Slashdot Mirror

It's worth pointing out that this type of response by drivers is predictable. Not necessarily watching TV but zoning out in one way or another. You'll see Tesla trot out the excuse every time as well: "This system requires constant monitoring by the driver, it's not really fully self-driving, and the crash was the driver's fault for not paying attention when they should have."

But: equal--or even more--blame has to go to the designers of the system and testing protocol for not taking this obvious and well known fact about human behavior into consideration when designing their system and their testing protocol.

It's a simple fact of human behavior that once the system looks like it's working OK for a few dozen to a few hundred miles, you assume it's OK and you start to tune out.

In reality, drivers average between 90 million (auto v. auto fatalities) and 480 million (auto v. pedestrian fatalities) miles between fatal collisions. So a system that can manage to go a few dozen or a few hundred miles without anything disastrous happening is still many orders of magnitude less capable than even the worst human driver. But once the automated system has driven a certain route a few times successfully, just about any human "monitor" is going to start have confidence in the system and tune out.

There are many ways around this issue, and companies shouldn't be allowed to test self-driving systems out on the public roads without using some or all of them:

  * Far more extensive testing can be done using simulators etc before going live on public roads. They should be testing many billions of miles in this type of environment first. Some companies are putting more emphasis on this now (ie, nVidia). All should be required to do this or something similar.

  * Far more testing should be done on tracks & other non-public locations before testing proceeds on public roads.

  * Systems should not be allowed to be tested on the public roads until they have proven they are actually capable.

  * If systems do require human "safety drivers" as a backup then various monitoring systems and protocols must be in place to ensure that the humans are actually doing the work. You can't just hire random people at $12/hour, give them 3 hours of training, and hope. That is guaranteed failure.

  * Companies doing this type of testing need to be 100% responsible for anything that goes wrong. The fact that some employee wasn't doing something 100% right is no excuse. The companies need to have enough of a safety culture, safety system, and safety protocol in place that they know whether or not any individual tester is doing what they should or not.

  * Most of all, these safety-critical systems must be engineered in an environment of safety-critical engineering. Not the "move fast and break things" bullshit software development culture that is currently so pervasive.

"Move fast and break things" might be a great philosophy for developing a cell phone app, but operating a motor vehicle is a safety critical system operating in an environment with very high risk of serious injury and death. The systems and the testing must be designed to take this seriously from top to bottom.

FWIW Uber's corporate culture is like the polar opposite of this from top to bottom.

Congress is trying to pass a bill to allow nationwide testing of self-driving vehicle that is laughably lacking in any type of oversight. More here:

http://saferoads.org/2018/06/1...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/1...

I can't imagine any city driver needed to get to 65mph coming off a stop light.

LOL, sorry I didn't make myself clear.

A car that can only get up to 65MPH probably is very slow getting to even 35MPH.

Fast acceleration is more important for passing and keeping up with traffic than a high top speed.

Exactly.

We had a national speed limit of 55mph for 20 years, and if memory serves, the world did not come to an end.

Did average speeds change much? I feel like I still set cruise control around 70-74MPH, even with the 65MPH speed limits - same as I did at 55MPH (though then I had to tail someone or risk getting a ticket). This study is the one that often gets cited - an oldie but goodie. But then this site lists a bunch of stats to the contrary - so I dunno. All I know is that I'm a lot happier at 74 than I am at 64 :)

My starting ideology is pretty Libertarian, but I accept that the free market can't deal with external costs well and that individuals sometimes act irrationally. So maybe I'm more of a pragmatist. But anyway, when it comes to roads, I'd like to see the roads used to move the most cars in the shortest amount of time possible. Ultimately, they probably need to automate them - cars moving at different speeds is inherently a bad system.

Highly regessive tax structure! Taxing by the mile hurts car drivers who get better miles per gallon! Keep increasing the gas tax! That's fine! As the gas tax increases it hurts the trucking industry, but can be used to help create considerably greener railroad shipping options for the long haul. Roads will last longer since they are really only damaged by large trucks. "One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars. (Highway Research Board, NAS, 1962). Overweight trucks chronically underpay their fair share of taxes and user fees for the repair of U.S. roads and bridges. By damaging roads, large trucks further degrade highway safety. (U.S. DOT, 1997)." http://www.saferoads.org/dangers-large-trucks

Please, go do more research on the topic.
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/mo torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgKy.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-53804
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/mo torcycle/kentuky-la03/LawChgLa.html#Anchor-FATALIT IE-17701

For example, you could more double the effective MPG of 18 wheelers by changing the regulations that limit them so heavily (pun intended) to rather light loads.


Your analysis of just increasing the load size of semis is simplistic. First, some current statistics. Every state in the US has a maximum gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs without a permit. A tractor weighs in around 17,000 lbs. Leaving 63,000 for fuel, trailer, and load.

Ok, adding an axle to carry more weight; axles are generally rated at 20,000 (including the weight of the axle), so for 110,000 you would need to add 2 axles. Most likely one to the tractor and one to the trailer. A third axle reduces maneuverability and increases tire scuff (wear). You could use tag axles, but that would increase the weight of the axle assembly and would only help when you are under 80,000 lbs. On top of that, the tractors are designed to pull 80,000. To pull 110,000 they would need a heavier frame and stronger drive train. You could get by with the heavier weight for a short time, but you'd pay for it in maintenance later on.

Then of course there are the road issues. Unless you extend the length of the trucks, adding extra axles doesn't efficiently distribute the weight. Think about bridge spans that are designed for 34,000 lb tandems that are 35' apart. And the fact that our national infrastructure is already severely neglected.

Then of course there is the issue that a lot of cargo is not weight constrained, it is limited by size. Do we want it to be the norm that semis are pulling double 53s or triple pups? Already highway safety advocates are looking to federally freeze semis at current state limits. It could be a big fight to get them increased.

http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-trucks.htm

BTW, if those trucks you mention are only getting 5 mpg, they should probably consider newer rigs or check their driver's habits. 7 mpg should be possible without changing their loads.

Calculate your chances of being directly affected by a "terror" attack/event. For the sake of gross oversimplification, let's say that 10,000 Americans were killed on U.S. soil as a direct result of the actions of "terror"ists, including domestic ones, over the last 12 years. (OKC bombing, the unibomber, anthrax letters, '93 WTC and '01 WTC, those exploding planes, the DC *cough* snipers *cough*, etc.)

Now let's look at a non-"terror", non-health related activity that just about everyone in the US participates in in one form or another: transporation via roadway. Let's see... according to saferoads.org, we're looking at 43,220 deaths. Interesting. You are at least four times more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, assuming you don't bus about everywhere, than by the result of an act of "terror".

You believe my figures are wrong? Actually, you're correct. The 43,220 people that died in traffic accidents? They all died in 2003. I don't know about you, but the only thing these "terror"ists have me terrified of is the resulting actions of my own government, state and local as applicable. :P

99 out of every 100 people injured in the U.S. transportation system are injured in motor vehicle crashes: approximately 5-6 million every year. Despite this fact, highway safety accounts for only one percent of the budget of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Motor vehicle crashes cost society more than $150 billion every year in medical, rehabilitation and long-term care costs, lost productivity, lost tax revenue, property damage and police, judicial and social service costs. The health care portion is approximately $14 billion (of which Medicare and Medicaid pay $3.7 billion or almost 30 percent).

Motor vehicle crashes remain a major public health problem. They are the leading cause of death for Americans ages one to 34 and the leading cause of injury for all age groups. The numbers are so mind numbing that fatal accidents rarely get news coverage unless it involves more than 5 people yet it is news when an aircraft just skids off a runway and no one is hurt.

Why should we have cars that can go 200mph/320 kph when the maximum speed limit is 70/120?

Why are there places where the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory?

Why do we confiscate a hunters weapon and take their truck for poaching a deer yet if they drive drunk and hurt someone they may just get off with a fine and a temporary suspension?

If you say you hate someone you can get 7 years in jail for the hate crime yet if you drive over them and kill them when drunk you might get as much as 2 years.

I say that we have to stop the highway slaughter and this proposal to limit speed is a good start. Something also has to be done about drinking and driving. In 1994 alcohol-related deaths were 16,900 or 42 percent of total traffic fatalities. Why not use technology to not allow drunk drivers to drive? Penalties don't work.