing factors, weight and distraction.
|
| Weight is easy to tell by looking around. More people than ever
| are driving around in huge SUVs and pickup trucks.
|
| But the bigger issue is distracted driving. The _majority_ of
| other drivers I see are on their phones while moving. Almost
| everybody is checking their phones at intersections. And those
| that aren 't have another distraction, the big tablets built into
| their cars, the use of which is required to change trivial
| settings.
|
| Adding more tech won't solve this. Only removing and limiting its
| use will roll back this trend.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Couple of comments on that chart: 1. It doesn't account for
| miles travelled 2. I see a downward trend since the 1970s with
| a bit of variation and a recent "lockdown peak".
|
| I'm just not seeing an increasing trend overall. There was
| certainly a notable increase from 2013 to 2016, but that's
| about all you could say. You'd need 2023-2024 data to see if
| the recent increase was due to lockdowns.
| JBorrow wrote:
| At some level this is an almost uniquely American problem;
| see similar statistics here from Great Britain:
| https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-
| casua..., Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo
| tor_vehicle_deaths_i... which have been dropping rapidly
| since the 1970s. So, relative to other very similar
| countries, the U.S. is doing much worse.
| bfrog wrote:
| These countries also presumably enforce stricter licensing
| laws, charge appropriately for driving urban tanks
| (American pick ups), and actually enforce some traffic laws
| with serious consequences not a slap on the wrist with
| inexpensive tickets.
| davedx wrote:
| Distractions are often the safety systems themselves! Over the
| last 4 years, my Model 3 has progressively started beeping and
| chiming more and more at me, taking over my steering because it
| thinks I'm drifting out of my lane when I'm trying to actually
| change lanes, chimes because it thinks I'm going to run over a
| pedestrian or crash when there's actually a bend in the road -
| every year there is more of this and none of it works reliably.
| Other cars are similar but different.
|
| I dread what cars are slowly turning into. Yet most people are
| still myopically focused on the drawbacks of touchscreens
| instead of hardware knobs.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| _> taking over my steering because it thinks I 'm drifting
| out of my lane when I'm trying to actually change lanes_
|
| Isn't this avoided by using your turn signal?
|
| That's how Mazda's works
| hunter2_ wrote:
| That's how VW works as well, when the next lane is clear.
| But if you're on a collision course according to the blind
| spot monitoring system, a turn signal won't suppress
| anything and temporarily makes for what feels like extra-
| aggressive lane keep. This is great if you failed to notice
| the other vehicle, but it does maintain a bit more buffer
| than some practiced weavers would find necessary (like
| during a lane change that would be cutting someone off if
| not for sufficient acceleration to produce a reasonable gap
| albeit on the late side).
| mmastrac wrote:
| Are you admitting to weaving in and out of other traffic?
| That is insanely dangerous and I've been nearly hit by
| drivers like this repeatedly over the years.
|
| Maybe there's a good reason the safety system of the car
| is fighting you on this
| hunter2_ wrote:
| No. I've experienced this (insufficient gap for BSM to be
| satisfied) during collision avoidance maneuvers where a
| lane change of this nature was the better option than
| getting smashed, and based on that experience, I can
| realize that weavers would mistakenly think LKA is
| repeatedly interfering with lane changes (a bad thing)
| when it's actually BSM doing so (a good thing).
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| I have a very different experience with my 22 Golf GTI.
| When I'm on the highway I use ACC with max following
| distance and lanekeep enabled. I know what all of the
| safety systems feel like and I never encounter them if I
| have the blinker on before I enter the ACC's zone and the
| 'car in front of you' indicator turns opaque.
|
| I also like that if I am following someone slow with ACC
| it starts to accelerate the very second that I turn on
| the blinker so I can start passing. My old car would make
| you wait until it could read that the lane was clear.
|
| The only system that I objectively dont like is the
| 'travel assist' (lane centering) because I do not like
| the lane position that it prefers.
| beAbU wrote:
| Yeah I think GP is inadvertently admitting that they don't
| use indicators.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Classic Tesla owner.
| screcth wrote:
| It's really important that drivers can control their car
| at all times. Software should not override control
| because it "thinks" that you are making a mistake.
|
| This seems like a recipe for disaster when you are in a
| situation in which you need to respond quickly to an
| unexpected circumstance.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I can't speak to every car, but my experience is the
| lanekeeping assist applies very little force to the wheel
| and if you're making any sort of emergency maneuver
| you'll go straight through it and feel a slight bump
| warning you that the car thinks you're crossing the line.
| If you push against it at all it doesn't stop you. Maybe
| it even stops trying to apply force entirely if you
| resist its initial nudge.
|
| I thought it might be annoying when I first got a car
| with LKA, but I've yet to have any complaints about it.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Some people only use their turn signal when other people
| are around.
|
| I think that's an odd behavior. As far as I'm concerned,
| using the signal is just as much of part of a lane change
| as is turning the wheel. Be in the habit of using it
| _every time_ and you 'll never forget it.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| The other thing about only using your turn signal when
| other people are around, is that what you're actually
| doing is using your turn signal when you're _aware_ of
| other people being around.
|
| Especially as a pedestrian I think a lot of drivers are
| basically blind to your existence and then don't bother
| to signal turns because if they don't notice you then why
| would they need to warn anyone of what they're about to
| do with their 6000 pound metal box? And besides, are
| pedestrians _really_ people anyway?
| bdamm wrote:
| In my Model 3, when I use my turn signal this does not
| happen. Also, it can be disabled. And I could hardly say that
| the gentle tug is "taking over the steering", it's more like
| a nudge.
|
| In my experience it does sometimes make errors, but it also
| sometimes makes very good assistance, so much so that I've
| come to depend on it. Have you ever noticed that the dings
| and chimes are much more frequent when you're looking away
| from the road?
| uoaei wrote:
| Please use your turn signals.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > taking over my steering because it thinks I'm drifting out
| of my lane when I'm trying to actually change lanes
|
| Rather than being like other commenters telling you to use
| your turn signals, I'm going to take another approach. I'm
| going to ask.
|
| _Why aren 't_ you using your turn signals?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| People just love trucks that are practically purpose built to
| kill pedestrians and motorcyclists.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU
|
| Thank you Ryan from Fortnine.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Gigantic trucks save the lives of people stuck on the kidney
| waitlist.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| There are people that love high trucks like that and simply
| _do not care_ that it makes their truck more dangerous to
| others just for their own aesthetic preferences. It 's simply
| not their problem. Some would even claim the added danger is
| a _feature_ that incentivizes others to stay out of their
| way.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| > None of the "safety technology" we've added in the last
| decade has worked
|
| Forward Collision-Avoidance systems really great.
| jiveturkey wrote:
| i disable mine. 100% false positives. agree though, great for
| the masses.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| You might be an aggressive driver. haha
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Eh, phantom braking is definitely a problem. It's gotten
| _better_ , for sure, but I've definitely had times where
| there was nothing within 1/4 mile in front of me on the
| highway and suddenly it slammed the brakes.
|
| When I first got my Tesla in 2019, there was one specific
| overpass that I would go under during my commute that
| seemed to have a ~20% chance of triggering automatic
| emergency braking. I got into the habit of preparing to
| stomp the throttle which would override AEB.
|
| Luckily, a software update came out a few months in that
| seemed to fix that specific case. Now, I've done 1,300
| mile road trips that didn't have a single phantom braking
| incident.
| dopylitty wrote:
| Except they barely work for cars[0] and don't work at all for
| pedestrians[1]
|
| 0: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/09/braking-bad-automatic-
| emerg...
|
| 1: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a26469713/iihs-testing-
| suv...
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| They work very well on cars[0]
|
| 0: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/09/braking-bad-automatic-
| emerg...
| cmiller1 wrote:
| I've experienced this in a Subaru CrossTrek, several times
| while driving down back roads it started beeping at me
| "OBSTACLE DETECTED" and then slammed on the brakes when there
| was nothing in front of me.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Back roads meaning dirt roads? Could it be the cameras
| mistaking dust for an obstacle?
| WinstonSmith84 wrote:
| > But the bigger issue is distracted driving
|
| Certainly right, but staying focused while driving in countries
| with a lot of speed traps is impossible. You put your limiter,
| move at a snail pace and it's truly boring (for experienced
| drivers - not experienced drivers will be alert and stressed
| and that's maybe good). As an experienced driver, you either
| fall asleep or you just use your smartphone or whatever
| verzali wrote:
| If you are seriously getting that bored when driving then I'm
| sorry, but you should not be on the road. You are a danger to
| everyone around you. It's incredible that you think you need
| to drive fast or you'll fall asleep.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Crazy stuff. Why is there an expectation that driving should
| be "not boring"? How do you think people handled this boredom
| before smartphones?
| jcranmer wrote:
| If you are tempted to fall asleep or distract yourself while
| driving, you are not an experienced driver. Part of the
| experience one needs to gain as a driver is how to keep the
| necessary focus for driving, or at the very least,
| recognizing that maintaining that focus is impossible and
| therefore _not driving_.
|
| If driving the appropriate speed is difficult for you to do
| undistracted, then you need to find ways to improve your
| driving skills instead of blaming the law for saying that
| you're a bad driver.
| diggan wrote:
| > This won't work. None of the "safety technology" we've added
| in the last decade has worked. Not that the individual
| subsystems don't work effectively on their own, but that the
| entire vehicle is becoming a less safe place.
|
| It looks like this is a US-specific issue, which isn't really
| highlighted in your comment. In other countries, it seems like
| the "motor vehicle fatality rate" has decreased for the last
| decade, some years more than others. The three other countries
| I checked were Australia, Japan and Iceland, as those had
| comparable pages on Wikipedia as the one you linked:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Motor+vehicle...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| You're making conclusions that are completely unsupported by
| your arguments. You say "none of the 'safety technology' we've
| added in the last decade has worked.", but then go on to lament
| the deaths caused by rising vehicle weights, and distracted
| driving, primarily on cell phones.
|
| But most of the safety tech introduced in the last 10 years (or
| at least that is much more prevalent in the last 10 years) are
| things like collision avoidance systems, mandatory backup
| cameras, lane change warnings, etc., that have nothing to do
| with weight nor distracted driving.
|
| Yes, I agree increasing vehicle weights and distracted driving
| are a huge problem. But then saying "Adding more tech won't
| solve this. Only removing and limiting its use will roll back
| this trend." is a completely unwarranted conclusion.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > There's two main contributing factors, weight and
| distraction.
|
| We cant ignore reckless drivers. Since COVID I noticed a large
| trend in people strait up not giving a damn about anyone and
| driving as fast and recklessly as they can. EVERY SINGLE DAY I
| see street racing on the highway in traffic, speeding, large
| SUV's bullying smaller cars, people chasing each other in
| either road rage incidents or racing, and yes swerving around
| as if they're the only one on the road while playing with
| phones - utterly insane behavior. I have to drive with eyes in
| the back of my head.
|
| Just last week a co-worker witnessed someone driving over 100
| MPH on a highway with a 50/55 MPH limit while throwing trash
| out the sunroof and then trying to squeeze between two cars
| that were in his royal highness' way. They didn't fit, side
| swiped one of the cars, lost control and caused a severe
| accident he was almost involved in.
|
| The same week another coworker was forced off the highway by a
| big stupid jeep who he saw make eye contact with him but didn't
| care and forced him to swerve onto the grass shoulder.
|
| What the hell is going on in these peoples heads? Why is there
| so much selfish bravado? Why all the bullying? Why are we
| forced to be victims to these clowns? Why is no one doing
| anything about this?
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Were they a Nissan, dodge, or Chrysler driver? I've noticed
| drivers of these three brands are extra terrible, and the RAM
| 1500 has the highest (by far) DUI rate for any vehicle.
|
| If you drive any of those brands I will treat you like a
| maniac, and I'm usually right.
| MisterTea wrote:
| In my neck of the woods the obnoxious car crowd is
| comprised of slammed shit boxes which are mainly BMW
| followed by Infinity with a smattering of Honda and Lexus.
| The rest are morons with Mustangs/Chargers/Camaros - all
| the same car really and my friend calls all of them a
| Charlstamaro.
|
| For the SUV crowd you have jacked up jeeps with "angry eye"
| body kits along with a mix of pickups from the major 3 and
| the asshats in Escalades.
|
| Any BMW is to be avoided.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| That chart doesn't say what you think it says
|
| Fatalities per mile and injuries per mile are down, and the
| safety/security systems are strictly net benefits. Americans
| are driving more than in the past and in more vehicles. The
| real issue is that Americans do t give a shit anymore, are
| distracted as hell, and in general trust in society has
| declined. Low trust societies have insane road cultures, and
| the decaying state of the average driver is a reflection on the
| decaying state of Anerica trust in society.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Driver monitoring is the next big win, but people will not like
| it. More likely to be rolled out somewhere pragmatic / illiberal
| like China.
| rangestransform wrote:
| I will not buy anything that tries to impede me from doing what
| I want with it
| dddddaviddddd wrote:
| If this reduces vehicle-vehicle collisions, that will be an
| improvement. However, much more needs to be done to prevent
| pedestrian-vehicle and cyclist-vehicle collisions, and installing
| transceivers in pedestrians is not a realistic option.
| Clent wrote:
| Pedestrians don't need a transceiver installed, they have a
| smartphone and that should be enough.
| Brett_Riverboat wrote:
| Just what my car needs, a government mandated attack vector. As
| if the crap that car companies are already forcing on people isnt
| enough.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| You know what we don't need in our cars? More alerts. Unless my
| car is going to have a Terminator-style HUD to put a red box
| around something that I need to care about, there's only so many
| dings and beeps I can understand while I'm trying to drive. If I
| have to _read an alert_ that a pedestrian is in a crosswalk up
| ahead, it 's immediately getting turned off.
|
| My car already tries to tell me when it thinks I'm about to hit
| someone or someone is about to hit me. By the time I've looked at
| the screen to know, I'd have already hit them.
|
| How many of these warnings will eventually cause alarm overload?
|
| That's not to say I'm opposed to safety tech. I think it's a
| great idea. But there's no way to safely and effectively convey
| all that information to me while I'm already driving. If this
| gets rolled out as planned, I can't see how cars won't be
| constantly dinging and beeping and cause notification blindness,
| negating the whole effort.
| caseysoftware wrote:
| This will be gold for advertisers, insurers, and law enforcement
| agencies.
|
| And poison for anyone who values or needs privacy in any way.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I spent two years building a module for use with intersection
| signal controller firmware (makes light turn red, green, yellow).
| The goal was to make better use of all of this extra data that we
| had. Sensors have improved, and all of this V2I stuff should
| really complete the picture. I poured my soul into that project.
| I really thought a lot about extensibility and ways to make it
| easy to accommodate new data sources. Here we had a chance to not
| shoot ourselves in the foot like we did last time these
| algorithms were visited, back in the 80's.
|
| And then we discovered a memory leak in some vendor's V2I
| component which was supposed to slurp vehicle position data from
| DSRC and feed it to my controller. We couldn't get it to run
| stably in the cabinet, so the whole thing just kind of...
| stopped. Then they put me on some pointless project, so I quit.
| This was 2017.
|
| Last year, I ran across somebody on youtube demoing my project. I
| got in touch, just to say hi, and he asked me for tech support--
| he didn't know how to configure it. I said:
|
| > There's a readme on the SD card, plus an SDK that should get
| you started writing modules for various detector types.
|
| He said:
|
| > What SD card? I see what looks like a memory chip, but it's
| soldered onto the board.
|
| They had told me I was building a research platform, and then
| when it finally ends up in the hands of a researcher, it turns
| out they've changed the hardware to make it useless for research.
| I was so angry. They never wanted to change anything, they just
| wanted some intellectual property that they could use as a
| bargaining chip in some way that had no impact on the
| intersection whatsoever.
|
| This "V2X" business appears to be the updated branding, and it's
| a good idea at its core, but from what I know about the people
| implementing it, I'm not going to get very excited about how
| it'll turn out.
| DCH3416 wrote:
| Is this why I have to wait at intersections with no incoming
| traffic for 2 minutes only to have a platoon of cars show up so
| that they can all stop and I can go
| maxwell wrote:
| Cross like a New Yorker.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| It's hard to say without looking at the controller config.
| Likely the main corridor is running mostly "coordinated"
| meaning that it's ignoring sensor input and just doing
| whatever timing is programmed for that time of day. Then
| there's a little gap in the coordination that only triggers
| if the sensor sees a vehicle.
|
| Older controllers use line voltage for their clocks, so they
| drift much more quickly than you'd expect from, for instance,
| a wristwatch.
|
| So I'd guess that you already had a rather small window in
| the coordination during which you can get service based on
| your sensor, and then the clock drift has put that window in
| the exact worse spot.
|
| But yeah, changing the paradigm from presence-based to
| trajectory-based was the whole point of the project. If we
| could make these things trajectory-aware then there would be
| no need to manually coordinate them and then have that manual
| coordination fall out of sync (even with an accurate time
| source, you've got weather and construction and all kinds of
| other things that throw it off).
| DCH3416 wrote:
| We seem to use fairly modern systems out here. They do
| appear to be programmed in a ripple type green wave
| progression depending on congestion. You'll hit one or two
| reds for every five or six intersections.
|
| The intersection I have in mind has a left turn on it. The
| left turn is not timed and will only cue under two
| conditions: at the opening phase to main traffic, and if
| there is no oncoming traffic for the initial ten (or so)
| seconds. Otherwise it waits until the entire phase is
| complete (with a 120 second timeout) before it resets. At
| night time it will cue almost immediately.
|
| One question that I have though, and you'll have to pardon
| my ignorance. Would it be efficient for intersections to
| always be red until a vehicle approaches? Then only allow X
| number of vehicles before turning red again. Basically
| turning the traffic signal into an "advanced" stop sign,
| with the expectation that you stop by default. Unless the
| system detects there is no cross traffic. Then you can have
| much more rapid phases and it protects against folks racing
| to the next green (red when they arrive) light.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| As a software engineer who worked in support of civil
| engineers 7 years ago, I'm not exactly an expert myself,
| just picked up bits of domain knowledge on the job. And
| yeah, what you're describing re: left turns makes sense.
| I know there's a hybrid mode where you only serve the
| turns if there is demand, but otherwise you're running
| coordinated--but I am not sure about the nuances re: how
| the interplay of those modes actually works.
|
| I expect that there are certain conditions which would
| indeed benefit from what you're describing. Especially if
| the signals could inform one another that a platoon is
| heading that way. On a straight shot under light
| conditions you might end up having to stop only once,
| after which you're now on a path that was coordinated
| precisely for you.
| DCH3416 wrote:
| I've always wanted to run a traffic simulation to see how
| well that type of configuration would work. Because if
| you look at your car's trip computer the average speed
| from stop and go traffic tends to hover around half the
| prevailing speed.
|
| Traffic signals in holland seem to operate similar to how
| I described. I'm just not sure how that would translate
| to somewhere like the US where you have much higher
| traffic volumes and faster (crazier) drivers.
| throw7 wrote:
| There's little to no info on what v2x actually is and does. I
| suppose it's in research, but when the linked pdfs say it's
| proven to work... excuse me while I press x to doubt.
|
| The real problem is the disregard for pedestrian and bike safety
| and I don't see anything in "v2x" that helps the situation. In
| fact, I just see things getting more expensive and a big honking
| security nightmare.
| bedobi wrote:
| This is dumb and will not work and we have known it will not work
| for decades.
|
| Road safety and traffic are solved problems. Look to Tokyo,
| Amsterdam, Copenhagen. TLDR: provide viable alternatives to
| driving to move non-essential vehicles and trips off the roads,
| physically segregate modes, calm traffic and speeds in urban
| spaces etc etc. This is cheap and easy to do and doesn't require
| new technology lol.
|
| It's actually hilarious how much resources, time and energy
| otherwise smart engineers are willing to spend on solving the
| wrong problem. Optimizing intersections algorithms is a great
| example. Intersections are best optimized by not having
| intersections. If there has to be an intersection, make it a
| roundabout to randomize the flow vs the US style start-stop-
| start-stop grid of intersections which is GUARANTEED to gridlock
| BY DESIGN. Let alone that the no 1 thing is to do all the things
| mentioned above to take non-essential vehicles off the road in
| the first place.
| copperx wrote:
| One of my predictions of the future is that once it is shown that
| self driving isn't five nines reliable, countries will start
| installing electronic signals on roads to make self-driving
| reliable. And self driving will only be legal on those roads.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Come and take my analog vehicle, feds, I dare you.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Well can they get cars to dim their headlights and not mess with
| others' collision detection?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-21 23:01 UTC)