Most of what you suggest would also be a good idea for regular criminal justice procedure. I'd love for Grand Juries to be contested procedures and I don't know why lying on a warrant application still isn't a crime.
It does kind of raise the question of whether you want to rule out so much evidence though. If you're investigating some international industrial espionage and stumble upon some terror cell getting ready to do something stupid, do you really want to throw out that evidence?
So, as a way-out-there social liberal who really dislikes Trump and has said bad things about him (and thought worse things), I feel like I owe it to somebody to say 'well done.'
The cognitive dissonance in my head right now is making it hard for me to follow the threads in the comments. I really did not see this one coming.
It's really about the fixed costs being covered in the US. That whole thing about bulk pricing is just a mechanism for stabilizing revenue flows.
Americans could NEVER be offered prices similar to Europe/Canada/South America because manufacturers would have to reallocate the fixed costs to those other countries. This would blow up THEIR pricing and also slow down recovery of the fixed costs the investors were so eager to recoup in the first place. The shareholders' lawsuits would clog the courts for a decade.
With the insurance companies, lobbyists, legislators, and manufacturers locked in an unholy embrace there is unlikely to be any change in the near future.
I apologize for the length of this post. It is as much about trying to state my thoughts clearly as it is about participating in a conversation.
For all of the following I will assume that the 40% reduction in crashes attributed to Autopilot by NHTSA is real.
I agree that off-highway driving is where you see the most crashes. Let's break all driving into two types: Autopilotable (P), and Manual-required (M). P includes all miles driven that allow the driver to use Autopilot, M includes the rest.
Let's arbitrarily set the ratio of (P miles driven / total miles driven) to 50%, leaving 50% for M. No, these are not the real numbers, but we can see which way adjustment moves the effectiveness of the Autopilot system. Let's further assume that crashes are evenly distributed between P miles and M miles (which neither of us believes). Let's call this (unrealistic) scenario the Baseline.
Now let's grab a sample of the total miles driven that contains exactly 1000 crashes. 500 of them are in P miles and 500 of them are in M miles. If Autopilot can prevent 40% of ALL of those crashes, then it is preventing 400 crashes. It can't prevent crashes in the M miles at all (it's not in use, by definition), so it must prevent 400 of the crashes in the P miles, of which there are only 500. Preventing 400 out of 500 crashes is preventing 80% of P mile crashes.
But we don't believe that crashes are evenly distributed. We know they are skewed toward the bad conditions and the off-highway miles, the M miles. So, let's move the line a little. We'll say that 55% of the accidents occur in the M miles and only 45% in the P miles.
In our 1000 crash sample, we have 450 in the P miles, 550 in the M miles. 40% of all crashes is still 400 crashes. If Autopilot can stop 400 out of the 450 P mile crashes it is stopping 88.9% of accidents in the P miles, up from 80% in the Baseline scenario. The more the crashes concentrate into the M miles, the better Autopilot has to do in the P miles to make that 40% improvement. This is the reasoning behind my second assertion above:
This is especially true if accidents become more common as driving conditions deteriorate, which I take as a given.
But what about my crazy assumption that P miles and M miles were equal? Seems unlikely to me, but I truly don't know. So, what happens if we move it some? Let's say that P miles account for 60% and M miles only account for 40%. What does this do to our Baseline?
1000 evenly distributed crashes gives us 600 in the P miles and 400 in the M miles. Autopilot's 40% reduction is 400 crashes out of 600 in the P miles (again, these are the only miles where drivers are using Autopilot). In this case Autopilot can apparently prevent 66% of crashes in the P miles. Not bad, but less than our (admittedly arbitrary) Baseline. As P miles become more prevalent, it is easier for Autopilot to make that 40% reduction. This is the reason for my third assertion above:
I guess it becomes less true if Teslas are generally driven less in those deteriorating conditions.
Because I absolutely believe that crashes are concentrated in the M miles, I suspect that P miles are way more common than one would intuitively guess. Or alternatively, it could be that the 40% reduction was not caused by the Autopilot rollout at all, but I am taking the NHTSA at their word. I don't usually see them as knuckleheads, but I have to acknowledge the possibility.
If you read all of that, thanks. I appreciate your viewpoint and I am trying to approach this with an open mind.
Well, right. But that makes it look even better. If the system is only used in 50% of driving conditions and eliminates 40% of ALL accidents, then it must be preventing a HUGE percentage of the accidents that were going to happen in that 50% of all driving.
This is especially true if accidents become more common as driving conditions deteriorate, which I take as a given.
I guess it becomes less true if Teslas are generally driven less in those deteriorating conditions. I have no real reason to believe this is so, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some Tesla owners pamper their cars and only take them out when it's nice.
Well, I did find an NHTSA report from January of 2017 (after a previous fatality linked to Autopilot use). They found a 40% decrease in crashes among Tesla drivers after Autopilot Autosteer became available. Not super-definitive, but interesting.
5.4 Crash rates . ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package, either installed in the vehicle when sold or through an OTA update, to calculate crash rates by miles travelled prior to (21) and after Autopilot installation. (22)
Figure 11 shows the rates calculated by ODI for airbag deployment crashes in the subject Tesla vehicles before and after Autosteer installation. The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installation.
I agree these would be better numbers for grading Tesla.
You can't make the comparison using news stories though, because when a Tesla crashes without Autopilot engaged it's just another car crash. It doesn't make national news. This makes the numbers appear slanted against Autopilot.
I usually self-identify as a leftist, although not a thorough one.
On fiscal issues I am probably somewhat moderate. I think you have to have progressive taxation, market regulation, and a strong social safety net to get really good outcomes. At the same time, people should be incentivized to work. I want it to be possible to get filthy rich.
Socially, I am so far out in left field that I can barely see the rest of you. I think all drugs should be legalized (heroin, meth, crack cocaine, all of it). If seven dudes, three women, and a horse want to get married to each other, more power to them. It's none of my business. Assisted suicide? Sure. Leave people alone.
The Miranda warning only preserves the evidentiary value of answers you provide during 'questioning'. It is not a required element of either detention or arrest.
Cops can arrest you, cuff you, throw you in a car and cart you off to the pokey, all without Mirandizing you. They have to tell you that you are under arrest, and most places require they tell you what charges will be filed against you. Miranda doesn't come into it until someone tries to question you.
I definitely recommend that people find a lawyer and ask about required behavior and what they should do if detained/arrested. It is amazing what people don't know about the laws under which they live. It's really not like TV.
Are you a corrupt cop trying to mislead people, or are you just completely ignorant of what you're talking about?
Neither, as it happens. I'm a convicted bank robber, arrested and questioned by local police and the FBI. Maybe you were in military law enforcement, cool. You have detention and Miranda all wrong.
I spent years behind bars reading case law and statutes. Some states have constitutions that provide more protections than the US Constitution but they're all different and I can't speak to those. I CAN speak about the way the federal system works, though.
A cop can stop you for investigation of any reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, for example a TRAFFIC STOP. This is a detention. Yet, miraculously, they never read you your rights during a traffic stop. If you admit to the cop that you were speeding (in hopes of earning leniency) and then try to fight the ticket in court you ABSOLUTELY WILL hear about your admission in court from the ticketing officer.
- first of all, the police are not obligated to read you your Miranda rights, at all.
Well, no. They aren't. But if they don't, they can't use any answers you give them in questioning against you. So, in practice, they always do. Unlike on television, they usually do this at the beginning of a custodial interview, not as they apply the cuffs. Any voluntary statements made before being Mirandized ARE ADMISSABLE, unless they are made in response to questions. If they are made in response to questions there will probably have to be an evidentiary hearing to determine admissibility.
It is in their interest to do so as soon as they detain you.
That's hilarious. They don't benefit from you shutting up, which is very common right after the Miranda warning. It is in their interest to give you as much rope as you need to hang yourself before they are required to Mirandize you in order to preserve the evidentiary value of your answers to questions. There is a whole body of law about how to tell if an interview/interrogation is inherently coercive (also, how 'custodial' it is).
Hmm. If we could all agree that they were using excessive force, we could probably all agree to kick them off the force. So I guess official policy is out of the question. I wonder if there is any unofficial listing?
Apparently closed since 2015. Well, thinking about it, this is never gonna be functional. I know way too many criminals that refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and have completely unrealistic expectations about how LEOs treat them.
That's not nitpicking, that's pointing out a serious error, but I think you're right. I do contextualize us among the 'western' countries, even when it makes no sense. Dang it.
Thanks.
I do wish we could have police/community relations like the two incidents you describe.
As an American I feel I should throw this out there. America is one of (if not THE) most violent cultures going. Americans are prone to over-reacting and escalating, especially here in the South. It should not be surprising that the police reflect the same attributes.
I would just point out that as the judges get tougher, the stakes get higher. At some point you start to incentivize behavior that you really don't want. Not too bad at the lower levels. At the higher levels, though, perpetrators will start to rapidly escalate violence because they feel they have more to lose by getting caught. This is known in prison as holding court out in the street (apparently this is a movie reference?).
When I got caught coming out of the bank, I surrendered peacefully because I knew it would not be the end of my life. When you make a guy feel that it is the end he may decide differently.
At some point I think we need to be looking at outcomes.
Saying 'Whoops! My bad," would at least be a start. Admitting the error is important, and it isn't always a given.
The US would benefit greatly by having mandatory reporting of activity of this type at the national level. As it is, there is not even an authoritative number for police killings of civilians each year.
"What gets measured, gets managed."
Also, "here's some cash," seems like the least they could do.
Cops are not obligated to read you your rights until they begin an official interrogation. As such, it is in their interests to postpone that as long as possible so that you might incriminate yourself before you are Mirandized. Anything you say will be admissible as long as they were not 'questioning' you at the time. Yes, this does suck. No, you will not prevail on appeal.
Do not talk to cops in their official capacity. They are professionals at talking to you, you are an amateur at talking to them.
Further, if you are talking and it is not being actively recorded, cops can mis-remember what you said and how you said it. Nothing can stop the dishonest cop from lying, but silence will prevent the many honest cops from mis-remembering.
Sadly, it wasn't A guy that did that. It was several guys, although deposit slips are used more than checks. I would like to say that this represents the absolute apex of knuckleheadedness in bank robbery, but it actually gets worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of what you suggest would also be a good idea for regular criminal justice procedure. I'd love for Grand Juries to be contested procedures and I don't know why lying on a warrant application still isn't a crime.
It does kind of raise the question of whether you want to rule out so much evidence though. If you're investigating some international industrial espionage and stumble upon some terror cell getting ready to do something stupid, do you really want to throw out that evidence?
So, as a way-out-there social liberal who really dislikes Trump and has said bad things about him (and thought worse things), I feel like I owe it to somebody to say 'well done.'
The cognitive dissonance in my head right now is making it hard for me to follow the threads in the comments. I really did not see this one coming.
Just, wow.
Whooooosh!
It's really about the fixed costs being covered in the US. That whole thing about bulk pricing is just a mechanism for stabilizing revenue flows.
Americans could NEVER be offered prices similar to Europe/Canada/South America because manufacturers would have to reallocate the fixed costs to those other countries. This would blow up THEIR pricing and also slow down recovery of the fixed costs the investors were so eager to recoup in the first place. The shareholders' lawsuits would clog the courts for a decade.
With the insurance companies, lobbyists, legislators, and manufacturers locked in an unholy embrace there is unlikely to be any change in the near future.
My two cents.
It could just be that the later model cars had some safer feature like better visibility or better brakes or something like that.
I fell for the banana in the tailpipe trick.
Doh!!
Dammit, I didn't see that.
Please disregard my gigantic other post.
Thanks.
I apologize for the length of this post. It is as much about trying to state my thoughts clearly as it is about participating in a conversation.
For all of the following I will assume that the 40% reduction in crashes attributed to Autopilot by NHTSA is real.
I agree that off-highway driving is where you see the most crashes. Let's break all driving into two types: Autopilotable (P), and Manual-required (M). P includes all miles driven that allow the driver to use Autopilot, M includes the rest.
Let's arbitrarily set the ratio of (P miles driven / total miles driven) to 50%, leaving 50% for M. No, these are not the real numbers, but we can see which way adjustment moves the effectiveness of the Autopilot system. Let's further assume that crashes are evenly distributed between P miles and M miles (which neither of us believes). Let's call this (unrealistic) scenario the Baseline.
Now let's grab a sample of the total miles driven that contains exactly 1000 crashes. 500 of them are in P miles and 500 of them are in M miles. If Autopilot can prevent 40% of ALL of those crashes, then it is preventing 400 crashes. It can't prevent crashes in the M miles at all (it's not in use, by definition), so it must prevent 400 of the crashes in the P miles, of which there are only 500. Preventing 400 out of 500 crashes is preventing 80% of P mile crashes.
But we don't believe that crashes are evenly distributed. We know they are skewed toward the bad conditions and the off-highway miles, the M miles. So, let's move the line a little. We'll say that 55% of the accidents occur in the M miles and only 45% in the P miles.
In our 1000 crash sample, we have 450 in the P miles, 550 in the M miles. 40% of all crashes is still 400 crashes. If Autopilot can stop 400 out of the 450 P mile crashes it is stopping 88.9% of accidents in the P miles, up from 80% in the Baseline scenario. The more the crashes concentrate into the M miles, the better Autopilot has to do in the P miles to make that 40% improvement. This is the reasoning behind my second assertion above:
This is especially true if accidents become more common as driving conditions deteriorate, which I take as a given.
But what about my crazy assumption that P miles and M miles were equal? Seems unlikely to me, but I truly don't know. So, what happens if we move it some? Let's say that P miles account for 60% and M miles only account for 40%. What does this do to our Baseline?
1000 evenly distributed crashes gives us 600 in the P miles and 400 in the M miles. Autopilot's 40% reduction is 400 crashes out of 600 in the P miles (again, these are the only miles where drivers are using Autopilot). In this case Autopilot can apparently prevent 66% of crashes in the P miles. Not bad, but less than our (admittedly arbitrary) Baseline. As P miles become more prevalent, it is easier for Autopilot to make that 40% reduction. This is the reason for my third assertion above:
I guess it becomes less true if Teslas are generally driven less in those deteriorating conditions.
Because I absolutely believe that crashes are concentrated in the M miles, I suspect that P miles are way more common than one would intuitively guess. Or alternatively, it could be that the 40% reduction was not caused by the Autopilot rollout at all, but I am taking the NHTSA at their word. I don't usually see them as knuckleheads, but I have to acknowledge the possibility.
If you read all of that, thanks. I appreciate your viewpoint and I am trying to approach this with an open mind.
Well, right. But that makes it look even better. If the system is only used in 50% of driving conditions and eliminates 40% of ALL accidents, then it must be preventing a HUGE percentage of the accidents that were going to happen in that 50% of all driving.
This is especially true if accidents become more common as driving conditions deteriorate, which I take as a given.
I guess it becomes less true if Teslas are generally driven less in those deteriorating conditions. I have no real reason to believe this is so, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some Tesla owners pamper their cars and only take them out when it's nice.
Well, I did find an NHTSA report from January of 2017 (after a previous fatality linked to Autopilot use). They found a 40% decrease in crashes among Tesla drivers after Autopilot Autosteer became available. Not super-definitive, but interesting.
5.4 Crash rates
. ODI analyzed mileage and airbag deployment data supplied by Tesla for all MY 2014 through 2016 Model S and 2016 Model X vehicles equipped with the Autopilot Technology Package, either installed in the vehicle when sold or through an OTA update, to calculate crash rates by miles travelled prior to (21) and after Autopilot installation. (22)
Figure 11 shows the rates calculated by ODI for airbag deployment crashes in the subject Tesla vehicles before and after Autosteer installation. The data show that the Tesla vehicles crash rate dropped by almost 40 percent after Autosteer installation.
page 10 on:
https://www.scribd.com/documen...
Um, success? So... yay?
I agree these would be better numbers for grading Tesla.
You can't make the comparison using news stories though, because when a Tesla crashes without Autopilot engaged it's just another car crash. It doesn't make national news. This makes the numbers appear slanted against Autopilot.
It's 'per se', not 'per say'.
I usually self-identify as a leftist, although not a thorough one.
On fiscal issues I am probably somewhat moderate. I think you have to have progressive taxation, market regulation, and a strong social safety net to get really good outcomes. At the same time, people should be incentivized to work. I want it to be possible to get filthy rich.
Socially, I am so far out in left field that I can barely see the rest of you. I think all drugs should be legalized (heroin, meth, crack cocaine, all of it). If seven dudes, three women, and a horse want to get married to each other, more power to them. It's none of my business. Assisted suicide? Sure. Leave people alone.
So, leftist.
This is a common misconception.
The Miranda warning only preserves the evidentiary value of answers you provide during 'questioning'. It is not a required element of either detention or arrest.
Cops can arrest you, cuff you, throw you in a car and cart you off to the pokey, all without Mirandizing you. They have to tell you that you are under arrest, and most places require they tell you what charges will be filed against you. Miranda doesn't come into it until someone tries to question you.
I definitely recommend that people find a lawyer and ask about required behavior and what they should do if detained/arrested. It is amazing what people don't know about the laws under which they live. It's really not like TV.
Are you a corrupt cop trying to mislead people, or are you just completely ignorant of what you're talking about?
Neither, as it happens. I'm a convicted bank robber, arrested and questioned by local police and the FBI. Maybe you were in military law enforcement, cool. You have detention and Miranda all wrong.
I spent years behind bars reading case law and statutes. Some states have constitutions that provide more protections than the US Constitution but they're all different and I can't speak to those. I CAN speak about the way the federal system works, though.
A cop can stop you for investigation of any reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, for example a TRAFFIC STOP. This is a detention. Yet, miraculously, they never read you your rights during a traffic stop. If you admit to the cop that you were speeding (in hopes of earning leniency) and then try to fight the ticket in court you ABSOLUTELY WILL hear about your admission in court from the ticketing officer.
- first of all, the police are not obligated to read you your Miranda rights, at all.
Well, no. They aren't. But if they don't, they can't use any answers you give them in questioning against you. So, in practice, they always do. Unlike on television, they usually do this at the beginning of a custodial interview, not as they apply the cuffs. Any voluntary statements made before being Mirandized ARE ADMISSABLE, unless they are made in response to questions. If they are made in response to questions there will probably have to be an evidentiary hearing to determine admissibility.
It is in their interest to do so as soon as they detain you.
That's hilarious. They don't benefit from you shutting up, which is very common right after the Miranda warning. It is in their interest to give you as much rope as you need to hang yourself before they are required to Mirandize you in order to preserve the evidentiary value of your answers to questions. There is a whole body of law about how to tell if an interview/interrogation is inherently coercive (also, how 'custodial' it is).
I can't believe we're having this discussion.
Hmm. If we could all agree that they were using excessive force, we could probably all agree to kick them off the force. So I guess official policy is out of the question. I wonder if there is any unofficial listing?
A quick Google and presto:
http://www.motherjones.com/cri...
Also:
http://www.ratemycop.com/
Apparently closed since 2015. Well, thinking about it, this is never gonna be functional. I know way too many criminals that refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and have completely unrealistic expectations about how LEOs treat them.
Still, nice idea, though.
That's not nitpicking, that's pointing out a serious error, but I think you're right. I do contextualize us among the 'western' countries, even when it makes no sense. Dang it.
Thanks.
I do wish we could have police/community relations like the two incidents you describe.
Was it targeted or did the driver just leave the door unlocked while he ran inside somewhere else?
Casual thief sees the truck, jumps inside, sees a giant box with the Apple logo on the side, WOOHOO!!!
Maybe I should start reading these articles...
As an American I feel I should throw this out there. America is one of (if not THE) most violent cultures going. Americans are prone to over-reacting and escalating, especially here in the South. It should not be surprising that the police reflect the same attributes.
Convicted felon, here.
I mostly agree with you.
I would just point out that as the judges get tougher, the stakes get higher. At some point you start to incentivize behavior that you really don't want. Not too bad at the lower levels. At the higher levels, though, perpetrators will start to rapidly escalate violence because they feel they have more to lose by getting caught. This is known in prison as holding court out in the street (apparently this is a movie reference?).
When I got caught coming out of the bank, I surrendered peacefully because I knew it would not be the end of my life. When you make a guy feel that it is the end he may decide differently.
At some point I think we need to be looking at outcomes.
Saying 'Whoops! My bad," would at least be a start. Admitting the error is important, and it isn't always a given.
The US would benefit greatly by having mandatory reporting of activity of this type at the national level. As it is, there is not even an authoritative number for police killings of civilians each year.
"What gets measured, gets managed."
Also, "here's some cash," seems like the least they could do.
Cops are not obligated to read you your rights until they begin an official interrogation. As such, it is in their interests to postpone that as long as possible so that you might incriminate yourself before you are Mirandized. Anything you say will be admissible as long as they were not 'questioning' you at the time. Yes, this does suck. No, you will not prevail on appeal.
Do not talk to cops in their official capacity. They are professionals at talking to you, you are an amateur at talking to them.
Further, if you are talking and it is not being actively recorded, cops can mis-remember what you said and how you said it. Nothing can stop the dishonest cop from lying, but silence will prevent the many honest cops from mis-remembering.
So, stop talking. Seriously.
Well put. Thank you.
Sadly, it wasn't A guy that did that. It was several guys, although deposit slips are used more than checks. I would like to say that this represents the absolute apex of knuckleheadedness in bank robbery, but it actually gets worse.
Well put.