Slashdot Mirror
Tesla's Autopilot Mode Reportedly Saves Pedestrian's Life (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader writes: Following reports of Tesla's Autopilot mode being linked to a fatal crash, one Tesla Model S owner is reporting that the Autopilot mode has likely saved a pedestrian's life. The driver sent an email to Elon Musk explaining the situation, which was confirmed by Tesla through the vehicle logs: "I wanted to let you know that I think my car probably saved the life of a pedestrian last night, 7/16 around 10:30pm when I was driving in Washington DC with my daughter." The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road." The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian." The driver said, "I am not sure if I would have been able to stop before hitting him but I am so glad the car did." The Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is standard on all Tesla vehicles and is part of Tesla's Autopilot mode, is what was at work here. It appears that many of the convenience features of Autopilot were not activated at the time of the incident. This is likely the first of many good press stories released by Elon Musk, who said he would consider releasing the stories of accidents prevented by the Autopilot mode with the authorization of the Tesla owners and by confirming the events through the vehicle logs. Elon Musk did also announce Tesla's 'Master Plan, Part Deux,' which includes new kinds of Tesla vehicles, expanded solar initiatives, updates on Tesla's 'autopilot' technology, and a ride-sharing program.
Isn't it interesting how a bad thing like an accident with autopilot turned on is the drivers fault, but a good thing is the software's fault. You can't have it both ways.
I would like to have the pedestrian's version of this encounter, but that might spoil the good press.
This was a collision avoidance system (most new cars have it), not Tesla's autopilot.
this. if the autopilot is responsible for saving life, then the autopilot is responsible for the accidents too.
Best of luck to him's daughter surpassing him's driving skills.
"breaks"
I know many people haven't actually walked on the earth, outside of their cars or a building in decades, but I'd like to let you know that it's actually very hard to "step in front of" a moving car.
What's easy however, is if the car is going too fast for conditions and the driver isn't paying attention, then it's easy to step into the zone in front of the car in which it can't stop, which grows exponentially with velocity.
I'm glad everyone is ok, but it's deeply misleading to portray this as heroic car, hapless driver and thankful pedestrian.
How long until, knowing their car's auto brake capability, people drive even faster and pay even less attention?
If I drove like a moronic asshat, and nearly killed some innocent person, only to be saved by a computer, I might not admit it so publically. Especially when the police and the DMV read the internet.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
You need to recalibrate your scale.
I agree that too many accidents are caused by stupid drivers behaving like asshats - but in all fairness, a pedestrian stepping out in front of your car is one of those accidents that could happen to even the most diligent driver.
No, because you're not accounting for the driver's culpability.
The near-miss of the pedestrian is 100% the driver's fault, because the driver didn't do his job, but the autopilot did.
The recent fatal collision is 50% the driver's fault and 50% the autopilot's fault, because both driver and autopilot failed to prevent the collision.
ESL post
Your "guy with a knife" analogy doesn't map correctly. If it did, there'd be a robot who intervened and stopped the guy with the knife from stabbing someone. Would you deny that the robot saved the other person from being stabbed? I wouldn't, not even if the robot was programmed by the knife-wielding guy to keep him from stabbing someone.
Someone who is stupid enough to illegally step in to traffic while wearing dark clothes at night deserves to die.
On the other hand here you are posting under a real username while looking like a moronic asshat who can't even read summaries correctly. Ironic!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Vehicle logs are the real story here. This is at least the third of these stories where I see something to the effect of: "confirmed by Tesla through the vehicle logs".
The question is who will have access to these logs, when and under what conditions?
"The Man" will love this shit.
Not hearing an electric car
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Even digital cameras still made the shutter snap noise when they came out.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
either way I'm sure his insurance company appreciates the public admission.
Self-correcting now that I see I misread the summary: Assuming the driver's story is accurate, the fault would be the pedestrian's.
I knew they weren't reliable but breaking down in order to stop seems a little extreme.
I saw this happen in broad daylight. A woman started crossing in a crosswalk the instant the light turned green for the cars, thus blocking them. There were only cars in the right lane and a car approached the left lane and continued (since he had a green light) and the woman stepped out in front of him and got hit. The driver stopped and the lady was taken away in an ambulance. In this case I'd blame the woman since she crossed when the crosswalk said "don't walk" and there is no way the driver could have seen her.
A few months later I was driving home late at night and the same thing happened. A person wearing dark clothing waited until the signal said "don't walk" and I waited for the idiot to cross. Another car came through in the other lane and the guy missed getting creamed by only a few inches. Again, the light had been green for some time and the idiot waited until just after the cross light turned red like he had a death wish. Too many times I've seen stupid pedestrians crossing when it's not safe to do so.
Also, as a driver I too would be distracted by sirens, trying to find the source of them. No driver can look ahead all the time, i.e. checking the mirrors. If someone claims that they're always looking ahead they're either lying or a really bad driver.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
It's still the driver's fault that he almost killed someone. That hasn't changed.
Ezekiel 23:20
I don't know about your driving, but you're certainly posting like a moronic ass hat.
The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road." The car slammed on its breaks before he could and "stopped just inches from hitting the pedestrian." The driver said, "I am not sure if I would have been able to stop before hitting him but I am so glad the car did." The Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), which is standard on all Tesla vehicles and is part of Tesla's Autopilot mode, is what was at work here. It appears that many of the convenience features of Autopilot were not activated at the time of the incident.
So what happened is the driver was driving the vehicle, a situation happened for which he was unprepared but was a probable accident, and the AI took over and prevented the accident.
Almost no one is complaining about this scenario, and if I recall other car companies have deployed something similar and it's a decent first step towards autonomous vehicles.
The problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention and the AI becomes almost exclusively responsible for driving safely.
Its great that the AI is good enough that it prevented this accident, it still doesn't make the pseudo self-driving mode a good idea.
I stole this Sig
The admission of the driver was that he wasn't looking where he was going.
The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road."
Actually, the shutter snap sound in digital cameras was optional when they first came out. It was only until enough women complained about men surreptitiously taking upskirt pictures that the sound was made mandatory.
I can see the value in adding some kind of noise to an electric vehicle, particularly for the visually impaired. This pedestrian, however, did not follow the exceedingly simple rule we all learn as children: look both ways. But to err is human, and walking into a street before actually looking is something we've all probably done. Momentarily averting your eyes from the road directly in front of you is something I know we've all done. So semi-autonomous driving saves the day, and no one has to be labeled an inattentive jerk.
Perhaps the noise added to electric cars could be something pleasant or natural sounding. A particular bird song or something. Is that a nuthatch or an electric car? I should look both ways just in case.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Interestingly, some countries have very recently mandated that pedestrians under conditions of dimished visibility (which includes night) are legally required to wear a retroreflective element (at least an armband, for example). Obviously, that doesn't solve the "stepping out from behing a vehicle" problem, but still...
Ezekiel 23:20
Depending on speed, the mechanical noise from the wheels in contact with the road surface etc. could easily be the dominant component of car noise. Or so I've heard.
Ezekiel 23:20
It's a grate story. But I think the car activated its brakes, not its breaks.
Who said he was driving like "a moronic asshat" ?
Pedestrians can be just as moronic as drivers.
Didn't your mother ever teach you to look both ways before crossing the street, or did she teach you that it's always the drivers fault ?
Yes but since it was 10:30 at night one might figure the person might have seen the headlights.
NOW?!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The sound isn't mandatory.
I have my phone in silent mode, all the time.
Never hear the shutter at all.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Do all the logs go to Tesla automatically or does the company only go fetch them after an accident (or when someone writes in with a report like this and implicitly gives their permission to access the information)? If everything gets sent to Tesla there are huge privacy implications. They know what stores you go to and how often, your habits, and many other things that can be determined by your driving habits. They could probably make a fair bit of money selling that information to advertisers.
The problem is, people will ignore the ten good things you did (such as saving this pedestrian's life), but will focus laser-like on the one bad thing you did (such as hitting that white truck crossing the road).
Actually it is mostly the pedestrians fault, according to the way the story reads. Both parties may have been semi-distracted, but the pedestrian only has the right of way under certain circumstances, as detailed below. From what data we have available the pedestrian walked out in front of the vehicle with only enough room for computer assisted braking to save him from being struck.
Pedestrians only have the right of way:
by almost, if not all laws written, 1: in a marked cross walk ( convenient how this is left off in the quote all the time, no? ) and 2: only when it is safe for them to cross.
For number 2, many states have it written into the lawbooks that pedestrians who dart out in front of cars when the driver does not have an adequate and reasonable means of stopping have given up their right of way, and have actually committed a cite-able violation themselves. Many times, also, crossing outside of marked crosswalks is "at will" as well, with absolutely no expectation of having a right of way.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
collision avoidance system. I saw ads on tv for this 2 maybe 3 years ago from Volvo I think, and then benz had one, mazda, gm, ford, ... Heck who doesn't have one? And then over a decade ago HUD system's incorporated IR imaging to detect people/animals and put it up in the HUD. This of course is before anyone connected brakes to the system.
>"The driver says him and his daughter were trying"
Him was? Eeek... who wrote this???
Have you had your BRAKE today?
- News for morons, and stuff.
And exactly as AaronW said, you cannot look straight ahead ALL the time. If you're saying you look straight ahead, all of the time, I'd hate to be in the car with you when you merge onto the highway.
From the sound of it. Autopilot was not engaged and it was auto braking that saved the day. They were not on a freeway or highway, they were on a street with intersections where pedestrians might cross. Not autopilot territory. Auto braking happens even when auto pilot is not enabled or engaged. Auto braking is available on several other car makes.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right? you might as well blame the driver for not hearing the pedestrian walking.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Auto Braking is Not the same as Auto steering.
You would Need to be a real idiot to let the car slam on the breaks every time and not use the padal.
Sorry Auto Pilot Not a win.
I don't think that's the driver's fault. The pedestrian essentially darted out into traffic, not giving enough time for a human driver to react. However the autopilot, which presumably has a quicker response time, was able to react without driver intervention.
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
And yes, you can have it both ways here. Why? Because it is made pretty clear that autopilot is more of a convenience and in the right circumstances it can correct driver error (including errors made by other drivers and pedestrians,) but at the same time it is not intended to be a replacement for an actual driver, nor is it ever advertised as such. This means that ultimately you, the driver, are responsible for correcting the autopilot, but the autopilot is not responsible for correcting you.
The sound isn't mandatory.
The sound is mandatory in Japan and Korea.
1. Women there are more likely to wear skirts.
2. Men there are are more likely to be perverts.
3. Crowded trains and elevators offer many photo ops.
You don't know what they're for, you don't know where they're coming from, they make you have knee jerk reactions, and they basically accomplish nothing but inciting panic. Just like 99% of honking.
It's true everywhere in the US except Nevada.
As a driver, you're obligated to pull over and make way for emergency vehicles, so it's naturally to look for the source of sirens as a driver. We're often required to divert our eyes and look behind us or to the side at times as well, even when driving in normal circumstances. Humans can't focus in all directions at once. Moreover, it's more or less impossible for a person to be 100% focused and ready to brake at an instant's notice.
Accusing him of not looking where he was going is more or less accusing him of not having eyes in the back of his head.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
But the Musk haters want it both ways. Autopilot killed someone and AEB didn't save anyone. Isn't that what you are arguing for?
Learn to love Alaska
That's racist!!!!
Whoa, dude. I've always respected your comments, but you're being super racist right now. I can't respect you anymore.
If I drove like a moronic asshat, and nearly killed some innocent person, only to be saved by a computer, I might not admit it so publically. Especially when the police and the DMV read the internet.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
You need to recalibrate your scale.
Not to mention the whole "driver distracted trying to locate potentially fast moving emergency vehicle (that the pedestrian apparently didn't think about)" bit.
So a pedestrian wearing all black at night who hides in the bushes and throws themselves at cars, it's till 100% the driver's fault? You live in a messed up place, wherever that is.
Learn to love Alaska
You will notice, if you click the link, that the entire basis for this story is an email from someone named "Larry". Show of hands: who thinks Elon Musk is above having a staffer make up this email or making it up himself? Tesla stock has been bouncing up and down in a mostly flat range for a year now, since his cars have become a regular sight on the roads. He needs this to take off, and the poor fit and finish and cheap interiors of Teslas is turning off a lot of potential customers.
Tesla does not have a good record of repeat customers, either. People who buy a new car every year are not buying a second Tesla.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I find it funny they wait 2 month after a death to announce it (after large stock sales) but take 5 days to announce this. :)
Nope. My non-electric car is nearly as quiet. And at night, you'll see the lights long before any (normal) car is audible.
Learn to love Alaska
All cars are almost silent at low speeds. Someone in a car that is coasting will make roughly the same sound as an electric car, especially to a listener in front of the car.
Learn to love Alaska
But most gasoline cars are louder. Especially in the US.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
So a pedestrian wearing all black at night who hides in the bushes and throws themselves at cars, it's till 100% the driver's fault? You live in a messed up place, wherever that is.
If a pedestrian literally attempts to commit suicide by car, there is nowhere in the world the driver is at fault... now, prove it. There are lots of places where the assumption of fault is on the driver. I come from one; Santa Cruz, CA. If you hit a pedestrian anywhere in the city limits you are basically at fault unless you have some good video showing that they really hurled themselves beneath your vehicle. This is above and beyond the usual Californian standard of being automatically at fault if you hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk any time other than when you have a traffic light granting you the right of way; at those times, pedestrians have one explicitly denying it to them. However, you're also not allowed to enter an intersection if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk which crosses your path, whether they're in your way or not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When the stats are true, it isn't racist.
This poor tortured soul tried to commit suicide and an AI wouldn't let him. The computers do want us as slaves. Be afraid!
Read the very first reply to my comment that you responded to. Yes, the one posted three and a half hours before yours. What does it say?
When you post AC, it could have been anyone. And because you were posting AC, it was collapsed. Because of the replies pointing out your massive error, I saw the original, but your hidden AC correction was hidden.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, and anyone hit from behind is never at fault. The simplistic generalizations are right only barely more than wrong, so much so, they aren't very useful.
Learn to love Alaska
A diesel, maybe. With the annoyingly loud valve chatter of a diesel, but a modern gasoline engine idles nearly silent, and someone in front of a car will not be able to hear the exhause. Unless accelerating, the sound from an approaching gasoline-powered car is close enough to an electric one that the pedestrian is an idiot if they are relying on sound. You would hear tire noise clearly from quite a distance, even with an electric car.
Go stand in front of a Lexus LS460 at a steady 55 mph. You'll not hear much as it approaches. Repeat with the Tesla, and let me know the dB difference. I'd expect that the sound at 100 ft would be audible from both, and within 3 dB of each other. But I don't have the time, or inclination, to test.
Learn to love Alaska
Well, given how many cars are on the road and the millions of daily miles - he doesn't need to make up shit like this.
I drive a car (totally different brand) that also features emergency warnings/braking. When merging onto a high speed Road here I briefly checked my blind spot, while a car in front merging had for no reason suddenly slammed on his breaks. Only because of that emergency system did I not rear end him.
That was with only a few thousand miles of owning this car.
I can't spell. Appreciate should be 'road' and brakes.
Tesla does not have a good record of repeat customers, either. People who buy a new car every year are not buying a second Tesla.
I call bullshit. While standing in line to reserve a model 3 in Denver, I was surrounded by Model S owners or extended family of an S owner, and a few Leaf owners. I saw a Roadster drive by, presumably looking for a parking space. From that experience, my wag is 10%, maybe 15%, were repeat customers.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
I don't think that's the driver's fault.
In most countries you'd be wrong. Driving to conditions means taking into account the ability for someone to dart out into traffic and slowing down to a point where you can see unexpected events with enough notice to safely stop. This is why driving the speed limit is not a legal defense when hitting a pedestrian.
That said it's not nearly as bad as people here make out. There's a big sliding scale between the perfectly safe driver and the horrendously dangerous one, and we can't really expect everyone to always be perfect in every situation. But in many countries the driver would be at fault.
It is mandatory in many countries. Certain models of phones sold in certain places will make this shutter sound regardless if your phone is in silent mode or not.
Perhaps the noise added to electric cars could be something pleasant or natural sounding.
You've never heard a Tesla have you? They still make noise and you can hear them about as well as any other small car in a city street. The difference is they don't make a loud noise when accelerating but many cars cruising down a city street are just as quiet, or rather as noisy since the majority you hear is road noise.
No driver can look ahead all the time
There is a concept called driving to conditions. If your attention is split then the speed limit or the speed you were doing when attentive is no longer the safe speed.
The driver in most countries is liable if they hit a pedestrian. The exception to this rule is when the pedestrian has an express requirement to stop (i.e. a red light). A pedestrian suddenly appearing is no defense. They don't suddenly appear, if they do, you were driving too fast for the conditions and visibility.
Humans can't focus in all directions at once.
We can't. We're also obligated to drive to conditions so while we're darting eyes in all directions at once we should also be slowing down and moving in the pre-taught direction regardless of where the siren is coming from. Yes he won't have eyes in the back of his head, but at the same time that is no reason to hit a pedestrian.
But agree no one is perfect.
Made up or not, it's misleading to attribute to this Autopilot. Musk should state clearly that AP was turned off and this is just the normal automatic braking / collision avoidance that virtually all cars in that price bracket have. In fact, in a few years it will be mandatory on all new cars sold in the EU, and by the 2020s all new cars sold in the US. It's absolutely nothing special.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Have you ever driven a car? Every parked van would mean you would have to come to a near full stop under what you are proposing. Somebody thin may stand behind every tree, people may be squatting behind every bush. In your scheme: Where do you draw the line of reasonable behaviour?
And what about train drivers? Why shouldn't they be held to the same, impossible standard?
Not hearing an electric car
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Even digital cameras still made the shutter snap noise when they came out.
There's some noise coming closer on the street - but since it doesn't sound like a internal combustion motor, I'll just run on the street without looking. It's not like even a bicycle or a skateboarder could kill me.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The admission of the driver was that he wasn't looking where he was going.
The driver says him and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from "when a pedestrian stepped out in front of [their] Model S in the dark with dark clothes and in the middle of the road."
So you are saying that drivers should just ignore sirens.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right?
Yeah, and they are also invisible, at least at low speeds.Holy fuck, don't they teach looking both ways before crossing the streets where you live? Hint: that's not just for kids.
Even apes do it . http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Why should there be an artificial sound for a car? No-one says a bicycle should have artificial sound so a blind person doesn't walk into one.
It happened with ABS and airbags. People felt safer, so they went faster.
Got any evidence to back that assertion up? Personally I've never heard of anyone saying some permutation of "yeah, I've got ABS and an airbag so I'm invulnerable now". Show me some statistics that demonstrate a significant increase in accidents attributable to ABS and/or airbags.
The problem with the "autopilot" is it essentially allows the AI to do all of the driving, meaning the human invariably stops paying attention and the AI becomes almost exclusively responsible for driving safely.
That's certainly a concern though I think perhaps an overblown one. There might be an "uncanny valley" between crude automation like Tesla's technology and fully automated driving where people have a hard time maintaining concentration. The jury is still out on this but it's a possibly failure mode worth considering even if it turns out to be a non issue ultimately.
On the other hand I have had cruise control in my car for decades and when I engage it I actually seem to pay more attention which is kind of the opposite of what I expected. Two reasons, 1) fewer activities for me to have to do so some amount of my brain is freed up to concentrate on what's around me and 2) I'm still concerned about my physical well being. I've spoken to others who have had similar experience where the cruise control caused them to pay more attention. While that's not really scientific evidence it tells me that we shouldn't be to quick to draw conclusions about the effects of autopilot vs the human brain before we have evidence.
Driving to conditions means taking into account the ability for someone to dart out into traffic and slowing down to a point where you can see unexpected events with enough notice to safely stop.
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking. Even at 10mph (15 feet per second), if someone walks out in front of you a car length ahead, you're still pretty likely to hit them.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
It's also prudent when trying to locate the siren to slow down a little regardless. Emergency vehicles do drive recklessly on occasion. You can't rely on the emergency vehicle to stop at the mouth of a side street. They may pull in front of you and expect you to respond to it. You may also be approaching a dangerous scene before the first responders.
It is likely this guy was blowing down the road in autopilot when he should have had control of his car. Given that the Tesla isn't made to respond to emergency vehicles lights and sirens, this guy is a bit of an idiot. "Here is a situation in which I should have been in control and driving cautiously, but wasn't."
With the annoyingly loud valve chatter of a diesel, but a modern gasoline engine idles nearly silent, and someone in front of a car will not be able to hear the exhause.
This is even true of my 14-year old pickup with a 4.8L gas engine and 135,000+ miles on it. From 20 feet away, practically all you hear of the engine is the fan. Standing at the rear, you can hear a low rumble from the exhaust, but you have to be right on top of it.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking.
Yep.
Very interesting report and thanks for sharing. However that report explicitly states that ABS had no measurable effect on the aggressiveness of driver. From the report: "The research, in fact, did not identify any significant problems with ABS other than owners’ initial lack of knowledge and experience with the systems. There was little evidence of any behaviors that would cause drivers of vehicles equipped with ABS to run off the road. There was also little evidence that drivers became more aggressive when they had ABS." (page 11)
Hoofbeats. From clop-clop-clop at low speeds to a thunderous gallop at higher speed.
Only in urban areas, of course.
The poster is referring to risk compensation.
I'm aware of that fact. However he provided no evidence that conclusively demonstrated that it was a factor. It's a seemingly logical inference but the evidence for it seems to be generally lacking.
Multiple studies show that with the introduction of abs brakes people follow more closely.
There are plenty of studies which indicate that it has no measurable effect on driver aggressiveness including one conducted by the NTHSA provided by one of the other slashdot readers. I consider the NTHSA a reliable source on this matter but even if the others are reliable as well, which one am I to believe? Contradictory studies cannot both be correct.
Similar things are observed with seat belts and some people argue w bike helmets
Even if true those safety devices clearly and substantially improve safety for those who use them. There is no point to a system like Tesla's autopilot if it does not improve overall safety. There may be conditions where it performs worse but it's still worthwhile if it improves safety overall.
Yeah, and anyone hit from behind is never at fault. The simplistic generalizations are right only barely more than wrong, so much so, they aren't very useful.
What's useful is a dash cam. Now soliciting ideas for which one to buy that doesn't suck. Will wire it in.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We're not talking about idling. We're talking about driving down a road.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Years ago I was driving home at night after a movie. I had just hit the outskirts of town where the streetlights and such had ended when all of a sudden something ran out from the side of the road and stopped right in front of me. I hit the brakes and stopped within a foot of a young woman who had crouched down with her hands over her eyes.
When she looked up she started screaming at me: "Why didn't you hit me!? Why didn't you hit me!?" I looked at her -- she was crying, and her face was black and blue.
I spoke calmly to her and managed to convince her to let me take her to the hospital (probably a risky move in hindsight). "I'm drunk and stoned" she said; she wouldn't let me take her to the cops. Claimed her boyfriends sister beat the hell out of her, but I suspect it was the boyfriend.
In any case, I won't bore you with the rest of the details. Bottom line from that experience is that I don't skimp on tires when I buy them (you use them for stopping too), or brakes. Having a "third" eye in a car looking out for you and for other people can't be bad.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
Hoofbeats. From clop-clop-clop at low speeds to a thunderous gallop at higher speed.
Only in urban areas, of course.
So the passenger riding shotgun should be banging two coconut shells together?
Your anecdote is not borne out by data.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The driver in most countries is liable if they hit a pedestrian. The exception to this rule is when the pedestrian has an express requirement to stop (i.e. a red light).
That's all a lot of bollocks. In most countries, a driver is only liable if they hit a pedestrian when the pedestrian is someplace they are meant to be. In some cities, a driver is liable if they hit a pedestrian pretty much anywhere. In most places, a driver is at fault if they hit a pedestrian in a crossing, but if they hit them somewhere else then there is no automatic assignation of fault.
A pedestrian suddenly appearing is no defense. They don't suddenly appear, if they do, you were driving too fast for the conditions and visibility.
This is generally true, but stating generalities as if they were hard and fast rules is usually a massive failure. A pedestrian can absolutely step out from between two parked vehicles with tall tops in such a way that a responsible driver can't avoid hitting them. The pedestrian absolutely has a responsibility to look both ways before crossing the street, and if they hurl themselves into traffic from a hidden vantage point then they are absolutely at fault. Proving that they have done so can be a chore.
A driver should absolutely be alert for people who are acting like dumbshits. If you're driving down a city street and you're not aware of pedestrians that might dart into your way, when it is possible to see them, then you are driving incorrectly. If you find this happening frequently, you lack sufficient concentration for driving and should give up your license. But that doesn't change the fact that it is possible for a pedestrian to hide between two vehicles and then step out in front of a vehicle at the last moment, in a way that makes it impossible for them to stop. A driver has limited capabilities and is not expected to be omniscient.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is even true of my 14-year old pickup with a 4.8L gas engine and 135,000+ miles on it. From 20 feet away, practically all you hear of the engine is the fan. Standing at the rear, you can hear a low rumble from the exhaust, but you have to be right on top of it.
What I don't get is why that's not enough. If I don't have headphones on (at which point I become paranoid and look around a lot) I can hear the tires coming in time to not be in the road in most cases. Only on a crowded street with lots of sources of noise is that not the case.
OTOH I bet I can hear the exhaust of your pickup from the front and 20 feet away. Hell, I can hear the exhaust of my Audi from a lot further, and it's stupid quiet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Now, had the pedestrian gone through a crosswalk and had there been roadsigns to notify the driver as such, but the driver was relying on autopilot and the pedestrian got hit? Driver's fault.
The signs are not necessarily a legal requirement. Drivers are required to observe and obey lines even when signs are not present; they can be damaged or destroyed and thus rendered illegible.
Some cities actually make it the driver's responsibility even when a pedestrian is not in a crosswalk. Santa Cruz, CA is one of those. It's an annoyance that pedestrians just cross anywhere (a lot less now actually since scruz has been gentrified to shit; most of the people who did that can't afford to live there any more) but it really did dramatically reduce pedestrian injury and death.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If they're riding shotgun then they should just fire a shotgun.
At a horse's gallop pace.
Karnal
Which means you've never heard a Lexus LS drive at speed. Hint: It's a luxury car; it's quite quiet.
Karnal
Practically speaking, that would mean an implicit speed limit of 10mph or less anywhere there's on-curb parking.
Yep.
And yet, that is not the standard. Perhaps you are confused about the standard. Pedestrians do have responsibilities. Even in Santa Cruz, where pedestrians have the right of way outside of crosswalks, if a pedestrian suddenly steps out in front of a vehicle somewhere other than a crosswalk (where you are pretty much always religiously at fault unless you have a protected light, and even then you are expected to exercise caution) then they are at fault. You may be called upon to prove this as the driver, so you should have a dashcam... welcome to Russia, comrade.
But no, you are totally off your nut about driving speeds. We set them to 25 to reduce speeds in a collision with a pedestrian, and have recently mandated that vehicles should accomodate pedestrians in a crash, so the hoods and fenders have been redesigned not to kill them as easily. Unless you have a reasonable expectation that someone is about to step in front of your car, the speed limit in such areas is still whatever is posted. If they wanted a lower speed limit, they'd post one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
For the record, I didn't say there wasn't a gasoline car that was as quiet, I said most gasoline cars were louder. Most people don't drive Lexuses. I'm really surprised this is such an issue for people.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Pedestrians only have the right of way:
by almost, if not all laws written, 1: in a marked cross walk ( convenient how this is left off in the quote all the time, no? ) and 2: only when it is safe for them to cross.
Sigh. No. The law is much more complicated than you think it is. You could look it up if you cared and wanted to be correct. Here is the really meaty paragraph:
It's really pathetic to see so many of you know so little about traffic laws, and yet presumably are driving anyway. I bet you get intersections wrong, too. Just yesterday I found myself at the intersection in front of the CHP office in Kelseyville and I had a woman make a left turn in front of me while I was making a right turn... note the lack of protected turns at this intersection. And I honked at her, and she gave me the finger. And now that I know you are totally ignorant of pedestrian crossing laws, I will conflate you with her.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
if they did then distracted pilots would be crashing planes left and right. The airline industry figured this out years ago, it's sad that we have to relearn the same lessons now in the automotive industry.
Nobody talks like that. You mean "Elon Musk also announced ...".
At the bottom of the
What part of "now, prove it", followed by a bunch of examples of actual real-world laws confused you?
drinkypoo was admitting that you were right that the fault would be 100% on the pedestrian in your scenario. They simply also went on to explain why it would be extremely difficult to prove it. "I reject your reality and substitute my own" is a cute saying, but it doesn't actually work.
"The driver says him and his daughter..."
"The car slammed on its breaks..."
Minnesota:
Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway . [1]
D.C. :
Stop - controlled or
uncontrolled intersection
Pedestrians may cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However,
no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb, safety platform, safety zone, loading
platform or other designated place of safety and walk or turn into the path of a vehicle
which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. [2]
Crossing at spots other than crosswalks - If a pedestrian crosses a roadway at any point other than in a marked crosswalk at an
intersection, the pedestrian shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle [2]
[1] https://www.revisor.mn.gov/sta...
[2] http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/defau...
Parts bolded for reference.
Hmm, who doesn't know the law properly?
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
That should be, "The driver says he and his daughter were trying to locate where sirens were coming from..." This has been your grammar Nazi post for the day.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You obviously didn't bother to read the parent comment and thereby failed to understand the difference between a pedestrian being in a roadway versus a pedestrian darting out into a roadway. Your are just so damn lazy and full of yourself.
Hmm, who doesn't know the law properly?
This has not become who knows the law properly, but who has failed at reading comprehension. I was addressing GP's claim #1:
You have decided that I was addressing subsequent claim #2, in spite of a complete lack of any support in my comment for that idea. While I did not explicitly state which claim I was addressing, it should have been obvious from context. The idea that a pedestrian has to cross in a marked crossing in every situation is a stupid one, and people who espouse it are both stupid and ignorant. As stated in my quotation above, in several states a pedestrian can cross anywhere at need. As I have stated in numerous other comments on this story, in no case is a pedestrian allowed to hurl themselves in front of other vehicles. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the other comments on this story before you leave comments that prove that you are experiencing verbal diarrhea.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That would have to be a well-armed skateboarder, or ferocious bad luck.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The car might be working just fine at hitting the brakes when an obstacle appears in front of it and still seriously screwed up when asked to do lane tracking and overtaking. Secondly, if the car allows a human to become inattentive then there is no one to override its behaviour when it does screw up. Human inattention is a completely forseeable consequence of a mode which claims to be "autopilot" and therefore attention should be compelled in some fashion to counteract this.
The only way self driving will be safe in the forseeable future is if a) the car behaves in a sane and predictable fashion, and b) the human is attentive and alert at all times. Only if those two conditions hold true is car at least as safe than a human by themselves.
What is or isn't the standard is irrelevant in the eyes of the law which for most countries involve driving to conditions. The presence of parked cars implies the possible presence of pedestrians, and pedestrians are allowed to step on the road unless there's specific laws against it (e.g. highways, red lights on crossing etc).
Driving to conditions needs to take into account stupidity, and saying the other person was an idiot with a death wish has never worked well in front of a judge. This isn't about common sense, my comments are purely about where you will end up if this is the situation you're in.
Also most countries in the world the speed limit is just that, an upper limit. There's always reasons or scenarios which may require you to go slower or in some severe cases come to a complete stop. This is precisely why most countries have a "drive to conditions" or "unsafe / reckless driving" laws on their books. You can tell me I'm wrong, I don't care (as long as I'm not the one getting hit). The only thing that impacts you is standing in front of a judge. I hope you don't have to try and justify your situation like that because it typically won't work in your favour.
Except the stats aren't true, you've just pulled them out of your arse.
Points 1 and 3 probably are true, I certainly saw more skirts around when I lived in Japan than I do here in the UK, and people do use public transport more frequently there.
Point 2 I don't believe is true. More opportunity combined with near zero chance of getting caught is more likely the cause up the upskirt photo problem.
I understand not reading TFA, but come on, even the summary specifically mentioned that Autopilot was disabled.
Okay, so they actually said the "convenience features" were disabled, but since they're giving credit to Autopilot for the basic collision avoidance system, I think it' safe to assume that actual self-driving is included in the "convenience features".
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That's all a lot of bollocks. In most countries, a driver is only liable if they hit a pedestrian when the pedestrian is someplace they are meant to be.
There are very few places where a pedestrian is not ALLOWED to be. Where they are meant to be is totally irrelevant, as any judge will tell you. I hope you never have to explain this argument to a judge because it won't work in your favour. I will correct my statement though. Instead of saying in "most" couties. I'll say "nearly all western countries and many advanced eastern ones too".
Proving that they have done so can be a chore.
This is ultimately the most critical part of this entire thread. The driver is always at fault unless you can prove incredible negligence or even wilful suicide attempts on behalf of the pedestrian, and that is incredibly difficult.
Eh, I suspect that, if they weren't totally oblivious, the pedestrian would be able to locate the emergency vehicle long before the driver - between not being encased in a sound-distorting canopy of glass and steel, and being far freer to swivel their head, they were probably able to dismiss it as an imminent threat almost immediately - after all, locating potential threats is one of the primary things our ears have spent millions of years evolving for.
They may not have considered the effect the siren would have on nearby traffic though. And considering they stepped out directly in front of a car at night, whose fast-approaching headlights were presumably clearly visible, I wouldn't rule out "completely oblivious" either.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The presence of parked cars implies the possible presence of pedestrians, and pedestrians are allowed to step on the road unless there's specific laws against it (e.g. highways, red lights on crossing etc).
They are not allowed to step out directly in front of a vehicle in such a way that it can't stop, though; at least, not in most places. This varies from place to place, and it always has. Nations, states, counties, cities and towns are all free to set their own standards to some degree. And in a lot of places, pedestrians are expected to behave to a certain basic standard. In other places, they are not, and you as a driver are expected to know which are which, because pedestrians will set their expectations and thus behave accordingly.
Also most countries in the world the speed limit is just that, an upper limit.
No, absolutely not. Speed limits are explicitly set to set drivers' expectations. If a speed limit is set to a lower or higher speed, that establishes the expected behavior of drivers and pedestrians alike. In a 25 MPH zone, you should be expecting to see pedestrians, children, toys, pets, road obstacles, and the like regularly, and you should be watching out especially carefully. A 35 MPH zone gives a different set of expectations; you should still watch out for dangerous situations, but the message is that pedestrians are not expected to be in the road. In a 55 MPH zone, pedestrians are expected to watch out and stay the damned hell out of the road.
Driving to conditions needs to take into account stupidity,
That's right, they do. That's why we set the speed limits the way we do. To account for stupidity. However, it's still not legal to behave in a stupid fashion if that compromises public safety, and that's why it's generally not legal to enter the roadway when a car would not be able to stop before hitting you. This is the case in DC; pedestrians are permitted to enter the roadway at any point, and do not require a crosswalk, but they are not permitted to enter the roadway in such a fashion that an oncoming vehicle does not have time to brake such that it will not hit them.
In California, where we have the most vehicles and the most vehicle-miles traveled, you're pretty much always at fault if you hit a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk (with signage and/or lights), damned near always if you hit a pedestrian in any marked crosswalk, and may or may not be at fault if you hit one anywhere else unless you're in one of a handful of cities which have given the right-of-way to pedestrians basically everywhere. As you might surmise, you are expected to drive such that you can see what is coming up — but pedestrians are still required not to throw themselves 'neath your wheels, no matter where they are. There are times when a vehicle has the right-of way across a crosswalk, and if you interject yourself into it in such a way that a vehicle cannot stop while they are exercising that right-of-way, you will still be found at fault.
The only thing that impacts you is standing in front of a judge. I hope you don't have to try and justify your situation like that because it typically won't work in your favour.
I hope I don't have to do that because it will have meant that I have hit a pedestrian, and that would be very bad. I am very serious about not doing that. However, that doesn't mean that pedestrians don't have responsibilities. The fact that the onus of proof may well fall on the driver is a great reason to have a dashcam, but it doesn't exempt pedestrians from the responsibility to walk safely. I say this as someone who grew up with a single mother with no car. I've walked miles upon miles along public roads, many with plenty of traffic and no sidewalk, without ever being hit. Only a few times have I even come close, always due to drivers who did something incredibly stupid without e
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are very few places where a pedestrian is not ALLOWED to be.
That is absolutely false. In most cases, jaywalking statues that make it clear where a pedestrian is and is not permitted to be. In general, they are not permitted to just hang around holding their dick in the middle of the road; in fact, no one is. Not in a car, nor on foot. Blocking a roadway without authorization is illegal.
The driver is always at fault unless you can prove incredible negligence or even wilful suicide attempts on behalf of the pedestrian, and that is incredibly difficult.
It's not that hard. It's called dashcam. Otherwise, if it looks like there might be a dumbshit, slow the hell down. I support all of that, and that's how I drive through cities, and that's probably how I've avoided ever hitting a pedestrian in spite of all the time I've spent driving in various cities in California. But people really do step out from between parked cars and right on into the street like space cadets. It's happened to my lady on a shady street on a sunny day, where she couldn't have been expected to see the person. Luckily she was only going the speed limit and was able to brake in time, but the wingnut who jumped out in front of her from between two vans called the cops and claimed she was speeding at the time to pique their interest and she got a letter in the mail, had to defend against it and so on. We took some measurements and photos and mailed them in and it was over, but the truth is that if that woman had stepped out just a second later she would have gotten smacked and it would have been her own damned fault. Nobody could have reasonably seen her, and nobody would have expected her to step out and launch herself across the street with verve. What we normally do, what we are taught from childhood to do if our parents love us, is to stop and look both ways (and listen!) before crossing the street. If someone steps out to where you can see them and you don't slow down in case they cross, you're an asshole. If someone launches themselves out without pause, they're the asshole. And if they do it when you can't possibly stop, that's against the law, and they are at fault — at least, in a majority of cases.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Also 10 mph anywhere there's trees within 3-5feet / 1m of the road, given the road kill rates of a human sized animal called a "white tailed deer" that has a propensity for popping out of cover into the middle of a road. Combined with on-curb areas above that is now most of the country for US / CAN / Northern MX.
Will you be investing in Hyperloop as sole-source surface transport for the future?
Umm, no, it's you who fails at contextual comprehension.
The idea that a pedestrian has to cross in a marked crossing in every situation is a stupid one, and people who espouse it are both stupid and ignorant. As stated in my quotation above, in several states a pedestrian can cross anywhere at need.
In none of my comments did I say pedestrians are limited to crossing anywhere. I did note, however, that the only places they are granted exclusive Right of Way are in crosswalks. I even made it explicit that when not crossing at cross walks traffic has the exclusive Right of Way in most cases, which does NOT say that a pedestrian is never allowed to cross.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the other comments on this story before you leave comments that prove that you are experiencing verbal diarrhea.
I don't care what you said elsewhere in the comments. I was addressing what you said to me, after you almost seemingly intentionally misconstrued what my post said. All you have done so far is try to weasel your way around every refutation against what you stated wrongly. Admit that you made a mistake and move on.
Anyways, I am done here. Have a good day.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Being, 'reportedly'. Too vague, and it comes at a time when musk is in full-on spin mode. I call bullshit.
If you turn off autopilot mode on or off it has no effect on AEB. AEB is always on by default and can only be temporarily disabled.
They are advertised as logically separate features to the end user.
Actually, many states do require this. It's called an "audible warning" and can be a bell, horn, or voice saying, "Passing on your left." It's up to the bicyclist to use the warning. If collision results from the lack of warning, the bicyclist can be held liable for negligence.
The driver of an automobile has a responsibility of care on the road. This is why ALL pedestrians must be yielded to in the road regardless of clothing, time of day, type of vehicle being driven, or if the pedestrian is jaywalking or crossing legally at an intersection. "Did you see the pedestrian before you struck him and thus maliciously assault him with your motor vehicle or were you negligent of your duty of care?" These automated braking systems are there to make up for when negligence would have resulted in damage to person or property.
Show of hands: who thinks Elon Musk is above having a staffer make up this email or making it up himself?
I think they're too smart to do something like that. The probability of it being found out is low, but the PR damage caused by such fraud would be extreme. On balance, the expected risk of such a move is way too high. Plus, there's every reason to expect they have received some emails like this.
Tesla does not have a good record of repeat customers
Cite?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
So a pedestrian in dark clothes, at night, not hearing an electric car, and jaywalking by stepping out from between vehicles means the driver drives like "a moronic asshat."
you do know that electric cars are almost silent, especially at low speeds, right?
I don't know about the Model S, but the Nissan LEAF isn't. It has a speaker in the driver's wheel well that makes noise when the car is moving at less than 20 mph. Over 20 mph tire noise is loud enough to be quite audible.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!
Plenty of modern gas-engine cars make no noise besides tire noise on normal local roads. Living on a corner with a stop sign I observe that even accelerating from a stop is essentially silent for many modern non-electric vehicles.
Stats are racist!
Apple doesn't make differentiated models for different geo markets.
So? Bullshit.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Negative. My old TDI and my Corvette are no where near "silent", except when off.
And you're a retarded nigger.. So, really you're both wrong.
How do you know a human didn't have enough time to react? The auto-braking feature presumably left the braking as late as it could while still stopping safely, so all you know is that this driver didn't spot the pedestrian in time to brake, not that another driver would be unable to do so.
You racist motherfucker. You will burn in hell, and lose your job.
No, That is the standard. You are mistaken, every state I've bothered to look up has virtually zero fault for pedestrians. In NY just about anything short of a pedestrian leaving a suicide note places the driver 100% at fault.
I also didn't kill anyone today. Where is my prize?
I don't think there's any speed you'd be guaranteed to stop. Even at 1 mph when someone darts right out from parked car the reaction time just isn't fast enough.
You're joking, of course. But back when motor cars made their debut in the U.S. and started to take market share from the horse carriages, some viewed it as a threat and fought for legislation that would have required motor cars to have horse shoes nailed to the car.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
Perverted Solution: order device from outside Japan/Korea...
Every time one of these "pedestrian hit/almost hit" stories is posted a bunch of people come out of the woodwork claiming that it's their constitutional right to put on black jeans, a black t-shirt, and a black hoodie then run across dark streets and if they get hit it the driver's fault, physics be damned, we all just need to creep along in our cars at walking speed any time it's dark or there are trees or parked cars along the side of the road.
I suspect this is all just part of the larger War on Cars wherein a bunch of leftwing environazis decided it's absolutely intolerable that transportation is responsible for a whopping 31% of carbon emissions (note that figure is ALL transportation, including cars, semitrucks, trains, boats, and planes--I'd be surprised if cars were even half of that 31%), so we have to make life as miserable as possible for anyone who drives a car. I've seriously asked a bunch of my liberal friends what sort of sense does it make to harass people just trying to get to their jobs when, even if you completely eliminated cars, you'd still have, at best, 70% of present carbon emissions being spewed out by other sources, only to be met with blank stares. The current crop of environmentalist fedora-tippers do not care about facts or logic--they only care about feels, and their feels tell them that cars are the most horrible thing for the environment ever. Clearly the best way to combat climate change is to make our transportation system even more inefficient with road diets, bus-only lanes, and expensive toll roads. After all, cars sitting idling in traffic or creeping along at 5 mph is great for the environment, right guys?
For the record, I actually care about the environment and think we shouldn't fuck it up for future generations. But the current left wing in this country are a bunch of useful idiots that will cheer on government subsidies for absolutely moronic ideas because, to them, the environment is just a bit of bait to be used to get closer to their real goal--more government control. Try suggesting to one these people that market-based solutions can actually work (like, hey, you know one of the reasons electronics, cars, and residential/commercial HVAC have gotten incredibly more efficient in recent decades is because it benefits consumers by saving them money), and be prepared to be met with open hostility for having the gaul to suggest that corporations are anything but cartoon-caricature villains twirling their mustaches as smoke pours out of their factories.
I'll continue driving my car where I need to go, thanks very much. Your attempts to give me an "incentive" (hey, maybe if you use economic-related words people will actually think you know something about economics) to take the bus or ride a bike will fail because, to put it frankly, even sitting in my car crawling along at 5 mph is preferable to the government-run joke of a public transportation system:
- In my car, I don't have to worry about crackheads asking me for cigarettes or money and flipping their shit when I tell them "no". When did it become fucking acceptable for people to feel they're entitled to my hard-earned property?
- In a similar vein, my car doesn't smell like piss and shit.
- Literally every parking spot in every park&ride near me will be full before 7 am, and I'm not leaving three hours before I actually have to be somewhere.
- I recently took the bus into downtown to go to the Pride festival, on a Sunday (you can probably guess which city I'm in), you would think that the bus system might add some extra routes given that they know there's this huge festival that a lot of people are going to, right? Nope! Standing room only, ass-to-crotch on the way there and back. I feel bad for the peopl
Most driving is at near-idle. Almost all cars are automatics, and they tend to keep the revs about 2k RPM. I mentioned idle to distinguish from those who would think of the annoying cars with blow-off-valves that are 100+ dB and all that. You can hear some cars from the next town over, and since they are the ones that stand out, people will think of those and ignore the cars they can't hear.
Learn to love Alaska
Funny, the Corvettes I've heard (at least the modern ones) are nearly silent. Sure, a '60s 454 with some aggressive cams will sound like an elephant farting, but an LS-1 is as quiet in a Corvette as the Cadillac.
Learn to love Alaska
The email Larry sent credits Autopilot, and Elon Musk credits Autopilot. Nowhere does Larry's email assert that autopilot was disabled. If Larry is going to portray Autopilot as his guardian angel, then he should accept his dunce hat. Electrek makes an assumption that autopilot was disabled, without actually contacting any of the parties involved to verify that assumption.
Well, please tell that to the vehicles driving in front of my house.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Actually, the shutter snap sound in digital cameras was optional when they first came out. It was only until enough women complained about men surreptitiously taking upskirt pictures that the sound was made mandatory.
Not quite right. Many/most digital cameras actually have mechanical shutters that do make noise. You might be thinking of mirrorless cameras that do without the noise from mirrors slapping but but do have shutter noise. Smaller P&S digital cameras can be shutterless. http://www.premiumbeat.com/blo...
Unless you have a reasonable expectation that someone is about to step in front of your car, the speed limit in such areas is still whatever is posted. If they wanted a lower speed limit, they'd post one.
That statement should disqualify you from driving a car. While pedestrians are supposed to behave, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that you never drive in a way that makes it possible for you to run over a pedestrian (or hit other cars, for that matter). It's also insane to insist on driving at the speed limit regardless of circumstances. You're still responsible for being able to stop for *anything* that happens to suddenly be in the road, including a kid running after his ball. You're not "allowed" to run over the kid just because you adhered to some maximum speed limit posted.
No, you shouldn't need a "reasonable expectation" to behave like a mindless robot when it comes to speed limits. Sure, the speed limit posted is a *maximum speed limit*, and it's illegal to exceed it. It's not a mandatory minimum speed. You don't have to "expect" that someone will be stepping into the road, you are expected to be able to stop for whichever hindrance might possibly come into your way.
Oh hell, why am I wasting time. It's not "OK" to hit someone at 25 mph. To wrap it up, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote :)
If you did mean it as stated, I'm out of the discussion. Have a nice day.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Over-reliance on the autopilot is driving without due care and attention, whether the autopilot causes a crash or not.
This driver was not relying on the autopilot but using one of its features to enhance his care and attention.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
That statement should disqualify you from driving a car.
Right back at you:
While pedestrians are supposed to behave, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure that you never drive in a way that makes it possible for you to run over a pedestrian (or hit other cars, for that matter).
While it's my responsibility to minimize that risk, the law recognizes the impossibility of doing that. It sets specific standards where necessary, such as in the case of motorists passing cyclists in California. In other cases, it is deliberately vague to give leeway specifically for the purpose of assigning fault to the party whose fault it actually is (or for other more malign purposes like selective enforcement, but those are outside the scope of this comment.)
The law recognizes the impossibility of completely eliminating accidents, whether between a vehicle and a vehicle, or a vehicle and a pedestrian. It sets speed limits accordingly, so that even if a pedestrian (or motorist) does something stupid, they will hopefully not die. Let's be clear, though; the law recognizes that physics is a thing, and that a person can change direction more rapidly than a car. We don't make the driver automatically responsible in every situation because if we did, nobody would effectively be able to drive. Instead, we make pedestrians responsible for their behavior in many cases. In most of the US, and apparently in most of the world, jaywalking laws exist which make it illegal to cross the road without consideration for safety. Even in DC, where you don't need to use a crosswalk, it's still explicitly illegal to enter the roadway even in a crosswalk when an oncoming vehicle cannot stop for you. Note that the law does not specify a car traveling at legal speeds, or traveling with the light, et cetera. The driver might well be found at fault in a collision with a pedestrian who stepped out in front of them while speeding, but the pedestrian would still be cited for entering the roadway illegally. The goal of the law is to reduce accidents because they are inconvenient to others, not to be fair.
Oh hell, why am I wasting time. It's not "OK" to hit someone at 25 mph. To wrap it up, I hope you didn't mean what you wrote :)
To wrap it up, you misused quotation marks. I didn't say it was OK to hit someone at 25 mph. You're wasting time because you are an idiot who doesn't understand the argument.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Certainly they do - one has a vested business interest in improving the perception of Autopilot's safety, and one just avoided facing manslaughter charges because of a feature of his expensive new toy. That doesn't mean either is being objectivly honest.
Clearly Musk is including the entire computer control system, including long-common safety features under the "Autopilot" umbrella, which probably makes sense from an implementation perspective, but means Autopilot is not synonymous with self-driving, and is being given credit for safety features that other cars have had for a decade.
Let me ask you this - aside from various degrees of self-driving, what other "convenience features" does Autopilot have that can be engaged while driving down the street?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That is a completely insane line of reasoning and YOU are the one who is creating an unsafe environment. Nowhere in the world is what you say the law and you will find it impossible to find anyone convicted of a crime in the way you describe.
It would be great if the car could copy-edit the testimonials that are written about it, too!