[HN Gopher] Tesla to recall vehicles that may disobey stop signs ___________________________________________________________________ Tesla to recall vehicles that may disobey stop signs Author : jjulius Score : 280 points Date : 2022-02-01 16:03 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | natch wrote: | "Recall" lol. They will tweak a behavior in a software update. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Did _anyone_ in Tesla 's Legal Department review the rolling stop | feature? This should have screamed illegal. Heck, I'm no legal | expert but it screams illegal to me. | bdamm wrote: | The responsibility for following the law is still on the | driver. | | If I'm responsible, then I can choose to have the car break the | law on my behalf, and accept the consequences. | rini17 wrote: | Maybe Legal is next on chopping block after QA. | duxup wrote: | I gotta think there are some emails with some engineer "guies | wut?" out there. | | I always wonder how this plays out on a granular level. Some | folks have to be thinking / asking if this is a good idea or | not. | loceng wrote: | This should initiate a conversation into following the spirit | of laws vs. authoritarian rigidity of law without nuance. | | In high school there was only a handful of things I learned | that were actually useful, outside of social experiences. One | of them was a teacher who taught business and law classes. In a | business class he shared with us, first saying he could | probably get fired for telling us this, but that if we had good | ideas, new we had a good idea for a business, then instead of | going to university and getting $40,000+ into debt over 4 years | - get a job and/or apprenticeship and work on your idea. At the | end of that 4 years he suggested you'd be in a much better | position than those who went into higher education; of course | it depends on what someone's goals are. In law class he gave an | example: in some states in the US there are very long stretches | of road where you won't see anyone for awhile, and sometimes | there are traffic lights on a straight road - with no | intersection. He put forward to the question of what do you do | if that traffic light is red when you come up to it? There's | zero vehicles near you in either direction, there's no | intersection to worry about cross-traffic, and so do you stop | and wait for the light to go green, or do you go again even | though it's red? I think every reasonable person would answer | that they would go. E.g. A rolling stop in some circumstances | isn't dangerous for anyone; and I also see police doing it all | the time. | | Of course AI deciding when to do it when it may not yet be | accounting for the whole or an adequate enough of environment | does add questions, and because it's not critical to self- | driving, I believe it's a good idea to not allow it until that | conversation can be thoroughly hashed out, as well as the | technology much more thoroughly tested and evolved. | | Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do with | your time, or some other form of entertainment. | gpderetta wrote: | Similarly airplane pilots should not wait for instructions | from the tower if they can clearly see that the way is clear. | | Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when the | cost of mistakes is death or significant damage | toomuchtodo wrote: | > Simple, binding, easy to follow rules are important when | the cost of mistakes is death or significant damage | | There is nuance. Pilots are the final authority when it | comes to the safety of the craft, and you're in the clear | if your actions were justified. With self driving cars, | we're discussing where the boundaries are and when the | vehicle's decision can take precedence over coarse legal | code (as occurs with human drivers every day). | | https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.3 (14 CFR SS | 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in | command.) | | (private pilot who has deviated from ATC commands in GA | aircraft and had to fill out a written report over a cup of | coffee) | gpderetta wrote: | Of course! And you should definitely run a red light if | staying were you are would put you or other in dangers. | I'm commenting about running a red light just because the | road seems otherwise clear. | anonymousiam wrote: | Bad analogy. When driving, there is no "Tower" with an | overarching view of your situation. | loceng wrote: | And most of the sky for a pilot is a blind spot as planes | they can't currently see can intersect they could easily | and quickly collide. | gpderetta wrote: | Car drivers also have blind spots. See the Constant | bearing, decreasing range problem for example. | kfarr wrote: | In that case, you could say it's even more important for | all individual agents to adhere to a set of clear and | predictable rules. | notreallyserio wrote: | > Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do | with your time, or some other form of entertainment. | | If you must know, I downvoted you because you whines about | downvotes. Sure, I'm lazy, but at least I don't cry about | internet points. | loceng wrote: | And you're being naive or arrogant enough at this moment to | think this is "cry[ing] about internet points." | | Maybe brainstorm as to what the actual implications of the | dopamine hit/easy reward to downvote/suppress content is | vs. simply having an upvote mechanism, and then share your | thoughts and I'd be happy to get into a conversation with | you. It doesn't sound like you've spent the time to | actually extrapolate to the full consequences of the | downvote mechanism. | | Your response here though is one prime example as to why | downvotes for most content types shouldn't exist. That you | spent the tiny effort to click downvote to react to what | you perceived as my "whining" - that that was a strong | enough trigger or annoyance for you emotionally says more | about your emotional regulation than the content of what I | said, likewise by actually commenting you outed yourself or | rather shared your actual qualitative reaction/response - | so now there's an opportunity for a conversation, to | broaden or enhance your understand or perhaps get educated | by seeing things more from my perspective. | | Don't you think having a qualitative response vs. a single | quantitative digit changing to suppress content in an | algorithm is more valuable to you, to society? | | P.S. Upvoted you for commenting. Now maybe your comment | won't be at the bottom, interesting how the "worst" or less | valuable or lowest quality [qualitative] comments naturally | make their way to the bottom - without requiring the | downvote mechanism, isn't it? | | P.P.S It'd be neat if HN/dang would offer a parallel view | of posts, and then in the actual thread view, have 2 | columns of comments - one not influenced by downvotes, and | the other as the status quo - so people can start to | experience and contrast; because AFAIK downvotes/upvotes | aren't available in the API, so a third-party can't develop | this? I'd certainly develop this system if HN's API could | facilitate it. | lamontcg wrote: | You're just encouraging the normalization of deviance. | "Everyone does it". | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o | | You can get away with it a hundred times, or a thousand | times, but eventually you'll be tired and do it and clobber a | pedestrian you didn't see because "you were tired" (so its | not your fault, even though it 100% is). | | Stop thinking the way you do and stop being one of the 88% of | American drivers who think they're above average. Follow the | goddamn rules because you're not 99.99% perfect and its the | .01% that is going to hurt someone else. | | And "I see the police doing it all the time" clearly isn't | the right moral barometer, if you haven't been paying | attention. | loceng wrote: | No, but you're attempting to put words into my mouth. | | You're making assumptions too, it seems, of what scenarios | I believe it's safe for rolling stops to occur - or what | state a person will be in when they're doing it. For | example, I don't drive when I'm very tired, and whether I | am tired at all or not, if weather conditions or if traffic | conditions | | Maybe we shouldn't allow airplanes to been flown anymore | because "you can get away with it a hundred times, or a | thousand times, but eventually you'll" crash? | | I wonder if you're convoluting different rules, like your | assumptions, and not differentiating that different rules | are more serious than others - giving the same weight to | less serious rules than those that are more serious. E.g. | Speeding through a red light during rush hour is different | than a pedestrian jaywalking - yet both are illegal. | | And before someone comes in to say a jaywalker can't do the | same damage as a vehicle, here's my personal story: I was | riding my bicycle, going a normal speed, vehicles parked | along the side as they were allowed to - and the perfect | scenario for a collision occurred: a tall, strong man | walked out into the street - looking the opposite direction | first - from behind a box van with no windows, and stepped | right into my path with no time for me to put my breaks on. | I crashed into him - he didn't actually move - and I had | whiplash, my jaw slammed shut, I bite the right side tip of | my tongue 80% off in a deep cut, and multiple teeth were | split and chipped; him and his girlfriend didn't stay | around, they actually laughed about it as they walked away, | and I was in shock - and in pain - and so I didn't realize | I should have called the police. | thrdbndndn wrote: | I agree this is worth a conversation so here is mine. | | I think the law as-is is already ambiguous enough (due to its | complex nature) that our society waste huge amount of energy | and resources arguing about its meanings. Anything that can | be "rigidly" defined (and therefore enforced) with little | downside* is a win in my book, purely from a practical | perspective. | | * Just like in this particular case (rolling stop), the | "downside" of enforcing full stop compared to a subjective | "safe rolling stop" is close to none. | | And about the spirit of the law, to me it's pretty simple: if | an illegal practice works _better_ in this regard than the | "legal" alternative, sure, we should seriously consider if we | need to punish people doing so. | | But in most of cases people bringing this in, both practices | are perfectly aligning with the spirit of the law. Paired | with the practicality argument above, there isn't much point | to allow rolling stop as it doesn't make the road "safer" | than full-stop. | | Also, as someone coming from a country that doesn't have stop | sign, people are spoiled and don't know how genius this idea | is. | | In an ideal world where everyone follows traffic law and pay | full attention to the road all the time, stop sign isn't | really needed. However, people are not machine. The whole | points of stop sign is to _force_ these distracted drivers to | pay attention at intersections, even if only out of fear of | getting a ticket. This kind of "foolproof" safety technique | is not as excessive as it may look like at the first glance. | Therefore, I'd argue having people full stopping is exactly | the spirit of stop sign. | loceng wrote: | Okay, so safety wise let's say that's figured out. People | and planners also like to take into account flow of | traffic, and throughput wants to be maximized, you may then | conclude that there are safe circumstances where rolling | stops have practically no safety concerns - and if AI can | become amazing enough [let's say there are 100,000 baseline | safety experiments that need to be conducted/passed] to | account for and catalogue those scenarios, then we could | arguably loosen restrictions in at least some contexts. | thrdbndndn wrote: | I agree if AI were dominant in driving in future, it | could be loosen. But for now I'd say they should still | follow the same rule as the human driver. | jjulius wrote: | >This should initiate a conversation into following the | spirit of laws vs. authoritarian rigidity of law without | nuance. | | That's why rolling stop laws _don 't_ always end up with you | getting a ticket. I was pulled over a year or two after first | getting my license for executing a rolling stop. The cop | reminded me what I'd done, recognized that I was a dumb kid | and a relatively new driver, told me to cross my heart and | promise I'd never do it again, and let me go. Enforcement is | circumstantial and nobody's going to follow that rule if | they're not aware that they _could_ get in trouble for it. | | >In law class he gave an email: in some states in the US | there are very long stretches of road where you won't see | anyone for awhile, and sometimes there are traffic lights on | a straight road - with no intersection. He put forward to the | question of what do you do if that traffic light is red when | you come up to it? There's zero vehicles near you in either | direction, there's no intersection to worry about cross- | traffic, and so do you stop and wait for the light to go | green, or do you go again even though it's red? I think every | reasonable person would answer that they would go. E.g. A | rolling stop in some circumstances isn't dangerous for | anyone; and I also see police doing it all the time. | | Many such stop lights exist because they provide a safe space | to cross the road for pedestrians. In fact there are a few | such lights near me in long stretches of road, among woods, | that allow people walking through trails in the woods to | cross the road. I stop at those lights every single time. | Why? Because I don't know if someone has crossed yet. Could | be that it's a family trying to cross the street, and they | had to go back to the trail to corral a kid that wandered the | other way and they'll be crossing the street in a second. Or, | it could be a group of people - some of them have crossed, | others are shortly behind and will be coming out in a second. | | The point is that, often, _I don 't know_ what is or isn't | there. And unless I _know_ , I'm going to stop. | | >Edit: Lazy people downvote - find something better to do | with your time, or some other form of entertainment. | | Happy now? | loceng wrote: | > Happy now? | | Morale has improved, the beatings can stop. | | You're right, and it's the same with jaywalking - it's | usually only enforced or a fine or charge laid if the | action causes a collision or harm. | | In the example I gave there wasn't pedestrian crossing as | part of the example, and in it you also stop at the light | first. In your scenario it sounds like there are blind | spots too, whereas I guess I left out some language, like | the road was in a desert with full visibility everywhere. | Of course, you need to always fully stop or be rolling | slowly enough, say if you're making a right-hand turn at a | red light [where legal], so that you can stop quickly | enough if you see past the blind spot that traffic is | coming. | jjulius wrote: | >... whereas I guess I left out some language, like the | road was in a desert with full visibility everywhere. | | I'd guess that's a speed deterrent. Long stretches of | flat, open road with nothing around to crash into are | very inviting for people looking to race. Get going fast | enough and you risk losing control of your vehicle and | crashing into other people, say an oncoming car. Those | red lights, assuming I'm understanding your scenario | correctly, encourage people to maintain a safer pace of | travel. | | >Of course, you need to always fully stop or be rolling | slowly enough, say if you're making a right-hand turn at | a red light... | | ... no. There is no "or be rolling slowly enough". | _Stop_. | loceng wrote: | > I'd guess that's a speed deterrent. Long stretches of | flat, open road with nothing around to crash into are | very inviting for people looking to race. Get going fast | enough and you risk losing control of your vehicle and | crashing into other people, say an oncoming car. Those | red lights, assuming I'm understanding your scenario | correctly, encourage people to maintain a safer pace of | travel. | | Sure, or perhaps it makes people who maybe zoned out give | them an opportunity to see how fast they're going - and | slow down, and they get an opportunity to see if they | slowed down fast enough to stop at the red light - before | reaching the next red light which maybe is in a little | town up ahead a bit, so if they didn't stop in time for | the first red light then they've kind of been notified to | be more careful next time. But the exercise was to ask: | if it's 100% safe to go at a red light [once you've | stopped at it], with zero potential for anyone getting | hurt, do you go through the red light, or do you wait | until it turns green? | | It makes for quite the interesting psychological test | seeing how different people answer, similar I suppose to | the whole train track scenario - where your train is | going to crash - and you have a few options; Will Smith | in iRobot has related trauma as well, the robot's AI | determined to save him - an adult - over the young girl, | even though he was trying to command the robot to save | the little girl. | | > ... no. There is no "or be rolling slowly enough". | Stop. | | If you're at a stop sign or red traffic light, and if | it's legal in your jurisdiction to turn right on, you | have to start rolling forward - and are allowed to even | if there's a blindspot and can't see any traffic coming | yet [the road could be clear or not] - so if you're going | slowly enough and there's no traffic then you continue, | if you all of a sudden can see past the blindspot and | there's enough time to safely go then you continue, if | there isn't enough time to pull out then you stop. | nickthegreek wrote: | Agreed. In Ohio, I got a ticket for this exact behavior a | decade ago. | asdff wrote: | They ticket everything in ohio. Drive too fast? Ticket. Drive | too slow? Ticket. Lights not on after the legal definition of | dusk? Ticket. Hanging out in the left lane? Ticket. Not using | the blinker? Ticket. Leaving the blinker on? Also ticket. The | sucky part is when you are a teenager they sometimes couple | this with throwing all your belongings on the side of the | road in search of the weed that you must have. | FireBeyond wrote: | > Drive too slow? Ticket. | | At least when I grew up in Australia, part of the road laws | was a statement, very close to this effect: | | "You are required to drive at the maximum speed that is 1) | within the speed limit, 2) is appropriate for the | conditions, and 3) within your ability to control the | vehicle". | | And that was the rationale for ticketing 'too slow' | drivers. Within those constraints, there was no reason for | you to go more slowly, and posed unnecessary risk to those | who were within those criteria. | NelsonMinar wrote: | Pretty sure Tesla's legal department isn't calling the shots on | stuff like this. | JohnWhigham wrote: | This. Elon is all "move fast and break things"; "things" in | this case being Teslas and the people inside them. And why | wouldn't he? The federal government barely pays attention to | wanting to audit self-driving technologies as it is. | modeless wrote: | It's about as illegal as breaking the speed limit. If self | driving cars aren't given the same leniency as humans to break | the traffic laws that 99% of humans break then they will be a | nuisance on the road. | | Ideally the traffic laws should be updated to be more | realistic. | lariati wrote: | If you want to go over the speed limit then don't use self | driving. | | If you increase the speed limit by 10mph, humans will just | adjust up too. | | I do agree that interstate speed laws need to be updated. The | most dangerous spot I drive on an interstate is crossing a | state line that drops from 70mph to 55mph. The slower zone is | so dangerous because some people are then going 55mph and | some still want to go 80mph. | | I don't see how self driving can be anything other than the | most perfect letter of the law driver though. | Slartie wrote: | So, self-driving cars are supposed to be, at the same time... | | ...much safer than human-driven cars, because they never tire | and they never break traffic rules and thus never cause | accidents | | and | | ...supposed to bend and break traffic rules like humans quite | often do in order to be efficient drivers | | How should that be possible? Ah yeah, by having self-driving | cars which are so extremely intelligent that they don't just | follow the legal rules, but some idealistic set of rules | deviating from the written laws that no human has ever been | able to write down concisely, let alone bring into | algorithmic form, but that is at the same time 100% safe and | very efficient at allowing a maximum number of vehicles to | reach their individual destinations in the shortest time | possible. | | Anyone not convinced that L5 self-driving cars are impossible | without first developing a strong AGI way above human | intelligence levels should have a really good solution for | this obvious contradiction. | fallingknife wrote: | Easy. There is no contradiction. If I can think faster, see | better, and react faster than you, I can break exactly the | same traffic laws as you and still be a much safer driver. | Computers can do all of those things currently, and it is a | matter of time before that is applied to driving. | Slartie wrote: | > think faster | | Computers cannot "think" at any speed. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Fine. "Plan" faster, if you want to be picky. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | > because they never tire and they never break traffic | rules and thus never cause accidents | | No, because they never tire and almost never break traffic | rules _in dangerous ways_ , and thus cause accidents _much | less frequently than humans_. Realistically, this means | that instead of following the speed limit they 'd follow | speed limit + X, instead of keeping the prescribed distance | they'd keep whatever distance human drivers typically | maintain (while still keeping enough distance to react and | stop), and it also means rolling through 4-way stops _when | they have sufficient confidence that it is safe to do so_. | deegles wrote: | A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case | basis and is responsible for the consequences, while a | rolling-stop-avoidance feature acts on your behalf and | Tesla is responsible for it. An analogy might be that it's | the difference between getting food poisoning from home | cooking vs. from a restaurant. Even though you're consuming | food in both instances, the liability is assigned | differently. | FireBeyond wrote: | Oh, according to Tesla, not so. Their perspective is that | you're absolutely and solely liable in either case. | | Their legal department works studiously to handwave away | every marketing statement. | | "The driver is only in the seat for legal purposes. The | car is driving itself." - "You are entirely responsible | for driving the vehicle." | | "Use Summon to bring your car to you while dealing with a | fussy child." - "Pay attention to vehicle at all times." | lamontcg wrote: | > A human breaks the rolling stop rule on a case by case | basis and is responsible for the consequences | | Not really. You can fail to see a pedestrian and cripple | them and you won't see a whole lot of consequences for | your "accident" (negligence). | | Breaking rules on a case-by-case basis is also how the | normalization of deviance occurs: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljzj9Msli5o | | If you break rules when you think you don't need to | follow them you'll find that you're not 99.9% perfect and | you will inevitably cause a crash. | | If you follow the rules all the time you won't make that | error. | | The reason why computers should ultimately replace human | drivers is precisely because we're dangerously | incompetent and overconfident and shouldn't be breaking | any rules. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Traffic laws are draconian/inflexible because: | | 1) they have to be simple enough to fit in an AVERAGE | DRIVER's head (it is a miracle to me that highways in | cities are as functional and low-error as they are yes I | know the death statistics on driving) | | 2) the law makers know the laws will be bent, so they set a | baseline of VERY VERY SAFE and hope that most people only | bend the law to VERY SAFE or at worst MOSTLY SAFE. | | It seems weird given how "bad" self-driving algs are right | now, but with a detailed database of locations and context, | I absolutely believe the "rolling stop" logic in the car | would be safer and more effective than a human observing | complete stops. | | I definitely do not agree with Tesla's vision-only no- | location-context algorithm approach. Such a thing is a | baseline, but if you know the location to where you are | going, then route-specific data should be downloaded that | has been optimized with multiple specific AI computation | passes. | | That's how humans work: we are slow and dumb when we are | driving in unfamiliar locations and routes, but for our | commute routes we know where potholes are, cracks in the | road, which lane to be in, dangerous sidestreets and | intersections and congestion points, etc. | | So I disagree that L5 is impossible. Well, it depends on | "way above human intelligence". I think what you are trying | to say is you need a supersapient intellect with IQ 195. | | But AIs can be "dumb" but have access to a far larger | memory space and database and respond to a far wider | bandwidth of sensor information. The AI programs may not be | solving Fermat's Last Theorem in the margin of a book, but | they can be smarter in the sense that it's like having a | million gnomes watching at once. | Slartie wrote: | > Well, it depends on "way above human intelligence". I | think what you are trying to say is you need a | supersapient intellect with IQ 195. | | I'd say even "normal human intelligence" would suffice | for at least getting L5 to work (maybe not with perfect | safety and efficiency, but working at all). But you | cannot remove the need for actual "intelligence" from the | equation, and that's the problem: our AIs are not | "intelligent" at all. They are idiot savants, and driving | a car isn't exactly a problem where you need savant-like | capabilities. It is a very general, broad-range problem, | which is much more applicable for the broad mental | capabilities of even the not-so-smart part of humanity. | | Case in point: there are human savants in areas like | playing chess or Go or recognizing text in many different | spoken languages, but there are no human savants in the | area of driving cars on public roads. | oneoff786 wrote: | There are public driving savants. They just don't see | much benefit from it. | rootusrootus wrote: | > the law makers know the laws will be bent | | Or possibly they just know that real world driving | involves so many context-dependent decisions that trying | to cover it all with laws is about as reasonable as | making a self driving car. | | I think it's the nerds that are delusional. | modeless wrote: | It's not complicated. Traffic laws are not perfectly | aligned with safety. Plenty of legal things are unsafe and | plenty of things that are illegal are not always dangerous. | | This isn't surprising either. The process of making laws is | political and politics are clearly not an ideal way to | decide on a perfect and exhaustive and precisely detailed | set of rules for anything. The laws do not constitute an | algorithm for driving. They are necessarily simplified. And | yes, a self driving car is going to need a set of driving | rules that are much more detailed than anything humans have | written down before. | sutuplesu wrote: | Pragmatic rulemaking for large numbers of people also | needs to take into account the fact that the rule will | naturally be viewed as a loose guideline by some people, | and even as a thing to be defied for its own sake by | others. Setting the limit stricter than the actual | desired behavior can push average behavior closer to the | target. | jackson1442 wrote: | > Setting the limit stricter than the actual desired | behavior can push average behavior closer to the target. | | Absolutely not, at least in the context of speed limits. | Where I live, most of the speed limits are at least 15mph | lower than they should be (why is a 6 lane road | 30mph???), so you get: | | * people who follow the speed limit exactly: 30mph | | * people who follow the speed limit the road was designed | for: 45mph | | * people who see the limit as a "limit:" 25mph | | It's a mess. Roads need to be designed to the desired | speed limit. Don't make a 6-lane straight road 30mph; | people unfamiliar with the area will assume the speed | limit's 50% higher than it is, and people from the area | will feel like they're going incredibly slow. | | In short, it should be uncomfortable to go >= 20mph over | by design if you want people to follow your speed limits. | modeless wrote: | Yes, that's a great reason why laws made for humans may | not be perfect when applied strictly to machines. | donatj wrote: | > Setting the limit stricter than the actual desired | behavior can push average behavior closer to the target | | I hate this so much. Selective enforcement only serves to | enable overzealous enforcement against unpopular and | disenfranchised groups. | | One does one small thing wrong and they can then tack a | large handful of other charges that would never otherwise | be enforced. It's disgusting. | | Make the rules things that should actually be rules. | Enforce them as written. The end. | mdoms wrote: | It actually is incredibly complicated. You can tell, | because every individual person you speak to will have a | different interpretation of which rules are there for | safety and which ones can be ignored. | | The fact that you start your post about how an AI can | make such a determination with the words "it's not | complicated" discredits you. | modeless wrote: | Obviously rules for self driving cars are very | complicated. What's not complicated are the reasons why | the road laws made for humans are not directly suitable | as unbreakable principles for self driving cars to always | follow. | mdoms wrote: | No actually that's incredibly complication. It differs by | culture, regional attitudes, quality of infrastructure | and hundreds of other variables. | Dylan16807 wrote: | The _way_ it 's different is incredibly complicated. | | The assertion that a significant difference _exists_ is | not complicated and is easy to prove. | wavefunction wrote: | That seems like an appropriate generalized take on "laws" | but in the specific case of ignoring a stop sign, I don't | think it applies. Stop signs are a traffic control device | that other drivers rely on to predict the intent of a | vehicle approaching the stop sign. | modeless wrote: | Stop signs are anything but "ignored". The actual | behavior only applies when the car recognizes a stop sign | and also assesses good visibility to ensure that no other | cars are around, and the car still slows regardless. It's | not just blowing through stop signs at top speed whenever | it feels like it. | lolsal wrote: | Following traffic laws is not a nuisance. Period. | cmurf wrote: | They're not equivalent illegalities. Speeding involves a much | higher energy state than rolling stop. If there's an | accident, very clearly one is much worse. | fabianhjr wrote: | If someone rolls a stop in a non-4-way stop and there was a | car approaching at 55mph at the same time from a | transversal road then a close to 55mph t-bone crash is | prone to happen. (And the vehicle involved might be a truck | with a heavy load vs a tesla rolling a stop) | gjsman-1000 wrote: | I feel like a Unicorn, but I obey the speed limit as | closely as I can. My speedometer says a perfect 60 on the | highway in my area, and I am always being passed like | crazy. I've never received a speeding ticket. | | I'm not a "nuisance" for not going faster and breaking the | speed limit. Everyone else is the "nuisance" and I vote for | stronger enforcement where possible. | notreallyserio wrote: | One of the most frustrating things I deal with is people | driving too fast on the main street that is (basically) | just outside my cul-de-sac. It's a 35 mph limit but | people drive 40-45. That makes it harder to see them | coming, making the road less safe. | | Too many people seem to believe that the only thing that | matters is the road in front of them, they don't consider | the side roads at all. The city is talking about | narrowing the lanes on the main street to reduce speed | and add bike lanes, and it can't happen soon enough. | asdff wrote: | Also your chance of surviving an impact at like 50mph is | next to zero as a pedestrian. You have a higher chance | surviving an impact at 35mph even though its still pretty | small. | mmanfrin wrote: | Going noticeably slower than the speed of traffic is | dangerous and more of a nuisance than people going 5-10 | mph over. | fallingknife wrote: | The traffic engineering standard for the properly set | speed limit to minimize collisions is the speed of the | 85th percentile car on the road. https://www.lincoln.ne.g | ov/files/sharedassets/public/ltu/tra... | | So if you are being passed like crazy and going the speed | limit, the speed limit is set incorrectly, and you are, | in fact, the nuisance. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | It's not just the highway, I am frequently passed on | roads of all kinds for following the speed limit and | going no faster. | | They are absolutely, for breaking the law, the nuisance | in these situations. The number of people breaking the | law does not change what the law is or, even necessarily, | what the law should be. | Sargos wrote: | People generally drive the safe speed for the road they | are travelling on. The fact that you're being passed | (probably on the right a lot of the times) means you are | driving slower than traffic and are actually a danger to | other drivers. You might think you are being morally high | and mighty but you are actually putting innocent lives in | danger. Please have some introspection here. | Xylakant wrote: | > People generally drive the safe speed for the road they | are travelling on. | | Can you substantiate that assertion somehow? People drive | the speed that they feel safe with, but that is not | necessarily true. It may be safe most of the time, but | change due to external circumstances. It's safe most of | the time to drive 50km/h in a residential zone, except | that one time when a child jumps out from behind a car. | orangepurple wrote: | The taxi study proved that drivers tend to take greater | risks in cars equipped with ABS (although the difference | in collision rates was not significant). In short, ABS | may do more harm than good. | | https://archive.ph/QKVjR | gjsman-1000 wrote: | So I am the dangerous one for not engaging in dangerous | activity. Gotcha. | qubitcoder wrote: | You are behaving dangerously. Accidents are caused by | speed differences (one reason). People changing lanes to | pass you introduces all sorts of additional complexity, | increases speed deltas, reduces reaction time, limits | visibility, requires quicker maneuvers, forces other | drivers to double and triple check that others aren't | trying to pass simultaneously, increases the risk to | pedestrians and cyclists, etc. | | Deliberately going the speed limit when it results in | other drivers constantly passing you increases the danger | to to everyone else around you significantly. | | Please give this some thought. | | Ideally, the German model would be enforced. Slower | traffic keeps right, left lanes are for overtaking. And | many places are unrestricted, meaning there's no speed | limit. The system works quite well, and the flow of | traffic is _vastly_ more predictable, and feels a lot | safer than the US interstate system. | orwin wrote: | No, you are just more conscious about speed-related | issues than your local council. They should engage in | road work to reduce the road width, making everyone slow | down. | HWR_14 wrote: | You are the dangerous one for not engaging in an illegal | but safer activity. It kinda assumes you're right if you | call it a dangerous activity. | Filligree wrote: | The illegal activity is in fact illegal. Nothing more | should need to be said. | HWR_14 wrote: | Plenty more should be said. | | It's a bad law that endangers people and should be | changed. Going an unsafe speed is another law, and its | entirely possible that there is no speed that does not | violate one of those laws. The law is a relic of when | cars were less safe, and the same safety can be achieved | with much higher speeds. | fallingknife wrote: | If you are an authoritarian, yes. | HWR_14 wrote: | The number of people breaking the law definitely changes | what the law should be for traffic laws that primarily | are about coordination. If 80% of the population starts | driving on the opposite side of the road, or stopping in | green and going on red we should absolutely change the | law. Speed limits are primarily a similar law. It hardly | matters what they are as long as people go the same | speed. | notch656a wrote: | You drive the speed you feel you can drive without undue | risk to others, those around you may do the same. I take | the exceptional viewpoint that neither of you are | necessarily 'nuisance.' Reasonable rate of speed depends | on vehicle type/design, driver skill, sobriety, | wakefulness, attentiveness, safety features of those on | the road, density of traffic and environmental | conditions. Reasonable rate of speed does not depend on | whatever arbitrary number is on a sign. | asdff wrote: | All roads are not built to perfect standards. Chances are | your freeway interchanges are not built to be taken at | full highway speeds. If you tried to go 75mph to make the | 101s to 110s interchange in LA, you would crash into the | wall like many have done because the recommended speed is | 35mph (and speaking with experience it is VERY sketchy | going above that because the turn is entirely unbanked | and the lanes are narrow and there is zero shoulder to | speak of). | | There is also the issue of meatspace. Maybe your modern | car can exceed the speed limit of the road surface and | safely handle itself. Meanwhile, we still have our | biology to deal with, which has not hardened itself to | survive an impact at a high speed with a car. Only after | millions of years of pedestrian deaths will that | evolution be possible. When you find yourself driving | 45-50mph on a road signed for 35mph, just know that if a | pedestrian were to step out and appear in front of you, | you are virtually guaranteed to kill them at this speed, | and if you respected the signage, they have a better | chance of surviving this impact. | Dylan16807 wrote: | The issue with an interchange is a sudden change in | speed, which is a separate issue from the natural speed | of roads. | | > When you find yourself driving 45-50mph on a road | signed for 35mph, just know that if a pedestrian | | Change the road to be a 35mph road. It'll be cheaper too. | sgc wrote: | Most accidents happen at intersections, and you don't know | how fast the other car is going. I would consider rolling | stop far more "dangerous" in that regard. If I were | programming it and laws were not a concern, I would | probably look at speed limits on both streets and disallow | on higher speed intersections, or those with obstructed | vision (data allowing of course). | bryanlarsen wrote: | That's exactly what Tesla did -- rolling stops were only | performed if both streets were 30mph limits or less. | asdff wrote: | This makes the big assumption that the other driver is | playing by the rules and respecting the speed limit and | also not going to ignore the stop sign (which I see | happen more and more lately in socal). | HWR_14 wrote: | That's exactly what Tesla did -- said to themselves "the | law is not a concern" (to quote GP) | hamburglar wrote: | There's nothing magical about a full and complete stop. | The reason we do it is to force humans to slow down and | give themselves some objective standard for how much time | they need to evaluate the conditions of the intersection. | And the reason rolling stops are so common is that in | many situations, it's very obvious that the full stop is | an unnecessary bit of ceremony. I don't think it's at all | unreasonable to say that a competent self driving car | should be equally capable of making the necessary safety | decisions whether it's paused for a full stop or not. | Given the premise that we are approving computers to make | high frequency decisions about multi-ton hunks of metal | driving around on our streets, there is simply no way in | my mind that the difference between a full stop and a | rolling stop for them is actually a safety issue. | sgc wrote: | It's more a question of whether it's a problem for the | other driver. But yes, I agree the best thing would be to | change the laws. Instead they have gotten even more | ceremonious in my area over the last few years. Tesla is | taking on a ton of liability even by going 5 mph over the | limit. This recall will be used in a court case over | another FSD feature for sure. | alexfringes wrote: | Presumably the cars driving on the intersecting lane of | travel could very well be in the aforementioned higher | energy state when an accident during a rolling stop occurs. | selectodude wrote: | A rolling stop has a far higher likelihood of hitting a | pedestrian than speeding on the freeway. | mikestew wrote: | _It 's about as illegal as breaking the speed limit_ | | Which, last I checked for the state of WA, is also illegal. | Just because there isn't a cop ticketing every rolling stop | at the intersection next to the elementary school by my house | doesn't make it "kind of okay because a lot of people do it". | It just means the municipality sucks at enforcement. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | FWIW, if we're trying to maximize safety, then violating | speed limits is often a must. | | If the speed limit is 60 mph, but everybody is going 75 | mph, then the safest speed for you as an individual is | going to be 75 mph. Otherwise, you're a rolling road block, | likely to get rear-ended, forcing tons of cars to change | lanes to get around you. | mikestew wrote: | All you've done is to make an argument for speed | governors. If the speed limit is 60mph, but everyone is | going 75mph, then the point of "automated self-driving | can't come fast enough, humans can't be trusted to pilot | automobiles!" is self-evident. Argue all day if you like | about whether the number on the sign is wrong, but that | discussion belongs elsewhere. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | A fair point. Indeed, I think speed limits on freeways | are too low, but that's another discussion. | asdff wrote: | Chances are the turns on the highway are designed to be | taken at the speed limit. Sure go ahead and go 75mph with | the crowd, don't be surprised when one day its you who is | leaving a bumper behind on the freeway. Also on | residential streets speeding is simply unaceptible. At | 35mph an impact with a pedestrian will kill them 70% of | the time. At 50 mph that goes up to nearly all of the | time. We shouldn't favor serving impatient people over | the safety of others. If the issue is everyone is going | 75mph and its dangerous for self driving cars to go | 65mph, then we should install speed cameras that send | tickets to people who go 75mph rather than letting self | driving cars also break the law and drive at dangerous | speeds that our road infrastructure is not designed to | handle. | FireBeyond wrote: | Technically, highway (construction) code is that roads | are engineered such that turns and such can be navigated | safely at 15mph above the speed limit (or of 'cautionary | speeds'). | | I state the above entirely on its own merits, not as a | judgment of "should I or should I not travel at speed X | on this road". | asdff wrote: | Maybe thats true with modern code, but thousands of | interchanges across the country that aren't being | reconfigured anytime soon have those yellow recommended | speed signs that imo should be headed in many cases | eproxus wrote: | Well, that's the purely driver oriented point of view. | Speed limits exist for other reasons, e.g. when going | through pedestrian heavy areas. Going above the speed | limit there endangers lives (regardless of if everyone | else is doing it or not). | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | I could have been more explicit, I suppose. | | On surface streets, speed limits are usually quite | reasonable. In all the streets I drive regularly, I think | the limits are good, except for one stretch where it has | two lanes in each direction, and so I often want to go 45 | mph, but the limit is 35, likely because there are some | houses that directly face the street. | | It's highways that often have unreasonably slow speed | limits, at least here in Oregon. | Dylan16807 wrote: | They said "often". There are no pedestrians on that 60mph | road. | | When it's 35 vs. 40 it's a lot safer to sit at the speed | limit. | | And in a 25 zone there's not really a flow of traffic to | worry about. | [deleted] | fallingknife wrote: | But it's not just that there isn't a cop watching, it's | that if there was, he still won't pull you over unless | you're going 10+ mph over (more where I'm from!). So the | official speed limit isn't really the law. Most cops also | won't get you for a rolling stop unless it's egregious. | lariati wrote: | Are you going to build in a random number generator then | for self driving to add speed sometimes above the posted | speed limit? Or a button to boost the speed above the | state laws? | | It makes no sense when all you have to do is not use self | driving. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Tesla should use their interior camera to more closely | follow the speed limits when the driver is black to | reflect the reality that black drivers are more likely to | get stopped for minor infractions. | asdff wrote: | Humans aren't given leniency, there's just an issue enforcing | laws on the books. The answer isn't to give self driving cars | the same pass to endanger others especially when its lines of | code we could implement trivially. | ghostly_s wrote: | > If self driving cars aren't allowed to break the traffic | laws that 99% of humans break then cars will become less of a | nuisance on the road. | | FTFY. | stefan_ wrote: | I think you will find once your car is just locked at the | speed limit you stop caring about doing some sort of manual | PID controller simulation. | | Just like you will find people complain about taking their | manual shift away when none of the US drivers ever knew what | they are even missing. | trgn wrote: | That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, or | get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless driving | habits. | ses1984 wrote: | How many times do human drivers need to actually stop at | stop signs? Probably hundreds of millions of stop signs are | rolled per day. How much more carbon is released, if all of | those vehicles actually came to a complete stop? | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Now consider how many people have died or been | permanently injured from rolling stops. An extremely | common mistake is a failed right-turn on red where the | driver doesn't stop and rolls over a pedestrian in the | crosswalk. And how many drivers will live with the guilt | for the rest of their lives. | | Who cares how much carbon it saves when people get | horrific injuries from it? If you want to save the | planet, build intersections designed for rolling like | roundabouts, crosswalks with signaling, and yield signs. | ses1984 wrote: | How many people have died or been permanently injured | from rolling stops? | | There are loads of stop signs at intersections where | pedestrians would rarely if ever cross, maybe it would be | possible to differentiate those intersections from | crosswalks. | smileysteve wrote: | This is a great argument for round abouts and yield | signs. The safety of the stop sign is over stated. | fabianhjr wrote: | Change 4-way stop signs for roundaubouts like most of the | world. Not only does that increase throughput by allowing | to yield they also increase safety by forcing a curve and | avoiding frontal crashes. (Also, pedestrian crossings | should and are normally set back a bit from the | intersection, given some traffic calming like level | crossings and a median island and have better visibility | overall) | | "Roundabout vs. 4-way stop, which one is superior?" - | Interesting Engineering: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brkrYdlMCsg | xboxnolifes wrote: | You can't just replace every 4-way stop to a roundabout, | and the "rest of the world" doesn't do so either. The | vast majority of the roundabout would have to cut across | residential property. | lariati wrote: | Robots have to follow the letter of the law. This is so | obvious I don't even know how it can be debated. | bdamm wrote: | It is neither obvious, nor possible. There are zero real | world drivers that actually follow all the laws. Do you | think that people are just all bad? Or is there maybe a | higher level principle at play here? | aeturnum wrote: | In the immediate, of course you are correct. | | In the longer term - I suspect we will develop two | different sets of laws as we understand what things | robots do well and what things they do not. For example: | I suspect that robots might be allowed to drive slightly | faster on highways because they are better at maintaining | the proper following distance, but always drive at the | lowest speed limit for roads with variable conditions | because they struggle to evaluate the environment. | depaya wrote: | When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not | necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign and | I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes, | people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a | full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make | sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles. | | Perhaps a better example is stop lines at intersections; | sometimes stop lines are so poorly painted that you cannot | see any oncoming traffic unless you pull forward another | 5-6 feet. The letter of the law says you still must | completely stop at the stop line, pull forward and | completely stop again, then continue. Does anybody actually | do that? | globular-toast wrote: | > Why bother? | | Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly | kills people. | notch656a wrote: | The law is just a tool. It routinely does not permit the | optimal choice for neither yourself nor society as a | whole. Like other tools, sometimes the best choice is to | ignore it. | | ---------- | | >The comment you are replying to said nothing about the | law. | | >> Why bother? | | >Because you're operating heavy machinery that regularly | kills people. | | The context of the quote by globular-toast is from this | paragraph: | | >When driving I follow the spirit of the law, not | necessarily the letter. If I'm approaching a stop sign | and I can see clearly there are no other vehicles, bikes, | people, etc, I slow down to very near a stop, but not a | full stop. Why bother? The spirit of the law is to make | sure I'm correctly yielding to other vehicles. | | There's no doubt there was reference to law. | b3morales wrote: | The comment you are replying to said nothing about the | law. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | > That's exactly wrong. Human drivers need to get better, | or get off the road. Robots shouldn't mimic careless | driving habits. | | One of those things will get better as technology advances | and more R&D is done on it, the other thing will not and | hasn't for a very long time. Unless I misunderstood your | comment and you are actually referring to some form of | transhumanity? | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Human drivers respond to incentives. Lax policing, lax | drivers. Strong policing, speed traps, and bigger fines | result in people driving better. It's not that people can't | drive, it's just that they don't care to drive well, but | they will drive well if the enforcement is frequent and | heavy enough. | colinmhayes wrote: | How are you defining better? Because personally I find | taking rolling stops when it won't cause any harm is | better than always stopping, even if it's not legal. | orwin wrote: | I think that if your country have signs for rolling stops | (a yield sign basically), and chose not to put one at | this very intersection (even if its a new road that had | not seen much usage yet), you should do a full stop, even | with a car doing a full stop in front of you. | | In some countries, it's not clear if you don't read the | local language(Morocco, i'm looking at you!), but if the | inverted red triangle exist, just do full stop. | HPsquared wrote: | Driving is all about risk management. | | Erring towards 100% cautious at all times isn't always | better, it needs to be a balance between controlling the | risk of accidents with the costs: time taken for | individual drivers, general congestion of roads, even | things like fuel consumption. | | Risks vary according to weather conditions, traffic | levels, times of day, etc etc. A prescriptive approach | (e.g. always drive at X speed) isn't usually optimal. | trgn wrote: | > the risk of accidents with the costs | | are you joking? The risk of driving is injuries and | death, primarily born by those _not_ in a car. How | somebody weighs this with speeding or rolling stops, or | any other form of acting like a careless driver is beyond | me. | | Most importantly, safe driving is good form. Speeding is | trashy. | HPsquared wrote: | It's always safest to not drive at all, or never leave | the house. On the other hand, exceeding the speed limit | when driving through the desert doesn't endanger | pedestrians to any significant degree (how many zeroes is | sufficient?) | Xylakant wrote: | How many miles are driven through the literal desert | compared to where people are around? If anything, the | speed limit in the desert could be adapted to local | conditions, but not base the default rules on that | exception. | sidewndr46 wrote: | Why are they called "speed traps"? If you're driving over | the speed limit and get a citation, it isn't a trap. This | isn't like a sting operation for vehicle theft with a car | left parked and running with keys in the ignition. | | There are some states where it was found illegal to have | someone slow down too fast, i.e. you can't have a 70 mph | zone followed by a 30 mph zone. That would in fact | constitute a speed trap of kinds, since no one can safely | slow down 50 mph in an instant. The practical effect of | this is 3 or 4 series of signs spaced exactly 100 ft or | so, each one lowering the speed limit no more than 15 | mph. It's the equivalent of a 'braking zone' on a race | track, but on the street. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | I'm a little incorrect in my use of "speed trap," my | apologies. I meant where the police are hanging out out- | of-view and ready to spring on anyone speeding or doing | other obvious violations, not sudden speed transitions | which are mainly used as a revenue stream. | rdtwo wrote: | Is a trap because its below the natural speed of the | road. My city for example lowered the speed to 25mph by | roads are designed for 35-45 mph so naturally traffic | flows at that spees | devnulll wrote: | The tension between "Follow the Law" and "Drive like a human" is | interesting. On the one hand, humans violate the law all the | time: Rolling Stops, Speed Limits, Driving without Registration / | Insurance, Passing on the Right, Left Lane Camping, Carpool lane | violations, Stopping after the white line at a stop sign / light, | not using turn signals properly, following too closely. | | Any FSD System that drives on the freeway and follows the speed | limit is doomed to failure. Likewise, as evidenced by the crazy | amount of "right on red" fines in cities, humans don't come to a | full 3-second stop. | | "Drive like a human" seems a reasonable goal for now. | caaqil wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30163663 | rsync wrote: | Cars neither obey nor disobey stop signs if they have an human | operator. | | _Please drive your car_. You owe this to everyone else on the | road. | cmusfan wrote: | If the company accepts the liability, I can't be charged for a | driving crime while the car is out of my control, and it is | statistical safer to let the car drive itself I am on board, | but the courts haven't cleared the liability problem, and there | are safety concerns with large white trucks being detected, so | driving your own car seems like the right choice for 2022. | deegles wrote: | At the moment, Tesla's liability position is "heads I win, | tails you lose," since you're supposed to be hands-on-wheel | and alert at all times while using FSD. -\\_(tsu)_/- | rsync wrote: | " ... so driving your own car seems like the right choice for | 2022 ..." | | It is my belief that this will always be true. | | From yesterday: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESJH1NLMLs | | "... as we look at this accident history what we find is that | in 68% of these accidents, _automation dependency_ plays a | significant part ... " | | "... _automation dependent_ pilots allowed their airplanes to | get much closer to the edge of the envelope than they should | have ... " | xyst wrote: | FSD might be a complete joke at this point. Tesla should open | source all of their data, code, and documents at this point. | Clearly Tesla or any of this vulture capital funded companies | cannot get the job done. | turdnagel wrote: | What is it with this headline? Tesla is deploying new firmware | OTA. No vehicles are being recalled. If deploying new software is | a "recall" then I do recalls dozens of times a week. | ctdonath wrote: | This is one of the really hard issues of automation: humans | normalize disobedience to the point that strict obedience ranges | from irritating to dangerous; the gap is not an engineering | problem. | jmpman wrote: | My Tesla will allow me to engage autopilot in a school zone, | obeying the adjustment I'd set on speed limit - while using, not | the correct school zone speed limit, but the non-school time | speed limit. It would allow me to go 30 mph over the school zone | speed. | | How can Tesla claim self driving if the car can't read a sign | that says - speed limit 25 mph during school hours, and properly | adjust? Humans just look around to determine if school is likely | in session by the number of cars in the parking lot during normal | school hours, or they know the school calendar. | | How does a self driving car make that determination? Query the | school district website for the school, identifying their bell | schedule and tacking on a buffer ahead and behind? Assume a | school schedule that's M-F? What if it's a religious school that | operates Sun-Thursday? Now the car has to determine which | religious sects obey which calendar? Is it different in each | country? | | Just another example of a massive hurdle self driving cars | have...... | | And another recall that should be issued. | morpheuskafka wrote: | As far as I know, these signs always have either flashing | lights when active or a printed schedule. I don't think it | would be enforceable against human drivers otherwise. | natch wrote: | It's not self driving yet, that's how. | cmelbye wrote: | Tesla doesn't claim that the car is responsible for setting the | correct speed limit -- they actually claim the opposite. From | the Owner's Manual: | | > Warning | | > Do not rely on Traffic-Aware Cruise Control or Speed Assist | to determine an accurate or appropriate cruising speed. It is | the driver's responsibility to cruise at a safe speed based on | road conditions and applicable speed limits. | Barrin92 wrote: | We should mail a copy of the owners manual to Elon Musk then | because just a few days ago he, for about the fourth time, | announced that he would be shocked if "Tesla does not achieve | Full Self-Driving that is safer than human drivers this year | (and 5 years ahead of everyone)". | | Maybe we have different definitions of FSD and being safer | than a human but to me that includes obeying the speed limits | and stop signs | | https://electrek.co/2022/01/31/elon-musk-tesla-full-self- | dri... | dawnerd wrote: | A problem with that is the car sometimes decides to change | the set speed based on the signs and its not always obvious | when you're in traffic until the car decides to take off. | Alternatively it will slam breaks on if it misreads a sign | and you have your speed set high. They need an option for a | more dumb cruise control that ignores speed limits. | throwaway1777 wrote: | Of course the fine print covers their asses, but this is not | what you'd think watching the marketing demos and YouTube | videos around fsd capabilities. | cma wrote: | That's in the manual, the fan marketing essential says it | reads speed limit signs so you don't miss any of the action | while your passenger plays Cuphead (I think though eventually | they removed the ability for the passenger to play while you | drive). | lazyjones wrote: | This has nothing to do with the article really, but stupid | signs will always be a problem as long as they exist. In | Austria, there are signs on the highway that allow electric | cars to obey a higher speed limit (130 Km/h instead of 100 | Km/h; https://autorevue.at/ratgeber/ig-l- | immissionsschutzgesetz-lu... ) provided they have (optional, | but now standard) green number plates. My car doesn't know that | it doesn't have the green plates, so it cannot know what limit | to use. Also, it can't look up the paragraph quoted on the sign | to read the current version of the law, presumably. | bo1024 wrote: | Does that make it a stupid sign, though? | lazyjones wrote: | Yes, because it doesn't contain the necessary information | to interpret it and on top of that it's hard to read at | highway speeds and thus dangerous. | Robotbeat wrote: | Interestingly, Tesla's earliest autopilot software (made by | Mobileye) could read and respond to speed limit signs, but | MobilEye patented that ability and so when Tesla switched to | their in-house software, they lost that ability. | | Seems insane to me that you can patent reading a speed limit | sign, since reading signs is what signs are for and is | necessary to obey the law, but there we go... "with a computer" | seems sufficient grounds to make something patentable. | Bedon292 wrote: | I was wondering what happened. I knew they used to be able to | actually read the signs, but now its all a database that can | be quite wrong. I think the DB is nice to have, since signs | can be few and far between, but would really like to see it | back to reading signs. | | I don't understand how that could possibly stand up as a | patent. It shouldn't pass the obviousness test. Reading a | sign is a super obvious thing to do. But you would still have | to spend millions fighting it in court. Which is insane. | jsight wrote: | Current Tesla AP can read speed limit signs too. | bbarnett wrote: | Heh. I wonder what might happen to a person with a bionic | eyes. | | After lawsuit, signs are blacked out in their vision. | netsharc wrote: | [deleted] | Sebb767 wrote: | Technically, to black them out, you'd need to recognize | them first - which would violate that patent. | moralestapia wrote: | That, among other things, is pretty much why fully autonomous | cars == artificial general intelligence; and that's also why it | won't happen this year, neither the next one, neither on the | next 10. It will happen someday, for sure, just not soon. | throwaway22032 wrote: | Er, so? | | My 20 year old Civic will allow me to drive 70mph in a 20. Why | shouldn't it? It's my car. | monkeybutton wrote: | Are the signs not delimited by day of week, time and month | where you are? E.g. 7:30-18:30 Mon - Fri Sep - Jun | | Where I live, police can and will ticket you for speeding | during those times. Regardless of if there's students around or | if school is even in session or not. | jjulius wrote: | >Are the signs not delimited by day of week, time and month | where you are? | | Depends on the locale. A lot of places just say "Speed Limit | is X When Children Present", or "Speed Limit is Y when Lights | [on the sign] are Flashing". | rurp wrote: | Yeah I've seen many such signs and it seems like the clear | best approach. People should drive carefully around crowds | of children and normally otherwise, regardless of some | schedule posted on a given school's website. | rdtwo wrote: | Yeah it's a racket they can hit you with double fines at any | time they feel like it. | com2kid wrote: | > Are the signs not delimited by day of week, time and month | where you are? E.g. 7:30-18:30 Mon - Fri Sep - Jun | | In my local area the signs say either "during school hours", | "while children are present" or they say nothing at all and | you just have to know what hours and days the lower speed | limit is enforced. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Where I live, the school zone speed limits are only in affect | when school is actually in session, and the yellow lights are | flashing to let you know that it is (but we are also talking | about the difference between 15MPH and 25MPH). Sounds like a | plum income stream for your city's police department. | colinmhayes wrote: | In my state the school zone speed limit is only in effect if | it's a school day and there are children around. If all the | kids are all inside it's the normal speed limit. I guess | Tesla could just use the school zone limit all the time | during school times, but people would be annoyed. | smachiz wrote: | which state has "when children are around" as part of the | law? Feels ripe for abuse and kind've unlikely.... | ben174 wrote: | California signs all say "When children are present". But | I do think that's not a terribly difficult determination | for a machine to make. | core-utility wrote: | The idea of _present_ might be a difficult one. I 'm not | up to speed on any court cases that have determined what | _present_ means, but it 's likely more nuanced than a | simple "can Tesla identify a child in sight". A human | would be more likely to play it safe and just obey | regardless. | sgustard wrote: | My understanding is "present" means "school is in | session", regardless of whether any children are visible. | colinmhayes wrote: | Illinois https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.a | sp?DocName=0... | | > On a school day when school children are present and so | close thereto that a potential hazard exists because of | the close proximity of the motorized traffic | | this lawyer https://www.jolietlaw.com/will-county- | attorneys/understandin.... claims that means the limit is | not in effect when kids are inside | [deleted] | tshaddox wrote: | I don't know the actual law, but California has school | zone speed limit signs that say "when children are | present." | burkaman wrote: | Massachusetts: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/pa | rt7/part7b.htm#sec... | | Can be times of day, "when flashing", or "when children | are present". Time of day isn't great because of | irregular after school activities, events, delayed starts | because of snow, etc. | hateful wrote: | New York is one also, even though the signs don't say it. | | https://www.dot.ny.gov/about-nysdot/faq/posting-speed- | limit-... | smachiz wrote: | This doesn't say when children are present - it says | school days and maybe specific times. No? | hateful wrote: | meant to reply one level higher in the thread. | GravitasFailure wrote: | California is one. | | https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/what-does- | when-ch... | vkou wrote: | This doesn't have to be state law, it can be municipal | law. All it takes is city council putting up a sign that | says "15 MPH when children are present". | qubitcoder wrote: | At least in Georgia, there's at least one yellow light with | a speed limit sign attached. During active school hours, | the yellow light will flash on and off. | | On my daily commute, there's two overhead flashing yellow | lights. Previously, my Model Y would begin to brake and | then speed back up, thinking it's a normal traffic light | (prior to FSD). With FSD, it's at least smart enough to | know not to brake; but it certainly doesn't read the speed | limit from the sign, as it normally would. | jvanderbot wrote: | There are no truly self driving cars, and probably won't be. | When a traffic cop or school teacher holds up a hand to stop | cars or say "turn left NOW", what training data exists? | | There should be a much stronger involvement from cities / | states legislating a ban on any kind of self-driving in these | areas. (self-braking -- sure!) It will have to wait for a child | to die, unfortunately. | | I'd like to see a self-lane-keeping lane on interstates with a | 120 mph speed limit and concrete barriers. If we can have "Zero | emissions" cars incentivized with access to HOV lanes, why not | cars that can do a good job at lane-keeping and merge- | scheduling in areas where there are exactly zero other | distractions? | hotpotamus wrote: | This reminds me of when I was driving in rural Texas a few | months back and came across an apparently very recent | accident involving a jack-knifed truck. The firefighters had | just arrived on scene. While slowly and carefully driving | around the accident, a firefighter got out seemed quite upset | with me and seemed to be yelling something at me as loudly as | he could, but I couldn't make out a word. I still have no | idea if I did something wrong. Driving is 99.9% routine and | boring and that .1% is ambiguous and quite potentially life | threatening. I share the skepticism of self driving cars. | jsight wrote: | I had someone go in front of me while circling his | flashlight as if to proceed. When I did, he casually walked | in front of me. He wasn't actually paying attention and was | just flinging his light for directing traffic without | thinking about it. | | Yeah, the .1% can be really ambiguous and dangerous. | rootusrootus wrote: | > It will have to wait for a child to die, unfortunately. | | Even then. The US has a pretty high tolerance for that. | boredumb wrote: | Unless the death is being exploited in order to remove | constitutionally protected liberties, the US has pretty | close to zero tolerance for the death of minors. | dahfizz wrote: | I agree with you. Real self driving is impossible, IMO. | Current "AI" tech will never get us there. And even if we | cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to expect the computer | intelligence to be a better driver than a human. AGI does not | mean the absence of emotions, distractions, or | miscalculations. | | We as a society should be realistic about the advantages and | limitations of self driving technology. On a highway with | well marked lanes and no construction, pedestrians, etc, self | driving is _awesome_. That is the use case that should be | optimized and encouraged by states. Everything else should | realistically be banned. | petters wrote: | > And even if we cracked real AGI, I don't see a reason to | expect the computer intelligence to be a better driver than | a human. | | You can't be serious. Human are notoriously bad in | situations where nothing happens 99.9% of the time but | requires quick reaction 0.1% of the time. | jvanderbot wrote: | You're assuming an AGI would have all the characteristics | of a machine algorithm _and_ enough intelligence to do | exactly what a human would /should (or better) in all | driving situations. | | That's a big ask, and is a huge superset of AGI. | dahfizz wrote: | Why would a computer intelligence be any less prone to | distraction? | reaperducer wrote: | _Why would a computer intelligence be any less prone to | distraction?_ | | Just wiggle the mouse when you're in a construction zone, | so the computer's processing speeds up. Just like on the | desktop! | bun_at_work wrote: | Easy - we can define the computer's objective function. | Why would it get distracted by things it doesn't care | about? | | Meanwhile, humans are checking Instagram and Pornhub | while driving around. | nradov wrote: | Well we haven't invented AGI yet, and so we don't even | know if it will be possible to control them with an | objective function. So your opinion is entirely | speculative and not based on any science. | heavyset_go wrote: | And yet there is no evidence that self-driving systems | are any safer than human drivers, or that they'll ever | even be as safe as human drivers, let alone safer than | them. | nradov wrote: | It's still vaporware for now, but next year GM is | supposedly going to start selling a system that will allow | true hands-off self driving on highways. It will be | interesting to see if they really deliver. The claims seem | to be well beyond what Tesla currently sells. | | https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a37886786/general- | motors-u... | dahfizz wrote: | > General Motors is adding another tier to its hands-free | driving technology with its new Ultra Cruise system that | it claims will work in 95 percent of driving situations. | | This seems to be exactly what I mean. They admit that | their system can't handle the 5% of edge cases, and | market it appropriately. This is not a full self driving | car. | wallscratch wrote: | Couldn't there just be some google maps / waze API that | jurisdictions can enter speed limit information into for | different days and times of the week, and just have the car | query that? | clvx wrote: | Even worse, there are school signs that say 15mph when children | are present. Kids could be behind cars, bushes, people, etc. | That's a very hard task to deal with. | barbazoo wrote: | > That's a very hard task to deal with. | | Not really though, you could just assume there are kids and | do 15mph. Not everything is a hard to solve machine learning | challenge. | clvx wrote: | So many ifs. Look, even if you pass the school zone, kids | play around. In rural areas, this is very common. Yeah, you | could go at the speed limit, but people are just careful or | make a judgment call. | abletonlive wrote: | I mean if the kids are in the bushes I'm not sure a human | would be able to figure that out either. It's been said | before: self driving cars don't have to be perfect, just | better than humans. And humans are super flawed. | Cederfjard wrote: | Well, for PR purposes, they might have to be substantially | better than humans, or the backlash to incidents might be | too great. | bcrosby95 wrote: | The US has about 100 million miles driven per traffic | fatality. | | Humans are flawed but human drivers are way safer than the | human detractors would have you think. | b3morales wrote: | Could you clarify what interactions that figure includes? | I.e. is it fatalities for people _inside_ motorized | vehicles, or does it include something like a car-bicycle | accident? | earleybird wrote: | Human drivers "can" be way safer; they aren't always. | There's likely some balance where overall, self driving | is statistically safer than some group of suboptimal | drivers. It remains to be seen but there's always hope. | pythonaut_16 wrote: | Unless the unsafe parts of self driving only apply to | previously unsafe drivers it will still struggle to take | off. | | Not every human driver has the same risk, but every self | driving car will. (Or it will be based on which car you | are in rather than how safe you are.) In other words, | relatively safe human drivers could actually see their | risk levels go up in a self driving car, even it if it | statistically safer than all human drivers. | novalis78 wrote: | The reality is that life is full of edge cases. For full | autonomous driving we probably need full AGI. | BenoitEssiambre wrote: | It seems to be one of these AI-complete problems. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-complete | Minor49er wrote: | I think what we'll end up seeing are the developments of | sensors and protocols that are invisible to people, but can | be sensed by cars nearby. Traffic lights and road signs will | have sensors that emit electronic messages identifying what | they are and what rules they are communicating that self- | driving vehicles should obey. Other cars will start to have | them as well. We may even see small barriers constructed | between roads and sidewalks that exist only to discourage | pedestrians from entering the road to make automated driving | even safer. Your vehicle will be rented from a third party. | The owner will legally have to have it registered with the | city so that the interior cameras can conduct facial | recognition to identify the drivers and passengers. Law | enforcement can remotely disable a car and could also send | signals to get all other cars to pull over to ease the | arrests of carjackers and other criminals. Possibly coming to | a small town near you. | dahfizz wrote: | Humans have general intelligence and are pretty bad drivers. | Why would a computer intelligence be any better? If anything, | a computer intelligence would be more likely to get bored or | distracted if their "brain" is running faster than ours. | jpollock wrote: | The answer is for the car to always drive according to the | slowest speed allowed. | | So, it's always 25mph in that zone. Changing it based on | "school hours" is a bad idea anyways. | XorNot wrote: | This isn't really safer. | | Driving behind a driver not keeping up with traffic and | breaking erratically is a traffic hazard (happened to me a | few days ago with a human driver). | userbinator wrote: | I remember the story on here a while ago about a self- | driving car that got rear-ended because it stopped in the | merging lane of an empty highway rather than accelerating | like any human would... | akira2501 wrote: | It's generally a bad idea to fit safety regulations around | the safety limitations of the item they're regulating. We | set speeds, sometimes based on time of day or presence of | children. Humans handle this just fine. | | If your car can't, then the car needs to be fixed or it's | "self-driving" functionality entirely disabled. Changing | speed limit laws to compensate for these limitations is | entirely the wrong direction. | XorNot wrote: | My point is that FSD needs to be at least as capable as a | human to follow speed limit signs. | | The problem generalises - it's also unacceptable for FSD | not to keep up with traffic on a freeway or randomly | throw in the brakes to avoid spurious hazards for the | same reasons. | delsarto wrote: | In Australia, it's not just little side roads that run by | school entrances that have this rule; the school zone thing | applies even on fairly major free-flowing roads. Two examples | I can think of are | | https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.9293496,145.0051951,3a,59y,. | .. | | https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.7710688,151.0985503,3a,75y,. | .. | | As the usual speed limit is quite a bit higher at 70km/h, | driving at 40km/h (25mph) outside these times would make you, | at best, a rather annoying obstacle to surrounding traffic. | winternett wrote: | Impossible... None of the people mine has hit have ever filed a | complaint? | | [Sorry in advance] | pcurve wrote: | "How can Tesla claim self driving if the car can't read a sign | that says - speed limit 25 mph during school hours, and | properly adjust?" | | Self driving will always be dangerous unless overall traffic | infrastructure is updated. | | Can you imagine a train where the 100% of the onus of auto- | baking falls on the train itself, without zero input from | sensors and towers outside the train? | vkou wrote: | > Can you imagine a train where the 100% of the onus of auto- | baking falls on the train itself, without zero input from | sensors and towers outside the train? | | I'm not hugely familiar with trains, but as I understand it, | trains in the general case have a much worse braking distance | to visibility ratios than cars do. | | Roads are generally designed to be safely navigable in good | conditions when their occupants are obeying the speed limit, | without external sensors. Rail lines are designed to be | safely navigable only with the aid of external sensors. | That's why trains can take blind corners at speed. | systemvoltage wrote: | I think the central thesis of OP is that the current | infrastructure is built for humans. We seem to do OK. So, if | anything, these kinds of issues are an indictment of the | failure of self-driving tech that was boosted to insane hype | around 2017-2018. Now we're getting to a phase called "Trough | of Disillusionment" in the Gartner terminology. If we require | the rest of the infrastructure to be rebuilt for self-driving | tech, then it is a irrefutable admission of failure. | semi-extrinsic wrote: | > Self driving will always be dangerous unless overall | traffic infrastructure is updated. | | I don't see how people can propose this kind of thing with a | straight face, when we live in a world where we can't even | afford to replace the paint on the road when it gets worn | away. | | Yeah, sure, governments everywhere will be lining up to pay | billions of dollars for putting up and maintaining new | infrastructure to provide us with some low ROI shiny toys. | And I have a bridge on a blockchain to sell you. | kazen44 wrote: | Also, this kind of investment could be far better invested | in making cities and (especially the US) far less dependant | on cars in general. | pcurve wrote: | We would need to re-think resource allocation. Fewer deaths | means smaller healthcare expenditure. Disability claims. | Improved road infrastructure doesn't need to be that | expensive. | [deleted] | reaperducer wrote: | _Self driving will always be dangerous unless overall traffic | infrastructure is updated._ | | I prefer to have the computers work for people, rather than | the other way around. | villuv wrote: | Yes! I would rather spend resources to standardize "smart" | traffic control infrastructure, where vehicles and | road/street constantly communicate with each other even if it | would just be for augmenting drivers' awareness. For example | in-car warnings about abrupt stop ahead, train approaching | level crossing, positions of nearby vehicles, traffic light | cycles, actual speed limits etc... Training "AI" to make | sense of (sometimes barely) human readable signs and clues is | waste of time in my opinion. Maybe just for helping with low | speed obstacle avoidance... | bluGill wrote: | Reading speed limits signs is the easy part compared to | figuring out how to handle all the kids walking to school on | the sidewalk next to the road (any kid might get pushed into | traffic, or decide to start crossing right there...). Even | figuring out school hours is easy. Of course it isn't just | kids, I've had to handle a bear on the road in front of me | before. | jerf wrote: | Yes. Such a train wouldn't be allowed to drive. | | Logical extrapolation of that point left as an exercise for | the reader. | WJW wrote: | Yes? That is pretty easy to imagine actually. It would be | much less efficient than the current system with a central | train controller, but it is definitely imaginable. | | In the case of Tesla massively failing to drive safely in a | school area: If you cannot operate safely, don't allow | autopilot to engage at all. | option_greek wrote: | Not specific to tesla but I guess the answer is in your | question. Most likely all the current self driving efforts | across board will fail till we have smart roads. A road that | can help a vehicle self drive will ensure the complexity of | self driving is reduced. And of course that might mean these | roads will have to be human driver, pedestrian free. | dheera wrote: | They don't. This is why stocks like TSLA should NOT be subject | to quarterly earnings reports, they should be subject to | quarterly safety reports _instead_ and earnings should not be | public for a long period of time. | pelorat wrote: | Well, they are far safer that the other guys, so the same | should be applied to all the manufacturers then. | dheera wrote: | Well, yes. | | We have an economy run by a corpus of idiot shareholders | who neither use the product nor are affected by the | product, and are free to crash its value at will, and will | crash it when earnings doesn't "beat" expectations, so the | company is forced to prioritize the entirely wrong things. | | If a company wants to "accelerate the transition to clean | energy", quarterly earnings is NOT the thing to be | prioritizing. Earnings are important for business | sustainability, but on much longer cycles than quarterly. | gamblor956 wrote: | Far safer than who? | | Tesla leads the world in terms of self-driving fatalities. | It's not even close; the total deaths involving self- | driving vehicles from _every other automaker in the world | combined_ is less than 1 /10th the number of Tesla self- | driving fatalities. | | Note that I include autopilot in the meaning of "self- | driving" here because Tesla does in its marketing. | dheera wrote: | In terms of total deaths per miles driven, all factors | considered, Tesla is very close to the top of the best in | terms of safety. | | Yeah, there are idiots misusing autopilot but there are | about a couple more orders of magnitude more people who | die due to drowsy driving a car without driver assistance | features. | amelius wrote: | Can't we tag children with a 5mph transponder tag? | d0gsg0w00f wrote: | Seems like a good way for child predators to find prey. | globular-toast wrote: | The simplest thing would be to just get rid of the temporary | speed limit and set it to 25mph at all times. 25mph is fast | enough. | smileysteve wrote: | Another example of a walkable "neighborhood" (with sports, | after school, and community events, community usage of | facilities at 6-7 days a week) that we ignore the safety of | in favor of cars to get wherever else they are going faster. | BitwiseFool wrote: | >"25mph is fast enough." | | No, it absolutely isn't. | me_me_mu_mu wrote: | As a former Tesla owner.. I love the car but I honestly don't | believe full self driving is worth the effort nor necessary. | | Otherwise Tesla has been great for my portfolio and the couple | years of zipping around were great. | dekhn wrote: | You're basically asking the question of what is the minimum | sufficient level of general intelligence required to allow | self-driving cars to go forward. | | I instead have a different criteria. If somebody could show | that their self-driving car can drive 250 million miles without | a person (pedestrian, driver, or passenger) across a fleet and | range of conditions, then that's good enough for me (currently, | people drive 100 million miles before somebody gets killed). | | I figure 2.5X more safe than the average human would lead to an | enormous savings in lives and one might even make the argument, | at that point, that there was a moral imperative to disallow | people driving! | | (BTW I live next to an elementary school and people drive past | exceeding the posted limit all the time. I struggle to move my | car safely through all the distractions. The one thing that | helps the most is the radar which hits the breaks if it thinks | I'm gonna back into a person or car.) | Barrin92 wrote: | the roads self-driving cars drive on at this point are | heavily self-selected as well. I want see a few thousand | self-driving cars interact on the streets of Delhi or see one | go through a snowy mountain pass with barely any signs | | when people make these safety stat comparisons nowadays seems | to be often ignored under how much more ambiguous conditions | humans still drive safely. | dekhn wrote: | I don't think either the Delhi Street or Snowy Mountain | Pass are really required to deploy self-driving cars to 65% | of the drivers in the world. | [deleted] | ape4 wrote: | In addition to knowing the school hours, a self-driving car has | to read and understand the sign - in every language. | henrikschroder wrote: | That's not the biggest problem: All drivers have to obey hand | signals from policemen and other people who are authorized to | direct traffic. Which means your car has to know what police | officers and state troopers and highway patrol and mounties | look like where you happen to be located right now, and not | be confused by some dude dressed up as one. Oh, and it has to | understand the hand signals as well. | | Good luck little car. | caf wrote: | I don't think it's reasonable to expect either car or human | to determine the distinction between "person dressed as | cop" and "sworn police officer acting in accordance with | his duties". | | Probably shouldn't anyway. It's not unusual for civilians | at the site of some unexpected hazard to warn traffic. | [deleted] | dragontamer wrote: | > My Tesla will allow me to engage autopilot in a school zone | | https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1478802681141645322 | | Just a reminder at how awful Tesla cars "self driving" cars are | at actually stopping. | | Please do NOT rely upon autopilot, fsd, or any other "Tesla- | tech". They're incapable of seeing objects like small children | in time. | | This was a test done at CES on January 6th, 2022. | | ------- | | In contrast, the people who setup the demo were showing a more | advanced self-driving car who could actually stop when the | child suddenly runs out onto the street. | | https://twitter.com/luminartech/status/1479223353730756608 | treeman79 wrote: | When I learned to drive the only advise my mom gave was. "If | you see a ball then slam on the break" | | I was told this for months. | | Few years later Driving down a road that had endless cars | parked along sides. So no visibility of yards. | | A small ball came from behind a parked car and bounced in | front of me. All I heard was my moms voice. Instantly slammed | on brakes. | | Sure enough a kid ran out in front of me chasing the ball. | | Car stopped inches from kid. He never even noticed me. Even a | moments hesitation and that kid would have been dead. | | I was going a little below speed limit too, which clearly | helped. | manishsharan wrote: | Reminds me of this incident that happened to me a last | December: I was driving my kid to school and I noticed some | pedestrians on the sidewalk . The mom was walking and texting | and the little boy was dribbling a soccer ball while they | walked to the school. And suddenly the soccer ball got on the | road and the kid dove after it .. in the middle of the road | inches from my car. I am so grateful to whatever braking | system my car had for stopping just in time. I honked and the | mom flipped me the birdie and cussed me out in what I think | was Russian. | | Kids are stupid and unpredictable and AI/ML can't work out | all the insane ways kids can put themselves in harms way. No | autopilot or FSD can . Peolple should not rely upon them. | [deleted] | TrainedMonkey wrote: | I totally agree with you that this tech needs to get better, | but I really want to see apples-to-apples comparison. I would | expect Tesla to also stop if a child was running across the | movement path in broad daylight. | | The night example looks to be specifically stacked against | autopilot. Tesla vision is notoriously bad at detecting | stationary objects and it needs a lot of light to function | well. Lidar/Radar are significantly better than cameras | detecting straight ahead obstacles in low light conditions. I | would really like to hear Tesla to defend their decision to | not use them. | | In any case, this testing is great because it lets us know | when the autopilot requires extra supervision. | borski wrote: | > The night example looks to be specifically stacked | against autopilot. | | I would argue so is the real world. | AareyBaba wrote: | It is exactly the same scenario where Uber self-driving | killed a pedestrian crossing the road at night | thepasswordis wrote: | The exact situation where "uber self driving" killed a | pedestrian was: the driver was literally watching a movie | at her job, while she was supposed to be driving a car | and training a self driving system. | | A _driver_ killed a pedestrian because she wasn 't paying | attention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hthyTh_fopo | borski wrote: | Sure, but this was supposed to be fully autonomous. | Nobody is arguing the human didn't make a mistake. The | autonomous system, however, definitely also did. | vngzs wrote: | Tesla didn't use LIDAR because it is more expensive [0]. | Quoting Musk: | | > Anyone relying on LIDAR is doomed. Doomed. Expensive | sensors that are unnecessary. It's like having a whole | bunch of expensive appendices... you'll see. | | [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/24/18512580/elon-musk- | tesla-... | lordnacho wrote: | How much more expensive are we talking? Also won't it get | cheaper with time, like the batteries? | fundatus wrote: | Every Pro iPhone has one. So it already got pretty cheap | by now. Looking at Mercedes' Level 3 Autopilot tech you | can also see how well you can integrate the sensors into | the front of a car. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Short range VCSEL is very different than the automotive | rotary lidar systems. | vngzs wrote: | At the time of comment, a LiDAR rig would cost around | $10,000. A few years before that, they were more like | $100,000. Presumably the cameras are much cheaper. | | I would be willing to bet that production efficiencies | will be found that will eventually drive that cost down | significantly. | leobg wrote: | Cost is not the only point he was making. The problem you | need to solve is not just "Is there something?", but also | "What is it? And where is it going to move?". LIDAR | cannot do that. Or at least if you get LIDAR to do that, | then you would have also been able to get it done with a | camera, in which case you wouldn't have needed LIDAR in | the first place. | | LIDAR certainly is the low hanging fruit when it comes to | the firmer question though (i.e. what is there in my path | right now). | [deleted] | ohgodplsno wrote: | "You'll see" is the perfect Musk sign for "I have no idea | what I'm talking about and I'm frankly just interested in | a few suckers believing me." | dragontamer wrote: | > but I really want to see apples-to-apples comparison. | | EDIT: Luminar's car is on the other lane, and there's also | a balloon-child in the Luminar's lane. You can see | Luminar's car clearly stop in the head-to-head test. | | There's also the "advanced" test, where the kid moves out | from behind an obstacle here. Luminar's tech does well: | | https://twitter.com/PatrickMoorhead/status/1478764515260911 | 6... | | > I would expect Tesla to also stop if a child was running | across the movement path in broad daylight. | | Nope. | | https://jalopnik.com/this-clip-of-a-tesla-model-3-failing- | an... | | https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-03/tesla- | was-... | | This "tech" can't even see a firetruck in broad daylight. | Why do you think it can see a child? | | This isn't a one-off freak accident either. "crashing into | stopped emergency vehicles with flashing lights in broad | daylight" is common enough that NHTSA has opened up an | investigation into this rather specific effect: | https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2021/INOA-PE21020-1893.PDF | Kaytaro wrote: | Tesla partnered with Luminar by the way and even tested | their LiDAR on a model 3 last year. I guess they weren't | impressed though, since they seem to still be all-in on | passive optical recognition. | celsoazevedo wrote: | The camera alone seems to see a lot: | | - 2018: https://youtu.be/_1MHGUC_BzQ | | - 2021: https://youtu.be/XfqabC_akV0 | | Is the car reacting to what it's seeing? Probably not, | but I'm not sure if adding a lidar fixes that. | dmitriid wrote: | > The camera alone seems to see a lot: | | In perfect conditions, on a sunny day. | | I'm in Sweden, and the sun shining directly into your | eyes from barely above the horizon while the road is | wet/covered with snow and reflects that sun at you is a | regular occurence during winter months. I odubt Tesla's | camera will be able to see anything. | bananabreakfast wrote: | "Opening an investigation" means nothing before a | conclusion is reached. | | The accusations could be valid or totally baseless, | investigations are opened regardless and specifically to | find out validity. | dragontamer wrote: | > The accusations could be valid or totally baseless | | Read the listed report. All 11 accidents were confirmed | to be: | | 1. Tesla vehicles | | 2. Confirmed to be on autopilot / full self driving. | | 3. Against a stopped emergency vehicle with flashing | lights or road flares. | | These facts are not in dispute. The accusations aren't | "baseless", the only question remaining is "how | widespread" is this phenomenon. | | These 11 accidents have resulted in 1-fatality and 11 | injuries. | | -------- | | We are _WAY_ past "validity" of the claims. We're at | "lets set up demos at CES to market ourselves using Tesla | as a comparison point", because Tesla is provably that | unreliable at stopping in these conditions. | caf wrote: | _I would really like to hear Tesla to defend their decision | to not use them._ | | Andrej Karpathy talks some about it in this (it's quite | long, but the whole thing is quite interesting): | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSDTZQdo6H8 | w0m wrote: | While 1000% agree the current Tesla FSD beta is in serious | need of work; comparing it to unreleased specialized hardware | in trials setup by makers of said specialized hardware is a | little disingenuous. | loceng wrote: | This isn't an honest test. Think through the reality and then | mimic that - but the reality isn't a child standing still in | the middle of the road in the middle of the night. | | Also, Tesla requires you pay attention still - which is | relying on it, but they tell you NOT to rely on it 100%, so | in this demo the driver is at fault for not watching ahead of | them and breaking. So your claim that they're awful at | stopping is pretty disconnected. | rvz wrote: | That's definitive proof that it still doesn't work reliably, | let alone the system confusing the moon with the traffic | light. [0] It shows that it is even worse at night. | | I have to say that FSD is so confused, you might as well call | it _' Fools Self Driving'_ at this point. | | Oh dear. | | [0] https://twitter.com/jordanteslatech/status/14184133078625 | 853... | mey wrote: | Puts them in good company. Not the first system to get the | wrong ideas about the moon. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_Missile_Early_Warni | n... | hansendc wrote: | I think the main point is to know the limitations of the | technology and to deploy it appropriately. For instance, I | don't rely on old-school cruise control to stop for small | children, either, even though I engage it in school zones. | | This isn't limited to "Tesla-tech". The same rules apply to | _ALL_ technology. | snicker7 wrote: | People intuitively understand the capabilities of cruise | control. Can the same be said if FSD? | jsight wrote: | Given the crashes with cruise control in bad weather, I | think the level of understanding is likely fairly | similar. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I am not seeing the relation between cruise control and | crashes in bad weather? | | If I bought something that says it can drive itself, then | I expect I do not need to pay attention to the road | because it can drive itself. Just like if my friend can | drive themselves and I am a passenger, I can trust them | to handle paying attention to the road. | | To go out of your way and call something "full" self | driving only indicates that I should have zero qualms | about trusting that I do not need to pay attention to the | road. | drewzero1 wrote: | I'm guessing the 'bad weather' comment is referring to | the common belief[1], possibly exaggerated[2], that | cruise control can be dangerous and cause crashes when | the road is slippery. Not sure what's changed with newer | traction control systems. I'd have to believe this has | gotten even less likely but I don't know; my cars are too | old to even have ABS. | | One of the anecdotes in the Jalopnik article mentions | that the vehicle is a Town Car, which is significant | because those are rear wheel drive and handle very | differently from most cars on the road in slick | conditions. I would certainly expect more issues with | older RWD cars and trucks because they tend to fishtail | and spin if the rear wheels are given power without | traction. | | [1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wild-when-wet/ [2] | https://jalopnik.com/lets-debunk-the-idea-that-its-not- | safe-... | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "I think the main point is to know the limitations of the | technology and to deploy it appropriately" | | Where does Tesla provide a list of such limitations for | it's customers, I am sure it would be extensively | documented given that lives are at stake ? | | Or should I find out those limitations myself, potentially | killing a few children in the process? | hansendc wrote: | > Where does Tesla provide a list of such limitations for | it's customers, | | One specific place is first sentence of the FSD Beta | welcome email: | | "Full Self-Driving is in limited early access Beta and | must be used with additional caution. It may do the wrong | thing at the worst time, so you must always keep your | hands on the wheel and pay extra attention to the road. | Do not become complacent." | | That's been my experience with it. Right now, the beta | doesn't reduce my workload, it _increases_ it. When I | want to "just drive", I turn the beta off. | | That said, Tesla can and should do more. They need to | better frame the capabilities of the system, staring with | the silly marketing names. | idop wrote: | > It may do the wrong thing at the worst time. | | So, basically, I need to somehow predict that FSD will do | the wrong thing and react myself, _before_ the worst | time, because the worst time is when it's already too | late. | | Or, in other words, whereas any other car manufacturer | has fallbacks for when the driver is not doing what | they're supposed to, Tesla treats the driver as the | fallback instead. I just don't understand what is this | magic that is supposed to allow the driver to predict | incorrect AI behavior. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | That's really a legal disclaimer, a list of limitations | has to be sspesific to be usefull: don't use beyong X | temperature range, beyong X speed, below X | visibility,etc. | cbo100 wrote: | Find them yourself by RTFM maybe? | | Tesla puts all the info you need in the owners manual, | just like every other manufacturer with automated systems | on their cars. | | https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-8EA7 | EF1... | | There are dozens of warnings throughout the manual | explaining limitations and cautions around using the | systems. | | Every other car I've owned with the same or similar | systems has the same warnings littered throughout the | manual. | Miner49er wrote: | Why would you ever engage cruise control in school zones? | jsight wrote: | To avoid speeding. It can be hard to avoid accidentally | speeding by 1-2 mph and enforcement is sometimes zero | tolerance. | dahfizz wrote: | To make sure you aren't speeding? | hansendc wrote: | I personally have a tendency to match the speed of the | cars around me. IMNHO, most cars speed through school | zones. I use cruise control as a tool to prevent me from | accidentally matching the speed of the cars around me and | breaking the school zone speed limit. | lkxijlewlf wrote: | I live on a road with two schools zones about a mile | apart. I have had people _pass_ me in the morning _in_ | the school zone! People do.not.care. | | EDIT: Fixed "ppl" to "people". | BitwiseFool wrote: | This is a pet peeve of mine, but why use 'ppl' when you | spell out every other word, and then spell out people in | the end? | | Edit: Yes, ppl bugs me and there is no rational reason | why. Emphasis on 'pet peeve'. | lkxijlewlf wrote: | Fixed it for you. | borski wrote: | Because typing on phones can be annoying and ppl is | quicker than people. :) | | Or maybe they were texting and using FSD ;) | kllrnohj wrote: | > I think the main point is to know the limitations of the | technology and to deploy it appropriately. | | Such as, for example, by not calling it "autopilot" or | "full self driving"? | glennpratt wrote: | I'll give you FSD, but autopilot makes sense to me as | someone familiar with aviation. | Swenrekcah wrote: | I'm not familiar with aviation and the only reason I'm | aware that airplane autopilot is actually not a self- | flying system is because of Tesla and their weasel | excuses for their reckless marketing. | czzr wrote: | Does it? What's the expected response time on | disengagement for a plane? | dragontamer wrote: | How about "The person in the driver's seat is only there | for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is | driving itself." | | Tesla Marketing: 2016 | heavyset_go wrote: | > _Tesla Marketing: 2016_ | | For reference, this same marketing video is still up on | Tesla's site[1]. | | [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving- | hardware... | glennpratt wrote: | Sounds like trash, but then that's not relevant to what I | said. | dragontamer wrote: | The important thing here is that for over half-a-decade, | Tesla has been lying to its customers about its | capabilities. | | When in actuality, Tesla will reliably crash into | pedestrians and stationary firetrucks. To the point where | people at other companies are confident to make live- | demos of this at electronic shows. | | --------- | | Calling it "autopilot" or "fsd" isn't the problem. The | problem is that Tesla actively lies about its | capabilities to the public and its customers. It doesn't | matter "how" they lie or exactly what weasel words they | use. The issue is that they're liars. | | We can tell them to change their name or change their | marketing strategy. But as long as they're liars, they'll | just find a new set of weasel words to continue their | lies. | avalys wrote: | Is the average purchaser of autopilot familiar with | aviation and the technical capabilities of an autopilot | in that context? | kllrnohj wrote: | Does autopilot make sense? Aviation autopilot seems to be | many orders of magnitude more reliable than Tesla's | autopilot. | | In fact, autopilot in aviation contexts is regularly used | when human pilots are _worse_ , such as landing at | airports that regularly experience fog & low visibility | conditions. As in, autopilot is the _fallback for humans_ | , not the other way around. | | Heck, aviation autopilot is now available for use in | emergency landings ( https://www.avweb.com/aviation- | news/garmin-autoland-wins-202... ). | | Compared to Tesla autopilot, these are seemingly two | vastly unrelated situations. | dkjaudyeqooe wrote: | It may work somewhat like airplane autopilot, but the | environments are not comparable. A plane has nothing to | hit but terrain which is easily identified and almost all | other obstacles in the air are transmitting their | position. | | It's entirely deceptive. | epicide wrote: | In addition, pilots are required to have thousands of | hours of training for that specific model airplane. I'm | sure the limitations of autopilot come up. | | Meanwhile, in most US states, an adult can walk into a | DMV, demonstrate the ability to turn on the vehicle and | do a 3-point/k turn, and walk out with a license. | scrose wrote: | And at least in one state, all a kid needs is their | parent to tell the DMV they can drive | | [0] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32329549/georgia- | no-drive... | junon wrote: | I'm not a fan of Tesla personally but it is worth mentioning | that "autopilot" and "self driving" are not the same. Autopilot | is, and has always been, cruise control on steroids. Full self | driving hasn't reached the consumer market. To expect your | Tesla to be that is lying to yourself. | bjtitus wrote: | Meanwhile, Tesla seems to be using them nearly | interchangeably in its marketing. | | https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer | | Tesla attempts to bury the lead by saying drivers shouldn't | use these features without being "fully attentive" but uses | names like "Full Self-Driving" all over their marketing | material. | | https://www.tesla.com/support/autopilot | tedivm wrote: | Elon has also publicized cases where users filmed | themselves not being attentive. | | https://nypost.com/2019/05/10/elon-musk-weighs-in-on-porn- | fi... | heavyset_go wrote: | Tesla itself has marketing material that's even worse[1]. | | [1] https://www.tesla.com/videos/autopilot-self-driving- | hardware... | throwawayboise wrote: | I think Elon was the one doing the lying. | zardo wrote: | Doesn't Tesla have beta software the driver can turn on with | the name "Full Self Driving"? And isn't it intended to be | used, "beta tested", on public roads? | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | Apparently they came out and said that "Full Self | Driving(tm)" isn't supposed to be understood as full self | driving. | shmatt wrote: | Ah, the Wyngz of the AI industry | WheatM wrote: | rhacker wrote: | If I see a sign like that near a "church school" or whatever I | likely won't know it's 25mph on a Sunday. | | If there are crossing guards or whatever I'm sure I will stop | however, not sure a Tesla will. | FireBeyond wrote: | Absolutely. My 2021 Audi has traffic sign recognition, and | recognizes school zone signs, flags them as such on the console | and heads up display. It also recognizes the flashing light | indicating that the school zone is "active". | | But yet, Tesla, the "not-dinosaur", screws this up completely? | | Oof. | | AND, if you have adaptive cruise, it will absolutely recognize | the discrepancy between your speed and school zones, and will | decelerate the car to that speed. | johnmaguire wrote: | Many school zones do not have flashing lights. | | Isn't the correct answer today that humans should override in | these situations? | | Frankly, as a human I also find "during restricted hours" | signs frustrating. How do I know which hours those are? | ohgodplsno wrote: | Then just respect those limitations at all times. The | school zone will last a whole 200m, you can live with | driving 20 in there all the time instead of wondering if | you can go full speed in a school zone. | nkrisc wrote: | It is frustrating that it isn't clearly delineated, but you | should be fine basing your guess on some reasonable | assumptions: schools are busiest during drop off and | pickup, with kids out and about near the road, very good | chance those times are included in the "restricted hours", | possibly the hours in between as well. Public and secular | schools are typically not open on weekends, very likely any | weekend hour is not restricted. Schools are usually closed | during the summer months and for a time during winter | break. This can be tricky because school still can have | very different schedules and you may not know them if you | don't have kid sin school, but again context can help: is | the parking lot completely empty? No one around? School's | probably not in session, restricted hours probably don't | apply. If you were ticketed for speeding in a school zone | during morning drop off, I think you'd have a hard time | arguing you didn't know it was a restricted time. Maybe | during lunch you could make a case, I guess it would depend | on the judge you got. | reaperducer wrote: | _Frankly, as a human I also find "during restricted hours" | signs frustrating. How do I know which hours those are?_ | | As a human being, you weigh the risks and make a choice. | Which has the worse outcome -- getting to your destination | 18 seconds later, or killing a child? | mjevans wrote: | A zone near me has two different sign indicator systems. | They appear to go off at different intervals. In both cases | I don't see humans around. I would not be surprised if the | time the crossing guards and children were present was a | completely different, third time. | rconti wrote: | I still don't know what is meant by "when children are | present". On the sidewalk? In the playground? In the | classroom? | GordonS wrote: | I'm sure I saw cars with an option to read speed limit signs | about 10 years back. Really boggles the mind that Tesla have | gotten away with calling their cars "Full Self Driving". | Sebb767 wrote: | > I'm sure I saw cars with an option to read speed limit | signs about 10 years back. | | To be fair, those systems were just best-effort. I'm pretty | sure Teslas can handle far harder sign situations than | those. | | The problem is the edge case and while Telsa may fair | better, the older assistant systems did explicitly warn you | that it was best effort. | belltaco wrote: | >How can Tesla claim self driving | | Autopilot and self driving are two distinct things. | jjulius wrote: | Not to the average, non-technical person. | jimmaswell wrote: | Everyone knows airplane autopilot still needs a human | pilot. Everyone. | burkaman wrote: | I consider myself a pretty technical person and I don't | know the difference. Are they not synonyms? Auto=self, | pilot=driving | JohnWhigham wrote: | And yet a couple years ago, they claimed Autopilot was full | self-driving. | yupper32 wrote: | Are you saying that Tesla shouldn't claim to have a "Full | Self Driving" feature if it's still not autonomous? Because | they do. | | "Will the FSD computer make my car fully autonomous? | | Not yet. All Tesla cars require active driver supervision and | are not autonomous. " | | https://www.tesla.com/support/full-self-driving-computer | nixass wrote: | Tesla's self driving is gimmick actually and far from being | serious piece of technology. | asdff wrote: | Can they handle construction zones where lanes split all over | the place and speeds change? I'm guessing no. Based on the | constant amount of scuff marks along the guards of the 5 | freeway and pretty much every other freeway in California I'm | assuming thats a hard challenge even for human drivers. | akerl_ wrote: | For what it's worth, the one thing my Tesla has been | consistently good at is picking the correct lines out of a | jumble of nonsense on the road. | | I've used AP heavily in highway construction zones, and at | night with bad visibility, and in inclement weather, and in | combinations of the above. AP does better than I can manually | do at picking the correct set of road marks to follow, even | in cases where the construction has left partial incorrect | marks underneath / conflicting_with the right ones. | | AP has a ton of other issues of varying levels of severity, | but if you're asking "can I trust it in a construction zone", | I'd say yes based on my usage. | bluGill wrote: | All they need to do is recognize a construction zone a minute | ahead of time and get the human to take over. This would | allow level 4 through construction zone. Level 4 is self | driving "in the easy parts", and give humans enough time to | take over in the "hard parts" (level 5 is everywhere, and as | you note a much harder problem). Note though that you can't | just stop driving, you need to allow time for the human to | figure out what it going on, how to properly have humans take | over is itself a hard problem. | elil17 wrote: | Right, but they don't do that, do they? Their failure mode | is beeping at you to take over at the last possible second. | mjevans wrote: | I could see construction zones required to setup self- | driving parking buffers for the cars to 'fail' into safely. | alanh wrote: | It's actually remarkably good at this now. Source: Me driving | with FSD | JohnWhigham wrote: | No, they fail spectacularly at ad-hoc road work lane setups | or setups where the "official" lanes are temporarily blacked | out. I think that was the cause of the Tesla smashing into a | freeway median a couple years ago. | kortilla wrote: | > I think that was the cause of the Tesla smashing into a | freeway median a couple years ago. | | If it happened a couple of years ago you're not talking | about FSD. | suifbwish wrote: | OR maybe the Tesla is so good at driving it doesn't need to | slow down. Maybe it should actually speed up to give people | less time to get in front of it. | BitwiseFool wrote: | One way to address this problem is to designate which sections | of road are school zoned and which are not. Then, include | information about the school zone schedule. I can't imagine | this information hasn't been digitized in some way yet. | caf wrote: | The mapping data that Tesla uses does know about school | zones, as well as other time or season based speed zones, and | even weather-dependent speed zones. They all get rendered on | screen, with the currently-active zone shown. | akira2501 wrote: | Even if it is.. how does it get updated? Or verified? Or | protected? Who's at fault if the information is inaccurate? | BitwiseFool wrote: | I know some municipalities publish this information on | their city websites. Granted, I do not know much about | municipalities and GIS, but I imagine it is possible this | is in some format that can be made available to map data | services. | nwiswell wrote: | It's an easily solved problem: the state legislature writes | a law mandating a statewide database, and schools are | required to enter their information. | | Like some other commenters pointed out, ad-hoc situations | like police directing traffic and one-direction-at-a-time | utility work are a much bigger concern. | tonyhb wrote: | I wish all stop signs would be replaced with roundabouts, or mini | roundabouts like those in the UK. Stop signs are wildly time | inefficient, less gas efficient, and more dangerous. Not | necessarily best practice, but I'm all for rolling stops in the | meantime. | ngngngng wrote: | We have one roundabout in my small town, and there is strong | hatred towards it. There's a perception that it's far more | dangerous than any alternatives. | WillPostForFood wrote: | Roundabouts are awesome (for cars), when the intersection was | designed and has space for it. Retrofitting them into | intersections often doen't work. They do it a lot in my city in | smaller residential intersections. They can be so tight that | the turning radius of a mid-large size car or SUV won't allow | circumnavigation. People drive over the center, and still make | left turns because it is so hard to get around. | alistairSH wrote: | In that use case, the goal is simply a rule for determining | right-of-way. Doesn't really matter if they drive over the | center as long as they wait their turn to do so. | netr0ute wrote: | Where I am, they fix the "drive over the center" problem by | making it a giant concrete barrier so you can't drive over | the center unless you have a monster truck. | FireBeyond wrote: | Paramedic here. Have been called to more than one MVA where | your regular sedan has successfully "climbed" a 20" | vertical concrete raised center of a roundabout. Energy and | inertia is a powerful thing! | Isthatablackgsd wrote: | There is one in my city and it is in popular shopping | center, so it get a heavy usage out of it. In the center, | there is trees and rocks as decorations and designed to | prevent anyone from driving over the center. There is other | city that have a small (1-lane) roundabout, the center is | protected with chain "rope-like" barrier with the sign to | drive right. | twobitshifter wrote: | Many stop signs could be replaced by yield signs. The energy | savings would be enormous. A full stop should only be needed | when making a left hand turn or needed for sighting, and there | are many stop signs in places where left turns are impossible. | dawnerd wrote: | Whats funny is FSD currently (maybe 10.9 changed this) stops at | roundabouts. | Isthatablackgsd wrote: | The issue is space to put roundabouts. Majority of American | cities already have roads set up and it would be difficult to | put in the roundabout to replace existing infrastructures. | Roundabout requires more space than a simple 2-lane wide 4-way | intersection. | | And there is a driver problem, majority of American almost | never have any experience driving on roundabouts. I seen some | would simply cut off the roundabout traffic and proceed on | their way without yielding. | throwawayboise wrote: | I think most crossroads could accomodate a mini roundabout, | maybe lopping off each corner a bit. Where I live, converting | an crossroad to a roundabout seems to take about a year, they | close and completely excavate the existing roadway, relocate | storm drains, build a huge center island, and take an | additional 10' of property all around. It seems excessive. | alistairSH wrote: | Many roundabouts in small towns in Scotland are simply a | painted circle in the center of the intersection. Hopefully | this link works... | | https://www.google.com/maps/@56.5903811,-3.3375594,3a,75y,21. | .. | Someone1234 wrote: | I'd wish new construction aimed for that, but converting | _existing_ four-way stops to roundabouts would require widening | of the road at all four corners which is impractical (i.e. you | may have to knock down buildings, but certainly have to re- | place sidewalks). | | The data shows that roundabouts are safer and even improve | traffic flow. But they're also a nightmare to install after the | fact, which is why it is so uncommon. All we can do is stop | making the same mistakes going forward. | | Same thing with burying power lines: Far cheaper to do with new | construction, substantially more reliable and better able to | withstand natural disasters, but we aren't. Society is just bad | at planning for tomorrow if it costs us a little today at every | level. | anonymousisme wrote: | I live in an area with roundabouts. The frequency of collisions | actually seems higher because people do not know the rules and | do not yield before entering the roundabout. | foxfluff wrote: | I live in an area with roundabouts. There are very few | accidents in roundabouts and it's impossible to get a license | if you don't know how the rules for a roundabout. | samwillis wrote: | There are issues with mini roundabouts, two I regularly see in | my home town: | | - If you have one 'entrance' to the roundabout which is | partially busy, say at rush hour, it becomes near impossible to | enter the roundabout from a different direction. With a normal | roundabout many more cars can be on the roundabout at once and | a natural flow, even from less used entrances, just happened. | This does not work on a mini roundabout. | | - Where they have replaced a T junction, people often ignore it | causing (near) accidents when going "straight on" when they | don't have right of way. | | They are definitely not a one size fits all solution. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Then ask our legislatures to change the law. Don't let private | companies make cars that disobey the laws developed by elected | officials and those they appoint. | DavidPeiffer wrote: | In Iceland they have many roundabouts all over, and at most low | residential intersections there's simply a yield for one of the | intersecting roads. Having a yield instead of having to come to | a stop is so refreshing. | | You are also required to have your lights on when you are | driving. It notably increases visibility even during the day. | | I came back to the US really wishing those policies would go | into effect nationwide. | [deleted] | throwawayboise wrote: | Yes I would love to see the elimination of the four-way stop | intersection. One road should be designated as the "arterial" | road and should not stop. The crossing road should yield. | There are very few cases where a four-way stop is justified. | duxup wrote: | They're almost the default now in my area of the US if at all | plausible. | | Having said that a lot of roads in my area are already built | around 4 way stops and it's not easy to undo that, but new | construction in my area of suburbia US has adopted the | roundabout. | sschueller wrote: | I want to government to change the rules and make Tesla | responsible for all accidents causes by FSD. Then let's see how | long until that feature no longer exists and Tesla has to admit | that what they have been peddling is vaporware. | jacquesm wrote: | I'd give it about 15 minutes until an OTA recall of all | software that allows the car to move without a human directing | it all the time. | CalRobert wrote: | Note that rolling stops can seem safe but in some cases there are | surprising circumstances where intersections can leave you blind | to other road users. https://www.wired.com/story/the-physics-of- | the-69-degree-int... for instance discusses an intersection where | the angle caused a person-size blind spot behind a car's pillar. | natch wrote: | Good thing cameras mounted under the windshield glass are not | obstructed by pillars. | | Direct sun glare can be an issue though. I have yet to see how | Tesla plans to solve this, although having five different | forward facing cameras surely helps. | zinekeller wrote: | The Wired reporting is based on Bez's article on Singletrack | (as stated): https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision- | course-why-th... | | Tom Scott made a good complementary video about this: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeeTvitvFU | | It's already fixed just last month: | https://www.hants.gov.uk/News/25012022Ipleycrossroadsopening | and https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/new-forest- | acciden... | darknavi wrote: | Interesting video. I didn't know STOP signs were so rare in | the UK! | mensetmanusman wrote: | Will be hilarious if FSD gets halted by 80% of humans committing | rolling stops and never allowing FSD vehicles to cross the street | (which are programmed to follow the letter of the law). | tohnjitor wrote: | become ungovernable | mortehu wrote: | When I moved to San Francisco from Europe I had to take a drive | test to get a US license. In every single intersection I did a | rolling stop, and got like 15 minor "errors" on my score sheet. | However, since I had no other errors I got the license. Perhaps | the FSD beta would also pass this test. | dawnerd wrote: | The problem with the assertive setting is it didn't really work. | The car would still do a rolling stop even in chill. I think in | those cases it might have been creeping for visibility but often | the creep is a full blown drive into the intersection. | | They really need to add some explicit controls over this like | navigate on autopilot has. I've had to disengage so many times | due to it making really dumb moves that could be fixed with just | asking me first. I know thats against their end goal but their | models just are not there yet. | mauvehaus wrote: | Virtually all humans roll stop signs from time to time. It's safe | when done in appropriate circumstances, yet it's illegal. | | The law is at complete odds with normal human behavior, and we've | been ignoring the contradiction for, what, decades? | | The most interesting possible outcome of widespread self-driving | vehicles is reconciling the legal fictions on the books with | reality as code is unambiguously breaking the laws that aren't | based in any semblance of reality. | CalRobert wrote: | The problem is that judging whether the circumstances are | appropriate is nearly impossible from the limited perspective | of the driver. You can't see things hidden by A/B/C pillars, | you can't see short objects (like children) obstructed by your | doors, and too often people using cars forget that things like | kids on bikes, motorcycles, pedestrians, etc. exist. | | This is indeed normal human behaviour, but we've also seen a | dramatic increase in drivers killing people with their cars. | paxys wrote: | > when done in appropriate circumstances | | If a law leaves "appropriate circumstances" to the discretion | of the public then it is effectively useless. If you get hit by | a driver who refused to stop at a stop sign, you're most | certainly not going to think that rolling stops are fine. | camjohnson26 wrote: | Basically every law eventually boils down to someone's | discretion, either the enforcer, the judge, or a jury. | epgui wrote: | > [...] a law [...] is effectively useless. | | Indeed! :) | bhauer wrote: | Indeed. Similarly, we may eventually need to contend with the | fact that posted speed limits are, in most jurisdictions that I | know, at least 5 to 10 MPH lower than the enforced limit. | Virtually all human drivers drive some small amount over posted | speed limits. | | If we were to force all autonomous drive systems to _always_ | perform full stops and _always_ obey the speed limit, the human | drivers mixed among them will lose their minds. | | At least so far, NHTSA has not said that Tesla and others need | to ensure that in autonomous drive modes, the speed limit may | not be exceeded. | jcims wrote: | That was something that occurred to me when I first heard about | this. It's probably safer to drive in an expected way than a | legal way. | ceejayoz wrote: | > The law is at complete odds with normal human behavior, and | we've been ignoring the contradiction for, what, decades? | | No, we've been _using_ the contradictions as pretexts for | otherwise illegal traffic stops. | com2kid wrote: | > Virtually all humans roll stop signs from time to time. | | Are you in California by chance? | | Because I rarely see that behavior in Washington state. Dead of | night empty roadway people will come to a full stop at a stop | sign. | | > It's safe when done in appropriate circumstances, yet it's | illegal. | | You mean like when a driver thinks they don't see anyone else | around? While driving a car with giant A pillars that block a | large % of the street and sidewalk from view? | | Just, like, always stop at stop signs. It isn't that hard. | chucksta wrote: | You are in an exceptional area then. The entire city of | Philadelphia operates on the idea stop means slightly tap on | breaks. I've even seen cops regularly roll them. | legerdemain wrote: | "Even" cops? Here in the Bay Area, cops blow through every | intersection without turn signals and barely any hint of | slowdown. And everyone's happy, because only our blue | domestic warfighters stand between us and the unwashed mobs | robbing Lululemon stores. | duped wrote: | I know we're playing the anecdote game here, but I've lived | and driven all over the US and can't recall a place where | stop signs were respected by anyone (cross walks are a | different story) | com2kid wrote: | From what I understand in Seattle (and I believe all of | Washington State), every intersection at a corner is also a | crosswalk, even if unmarked. | | So people don't have to walk multiple blocks just to cross | the street. :) | | Accordingly I treat all intersections as potential | crosswalks because people often cross at them! | duped wrote: | I meant more that in some places (NYC) no one waits for | the crossing signal, yet in other places (like LA) | everyone does. | DaveExeter wrote: | >Just, like, always stop at stop signs. It isn't that hard. | | I hate people who reflexively come to a full stop at stop | signs! | | And some stop signs, I just completely ignore. Drive right | thru as if there was no stop sign at all. | | I have eye-balls so I don't have to stop at stop-signs. | ryandrake wrote: | Not justifying rolling stops, but I can understand why people | do it. I've lived in infuriating neighborhoods with a 4 way | stop sign at every... single... intersection... You could | drive a mile and hit fifteen of them. Cities get a complaint | about an intersection and the cheapest way to "calm traffic" | is to plop down a 4 way stop sign. You've basically created | stop-and-go traffic without the traffic. | | Most stop signs I encounter in my commute and trips into town | could be safely converted into roundabouts while still | keeping neighborhood driving speeds low, but since this is | the USA, nobody understands how to use roundabouts, so we sit | there like idiots stopping every 300 feet of travel. | com2kid wrote: | There is one intersection in Kirkland WA that needs to be a | round about. Every day during rush hour one stop sign is | responsible for a 3-5 minute line of traffic. | | But you know what? _Everyone stops at it_ Even though it is | stupid, and there is almost no chance of cross traffic, | people stop at it. | | (It is on 116th ave in Bridal Trails, anyone local reading | this knows the stop sign I'm talking about!) | | So yes, some very stupid stop signs exist. | | The neighborhood I live in now has a compromise stop signs | every block going east/west, but no stop signs going | north/south. It works out well enough! | | Indeed, roundabouts would solve a lot of these problems. | | One private gated community around here just uses _giant_ | speed bumps. Another, somewhat jarring, solution to the | problem! | HWR_14 wrote: | I mean, most speed limits are also ignored safely and commonly. | mauvehaus wrote: | And there are circumstances where it's both reasonable and | expected to pass a vehicle over a double yellow line (a slow- | moving agricultural vehicle or a horse and buggy, for | instance). | | And there are definitely cases when it's preferable to | closely cut a yellow light than risk a collision if you're | being tailgated and don't have much faith in the person | behind you stopping if you do. | | At best, the law codifies best practices for the typical | case. | | At worst it's a tool used to selectively target some people | over others. See, for example, the concept of "driving while | Black". | Eric_WVGG wrote: | It's attitudes like this that me bull-ish about the future of | self-driving cars. | | Cars can be programmed to never speed, double-park, or roll | through stops (I'm aghast that Tesla even tried this). Loads of | drivers seem to think this kind of shit is just fine and | normal, and desperately need to be taken off the road. | | Self-driving car skeptics seem to think that the barrier is | "being good at driving." I think the barrier is "being better | at driving than most people." That's a low bar. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Loads of drivers seem to think this kind of shit is just | fine and normal, and desperately need to be taken off the | road. | | For every few hundred cars going 65-80 on a 55mph stretch of | interstate highway there's maybe a couple going the speed | limit. Who is contributing the most danger to the roadway on | a per-capita or per vehicle basis? | | > That's a low bar. | | You only think that because you mentally bucket people who | casually violate the letter of the law when they deem it safe | to do so and who's judgement on such matters is roughly in | line with everyone else's into the "bad driver" category. | | The bar is not actually that low. | Eric_WVGG wrote: | > Who is contributing the most danger to the roadway on a | per-capita or per vehicle basis? | | The people who are speeding. That's what "limit" means. | | > casually violate [the letter of] the law | | key word "casually". Casually hurtling tons of metal at | speeds that turn bodies to jelly. | | And just to throw some statistics into the fray: 16,000 | people were murdered in the United States in 2019, and | every time that number fluctuates up it's "an epidemic." | Over 30,000 people died in car crashes, but that's just | normal cuz "hey, accidents happen." Casually. | travisporter wrote: | > safe when done in appropriate circumstances That's a truism | about anything, no? | stavros wrote: | Read as "usually safe". | cronix wrote: | It's also more environmentally friendly as it takes more power | (exhaust) to get moving from a complete stop, more brake dust | created coming to a complete stop, etc. | | > The law is at complete odds with normal human behavior | | > that aren't based in any semblance of reality. | | Dunno how true it is, but way back when, when I was in driving | school, the instructor said the reason for coming to a complete | stop was in order to accurately gauge the speed of | cross/oncoming traffic, which is not nearly as accurate if you | are in motion, in order to know if you can pull out/turn | safely. | micromacrofoot wrote: | A lot of traffic laws are guidelines until you do something | worse, or fit a cop's profile of "suspicious." In the same vein | as the old "broken taillight" ruse (the trope is that you get | pulled over for no reason and the cop breaks your taillight). | | Roll through a stop sign during rush hour? in most places | you're fine. | | Roll through a stop sign late at night when bars close? Maybe | you'll get pulled over for it and a sobriety check. | | The laws are rooted in safe ideals, but are applied on a whim | based on police bias. | | Personally I think self-driving cars should err on the side | safe ideals (even if they're slightly less practical), and the | laws should be applied to human drivers in a more uniform | manner. | | I've had some bad run-ins with police myself (pulled over and | searched for having a mirror ornament, pulled over for doing 5 | over the limit, etc)... and follow every asinine road rule | because of it. | woliveirajr wrote: | Reminds me of the "Industrial Society and Its Future" manifesto | (not that I agree with it or with the author's method). | krajzeg wrote: | In a few months: Tesla baffled as regulators crack down on their | "I'm in a rush" feature, which makes Tesla cars with FSD ignore | any and all speed limits as long as the car deems that's safe to | do and won't bother anybody. | ajross wrote: | I'm not sure I understand the joke here. That's the way it | works. The cars already allow you to speed (up to a limit, | obviously). Just roll the right scroll wheel. And you can | control its default choices via a menu (e.g. "limit + 5mph", | etc...). Being able to match traffic speeds is a good and | useful feature. | | But yes, it's technically "illegal", just like a rolling stop. | Which prods the question of why one is subject to regulatory | oversight and the other is not. | zamadatix wrote: | Limit + 5mph is an explicit control by the driver, not a | decision by the car. "I'm in a rush" described here is not | explicit, the car is making decisions on how much faster to | go. Self driving regulations naturally only regulate | decisions by the car, not decisions by the driver. "break all | speeding laws however you want" isn't a decision as much as a | directive on how to make driving decisions. | | Same with rolling stop in fsd, it's even more clearly a | decision by the car which would naturally fall under self | driving regulation while decisions by the driver naturally | wouldn't. I.e. this isn't a "perform rolling stops" button | the driver pressed to force the decision. | warkdarrior wrote: | > But yes, it's technically "illegal", just like a rolling | stop. Which prods the question of why one is subject to | regulatory oversight and the other is not. | | Because one is a safety issue when done, and one is a safety | issue when not done. Not obeying the speed limit is (mostly) | safe when matching the traffic around you. Not stopping fully | at a stop sign is unsafe since it can lead to accidents | regardless of what everyone else around you does. | | Or to flip it around... obeying the speed limit but not | matching the traffic around you is generally _unsafe_. While | obeying the stop sign and stopping fully is always _safe_. | bryanlarsen wrote: | InTheArena got rear-ended and road raged for coming to a | full stop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30165411 | sidewndr46 wrote: | Just wait till they add a full self driving pit maneuver option | to the caR! | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Nah, they wouldn't call it "I'm in a rush." They'd call it | "Cannonball Run Challenge Mode." ;) | LastMuel wrote: | Apparently, it's "Assertive Mode" | duxup wrote: | I look forward to: | | <button>DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?</button> | | Personally I'd like a Foghat option: | | <button>Slow ride, take it easy.</button> | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | I hope robotaxis will have a setting for this. | | It can be a real pleasure to enjoy a buttery-smooth ride, and | robots will excel at it. And of course manufacturers will | optimize for it since it demonstrates confidence and safety. | OTOH, you know what can also be fun? Having a Tesla kick your | butt with almost 1 G. | | There should be a reasonably-smooth default setting, a "show | me your skills" super-smooth setting, a "sporty" setting, and | "madman". The latter would probably cost extra due to the | extra wear and tear, and I'm sure I'd pay for it, at least | once, for the experience. | natch wrote: | Chill mode... | mrfusion wrote: | Why is it a recall instead of a software update? | alexfringes wrote: | > Tesla will perform an over-the-air software update that | disables the "rolling stop" functionality, NHTSA said. | | I was perplexed by the wording as well. Apparently software | updates can be labeled recalls now? Did someone inform | Microsoft, maybe this would help Windows 11 adoption. | gcanyon wrote: | It is a software update. | jaywalk wrote: | It is a software update. | ajross wrote: | "Recall" is the only term available to express a software | update via the NHTSA's public notification process. It's just | the word we have. And yes, it implies things that are | salaciously untrue, which is one of the reason it finds its way | into headlines like this. | colonelxc wrote: | Most recalls are just to fix things. It might be replacing | brake pads, or a bumper, or in this case some software. | jjulius wrote: | According to the NHTSA[1]: | | >A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines | that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an | unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety | standards. Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by | repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases | repurchasing the vehicle. | | So basically, regardless of whether the fix is a software or | hardware update, any issue a car has that "creates an | unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety | standards" falls underneath the "recall" banner. I can see the | benefit here; a recall generally gets a certain level of | publicity that a "software update" might otherwise not. It | might not be a bad idea for people crossing at stop signs to | think, "Hmm, Tesla approaching, let's exercise just a bit more | caution", until this is resolved. | | [1]https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Recalls- | FAQ... | tdiggity wrote: | Just throwing in my experience here. Come down to Southern | California. The rolling stop is everywhere. Not so much in SF Bay | Area where I grew up. People get irritated if you drive the speed | limit and make full stops. Especially at 4 way stop signs, I | often feel like people are confused by a full stop, lol. | | I am also an FSD beta user, and I have my car set to standard | assertiveness and it does not roll through stops. | | And, one last comment on the vision of the car - it's a whole | different beast with the new fsd beta code. The highway autopilot | code is not safe on the streets and until you see the fsd beta | code at work, it's easy to think that it will perform poorly on | local roads. Yes, it can do stupid things and cause anaccident, | but not in the way the autopilot code will. It's different. | CamelCaseName wrote: | It would be fantastic if one day, with a high degree of | certainty, self driving cars were legally allowed to run stop | signs if they deemed it safe. | | There must be some fascinating cost/benefit analysis here looking | at the waste that comes from breaking and starting again vs. a | small chance of causing an accident. | | Think about all the cool ways you could alter urban design or | traffic law with self driving vehicle data. | ccorda wrote: | The actual implementation is a little more nuanced than always | roll or never roll, with seven conditions required to avoid | coming to a complete stop: 1. The functionality | must be enabled within the FSD Beta Profile settings; and | 2. The vehicle must be approaching an all-way stop intersection; | and 3. The vehicle must be traveling below 5.6mph; and | 4. No relevant moving cars are detected near the intersection; | and 5. No relevant pedestrians or bicyclists are | detected near the intersection; and 6. There is | sufficient visibility for the vehicle while approaching the | intersection; and 7. All roads entering the | intersection have a speed limit of 30 mph or less. If | all the above conditions are met, only then will the vehicle | travel through the all-way-stop intersection at a speed from 0.1 | mph up to 5.6 mph without first coming to a complete stop. If any | of the above conditions are not met, the functionality will not | activate and the vehicle will come to a complete stop | | https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V037-4462.PDF | b3morales wrote: | The safety of this procedure rests heavily on the determination | of "relevant" and the result of "detection". What is the | outcome if those fail? | margalabargala wrote: | If a cop watches me roll through an otherwise empty stop sign | intersection at 5.6mph, they would absolutely give me a ticket. | onphonenow wrote: | Pathetic by the police - you can see how disrespect builds in | these cases. | | They ignore rampant theft and violence and are busting people | on empty cross roads in middle of nowhere for not coming to a | full and complete stop. | | I continue to support policing, but I wish they wouldn't get | sucked into this type of work where they basically make even | normal people hate them. | bpodgursky wrote: | This is not true for cops anywhere I have lived, and I'm | sorry you live somewhere with such pointlessly strict | policing. 5.6mph is de facto stopped. | misiti3780 wrote: | I second this, it is different depending on where you live. | mdoms wrote: | So presumably the Tesla is aware of all local laws and, | more importantly, how strictly they are enforced from town | to town, in every market the Tesla is sold or imported, in | order to use this functionality safely and without | resulting in ticketed traffic violations? | margalabargala wrote: | IMO 5.6mph is a lot faster than de facto stopped, and | hitting someone at 5.6mph can seriously injure someone. | | 2-3mph I think is more reasonable for rolling through. | sorokod wrote: | De facto but not de jure. | Tarrosion wrote: | A heavy car or SUV at 5.6mph has about the same kinetic | energy as me on my bike at 28mph (25x weight difference / | 5x speed difference). | | I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to be hit | head on by an adult on a bike traveling 28mph! | | On the other hand, an _actually_ stopped car could | definitionally not hit someone. | bo1024 wrote: | Speaking as a city runner, you are 100000% wrong, and I | have had numerous close calls demonstrating this. | | If you roll through at 5.6mph while I am jogging into the | intersection from your side, I will often be hidden by your | A pillar the entire time right up until you hit me. And a | 5.6mph point-blank hit to a pedestrian can be serious. | | (edit: I have avoided these hits so far by watching | people's eyes. If I can't see them see me, I stop | regardless of right of way. This usually gives them a nice | scare as they're rolling into the intersection and glance | out their side window to see a person standing right there | 'out of nowhere'. Not sure how I'll tell with FSD.) | Mavvie wrote: | > Not sure how I'll tell with FSD | | In theory, FSD shouldn't have blind spots like an A | pillar for human drivers. | | But I agree with your point. | colinmhayes wrote: | This just depends on location I guess. Everyone here rolls | through at 10-15, especially cops. | rootusrootus wrote: | That's no longer a stop sign. | ec109685 wrote: | "As of January 27, 2022, Tesla is not aware of any warranty | claims, field reports, crashes, injuries or fatalities related | to this condition." | | Wish they would have looked at data with the feature enabled | versus disabled (more rear end collisions possibly)? | stefan_ wrote: | How about 1. stop | | It's wild they even put this into a NHTSA filing, not to | mention rolling it out in the first place. | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | Presumably because it matches the behavior of human drivers. | | If self-driving cars were widely rolled out already, any | large manufacturer could probably completely break traffic | nationwide by rolling out an update that makes the cars | actually follow every law and speed limit. (Just like work- | to-rule can be as effective as a strike.) | Osiris wrote: | Which, to me, just means the laws are wrong. The police | often don't obey basic traffic laws like speed limits and | signaling (in my experience of following police on the | freeway). | b3morales wrote: | I recently read an interview with a highway patrol | officer whose opinion was that it's not really feasible | for them to drive at the speed limit. Since a marked | police car is already effectively a pace car -- no one | wants to pass it for fear of being pulled over -- they | would just distort the natural flow of traffic and | probably create tailbacks everywhere they went, which | would end up being more dangerous. | | I'm not sure I agree completely with this reasoning, but | it was an interesting perspective. | Osiris wrote: | That's the same as saying that the speed limit (on | freeways) is wrong because if everyone obeyed the speed | limit, it would cause significant traffic congestion. In | fact, you can see this when there IS a police officer | driving the speed limit on the freeway and no one passes | them. Traffic backs up for miles. | b3morales wrote: | Exactly, yeah, this is the problem I have -- it's | pragmatic in a certain way, but also contributing to a | vicious spiral. | robryan wrote: | It becomes harder to change though because if the culture | is to go x over the speed limit, people will probably | still go x over the new higher speed limit. | alanh wrote: | Hard to imagine your outrage is real. Go to the closest stop | sign and watch who comes to a complete stop. Is it _anyone_? | gamblor956 wrote: | Maybe my part of LA/SoCal is weird, but almost all of the | people at the nearest stop signs stop at the signs, _even | when no other cars are there_ and no pedestrians are near | the intersection. | | In fact, the most annoying thing is that they will stop for | _too long_ despite the lack of cross-traffic or pedestrians | traversing the intersection (in any direction). | stefan_ wrote: | This is ironic because next time there is a bike article, | you get all the professional drivers in this thread | commenting "but they never stop at stop signs!". | | Can't have it both ways. The statistical evidence is clear: | the average US driver is tremendously unsafe, untrained, | unobservant and unskilled despite their country being built | around driving everywhere. Their remonstrations on all the | rule breaking they can perform safely stems purely from | ignorance of their own inabilities. | jcranberry wrote: | I wouldnt say outrageous but its pretty audacious to | actually program in law breaking behavior. I would imagine | this would instantly expose the company to liability? | yupper32 wrote: | You'll see me stop. It takes 1 second more to come to a | complete stop. Just do it. | | You sound like the kind of person to not signal when you | change lanes because you think there's plenty of room. | jsight wrote: | In my area, the vast majority do. The rolling stops are | called a "california stop" for a reason. | kazen44 wrote: | in my country (the netherlands) i have seen people stop at | stop signs at times when there is very, very little traffic | (04:00 at night). | | The point is also much more about creating a habit in which | this kind of behaviour is just done, regardless of the | state of the traffic on the road. The law says you must | stop for a stop sign, stop signs are placed in places in | which sudden traffic participants could enter your field of | vision at a time in which it is too late to react properly. | | Also, people get fined for ignoring stop signs, even if no | one is present. Driving education in the netherlands is | quite strict and so are punishments for drivers. For | instance, the driver of a car is always at fault for an | accident with a "weak" traffic participant (foot/bike | traffic), even if technically they werent at fault. (there | is process to fight this in court if you assume ill | intent/fraud is at play, although it is rarely used). | | the reasoning being that the driver of a car has had a | drivers education and can thus act responsible while | driving a hunk of metal down the road at lethal speeds. | rootusrootus wrote: | > in my country (the netherlands) i have seen people stop | at stop signs at times when there is very, very little | traffic (04:00 at night). | | This is also normal in the US, despite what a few | commenters on HN may have you believe. Hell, if anything, | regular people out and about at 4am are _better_ about | following the basic laws, because you stand out a lot | more when you flout them, and in the wee hours of the | night the proportion of drunk drivers is far higher and | so cops are looking for it. | Reubachi wrote: | The average driver is incredibly unsafe. due in part to | willingness, ignorance, stress, unperfect road conditions, | etc. | | The laws say to stop, LEO say to stop, etc. I can't think | of a defence to not stop beyond "No one else does it." | lelag wrote: | That's an interesting challenge for autonomous vehicles though... | On one hand, the idea of programming your self-driving system to | violate the law seems baffling. On the other hand, there are | unwritten local rules everywhere. I suspect that even though | rolling stop are illegal in California, the traffic density | requires drivers to adopt a more aggressive stance if they want | to move effectively and rolling stop helps that, especially when | multiple cars are stopped in line waiting at a stop sign. | | If most people adopted that unsafe unlawful behaviour but which | help reduce congestion, what are you suppose to do as a car maker | if respecting the law will make other users road-rage against | your client using your self-driving system? | jeromegv wrote: | I don't think we should program-in unsafe driving behaviours to | accommodate road-ragers. As those self-driving features get | more main-stream, this will just become more normal. And if | road-ragers are still around, they should get fined. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | I guess we're headed towards yet another slice of future | dystopia - where once we saw the opportunity for clean and | efficient automated driving by the time it's here it'll have | been so heavily influenced by current bad driving habits that | they'll have to keep the bad traditions up, if not to be | defensive against people but instead to be defensive around | other older AI drivers that are still assuming bad habit. | a9h74j wrote: | Memetic driving? Actually with humans in the mix, being | "predictable" can be positive for safety. | judge2020 wrote: | For reference, there is specifically a flag/toggle called | "California stop" (rolling stop) in the feature flag control | panel for FSD / autopilot features. Screenshot[0] and full | scroll-through on Greentheonly's twitter[1]. This panel is only | available to Tesla employees, as no FSD beta tester had seen it | before it was posted to Twitter. | | That was back in December 2020 So I the 'chill/average/assertive' | setting changes how it works, but it is true that Tesla | intentionally allowed the cars to roll through a stop sign[2]. | | 0: https://i.judge.sh/LtHmP/5deuksuc_L.png | | 1: | https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1336467057366487040?... | | 2: https://twitter.com/cooperlund/status/1488549356873695232 | gibolt wrote: | 'Recall' is not the correct word, even if it is officially what | NHTSA uses. This is an 'option' in a 'beta' version that applies | below 5mph. The recall is just an OTA update in a few days. | gcanyon wrote: | "recall" is a funny word to use for "software update" | thepasswordis wrote: | "recall" is a bit of a strong word here. They'll push an update | that removes a feature (rolling stops). | alanh wrote: | This is BS. Most human drivers do rolling stops. If you didn't | want your Tesla to do a rolling stop, you had the option to set | your FSD beta profile to a more conservative setting. | | Full stops, when no cross traffic is present, waste time and | energy. | pgib wrote: | "Tesla to push software update to update beta software | behaviour." | | _Recall_ makes it sound very different from what will actually | happen. | [deleted] | InTheArena wrote: | I was rear-ended in Colorado when I didn't do a rolling stop. Had | a road-rage incident when the other driving was livid that I | would stop under thoose circumstances. | | My dad (when gowing up) was pulled over for a cop for doing a | california stop in Colorado. The police officer let us off, | because we had california plates. | | When I got my Tesla, it was immediately evident that _no one_ | travels the speed limit. They travel 5-10mph over it on anything | other then a local road. or they drive way under it. | | This is the problem with our mental model - FSD/Autopilot has to | co-exist with human drivers - and human drivers don't follow the | law. FSD/Autopilot has to exist in a world where roads do not | follow standards, lines are not marked, deer jump in front of | cars, people do California stops (it's called that for a reason), | cars have accidents. | | Computers, today, change none of that. | caf wrote: | Is no-one else bothered that the term "rolling stop" is an | obvious oxymoron? | honkycat wrote: | > When I got my Tesla, it was immediately evident that _no one_ | travels the speed limit. They travel 5-10mph over it on | anything other then a local road. or they drive way under it. | | It is amazing to me how angry and insane people driving on the | roads can be. | | I don't want to have a constant battle with every other driver | on the road, I want to set cruise control, stay in my lane, and | turn off on my exit when I need to. Doing this almost always | triggers a tail-gaiting session and a driver becoming enraged | at me ( I am not in the passing lane, for the record ). | | 99% of the pain in driving is other drivers deciding to just be | assholes and not let me merge onto a highway for no apparent | reason. Perception of "me in front me go fast" maybe? | | Driving today, it is pathetic. We are all locked into our | little cages and make each other miserable for no benefit. | | I'm completely fed-up. There should be a system where I can | send dash-cam footage for review and get a ticket mailed to | their house. Don't defund the police: direct them at the | asshole-fucking-drivers making everyone's life miserable while | they play speed racer on the freeway. | bryceacc wrote: | >Doing this almost always triggers a tail-gaiting session and | a driver becoming enraged at me ( I am not in the turning | lane, for the record ). | | Or the fast/left most lane I hope. I cruise control in middle | lanes and still have people tailgate like there isn't one or | two open lanes to the left of me | llbeansandrice wrote: | Colorado highways seem to have a weird thing I haven't seen | elsewhere. The right lane is consistently going ~10mph below | the speed limit while the left lane goes ~10mph over. Any and | all middle lanes are also a bit of a crapshoot. | d0gsg0w00f wrote: | Did you notice the same behavior before Marijuana was | legalized? | Osiris wrote: | In my experience in Colorado, the right lane is usually empty | and it's often easier to go faster than traffic in the right | lane (at least on sections of freeway without exits close | together). The left lane is usually traveling at least 20mph | faster than the limit (on I-25 anyway). 85mph in a 65mph zone | is the norm. | mikysco wrote: | I think it's reasonable to say "nobody" follows all the rules | of the rules of the road. The ones you deem important enough to | rigorously follow come down to local social dynamics/norms more | than written law. | | I'm from Colorado and drivers there are much tamer than the Bay | Area - and rightly so! Traffic conditions in SF/peninsula | (where I live now) are way more hectic & dense than Colorado. | It's almost weird to expect uniformity across all regions | actually_a_dog wrote: | I don't think it's _that_ weird to expect people who are | licensed and tested on the rules of the road to actually | follow them. Granted, if you _do_ have that expectation, you | 'll be disappointed approximately 100% of the time, but I | don't think the expectation itself is that weird. | jMyles wrote: | The more insidious problem is that much of this is by design. | Legislators know that people don't obey the speed limits. | Police officers too. It just gives them license to stop and / | or charge whomever they please. It is an obvious and vulgar | workaround to undermine the principle of equal protection. | jiveturkey wrote: | It's actually called a "California coast". Or if you're from | the east coast, a "Philly roll". | LastMuel wrote: | > My dad (when gowing up) was pulled over for a cop for doing a | california stop in Colorado. The police officer let us off, | because we had california plates. | | I'm confused. A "California Stop" isn't even legal in | California. | mullingitover wrote: | > A "California Stop" isn't even legal in California. | | I'm informed that these are actually legal as long as you | don't disrespect the police by doing it in front of them. | It's the same way that going slightly over the speed limit on | freeways is legal as long as you don't insult the police by | passing them. | LastMuel wrote: | > I'm informed that these are actually legal as long as you | don't disrespect the police by doing it in front of them. | It's the same way that going slightly over the speed limit | on freeways is legal as long as you don't insult the police | by passing them. | | You and I have a very different view of what makes | something legal. | pvarangot wrote: | Yeah, it's "California Legal". | bdamm wrote: | There's a difference between legal and enforced. | | Going over the speed limit is not legal, but no officer | will pull you over at +1, unless you piss them off for some | other reason, like by being black in a white community, for | example. Racial biases aside, this is actually a really | good thing. If every law was enforced perfectly today, | everyone would be arrested, fined, or jailed tomorrow. | walrus01 wrote: | realistically everywhere on I-5 between Seattle and the | border, people do +5 over, and often 10 over. I'd wager | it's near impossible to get pulled over for doing 65 in | the 60 zone north of Seattle, and when the speed limit | changes to 70, for doing 75 in the 70 zone on cruise | control. | | Usually when I have cruise control set to exactly 75 and | I'm in the right lane, I'm very often passed by people | who are probably doing 80 to 82 mph. | gen220 wrote: | In New York, the highway norm is 13-15 over for the "I | want to go fast but not get a ticket" crowd. (i.e. 80 in | a 65). | | AFAICT, the reason is that there's a big jump in the | median fine if you're going >15mph over the speed limit | vs <= 15mph over. Economically-speaking, it's not worth | the police officer's time to pull somebody over who's | "merely" 10 over, because somebody going 16+ over will | appear in a few more minutes of waiting. | | Interestingly, the state website says the official | "maximum" fine bump occurs at 11+ mph over. I suspect | they wait for 15mph to rule out the plausible cover | stories "I was only going that fast to overtake the other | car" or "new here, I didn't realize the incline was so | sharply downhill with nobody in front of me". | | You probably wouldn't get pulled over for going 80-82 in | Washington (i.e. they people passing you probably have | their cruise controls set for 80), but it might be less | enjoyable of a drive. You have to pay more frequent, | closer attention, because you're overtaking people more | frequently. | | Ironically, California dives deep into "low fines for | speeds under 15 over". the under-15-over fine base is a | meager $35! For 16-25, it jumps to $70, which is still | paltry. | kelnos wrote: | > _There 's a difference between legal and enforced._ | | I think the parent knows that, and was being a bit | tongue-in-cheek ;) | [deleted] | tshaddox wrote: | Also I'm pretty sure lots of places say "{somePlace} Stop" | where somePlace is some nearby place known for supposedly | having bad drivers. | LastMuel wrote: | I don't disagree. It was the comment about the California | plate - almost like it was supposed to validate the | practice - that I don't understand. | | I commented as I have a concern that an uneducated reader | may walk away with the idea that it's legal in that state. | It most certainly is not. | | Apparently, though, Idaho does have some provision for | bicyclists and rolling through stop signs. So, there you go | - an "Idaho Stop" is a thing for any potential bicyclists | in Idaho. | rootusrootus wrote: | > Idaho does have some provision for bicyclists and | rolling through stop signs. | | As does Oregon. I would guess there are others, too. | jMyles wrote: | Idaho stop? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop | FeteCommuniste wrote: | We say "California stop" or "California roll" even way out | here in Texas. | CGamesPlay wrote: | I am also more familiar with the term "california stop" | than "rolling stop", and I was taught it by my parents who | have never lived west of Texas. Looks like this admonition | did a California stop all the way to the east coast. | actually_a_dog wrote: | It's not, but approximately everybody does it. I've even seen | cops do it. Once, I sat at a stop sign for a while, just to | see if I could observe anybody actually stop. Nobody did. | saila wrote: | I've done this a few times. Almost no one stops, unless | they're looking at their phone. | kelnos wrote: | Yeah; 15 years ago got a ticket for (allegedly; I still | maintain that I came to a full stop) doing a California Stop | in California. | bryanlarsen wrote: | "California Stop" is an insult, implying that people drive | badly in California. | alanh wrote: | OK? It's also a common term for it. | d0gsg0w00f wrote: | Who knows where these things come from. | | Here in Georgia I've heard people call it a "Texas Turn Off" | when someone dives for the exit from the center lane of the | highway. | jcranberry wrote: | At least in Houston there are some insane highway | intersections where that happens very often. | parkingrift wrote: | Probably commentary on the road designs with absurd and | massive interchanges. | matsemann wrote: | One thing I'd like modern cars to implement, given that they're | supposedly close to self-driving, is to cap your speed at some | percentage above the speed limit. | | There is no reason why a driver should be capable of driving | the car 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. | akira2501 wrote: | So, you're entirely removing the option of "escape" from | people caught in bad situations then. I'm not sure that's | wise. Further, you'd have to ask, how hard would it be to | disable that? Then, given that some users will have this | disabled, how does that impact the roadway as a whole? | technothrasher wrote: | I've always wanted a slightly less draconian version of this- | a speed limit setting that makes the throttle pedal harder to | push down once you've hit the a given speed. Sort of like a | natural cruise control. This would keep you from accidentally | creeping up over the limit, which is certainly something that | I do, but still allow you to go faster if you make the | conscious choice. | asdff wrote: | Good luck passing that law when we can't even gather | political will to put in average speed cameras in most | cities, which would also solve speeding without needing self | driving. | moistly wrote: | British Columbia once had radar cameras on the highways. | Instead of getting pulled over for speeding, you'd get a | ticket in the mail. People hated it and consequently we | elected a thoroughly corrupt government on the promise to | rescind the practice. | | But for a while there we all drove at around the same | speed, within about 10% of the posted limit, and it was | fucking _glorious_. It was so much less stressful: very | little passing of one another, fewer idjits weaving in and | out, left turns off the highway less of a guessing game, | fewer accidents ... it was just fantastic when most | everyone did the same speed. | | Of course now we're worse off than ever, because without | cameras the cops essentially gave up enforcing speed limits | and now there's an over 50% difference in speed between the | slower and faster vehicles. | rocqua wrote: | I believe there is a push in Europe to include this in cars | based on computer vision. It was pitched as "not above speed | limit". I would at least hope it is "not above speed limit | for long" or have some form of slack. | kllrnohj wrote: | Both emergency situations exist & also cars aren't that | infallible, so there would need to be a way to override such | a system or disable it. Otherwise imagine the chaos of a | track day or autocross when someone's car suddenly thinks | they are on the road _next_ to the track and slams on the | brakes... | matsemann wrote: | For every suggestion to curb the car problems of society, | there will always be someone bringing up edge cases to | defend status quo. | | How many meters are done on a track each year, compared to | public roads? I'd wager most people have never even set | foot on a track. Cases like that should have absolutely no | bearing on policy making. | | And emergency is always used as am excuse as well to not | limit car use or rebuild streets. If anything, getting rid | of traffic means that it's now easier for them to get to | where they are going. Same for disabled people. It's always | people shouting "you can't ban cars here, think of the | disabled", when the truth is that getting rid of most of | the cars and building better infrastructure would make | their day easier. | kllrnohj wrote: | > How many meters are done on a track each year, compared | to public roads? I'd wager most people have never even | set foot on a track. Cases like that should have | absolutely no bearing on policy making. | | It absolutely should have a bearing as you are | essentially arguing that those cases you should be | illegal & banned. You can't ban something and then argue | that "well, not many people were doing it anyway, so we | can ignore it even though we're banning it." | | Your policy impacts it, therefore your policy must | account for it. Even if that account is to decide that | the impact is justified, you _are_ making significant | changes to things outside of your stated & claimed goal. | | > And emergency is always used as am excuse as well to | not limit car use or rebuild streets. | | I did no such thing? | | All I said is there needs to be an 'off' switch, just | like there is for traction control in the majority of | vehicles today. The overwhelming majority of people leave | it enabled (as that's the default), and the world is | better. Rules don't need to be black & white to have | broad societal improvements. | | > It's always people shouting "you can't ban cars here, | think of the disabled", when the truth is that getting | rid of most of the cars and building better | infrastructure would make their day easier. | | Except you were arguing that cars should be banned for | uses outside of being on the road as part of normal | traffic. As in, your "rule" wasn't improving your | hypothetical excuse situation here. It was instead making | it the only legal usage of a vehicle, to compete with | mass transit. | darkwizard42 wrote: | I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases" is | meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some of | these hard and fast rules. It is why humans are | simultaneously great and terrible at driving. One | slightly bad driver can be accounted for by several | slightly better drivers navigating around the bad one's | behavior. This smooth "self-correction" on the roadway | leads to lots of rule breaking but also probably saves a | lot of time/lives by allowing individual humans to | navigate a situation (especially since lots of people | forget the exact rules of the road...ex. do you yield in | a turning situation or not, what exceptions would you not | yield?) | | However, I really do like your last point, the easiest | way to solve is just remove the cars from as much of the | equation and introduce transit that follows rules | (trains, busses -higher compliance with road rules | perhaps) and let humans navigate the last meter | themselves | dionidium wrote: | > _I think the issue of "always bringing up edge cases" | is meant to illustrate that a LOT can go wrong with some | of these hard and fast rules._ | | This makes more sense as an objection in a vacuum than it | does in the reality where the alternative is that | speeding is a big problem within cities. We don't have to | solve every edge case. We just need the edge cases to be | less of an issue than speeding already is. And that's a | much easier bar. | | Asking, "what if we do this?" is fine, but one should | also always consider, "what if we don't?" | darkwizard42 wrote: | But that is the point... if we don't do something here, | humans can continue to take their own actions to resolve | the situation (speed up with traffic or move to the right | or choose an alternate route). That level of flexibility | allows for each person to make the choice they want and | feel comfortable with (as opposed to the car making a | decision for you) | dionidium wrote: | Let's be clear here that "letting the car make the | decision for you" in context means "you can't go as fast | as you want in an urban area because the car will prevent | it." As in, you can't drive many multiples of the speed | limit in urbanized areas packed with buildings and | pedestrians and other cars. The car should prevent that | in practically all cases. The car _does_ know that that | 's a good idea in practically every conceivable case. A | human driver who thinks they should drive many multiples | of the speed limit in an urban area is _wrong_. | | It's so manifestly wrong that it shouldn't even be | technically possible. There's no good reason to | manufacture a car that responds so stupidly to such a | dangerous and irresponsible input. | | And when the day finally comes that the conditions are | just right so that a driver dies attempting to flee an | avalanche because this tech prevented them from escaping | at speed, we will put a lone checkmark in the "lives lost | to this technology" column that's adjacent to a "lives | saved" file 10 miles long. | | If I could be permitted just a little bit of levity: http | s://twitter.com/dril/status/464802196060917762?lang=en | yupper32 wrote: | More often is people trying to implement solutions | without thinking the problem through to the end. | | Like trying to ban the sale of combustion engines without | having a robust charging infrastructure. Or making | parking in a downtown area a nightmare without improving | the public transit infrastructure. | | Or in this case, trying to implement maximum speeds in | cars when the technology (GPS? Accurate speed limit maps? | Extra sensors on cars and roads?) isn't good enough or | isn't there. | dionidium wrote: | If you gathered up every single one of these edge cases and | multiplied them by 10 you wouldn't get anywhere near the | _actually-existing, non-hypothetical, measurable_ problem | of speeding. | | So, sure, we should talk about edge cases and people who | implement this technology should work on them, but even if | they didn't, the tech would still be a good idea given | fairly pedestrian calculations of the relevant tradeoffs. | | And even if we accept your premise that the edge cases are | a big deal, the solution presents itself quite readily: let | there be an override with serious consequences for | frivolously engaging it. Simple. | rootusrootus wrote: | First I'd need to be convinced that speed is the problem. How | about we work on road design before we starting trying to | second guess drivers? | | Even then I'd probably still vote against whichever | politician decided it was a good idea. | matsemann wrote: | Why? Is it some kind of human right to endanger others with | reckless driving? | rootusrootus wrote: | That's begging the question, how did you decide that 130 | kph was reckless? | alanh wrote: | Thank you, this is one of the few insightful comments I see | here. | consp wrote: | > and human drivers don't follow the law. | | You need to design the road to the speed you want, not the | other way around like it mostly happens in some countries. That | solves quite a lot of problems. | moistly wrote: | I thought my city's potholes were due to poor maintenance | when it turns out they're a traffic calming device! | aimor wrote: | Does it at least check for cops before rolling through the stop | sign? | | Kinda cheeky, but I bet a lot of people would love automated | driving features that change behavior around police. | anonymousiam wrote: | This sort of conflict highlights the difference between the | traffic laws (which are often rooted in revenue generation | instead of safety) and the way people really drive. Speed limits | have the same issue. Some governments (such as Germany) have | roads with no speed limit. Why don't we have those everywhere? | | In the end, it comes down to personal responsibility. Apparently | the people in Germany drive more responsibly than everywhere | else? | onphonenow wrote: | Rolling stops are how a fair number of folks drive, especially | when there is no traffic on a cross street. I was in a small down | growing up, and you'd slow to maybe 1-3 MPH, then turn. | | I know everyone on HN get's outraged by these decisions with FSD | (and regulators do too). One thing I think this exposes is | actually human driving. This is in fact common - the system is | reflecting things back to us. | | I was on road up higher and the number of people on their phones | is mind boggling. THey will literally sit at a green because they | are so checked out, they will be texting while merging. It's | madness. | grepfru_it wrote: | today i approached a 4 way stop. the car to the left of me | arrived later, as I was coming to a complete stop. well the | driver to the left used a rolling stop and continued through | the stop line. then he had the audacity to beep at me as he cut | me off. | katbyte wrote: | The issue there is not so much the rolling stop but not | respect right of way. | | Personally I think almost all stop signs should be replaced | with roundabouts as it better represents how people want to | drive and allows for rolling stops but that's just me | FireBeyond wrote: | I do like the Australian perspective, where I learned to | drive before I moved to the US. | | There's no concept of "right of way" on Australian roads. | There's only "duty to yield". It might seem like a subtle | concept/difference, but when it comes time to stand up in | court/ be pulled over/ avoid an accident, it frames things | better. | | Too many in the US are "it's my road, asshole, I got the | right of way". | ak217 wrote: | We have a heavily trafficked roundabout in our neighborhood | and it's a big hazard to pedestrians because drivers take | it way too fast and fail to yield to pedestrians in the | crosswalks around it. Aside from that, the roundabout is | great but takes up a lot more space than an intersection | would. Maybe some bumps to calm the traffic approaching the | roundabout would help. | | The problem that I see is just insufficient respect for | traffic laws. I'm not sure what to do about it, aside from | more police presence. | asdff wrote: | They kinda suck because American drivers stop at | roundabouts even when the sign says to yield | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | A stop sign at the end of a neighborhood road at the | intersection of a main thorough street makes sense. | | But four-way stop signs absolutely should not be a thing. | Anywhere a 4-way stop exists should certainly be a | roundabout. | | The only problem is that roundabouts in the USA are | exceedingly rare in most of the country. There would need | to be a massive education campaign for them to work for | most people. There are an alarming number of Americans that | think that the people already on the roundabout have to | yield for the people coming on. | ak217 wrote: | It depends on the location. There are plenty of city | intersections where 4-way stops are completely | appropriate, and a roundabout would be impossible because | it would have a much bigger footprint (and would block | trucks and emergency vehicles). | abraae wrote: | Some places use virtual roundabouts, where the roundabout | part is simply a small painted circle on the road. | Emergency vehicles can drive straight over it | [deleted] | Osiris wrote: | No one _wants_ to crash their car. People do rolling stops | because they are generally perfectly safe. | [deleted] | metabagel wrote: | If a police officer sees you roll through a stop where I live | (southern California), you will be ticketed. | asdff wrote: | If a police officer sees you do a donut in the middle of an | intersection where i live (also southern california) you will | just flee home and do it again tomorrow night. Traffic | enforcement varies strikingly in California it seems. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | If you lack the situational awareness to recognise a police | car in the vicinity, it's probably better to actually come to | a stop. I suspect that's part of why the law works well | enough. | metabagel wrote: | I was going to argue with you that rolling stops are | dangerous, but I ran into this interesting article which | recommends replacing stop signs with more informative | indicators: | | https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/adaptive- | behavior/20... | spamizbad wrote: | Right, but the promise of self-driving vehicles is about them | being safer than humans. Humans are irrational and impulsive. | Those actions disrupt the flow of traffic. The idea is that a | self-driving vehicle can be safer than a human because it will | do things like follow speed limits, always come to a complete | stop, etc. | | If self-driving vehicles are simply going to operate like | facsimiles of human driving behavior their benefits are greatly | diminished. | alanh wrote: | How and why does stopping completely at a stop sign, with | good visibility and no present pedestrians or cross traffic, | increase safety? Will wait for an answer. | bhauer wrote: | I think as long as autonomous drive systems are intermingling | on regular roads with human drivers, they need to behave like | human drivers. Human drivers will get angry with autonomous | systems, especially during rush hour, if they adhere strictly | to all laws such as full stops and speed limits. | | As others have pointed out, this may force us to contend with | the laws first since it's clear local enforcement and laws | are not aligned. | | When a majority of driving is autonomous, laws will likely | evolve slightly. If/when all driving is autonomous, then | things get really interesting: short following distance, | peer-to-peer intersections without stops, etc. | newaccount74 wrote: | Humans get outraged all the time. If you drive exactly at | the speed limit, they get angry, if you drive 5km/h over | they get angry that you don't drive 10km/h over it, others | get angry that you are tailgating them when they are | driving exactly as fast as allowed and will brake check you | --- I really think autonomous cars should just mechanically | stick to the rules, then they are at least predictable. | [deleted] | jliptzin wrote: | I don't see anything wrong with copying human driving | behavior except without any risk of drunk driving, driving | and texting, falling asleep at the wheel, having a heart | attack or stroke at the wheel etc. The average truck driver | appears to be morbidly obese and gets little to no physical | exercise, yet they drive enormous trucks that can do insane | amounts of damage if they suffer a heart attack or stroke, | personally I can't wait for self driving vehicles to come | online. | | EDIT: Not really sure why I am getting downvoted for this, | you can search google and get maybe hundreds if not thousands | of results about truck/bus drivers and heart attacks/strokes | causing deadly crashes, but they get maybe 1% of the media | attention of an FSD video rolling through a stop sign | https://fox4kc.com/news/family-says-driver-of-tractor- | traile... | legerdemain wrote: | Seriously! I was going to make the same observation about | truck drivers. It takes so little to exercise effectively. | Why not pull over your truck for 30 minutes twice a day and | do some basic calisthenics/bodyweight exercises? Who's | going to notice? | asdff wrote: | Your dispatcher who sees you are an hour behind schedule | for stopping for no reason on the route and fires you | mensetmanusman wrote: | Would be an extreme form of exercise since it would be so | dangerous on the Highway. | jliptzin wrote: | Certainly would get your heart rate up, lol | AlexandrB wrote: | Setting aside legality, It's hard to believe that Tesla's FSD | has the ability to successfully evaluate its current context | (weather, time of day, visibility, vehicle "body language") and | decide when a rolling stop is safe and when it's not. Not that | humans always do this well either, but resorting to rolling | stops _always_ while ignoring the circumstances seems like a | bad move. | tahoeskibum wrote: | I have FSD Beta and I can tell you I have never seen FSD do a | rolling stop. | qubitcoder wrote: | I have FSD Beta as well. Even in Assertive mode, I've never | actually seen it do a rolling stop, including rural areas | with nothing around. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. In | fact, I'd prefer it didn't--or at least provide an option | to toggle it on and off. | bhauer wrote: | In the Assertive profile, it can do rolling stops, but only | under circumstances where it is very safe, such as four-way | stops with no other driving vehicles present. | lolpython wrote: | It does it in "assertive" mode. https://www.techtimes.com/a | mp/articles/270296/20220109/tesla... | elif wrote: | Not to mention that a rolling stop itself is inherently safer | when a 360 view is evaluated 200 times per second with | superhuman response latency. | mikeyouse wrote: | Sure in a perfect world.. but then again.. | https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1488187856749318154 | Johnny555 wrote: | Driving drunk is also how a fair number of people drive, | especially in remote areas when home is far from the bar. | | I'm not sure that modeling human behavior is the right way to | design a self driving car. | harambae wrote: | The human behavior here (slow rolling stop signs) at least in | theory can prevent being rear-ended by someone who is used to | everyone else in the area doing that (of course it's the | rear-ender's fault in a crash... but still an annoyance for | everyone involved) | | There's no benefit to the computer swerving in and out of the | lane like a drunk driver, or taking an intentionally | inefficient route like a crooked taxi driver, or other pure- | downside criminality. | Johnny555 wrote: | The human behavior can also result in an accident when a | car or pedestrian that expects the car to stop walks out in | front of the car. | | In theory, the car should be paying attention in all | directions at the same time and won't get into an accident, | but car sensors are not infallible, especially when | detecting pedestrians, moreso if they are partially | obscured by foliage, newspaper stands, etc. | | Automated cars should stop 100% of the time at | intersections where they are required to do so. When the | stop signs are changed to "Self-driving yield" signs, then | the cars can do a rolling stop. | | So my point wasn't that cars should act like drunk drivers, | but that modeling human behaviors is not the right mindset | for self-driving cars. | r00fus wrote: | 4-way stops are so fuel inefficient. Would traffic circles be | more efficient with automated vehicles? | Ekaros wrote: | Or equal crossings that is yield to right. Or just have yield | signs. Both means that no need to stop unless other traffic. | r00fus wrote: | Fully blind intersections are a nightmare for 4-way yields. | Not to mention non-automotive traffic that may not be seen. | | Easy to retrofit a 4-way intersection into a roundabout. | bhauer wrote: | Rolling stops were only enabled in the "Aggressive" FSD Beta | driving profile, one of three available profiles. Several FSD | Beta testers used the Aggressive profile in areas where rolling | stops are common. They did this because when using the other | profiles, they would be embarrassed or honked at because their | car insisted on always coming to a full stop. | | Anyone familiar with driving in Los Angeles knows that when | it's safe to do so (e.g., when there is no cross traffic on a | turn), a rolling stop is _extremely_ common. So common that it | is plausible that people behind you might honk if you insist on | doing a full stop and then cautiously proceed. Especially | during rush-hour. | | By the same token, most people in Los Angeles drive 5 to 10 MPH | over the posted speed limits. Driving at the posted speed limit | will cause other drivers to hate you. | jjulius wrote: | I truly don't understand this line of reasoning. "Oh no, I've | been honked at! Someone in a car, who I'll never meet, | doesn't like me! I guess I'd better start driving a bit more | unsafely so that people don't honk at me!". I'll ignore | someone honking at me if it means I'm driving more safely. | | And I've driven in LA plenty of times. It might be the norm | for LA drivers, sure, but I would also argue that that whole | region could use at least a _bit_ more patience when on the | road. | | The speed limit differential gets into a bit more of a grey | area, though, in regards to laws that require you to maintain | a speed that's in line "with the flow of traffic". It's | similar in Atlanta; posted speed limit might be 55, but | you're likely going to be going at least 70 in the slow lane | in order to maintain the flow. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > I truly don't understand this line of reasoning. "Oh no, | I've been honked at! Someone in a car, who I'll never meet, | doesn't like me! I guess I'd better start driving a bit | more unsafely so that people don't honk at me!". I'll | ignore someone honking at me if it means I'm driving more | safely. | | Sometimes a "bit" of safety isn't worth the tradeoff in | throughput. But that also assumes it's safer to stop | completely. It's very possible that smoother traffic flow | is safer. Or maybe there's more risk that you get rear- | ended than is caused by a rolling stop. | jjulius wrote: | Then let's get the road designed that way. I'm onboard | with the argument you're making about flow, but - and | perhaps this is just me - traffic is safer when it's | predictable. | | Let's say you have a stop sign in your neighborhood that | "everyone" rolling-stops through. Sure, great, let's look | into changing that stop into maybe a yield, or a | roundabout, or whathaveyou that safely allows for the | flow that that street necessitates. But in the meantime? | Stop at the stop sign! Yeah, sure, we can make the | argument that the rolling stop is now "predictable" to | everyone in the neighborhood, but what happens when you | get an out-of-towner in front of you on your morning | commute and you slack off on watching for them to stop, | resulting in you rear-ending them? | | Improving the flow of traffic is great, but ignoring | rules for the sake of flow adds additional layers of | unpredictability that ultimately result in roads that are | less safe for drivers/pedestrians, at least IMO. | mwint wrote: | Thing is, you don't know whether the honk is for "you are | slower than I like" or "your bumper is falling off". | | Being honked at takes cycles to triage what's happening; in | itself that lowers safety. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | > Thing is, you don't know whether the honk is for "you | are slower than I like" or "your bumper is falling off". | | It's almost always immediately obvious what the | transgression is if you're paying the slightest bit of | attention. | | Even the people who are on their phones at a light and | have to regain situational awareness from square one do a | pretty good job figuring it out. | jjulius wrote: | My suggestion would be for people to stop honking out of | impatience. If there's an actual issue, honk. Someone not | moving as quickly or dangerously as you'd like isn't an | excuse to honk. | judge2020 wrote: | Go to some town with less than 100k population at least | 50 miles away from a metro area and you'll see this sort | of ideal world: everyone goes the speed limit or 1-5 MPH | below it, honking is only if you haven't moved for at | least 5 seconds after the light turns green, nobody's in | a hurry at all. | asdff wrote: | I really only honk at people for screwing up. If they cut | me off I will wail on the horn for a long time, just | holding it, letting them know. I love embarrasing asshole | drivers like this especially if they have some passenger. | Whenever cars honk at me for using the crosswalk I | actually enjoy it, because then I just stand in front of | their car for the rest of the light cycle absolutely | cussing them out and embarrasing them while they can do | nothing because the walk sign is on. I love pointing to | the walk sign and saying "What does that sign say? Drive? | does that stick figure walking with a countdown say Drive | to you?" as loud as possible. Other pedestrians have even | fist bumped me. It is so cathartic! | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: | > can do nothing because the walk sign is on | | This works until you do it to a driver who has had a | _really_ bad day and demonstrates that the walk sign isn | 't a force field. | | Yes, he'll probably go to jail for vehicular | manslaughter, but that doesn't help you. | asdff wrote: | If they hit me at speed there's nothing I could do | whether I argued or not, I'd be laid out before I knew | what happened. If they stopped, then hit me, that | wouldn't be a bad collision to take, they'd only get up | to a few mph in the few feet in front of me even if they | hammered the throttle. I'd slide off the hood and get | their plates and then they'd be in jail and I would walk | into the courtroom with a neck brace and get my payout. | jjulius wrote: | >I'd slide off the hood and get their plates and then | they'd be in jail and I would walk into the courtroom | with a neck brace and get my payout. | | And that constant neck pain, limited mobility and/or | arthritis that creep their way into your neck as you get | old as a result would be _so_ worth it. | [deleted] | jjulius wrote: | > If they cut me off I will wail on the horn for a long | time, just holding it, letting them know. I love | embarrasing asshole drivers like this... | | I can say confidently that I've never looked at any other | driver doing this and thought anything but, "Jesus | Christ, calm the fuck down." I've been that guy doing the | honking as well, and I'm fully aware that nobody arounds | me gives a shit and they just find me annoying. Hell, | half the time most of them don't even know what happened; | they just look over and see some overly-angry dude | screaming at someone. | | >... especially if they have some passenger. | | Did you _really_ embarrass them in front of the | passenger, or yourself? What if the transgression you 're | honking at was a genuine mistake with a reason that | actually makes sense? I've been the passenger in | situations like this before and have found myself | thinking, "Yeah, oops, but I don't totally fault my | driver or the other driver for this and the chud doing | the honking needs to chill out because clearly they don't | understand the driver's perspective." | asdff wrote: | I don't think cutting me off without a turn signal has | any logic other than "me me me to the red light first!" | If I can get them to have a reaction like "jesus Christ, | calm the fuck down" then I am a happy camper. Again there | are honest mistakes, and clearly asshole illegal behavior | that drivers do like speeding like crazy, cutting people | off, weaving through the freeway like a snake, running | reds, cutting into lanes and blocking traffic because you | must get to the turn lane at the last possible moment | before there is a barrier, and willfully ignoring signage | like no turns on reds. I'm also not embarrassed about | calling out drivers as a pedestrian. Why would I be? I do | it when have right of way and they don't and they had the | audacity to honk at me for walking when the walk sign is | lit. It's fun to call out assholes. I love shouting at | them, so satisfying. | [deleted] | [deleted] | jjulius wrote: | Cool. | tomatotomato37 wrote: | From my experience honking is exclusively used for | frustration over driving style, with vehicular faults | more often reported by less aggressive means like | flashing brights or shouting the info from an opened | window. | camjohnson26 wrote: | To be fair, road rage shootings on highways have been | trending up. There's some LA drivers I wouldn't want to | upset either. | jjulius wrote: | Last time I was there I had someone get out of their | vehicle and get angry as fuck at me - screaming, calling | me a piece of shit, mother fucker, etc. - because they | turned into oncoming traffic (my lane) to get around a | garbage truck, found me there driving in my right of way, | and demanded I back up and make room for _them_. Everyone | else on the road in LA seem generally grumpy and | impatient. | | Granted, I usually drive pretty fast and am aware of my | tendency to be impatient behind the wheel, but it seems, | anecdotally at least, like LA is worse than many other | areas in that regard. The first 20 minutes driving around | after I leave LAX are usually spent thinking, " _I 'm_ | crazy, but these people put me to goddamn shame and I | need to adapt quickly," lol. | asdff wrote: | There are some truly idiotic drivers in California. On | the one hand you have people in their beamers who go as | fast as possible whenever they have an open lane, that | might mean 50mph on residential streets and over 100 on | the highway. Then you have the other end of the spectrum, | people who think the speed limit is a limit, not a | minimum, and drive like 40mph on the freeway with no one | in front of them in one of the middle lanes. People weave | aggressively left and right to get around them and it | causes accidents. | | All of this is the direct result of little enforcement | for traffic rules. I've never seen someone pulled over | ever in California unless there's been an accident. I've | never seen a cop with a radar gun. I've actually seen the | LAPD speed past me and hang out in the left lane with no | lights on, because that's just how the standard of | driving is in LA apparently. You try that in the midwest | and you will be pulled over for going to fast, for going | to slow, for having a 10 foot tall stack of scrap metal | in your truck, for spending to much time in the left | lane, and for failing to signal. The highways feel truly | lawless in California. | mef wrote: | not true - it was enabled by default | https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1488544659056087041 | gamblor956 wrote: | _Anyone familiar with driving in Los Angeles knows that when | it 's safe to do so (e.g., when there is no cross traffic on | a turn), a rolling stop is extremely common. So common that | it is plausible that people behind you might honk if you | insist on doing a full stop and then cautiously proceed. | Especially during rush-hour_ | | Anyone who drives in LA during rush hour knows that it is | _never safe_ to do a rolling stop, because during rush hour | there is _going to be cross traffic_ and you need to check | that there is cross-traffic at the intersection _before | turning_. | | I've witnessed a lot of accidents where some moron thought | that saving 3 seconds was more important than safety, and | rolled right in front a car that had the right-of-way, or | into a pedestrian in the crosswalk that the driver hadn't | seen. | noobermin wrote: | This sort of thinking is why America has the highest deaths and | injuries on the road per capita of any developed country. | alanh wrote: | Is it, or do we simply have more miles driven per capita? We | are a big country. Not Monaco, where you could walk to | anywhere else in Monaco to join a friend for breakfast | ht85 wrote: | It'll be fully operational by next year, I swear. | CalRobert wrote: | Rolling stops are a great way to do things like kill 5 year old | Alison Hart, who was in a crosswalk when someone killed her with | a car. | | https://twitter.com/jlrhart/status/1486407516338761734/photo... | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >Rolling stops are a great way to do things like kill 5 year | old Alison Hart, who was in a crosswalk when someone killed her | with a car. | | >https://twitter.com/jlrhart/status/1486407516338761734/photo.. | . | | Sure, linking to a tweet obfuscates the facts a little bit but | surely someone was bound to Google the name eventually... | | https://wtop.com/dc/2021/09/girl-struck-and-killed-in-northe... | | "Police said the van came to a complete stop and proceeded | through a stop sign when Hart was unable to stop her bicycle | and entered the intersection into the path of the moving | vehicle." | | The accident you cite has pretty much nothing to do with the | debate here since the stop wasn't actually rolled. | legostormtroopr wrote: | That incident is a tragedy - but seems like it is completely | unrelated to this matter. It was a speeding driver in a van, | who sped through a stop sign & crossing walk and killed a | child. | [deleted] | sidibe wrote: | It seems like the mission statement at Tesla is "let's see what | we can get away with." I've never seen a company with so much to | lose as fearless of regulators or customers. | rreichman wrote: | It's crazy that Musk is talking about full self driving within 11 | months when the software can't reliably adhere to stop signs. | valine wrote: | It's not a matter of software reliability. The rolling stops | was an intensionally added feature to make the car behave more | naturally/human-like at stop signs. Tesla knows how to make the | car stop at stop signs, they simply chose not to under certain | circumstances. You can certainly argue that it was a bad | decision on Tesla's part, but using it as a signal for software | quality is ridiculous. | | Personally I think the removal of the rolling stop behavior is | a minor tragedy. | mattacular wrote: | So they're recalling a feature that was explicitly and | intentionally built to do something that runs afoul of the law, | at the user's behest. Again this is by design, meeting their own | requirements. For their self driving technology that is already | labeled "beta". | | Why anyone in their right mind would willingly use this stuff in | a risk-intensive life/death scenario like driving on public roads | remains beyond me. | | (Yes I lose points every time I criticize Tesla online but I will | keep doing it until someone makes it make sense or the company | finally goes out of business for continuing this type of | irresponsible behavior.) | judge2020 wrote: | Rolling stops mimic human behavior. Going 5-10 MPH over the | speed limit also mimics human behavior, and both of these | settings are controllable by the human driver behind the wheel | in FSD Beta[0]. At what point does the Beta (or Ford's | BlueCruise or GM SuperCruise) force you to go exactly the speed | limit? | | 0: | https://twitter.com/cooperlund/status/1488549356873695232?s=... | mattacular wrote: | Sounds almost as if "fully self-driving cars" coexisting with | human driven cars is not feasible to do safely because it's | not purely a technical problem. My contention is simply that | Tesla is acting irresponsible so long as they continue to | design and market otherwise. | ht85 wrote: | It'll be fully operational by next year. | njarboe wrote: | Click-bait title. Tesla was forced to remove the rolling-stop | option when the driver is using the beta version of FSD in the | "Assertive" mode. No-one has reported any injuries or problems | with this feature. Seems to me having this option is good to | have. This behavior is expected in many locations, saves time and | energy, and is often safer than coming to a full stop. Cops | should feel free to ticket these cars when they do this if they | think its not safe, but NHTSA shouldn't be involved in this very | important emerging technology at this low a level. | | "Tesla said as of Jan. 27 it was not aware of any warranty | claims, crashes, injuries or fatalities related to the recall." | It is good for automatic cars to behave similar to humans for | safety and social acceptance. | flerchin wrote: | 5.6mph through a stop-sign is just ludicrous. | ipsin wrote: | It sounds like the "recall" is an over-the-air patch, and you | can't opt out. | | I suppose "recall" may also be a legal term, but it doesn't seem | to fit well in this case. | meteor333 wrote: | I think technically it's still applicable. It's a "recall" of | the software and not the physical car. | stingrae wrote: | recalls apply to ota patches that have safety implications | because you can't always guarantee that the user is in a place | where the ota can be applied. | rvz wrote: | So it was software feature in FSD that when encountering a stop | sign, it did not stop as it was unable to read those signs? | That's much worse than the time the FSD system was confusing the | moon with a traffic light and was slowing down in the highway. | | No wonder it is eligible for the nickname of _' Fools Self | Driving'_. | kemitche wrote: | Not quite a "recall" in the normal sense. They're disabling the | "rolling stop at stop sign" feature of FSD for those in the beta. | javert wrote: | It isn't a "recall" in common English. So, the title and story | are wrong. Very disappointing on the part of Reuters. This is | not quality journalism. | | Since they wrote it the way they did, I would guess there is | some regulatory document that causes this to be classified a a | "recall" for legal purposes. But it's incorrect to substitute | legal language for common English language when there is a | conflict between the two, except in legal contexts. That rule | goes for technical language in general. | | Is this practice more common in British English? I feel that it | seems to appear more often in writing by British people, but | that's anecdotal and could be incorrect. | kej wrote: | It _is_ literally a recall, though. A recall is a defined | process with the NHTSA (and similar processes with other | government safety agencies) to track vehicles that are | somehow unsafe, and need some kind of service to be made safe | again. There 's a website that lists them: | https://www.nhtsa.gov/recalls | | That can be anything from "these airbags might not open when | they're supposed to", like the Takeda problem, or "if water | splashed just right on the bottom of the open door, you would | have water next to electrical wires which could maybe start a | fire" (an issue my car had a few years ago). | | Tesla met with the NHTSA and agreed to issue a recall. How is | it possibly bad journalism to call it what it is? | javert wrote: | What you are describing is a recall in a regulatory and | legal sense, but not in a common English sense. In common | English, a recall is when the product has to be returned to | the manufacturer or taken to a dealer for a fix. In other | words, "recall" implies physical movement of a product. I | guess you won't agree with me on what "recall" means in | common English, and that's fine. And we probably have a | deeper disagreement on where words get their meanings from. | But I would maintain that a software update is not a | "recall." If it is, Microsoft performs a "recall" every | time it issues a security patch for Windows. | Veserv wrote: | The update is not the "recall". The update is the | remediation. The "recall" is the notification that the | product may contain a safety defect in its current | configuration, that those products require diagnosis and, | potentially, remediation before they are safe again, and | that Tesla is legally required to make reasonable efforts | to diagnose and remediate safety defects in those | products for free [1]. To fix your analogy, a "recall" is | more like Microsoft releasing a security advisory or | notifying users of a security vulnerability. | | As for semantic arguments, obviously the current | colloquial usage of the term "recall" means to call for | products in use to be removed from use and potentially | for remediation. However, the usage of the term in the | article is the precise, legal, technical usage of the | term meaning what I stated above. This usage and | definition by NHTSA predates the colloquial definition | and was thus not confusing at the time it was defined, | and is both precise and has been precisely used by NHTSA | for duration of its usage of the term so their usage of | the term has not materially changed in the interim. | Therefore, it is both technically, semantically, and | culturally correct to use the term "recall" in this | specific instance even though the colloquial usage of the | term has changed underneath them. This is in contrast | with Tesla's usage of the term Autopilot which does | correspond with your concerns as it was coined after the | colloquial usage had already shifted, and limited effort | was made to precisely define and inform potential | stakeholders of any differences in terminology with | respect to the colloquial usage. | | [1] https://www- | odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/recalls/recallproblems.cfm | thomaszander wrote: | Reuters has been biased in their news telling for some time | now. | | Not entirely unlike the rest of the mainstream media, I would | suppose. | arichard123 wrote: | As a brit, I would say no. But for your last line your | thoughts matched mine. | javert wrote: | Sorry to hear that. This practice degrades the signal to | noise ratio of the language and in my view is absolutely | indefensible. It's possible for languages to evolve in ways | that make them objectively better or worse; we should | strongly resist the latter. If we are sloppy and lazy, we | make the language sloppy. | dr-detroit wrote: | tomlin wrote: | Disobey seems a bit tame of a headline, considering the | implications. | noah_buddy wrote: | Bartleby the Tesla at a stop sign: I'd prefer not. | | My most Luddite view is that AV are not worth it right now. Maybe | in 10 years, but I see too many idiots on the freeway sleeping or | playing video games in Teslas while in the driver seat. If you're | too busy to command a vehicle that can kill you and those around | you, Uber to work or take the train. I don't trust the roadways | to be a massive experiment in how close a corporation can cut it | on self-driving tech with some acceptable margin of death. Sure, | human drivers are probably worse in normal circumstances. But I'd | happily outlaw AV in _any_ peculiar circumstance till 99.9999% of | the kinks are worked out away from other drivers who haven 't | opted into the grand experiment of robots on the road. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | For some context: California allows "rolling stops" in which the | driver is not required to come completely to 0mph (fully stopped) | at a stop sign. Most US states require a complete stop at stop | signs. | | Strangely, Tesla exported this rolling stop behavior everywhere, | despite it being illegal in many (maybe most) states. | | It's strange that this was allowed to get so far. This violation | should have been obvious. | yumraj wrote: | If that's what you've been doing, you've just been lucky. It's | not legal in CA. | paradygm wrote: | Unless something changed in the 30 years since I learned to | drive--in California-- the "California Rolling Stop" is a | pejorative and is not at all legal. In California, and every | other US state, a stop sign means come to a full and complete | stop. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Look at the cost. A regulator told them to turn it off, and an | OTA later it'll be off. A rational decision. | HWR_14 wrote: | I'm not sure why it's rational or desirable to let companies | violate the law until they get a letter that says "the law | applies to you too". Let's fine Tesla for rolling a stop sign | times a large multiple based on their data of how often it | happened. | | We can use the national average fine or use the GPS to match | it to the proper jurisdiction. I don't care which. | metabagel wrote: | In my opinion, it was irrational to ever turn it on. | williamscales wrote: | California requires a complete stop, too. I think some of our | drivers are just impatient. | mdasen wrote: | Just to add some sources confirming that California does | _not_ allow rolling stops: | | https://www.thetrafficticketattorneys.com/blog/7-things- | you-... | | https://www.sidmartinbio.org/what-is-the-fine-for-a- | californ... | | https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/22450/ | | https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio. | .. | restes wrote: | >California allows "rolling stops" | | No, they certainly do not. I live in California and I've gotten | a ticket for doing this. | dicroce wrote: | California rolls are legal? Why didn't I know this for the 45 | years I lived in California? :) | KerrAvon wrote: | Rolling stops are illegal in California and you will get | ticketed if the cops catch you doing it, even if it was | perfectly safe. | | This seems to be an example of Tesla "pushing the boundaries" | in a way that puts their customers at risk. I'm all for small-l | libertarianism, but they could spend effort where it actually | mattered instead of this childish petulance. | ShakataGaNai wrote: | https://www.ticketcrusherslaw.com/rolling-stop/ | | It is _NOT_ legal to do a rolling stop in California. Like | everywhere else in the nation, you must (legally speaking) come | to a complete stop at sign /light. Failure to do so will result | in a ticket (if you're caught). | joshu wrote: | this is the perfect hacker news comment. congratulations! | mig39 wrote: | California stops are weird. | | If you're ok with a car just slowing down and yielding to | traffic if necessary, why not use a "Yield" sign instead of a | "Stop" sign? | | We have "yield" signs for entry onto highways and roundabouts, | for example, where the goal is to keep traffic moving. | kjkjadksj wrote: | Because based on my experience most people don't yield at | yield signs in ca, and prefer to try and outgun whoever is | not letting them in than back off. Sounds like a good way to | me to increase the number of accidents at 4 way stops. | mig39 wrote: | Yeah, 4-way stops definitely need a stop sign. | | Or better yet, turn 4-way stops into roundabouts. | metabagel wrote: | California isn't OK with it. Police routinely ticket vehicles | which perform a rolling stop. The police aren't everywhere, | so you could get away with it for a while, but eventually | you'll probably do it in front of a police car and be cited. | jjulius wrote: | >For some context: California allows "rolling stops"... | | False. I present to you California Vehicle Code #22450: | | >The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the | entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit | line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the | near side of the intersection. | | https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... | lakis wrote: | California rolling stops are illegal. | soheil wrote: | Laws can be dumb, if there are no other cars and you roll through | a stop sign why is that unsafe? This is also called California | stop. People in California have places to be and it's a big place | so the effects compound. | jeremyjh wrote: | I don't think there are any federal laws about traffic signs. | California's laws require you to come to a complete stop at | stop signs. Programming a computer to intentionally break the | law "because I have places to go" seems like poor judgement to | me. | midnightclubbed wrote: | As soon as you make the rolling stop legal people will push the | limits of that law and drive straight through if they think the | way is clear. | | The numbers of drivers driving through reds (at least here in | coastal San Diego) has noticeably increased over the past two | years, previously people would hit the gas if the lights turned | yellow, now they are hitting the gas if they see yellow (and | crossing through the intersection on red). Accident statistics | seem to back that up https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/us/red- | light-deaths-trnd/inde... | | Making traffic rules less strict seems like a recipe for more | accidents and deaths. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | is this a federal law | valine wrote: | That Tesla headline is misleading. Should be "Tesla Removes | Rolling Stops from Assertive Driving Profile". Tesla added | rolling stops to make the car behave more human like. NHTSA said | no, so Tesla removed the feature. | elil17 wrote: | The idea that you'd add a feature that's clearly illegal blows | my mind. "Product poses legal risk to user" is a specific risk | severity rating that mechanical engineers are trained to flag | in school. Any other engineering company would have caught this | in their DFMEA (Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis). | These sort of sloppy failures show that Tesla is far from a | path to competing with major car companies on reliability. | scoofy wrote: | This is why i've been a fully self-driving skeptic in the | last few years (initially was not), it's that our driving | system is inherently broken. | | Fully rule-following will create unsafe situations merely | because humans expect a certain amount of rule breaking. The | person "at-fault" will be he human, but politically that will | be tough when humans are mad at machine for "acting weird by | following the rules." I fear that our inherent contradictions | for rule-following in the road will make it impossible for | ML, both to understand how to behave, and to behave | predictably to humans. | | This is why I'm much more bullish on self-driving-similar | vehicles, which look and behave differently, like how buses | and trolleys behave differently in the road and we have | different expectations from them. | acdha wrote: | It's pretty accurate even if you're a fan of the company. The | more accurate description is that they shipped a feature which | breaks traffic laws, which is a serious error in a company | asking us to trust their judgement in a safety-critical system. | Given how many other problems they've had and the consistent | overselling of their capabilities and safety, that's an | important conversation to have. | gmadsen wrote: | Sometimes it is more dangerous to follow traffic laws exactly | rather than normal human driver when you are surrounded by | normal human drivers. It's not as simple as you are making it | seem. | acdha wrote: | How many people are going to be hurt because someone stops | at a stop sign? | notch656a wrote: | Multiply the extra few seconds times how many ever | millions of people end up using automated driving, times | how many stop signs they end up at. The number of | lifetimes lost due to stopping at stop signs has got to | be the equivalent of the circa-100's area. The real | question is why anyone bothers stopping at all if all | directions are clear. | valine wrote: | It's not serious at all imho. People roll stop signs all the | time, it's part of driving culture. If you feel obligated to | obey the letter of every driving law you could have turned it | off in settings. | | Tesla also has an option to override the speed limit, you | want to remove that too? | acdha wrote: | People are also killed or injured by drivers all of the | time, too. Remember when the selling point of AVs was that | they'd reducr the ~40k / 300k Americans so impacted | annually? Telling manufacturers that it's okay to ignore | laws if it gets you there faster will have the opposite | effect. | pmorici wrote: | Safety is measured in accidents per mile driven, lower | being better. While there maybe a loose correlation | strict obedience to the law is not in itself a measure of | safety. | Xylakant wrote: | > Tesla also has an option to override the speed limit, you | want to remove that too? | | Yes. The Alternative is to encode "break the law" in | software and that makes for a very bad option. Stick to the | law, computer. | sushid wrote: | Do you never drive above the speed limit on the freeway? | I highly doubt this... | Xylakant wrote: | I'm not a computer, so that point is moot. (And yes, I | don't. Not deliberately, though it likely happens | accidentally from time to time.) | SilasX wrote: | "Whether you're willing to hold computer drivers to | higher standards than human drivers" is moot? Or you just | don't feel obligated to reconcile the inconsistency? | Xylakant wrote: | I am willing to hold a computer to a higher standard, | that's the promise that gets made left and right for self | driving cars. That they achieve a higher standard. | parkingrift wrote: | Unfortunately, self driving cars drive in the real world. | There are a great many roadways in the US where driving | the speed limit is legitimately dangerous in one | direction or another. | | I live in New York and there is one such roadway I drive | often. Palisades Interstate Parkway. The speed limit is | 55 and there are no trucks allowed, but if you are | driving 55 on this road you are in danger. You will get | run off the road by everyone else traveling at a minimum | of 65-70 with many of them 80+. | | There may come a day where humans are completely out of | the equation, but until that time I believe self driving | cars are safer if they drive more like human drivers. | That means keeping up with traffic and other human | quirks. | martneumann wrote: | Wait, so you're saying that people would crash into you | if you drove the speed limit? | | I'm a very calm driver and regularly drive at or | sometimes below the speed limit if visibility or other | factors don't allow higher speeds. People do slow down | and I never felt in danger - granted, this is usually at | around 40 km/h instead of the limit of 50 km/h, but I | can't imagine people are so careless they'd "run you off | the road" if you weren't speeding. | parkingrift wrote: | >Wait, so you're saying that people would crash into you | if you drove the speed limit? | | Maybe not literally crash into you, but that is certainly | possible. People will swerve around you, ride your | bumper, flash their high beams at you, honk, pull in | front of you and hit the brakes, and other dangerous road | rage type behavior. It is absolutely unsafe to drive the | speed limit. | | In general the safest thing to do is just to keep up with | traffic. | Xylakant wrote: | That's exactly what the driver in front of you and behind | you use as justification for being above the limit: I had | to go with the flow of traffic. A self-perpetuating force | that forces everyone to be too fast. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > Wait, so you're saying that people would crash into you | if you drove the speed limit? | | Yes. If you're driving significantly above or below the | speed of traffic, you're likely to cause an accident. | https://qz.com/969885/almost-every-speed-limit-is-too- | low/ | throwaway894345 wrote: | Agreed, and these roadways are all over the country. It's | a pretty widely known fact that the safest speed is the | natural flow of traffic, but municipalities all over the | country are much more inclined to listen to the vocal | minority over traffic engineers. Not a lot of "trust the | science" going on there. | | https://qz.com/969885/almost-every-speed-limit-is-too- | low/ | Xylakant wrote: | The solution to that is not that everybody gets to ignore | speed limits and point to a QZ article as justification. | The solution is not that Tesla unilaterally decides that | 10% more is fine, everywhere, all of the time. The | solution is what the advocate in your article proposes - | make a conscious decision to raise the speed limit on | certain roads, backed with suitable data. | Xylakant wrote: | Next week's argument: "all first gen self driving cars | are going 70 where 55 is allowed, we need to keep this | setting." | rocqua wrote: | In the end, it is my choice whether I stick to the law. | I'm fine with instituted consequences. I'm not fine with | having the option to break a law removed. | | Some laws are stupid. Some are unjust. Some are racist. | | Discretion is valuable, probably even essential, for | society. | judge2020 wrote: | The human driver is the one that told the car to disobey | the stop sign[0]. Should every cruise control on every | car with speed limit detection forbid the cruise/adaptive | cruise to go above the speed limit? | | 0: the chill setting doesn't roll stop signs https://twit | ter.com/cooperlund/status/1488549356873695232?s=... | Xylakant wrote: | > Should every cruise control on every car with speed | limit detection forbid the cruise/adaptive cruise to go | above the speed limit? | | Certainly. Why should cruise control be set to above | speed limit? Adaptive cruise control should reduce speed | to remain within legal boundaries. | chipotle_coyote wrote: | I have a car with adaptive cruise control and speed limit | detection, and this would absolutely drive me nuts. Not | for any philosophical reasons, but _because speed limit | detection is fallible._ On the expressway my apartment is | a block away from, which has a speed limit of 50 mph, my | car fairly frequently tells me the speed limit is | actually 30. It 's fairly common for it to read speed | limit signs that have conditions on them -- only in | effect certain hours, or during school hours, or when | light is flashing, or if you're driving a truck -- and | incorrectly assume that's the speed limit. | | Maybe you'd be perfectly happy with "if you don't want | the cruise control to make mistakes, just never use it, | because gosh darn it, that's better than allowing people | to set the adaptive cruise control five miles an hour | over the speed limit like they've been able to do with | _non-adaptive_ cruise control since it was a thing. " I | would not, and I would argue I am not the one taking an | unreasonable stance. | valine wrote: | Speed limits change, signs are obstructed, some speed | limits are only valid for certain times of day. There's | plenty of legal reasons to override the posted speed | limit. | Xylakant wrote: | Drive on manual then, if your computer is not clever | enough. | conanbatt wrote: | And if the traffic law gets you killed, what then? | Xylakant wrote: | It's not the law that gets you killed. It's the other | drivers that disregard the law. And soon, the self- | driving cars that disregard the law. | gyc wrote: | > People roll stop signs all the time | | Those people are called bad drivers. | changoplatanero wrote: | no i don't think so. i think if you tried to strictly | obey the law at all stop signs you would have a lot of | trouble | smeyer wrote: | When does obeying stop signs cause a lot of trouble? | Teever wrote: | > It's not serious at all imho. People roll stop signs all | the time, it's part of driving culture | | This is a terrible line of reasoning. | | If Tesla ever releases their vaporware humanoid bot would | you expect them to program it to rape women in cultures | where women rape is part of the culture? | valine wrote: | I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that rolling stop | signs is not a slippery slope to robot rapists. | Teever wrote: | I think you're right. | | Programming a several ton machine to disregard laws and | potentially kill many pedestrians without warning isn't | really comparable to programming a machine to rape -- | it's unfathomable worse. | | I've worked in factories and the idea that a car company | can release a machine onto the streets that wouldn't be | allowed anywhere near a factory floor is flabbergasting. | | If a company tried to release a product that had this | safety profile in a factory setting the governments and | unions would be all over them. | | The fact that some jackass yokel or senile old lady | routinely roll through stop signs daily doesn't justify | Tesla releasing a product that does the same. | valine wrote: | Equating rolling stops to rape has to be the worst | argument against FSD I've ever heard. I'm honestly at a | loss for words. Safely proceeding through an intersection | without coming to a complete stop hurts nothing, except | maybe the feelings of traffic law puritans. | beepbooptheory wrote: | A tingling feeling that this general argument will become | very popular and determining in the future... | rocqua wrote: | Illegal actions and unsafe actions are not the same thing. | Laws exist to make us safer, but they aren't perfect. | | I get why the law is enforced here. But I think cars doing | full stops are more dangerous than cars doing rolling stops. | SilasX wrote: | Ahhhhh. I've struggled with this all my life, where the rules | say one thing, but you're "just supposed to know" those cases | where they aren't _really_ serious about that. | | Now the contradiction is so painful, they'll have to address | it. Either a) update the rules to reflect actual practice, or | b) admit to "yes, your self-driving car has to obey traffic | laws we don't enforce on humans". | supperburg wrote: | chrisfosterelli wrote: | > they shipped a feature which breaks traffic laws, which is | a serious error in a company asking us to trust their | judgement in a safety-critical system | | You're not wrong per se, but there is significantly more | nuance with self-driving technologies than you're suggesting. | | A more famous example in the self-driving car world is the | Pittsburgh left [0], where in Pittsburgh a driver turning | left will often get conventional precedence over vehicles | going through the intersection despite there being no | explicit left turn light. This move is technically illegal, | but when the self-driving cars didn't do this it drove | traffic to a halt regularly and held up every intersection | where the self-driving car was turning left. Eventually this | had to be added to the software. | | Examples like these are why self-driving technologies are so | hard to get 100% right, driving is a mix of intuition and | rules. A significant amount of driving is doing what other | drivers expect you to do. If the cars don't behave like human | drivers expect, it often causes more problems than doing what | the car is "supposed" to do. | | That said, as a pedestrian who has frequently almost been hit | by people rolling stop signs, I'm with the NHTSA here... | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_left | newsbinator wrote: | > Examples like these are why self-driving technologies are | so hard to get 100% right, modern driving is a mix of | intuition and rules. | | Indeed! The hardest part of switching to driverless cars | overall is that driverless vehicles have to exist on the | road for some number of years surrounded by ones driven by | primates, with primate reflexes and a variety of ad-hoc | behaviors. | | If every car on the road were to go driverless at midnight | tonight, would the number of accidents and death and | disability plummet compared to yesterday's stats? | elil17 wrote: | Rolling stops, while all to common, are not at all like a | Pittsburgh left. Police everywhere will pull you over for | rolling through a stop sign. Police in Pittsburgh probably | won't, unless they have something against you personally. | alistairSH wrote: | There are better solutions to this problem than coding cars | to behave like bad drivers. Round-a-bouts. Banning left | turns during peak hours. Adding a dedicated left turn | signal at the beginning of the cycle. The Pittsburg left is | a terrible convention... It puts pedestrians at risk | (assuming the cross-walk signal follows the traffic | signal). And nobody from outside Pittsburg knows it's a | thing - if I were visiting Pittsburg, I'd run into the car | turning in front of me (well, hopefully not, but it's a | risk). | jjoonathan wrote: | > driving is a mix of intuition and rules | | Intuition and rules _and rule breaking_. | | I remember back in Driver's Ed I was alarmed to discover | that through sloppy definitions Colorado legislators had | managed to make it illegal to take a right turn within | 150ft of a stop sign (or similar, I forget the details). Of | course, in reality nobody follows the sloppily defined | portion of the rule, nobody enforces the sloppily defined | rule, and it isn't a problem -- but the gap between rules | and realities is substantial, self-driving cars are going | to tease apart this gap, and spiders will come crawling | out. | sorokod wrote: | The paragraph remains accurate but more funny if "rolling | stop"* is replaced with "oxymoron", | | so ""Tesla Removes oxymoron from Assertive Driving Profile". | Tesla added oxymoron to make the car behave more human like. | NHTSA said no, so Tesla removed the feature." | | * TIL: rolling stop | alistairSH wrote: | When allowed to be, humans are terrible drivers. We shouldn't | be designing our cars to behave like those bad drivers. | [deleted] | dang wrote: | We moved this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30168814 to the thread | where it's on topic. | tomlin wrote: | "Disobey" seems a bit tame of a headline, considering the | implications. | kirillzubovsky wrote: | Personally I am curious how this is done in the AI. Do they | simply flip a switch that says "if you see stop sign make a full | stop," or do they now have to update and retrain the neural net | to acquire this behavior. Does anyone know? | brianwawok wrote: | It was a toggle so one assume the code has a branch in it. If | flag flipped and no people and no cars, min speed is 5, else 0. | | I liked this feature, damnit. | wcoenen wrote: | There is a mix of a "neural net planner" and a "explicit | planning and control" in traditional code[1]. The explicit | planner has the last word, and uses input from both the "vector | space" and the neural net planner. | | Karpathy has commented about the neural nets gradually | replacing the traditional code. See his presentation[2] around | 18:45. | | [1] https://saneryee-studio.medium.com/deep-understanding- | tesla-... | | [2] https://youtu.be/hx7BXih7zx8 | czr wrote: | they flipped a switch (this one, under "clear to go" subheading | https://youtu.be/ToDMceo0aDs?t=20). tesla planning still mostly | is done by C/C++ code. | pl0x wrote: | pmcollins wrote: | > Tesla will perform an over-the-air software update that | disables the "rolling stop" functionality | | the "recall" is an OTA software update | bsagdiyev wrote: | Are they recalling the software version for an update to fix a | safety issue? If so, then it is a recall. You can't play | semantics with words like that for these issues. | | Please see this: | https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Recalls-FAQ... | | >A recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines | that a vehicle, equipment, car seat, or tire creates an | unreasonable safety risk or fails to meet minimum safety | standards. Manufacturers are required to fix the problem by | repairing it, replacing it, offering a refund, or in rare cases | repurchasing the vehicle. | [deleted] | [deleted] | tibbydudeza wrote: | Meanwhile Karaoke mikes are now available from your nearest Tesla | dealer. | | https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/31/22910462/tesla-karaoke-mi... | ballenf wrote: | Self-driving cars need to bend the rules enough to be attractive | to a critical mass of purchasers. Then regulations will require | strict adherence to laws. Then owners of these cars will be | numerous enough to push for regulatory reform. | | If all self-driving or driving assisted cars were limited to | exactly the speed limit and following the letter of laws that no | human follows, they will never achieve mass adoption. | | FWIW, cruise control has always let you set any reasonable speed. | Doesn't quite seem right to hold a car to a different standard | just because it's advanced enough to sometimes know the actual | speed limit. | drewg123 wrote: | _The feature, which appeared to violate state laws that require | vehicles to come to a complete stop and required drivers to opt- | in for what it dubbed "Assertive"_ | | I have the FSD beta on my Model X, and opted in to assertive not | knowing that it enabled rolling stops. I enabled "assertive" in | hopes of making the car less timid about unprotected turns. | drewg123 wrote: | BTW, the FSD beta is terrible. Its what I imagine a senior | citizen taking their first drive after getting a learners | permit would be like. The worst part is horribly timid behavior | pulling into traffic or making unprotected left turns. It also | is quite annoying on rural 2 lane roads, with frequent enough | phantom braking to make passengers queasy and hence make me | turn off FSD. It has no knowledge of potholes, so I frequently | have to take over before it costs me a wheel and a tire by | hitting a monster pothole. | | Its frustrating that I paid $3000 for this 4+ years ago, and | waited 4 years for the feature, and was made to drive overly | gently (no hard cornering or braking) in order to get a good | "safety score" for quite a while before I could even try it. | The $3000 would have been much better off had I invested it in | Tesla stock. | | If this is where they are after 4 years, I don't hold out much | hope. | reasonabl_human wrote: | What version of FSD beta are you on? After 10.6 most of my | complaints were addressed and I am very happy using it to get | to work every day, although I live in a suburban / semi-urban | area and have never used it on rural roads. I have an | original model 3. Pretty much any left-handed turn is | protected with a stoplight around me, although it negotiates | unprotected ones well for the ones I've faced under 35mph | | We have solid infrastructure so can't speak to the potholes | complaint. A few months back FSD beta started acknowledging | speed bumps and taking them slowly so I'd imagine potholes | are in the works. | drewg123 wrote: | V10.9 | | I tweeted at Elon about the potholes.. let's hope something | improves. | eclipxe wrote: | When one of your main complaints about your self driving car | is that it is too timid and doesn't avoid potholes, I think | things are progressing just fine. Just step back a little and | think about where the technology was 5, 10 years ago. Heck | even 20 years ago. Imagine telling someone on a forum "yeah | my self driving car is fine but a little timid for me and | ugh, potholes!" | jjulius wrote: | I'm confused by this response. "Horribly timid behavior | pulling into traffic" sounds like they're saying that when | a car pulls into traffic it pulls in _too slow_ , which | puts other cars at risk of hitting the Tesla that's not | properly getting up to speed. And when I read, "has no | knowledge of potholes," I picture a Tesla slamming down | into a giant pothole and damaging the car; needing to pull | over to get it towed, fixed, etc. | | Are things really "progressing just fine" if the car is | repeatedly putting itself into dangerous situations? | | Edit: I suppose that one could make the argument that we | didn't even have this kind of tech on the roads ten years | ago, and sure, that's progress in one sense. But I wouldn't | call it "just fine" by a long shot, nor would I dismiss | these concerns as whininess. | drewg123 wrote: | Well, I have lots of others, but I didn't want to look too | much like I'm ranting. | | They include: | | - Driving too close to parked cars for comfort on un-laned | side streets when there is no oncoming traffic. I | personally like to leave enough room to avoid somebody | opening their door into me, if I have the room. | | - Leaving way too much space in front of the car at | stoplights. This is a problem when it leads to blocking the | entrance to left turn lanes, etc. | | - Totally blowing through stop signs in parking lots. | | - Freaking out and making me take over on a mildly tricky | interstate interchange where 2 lanes narrow to one. | | And I'm sure there are a million others that I'm forgetting | about. | tsimionescu wrote: | The point is that you can't rely on FSD to fully self- | drive. Somewhat decent doesn't cut it. In particular, if it | can't avoid potholes, it's not safe to let it drive on the | road. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | > The $3000 would have been much better off had I invested it | in Tesla stock. | | It'd be ~$40,000 >.< | | Could be worse. If the people who put a $50,000 down payment | on a Roadster 2.0 the day they announced them had bought | $TSLA instead, they would have enough money now to pay cash | for TWO Roadsters _and_ have enough money left over to add a | Model S Plaid. | thepasswordis wrote: | Ha! My experience has been the exact opposite. I think it | drives like an angry teenager. Slow the F down, Tessie! | sschueller wrote: | Does the Tesla know not to turn on red in Europe or is FSD not | yet available? Also for example in Switzerland a driver is | required to stop at a cross walk if a person is standing to cross | or about to cross. This is not the case in Italy. | echopurity wrote: | aqaq2 wrote: | titzer wrote: | Honest question: has Tesla autopilot (FSD) passed a standard | driving test with a human examiner? | PragmaticPulp wrote: | It's surprising that Tesla shipped the "rolling stop" behavior as | the default despite it being illegal in most places. | | This one seems so obviously avoidable that I'm baffled as to why | they let it happen. | kemitche wrote: | Illegal isn't binary - just look at speed limits. Everyone | speeds at least a little, and FSD/AP had to be allowed to speed | to be safe | Xylakant wrote: | Why does the autopilot need to speed to be safe? When does | "speeding to be safe" become "unsafe speeding"? 10 miles | faster than the the one that you're trying to overtake? What | if they're speeding by 10 already? Why is the speed limit not | 10 higher than it is, if that's the actual safe speed? How | can Tesla unilaterally decide that exceeding the speed is | perfectly good and safe? | diffeomorphism wrote: | > Why does the autopilot need to speed to be safe? | | For the same reason driving below average speed is | dangerous. If you drive 10km/h slower than everyone else | you are a problem, even if everyone else is driving at or | slightly above the speed limit (very common in Germany). | Xylakant wrote: | You are arguing that everyone should be moving faster. | But we want everyone moving at the speed limit - building | cars that intentionally break the speed limit will make | the effective speed creep up. It needs to creep down. | adoxyz wrote: | Nobody is saying autopilot "needs" to speed to be safe at | all times. But it needs the ability to be able to go faster | than the posted speed limit. I.e if the speed limit is | 45mph, going 47mph shouldn't be a problem that the car | freaks out over. For a while, on city streets if you were | using Autopilot you'd be able to go up to 5mph over the | posted limit without issue. I think in the FSD Beta, you | can go more. | Xylakant wrote: | Can you describe the ruleset that would apply when it's | ok to speed? So that's applicable to the software of | thousands of cars? | adoxyz wrote: | The car already has a ruleset for when to not obey speed | limits. If you're on the highway and your lane is going | 65mph but the other lanes are moving very slowly, the car | will slow down accordingly. Similarly, this could be | implemented for the inverse to an extent. | | And again, I don't think the car should speed by default, | but a car going 2-3mph over the posted limit should be | acceptable rather than an error state because the world | is not black and white. | [deleted] | soheil wrote: | Because you want the flow of the traffic to move with the | same speed. | Xylakant wrote: | But we want the flow of traffic to be at the speed limit, | that's why there is a speed limit. So more cars need to | go slower, not more cars need to go faster. | Spivak wrote: | You're like _this close_ to the the heart of the issue. | | If you can determine in real-time whether the maneuver your | about to perform or the speed you're going is safe then why | even have speed limits? The speed limit for highways is | still 65 whether it's a a bone dry, pitch dark, pouring | rain, or completely iced over. "Any speed under 65" can't | possibly be a safe speed for all these conditions while | allowing for the highest safe speeds possible in ideal, or | even average, conditions. And this doesn't even being to | take into account the huge vehicle variance and tire ware. | The safe operating speeds for a top-heavy Honda Fit with | narrow tires vs a low-to-the-ground wide-tired Corvette are | going to be wildly different. | | And then you have to deal with other drivers. If traffic is | going 75 you're gonna have a hell of a time merging capped | at 65. And in an ideal world nobody would pass on the right | making it possible to get off the highway without | increasing speed but real life hits hard. | Xylakant wrote: | If you can create an all-knowing AI that can predict your | the road conditions around a corner or beyond the crest | of a hill, maybe. Remember, we are not discussing | individual decisions made by people based on a current | situation, but the defaults encoded into the software of | thousands of cars. And if that default is lax, it will | end up in lax behavior. | Retric wrote: | Because people passing you is very slightly more dangerous | than people following you. It's not a big deal most of the | time, but when everyone passes you across thousands of | hours it adds up to a significant risk. | Xylakant wrote: | Why would anyone want to pass you when you're moving at | the speed limit? You are at the speed limit and everyone | passing you would be beyond the speed limit. | soggybutter wrote: | I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or not. They | would want to pass you because human drivers aren't | rigidly law abiding machines. Is there a large portion of | people that go exactly the speed limit, or even lower? | Sure. Is there also a large portion of people that speed | virtually every moment they're behind the wheel? Yes, | absolutely. And I wouldn't be surprised if that were the | larger population in most areas. No one who actually | drives with any regularity would ever be surprised that | people are speeding to pass them. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | Except that actually is legal. Speeding to pass someone is | legal in most states, as is speeding in certain situations. | | Whereas, a rolling stop, that's not legal (as far as I know) | _anywhere_. | | EDIT: I am incorrect with the above statement. I apparently | live in one of 4 states where you can exceed the speed limit | by up to 10mph while passing. | cmurf wrote: | It is not legal to speed to pass in most states. I've only | found Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota and Washington have such a | law on the books, up to 10mph over the posted speed limit. | | For sure in Colorado it's not legal to exceed the speed | limit to pass. But it is illegal to drive below the speed | limit while in the passing lane on a highway with a speed | limit 65 mph or higher. There's exceptions for safety and | congestion, but otherwise the left lane is considered a | passing lane. If you're not passing, you're not supposed to | be in that lane. | hutzlibu wrote: | It is? That is a surprise. In germany and most countries I | drove, it was definitely illegal. Of course, it is common | and it makes sense, but the law is that the speed limit is | absolute. | zamadatix wrote: | Only a couple of states have laws allow speeding to pass | and the vast majority of states have an absolute speed | limit rule disallowing speeding in any situation. A handful | of states won't give you points due to a speeding ticket <6 | mph though. | | Of course these are the laws, not the practice, which is | what I think GP was trying to say. | | http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/laws.html | mrtranscendence wrote: | For what it's worth, in Ohio I've never been stopped by a | cop for going 5 miles above the speed limit on or off the | interstate, despite doing so in the presence of cops many | times. I got my only ticket for going 15 miles over, | though. | zamadatix wrote: | I've gotten a ticket on US 24 (going Fort Wayne to | Toledo) for doing 69 in a 65. I've went through there | probably nearing a hundred times by then (both family and | work out that way) but only been pulled over for it that | once. Ever since One of two tickets I've ever gotten, the | other was also in Ohio but that one was much more obvious | - I missed the speed change on a normal road when I was | younger and was doing 45 in a 35. Cop knocked that one | down quite a bit though, can't remember what actually got | put on the ticket. | | Of all of the places I've been Chicago was probably the | worst at speeding, especially in the dead of night when | the roads are "too" open. Recently they got a bit | stricter with the speed cameras though | https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicagos-speed-cameras- | ticket... | seanmcdirmid wrote: | I could have sworn rolling stops were legal in | Arizona...maybe that was a couple of decades ago? | ctdonath wrote: | Illegal _is_ binary. Enforcement is what 's squishy, because | liability normally doesn't address deep pockets. | nomel wrote: | I think one could claim that illegal and enforcement or so | closely tied together that they can't be separated in a | meaningful way. | ctdonath wrote: | That's...preposterous. There are a great many illegal | acts that are so rarely enforced that the act is | normalized, with enforcement surprising the culprits - | speeding and rolling stops being the primary examples. | Such are normalized because individual enforcement is | practically impossible; it's when the behavior gets | codified by a business as/in a product that gov't has a | chance to crack down on it. | throwaway894345 wrote: | With respect to speed limits (and not stop signs, so this is | explicitly a bit of a digression), it's also worth noting | that sometimes you have to choose between "safe" and "legal" | since most municipalities set speed limits which are not safe | (the safest speed being the speed at which traffic naturally | flows). So should a self-driving car (or human, for that | matter) drive _safely_ or _legally_? | eldaisfish wrote: | >Illegal isn't binary | | I would strongly discourage you from trying that line of | argument with the cops when you're pulled over for speeding. | I'm certain that a court of law with decent standards does | not interpret speeding "at least a little" as anything except | a binary. | caconym_ wrote: | The "argument" is tried against cops when you pass them | while driving faster than the speed limit. In the vast | majority of cases, if you're going less than 10 over, they | will ignore you. | | A thing is not legal just because law enforcement lets you | get away with it, but I don't think this is a good example. | It's silly to have this conversation without at least | acknowledging the way driver behavior expands into "grey | areas" and gaps in enforcement, and I don't think it's | trivially obvious that "self driving" cars should rigidly | follow the letter of the law even if that means they'll be | the only cars on the road doing so. | onion2k wrote: | _Illegal isn 't binary - just look at speed limits. Everyone | speeds at least a little, and FSD/AP had to be allowed to | speed to be safe._ | | Illegal is binary for most driving laws (especially 'do what | this sign says' rules), but some things fall into an | ambiguous category of illegal-but-rarely-enforced. The | problem is that computers don't do well with ambiguous rules. | I strongly suspect that when most cars are using FSD the rule | of being allow to drive a little over the speed limit will be | removed, and cars will have to stick to the limits. Hopefully | the limits will be raised. | fnord77 wrote: | I've heard this called the "california roll" because it is so | pervasive here. I guess someone at Tesla confused "done by | everyone" with "legal" | soheil wrote: | You make it sound like as of something just by being legal | adheres to the platonic form of truth. There are so many dumb | laws. For example in a certain state I can't remember it's | illegal to have an ice cream in your back pocket on Sundays. | There are many, many idiotic laws that one would do well to at | least question, instead of shaming others or being "baffled" | why others don't put up with them. | ajross wrote: | It's not the default, you have to turn it on in a menu. It's | arguably not even "shipped", as it's part of the must-qualify- | in FSD beta program. And most beta users probably didn't know | it existed. | | It also engages only when approaching an empty intersection. | Any obstacles/pedestrians or moving vehicles cause a full stop. | To be perfectly honest: I turned it on when I saw it, but | haven't seen it actually do it yet. And at this point I guess I | never will. | | I mean, speeding is equally illegal and inarguably more | dangerous. Yet no one is upset that the car lets you speed. | alistairSH wrote: | Isn't FSD just a $10k option today? IE, it might be "beta" | quality, but it's available to anybody with deep enough | pockets. | ajross wrote: | "FSD beta" refers to the specific autonomy-in-all- | circumstances product in testing. You have to request it, | then prove you can win a game vs. the car's Safety Score | feature for a few weeks or months, then wait to be | upgraded. It's available to the public, but only in limited | release. | | "Full Self Driving" is the name of the vehicle option that | you can purchase or license, which includes a bunch of | different features (light/sign recognition, autonomous | navigation on highways, lane changes, stuff like that). | FireBeyond wrote: | > You have to request it, then prove you can win a game | vs. the car's Safety Score feature for a few weeks or | months, then wait to be upgraded. It's available to the | public, but only in limited release. | | Or have enough social media clout (in the appropriately | Tesla-positive direction). | ajross wrote: | Are you referencing anything in particular? It's true | that the first few hundred non-Tesla-employee installs | were to a bunch of known fans and inflencer types. But | since September it's been a completely public thing with | objective rules. They have 60k of these cars on the roads | now per the linked article, it's absolutely not just a | marketing thing. | eclipxe wrote: | No. | mrtranscendence wrote: | I agree with you, for what it's worth. I'm not sure why this is | at all controversial. Even if you argue that it's sometimes | morally permissible to do a rolling stop, it's still baffling | that Tesla would explicitly program its AI to perform illegal | acts. Why open themselves up to criticism and scrutiny? Should | they run red lights at empty intersections, too? Ignore speed | limits in quiet residential areas? Maybe tailgate other drivers | going _under_ the speed limit? | caconym_ wrote: | > The feature, which appeared to violate state laws that | require vehicles to come to a complete stop and _required | drivers to opt-in for what it dubbed "Assertive" mode,_ drew | attention on social media and prompted NHTSA to raise questions | with Tesla. | | Emphasis mine; this apparently wasn't the default behavior. | Though, it may not have been clear to users opting-in exactly | what "assertive mode" changes about the system's behavior. | kgwgk wrote: | It seems that it's also part of the default behaviour: | https://twitter.com/digitalhen/status/1480230704520773632 | | It happens in all three modes Chill, Average and Assertive to | different degree. | mannykannot wrote: | Tesla would vastly prefer a situation where the NHTSA allows it | to do anything it wants, so it does just that, hoping to | normalize this deviance from how the law intends highway safety | to be regulated. By this action, NHTSA is trying out a more | assertive mode itself. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-01 23:00 UTC)