The main situation in which you see that around here is when a pedestrian is waiting to cross the street. According to the law, pedestrians have the right of way when they're in the crosswalk, but not when they're waiting - essentially the same as a car waiting at a stop sign. But people will stop and let them cross nonetheless. A lot of the time, it's no big deal. But there have been a series of fatal accidents caused by this.
The situation is always the same: on a four lane city street, a line of traffic comes to a stop in the right lane for what appears to be no apparent reason - the most likely explanation being that they're slowing way down to turn right. Traffic continues on in the left lane, with the pedestrian being obscured by the vehicles in the right lane until they step out into the left lane, when they get hit. In every case, the person in the right lane thought they were doing the right thing, and the people in the left lane have no idea that they're about to kill someone.
For this reason, I will absolutely never, under any circumstances, stop to let a waiting pedestrian cross on a four lane street. I'd rather get a (wrongfully issued) ticket for failure to yield than contribute to someone's death.
So what happens when 2 cars turn up at the same time, crossing each others' path?
The one on the right goes first, but most of the time when it looks like this is going to happen, one person will intentionally take longer to stop in order to make it clear that the other person should go first.
Having to repeatedly stop, or even slow down, is incredibly frustrating even when there's no issue of safety.
Also, where on earth are you getting 1 second gap per 10mph? The point of using a gap measured in seconds is that it gets longer the faster you're going. Increasing the distance by 1 second per 10mph results in absurd required following distances. At 80mph - a reasonable speed for Arizona freeways - that translates to a following distance of nearly a quarter mile. The state where I grew up recommended 2 seconds following distance, and the state I live in now recommends 3 seconds. Even the latter seems excessive and unnecessary.
[Self driving cars] just need to be better than 50% of drivers.
Not if they are going to be commercially viable. Whether or not it's true (it's not), most people *perceive* themselves to be good drivers. They're not going to buy a vehicle that they think won't drive as well as they do. So if SDCs are going to be commercially viable, the people buying them need to consider them to be better drivers than themselves, which is a much higher threshold.
Jack up insurance in NJ and NYC for "human driven cars" and drop it for autonomous vehicles, the problem will fix itself.
Insurance rates aren't there to enforce the law. They're there to cover the cost of coverage plus a reasonable profit. No insurance agency is going to unilaterally jack up rates on drivers, because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and they're not going to do so in concert with other insurance agencies, because that's price fixing, which is a federal crime.
Criticism is great - as long as its basis is fact. But that's not what Trump does. He dismisses entire organizations out of hand when they report factually on things that present him in a negative light. He calls the media "the enemy of the people". He tells people to trust him, not the media. His legal counsel says dumb shit like "Truth is not truth".
You shouldn't follow people so closely that if they were to slam on their brakes, you collide with them. It doesn't matter why they slammed on their brakes. You still crashed into them because you were following too close. Don't drive like an idiot.
Slamming on the brakes for no reason is also "driving like an idiot".
The lack of bad weather is probably one of the main reasons they chose the location.
It's the least complex scenario, to create a baseline working autonomous vehicle.
This is why any claim that these cars are already safer than humans is bunk. Human stats include driving in situations Waymo et al wouldn't dream of putting their cars into. It's an apples-to-sprockets comparison.
The onus is on Waymo to drive in a predictable fashion here.
No, it really isn't.
If they want to brag about how much they improve safety on the roads, it sure as hell is. If introducing a "safer" driver to the road ecosystem causes an increase in accidents because it doesn't behave the way "bad" human drivers expect it to, it isn't actually safer, no matter how rational or law-abiding it may be.
Wait til they encounter some of the blinking red and yellow arrows recently installed on traffic signals around here. I don't have the slightest idea what they really mean. Neither does anyone else.
Flashing yellow arrows are becoming quite common around here. Other than one woman who wrote an editorial about them, no one has had any problem figuring out that they mean "turn left when safe to do so, yielding to oncoming traffic". They typically replace solid red arrows, and are a delightful improvement.
We don't have the flashing red arrows, but applying a bit of logic, I'd be really surprised if they meant anything other than "Stop, then you may turn left when it is safe to do so."
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. Those affected often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or on their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them. ...
Self-confidence (a strong sense of self) is different from narcissistic personality disorder; people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they openly disregard the feelings and wishes of others, and expect to be treated as superior, regardless of their actual status or achievements. Moreover, the person with narcissistic personality disorder usually exhibits a fragile ego (self-concept), intolerance of criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in order to validate their own superiority. ...
The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:
1) Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
2) Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
3) Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
4) Needing continual admiration from others
5) Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
6) Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
7) Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people
8) Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them
9) Pompous and arrogant demeanor
Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate
Nope. It's been flat since two years before Trump took office.
and low unemployment numbers.
Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.
But, I truly do thank you for illustrating the issue: Trump's rhetoric is at odds with reality, and his supporters would rather believe him than their own lying eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
If we want to survive as a society, we need to be encouraging each woman to have slightly more than 2 kids.
That, or people could get over their aversion to immigrants.
Cars need to be able to handle how traffic actually works, not how it's supposed to work on paper.
The main situation in which you see that around here is when a pedestrian is waiting to cross the street. According to the law, pedestrians have the right of way when they're in the crosswalk, but not when they're waiting - essentially the same as a car waiting at a stop sign. But people will stop and let them cross nonetheless. A lot of the time, it's no big deal. But there have been a series of fatal accidents caused by this.
The situation is always the same: on a four lane city street, a line of traffic comes to a stop in the right lane for what appears to be no apparent reason - the most likely explanation being that they're slowing way down to turn right. Traffic continues on in the left lane, with the pedestrian being obscured by the vehicles in the right lane until they step out into the left lane, when they get hit. In every case, the person in the right lane thought they were doing the right thing, and the people in the left lane have no idea that they're about to kill someone.
For this reason, I will absolutely never, under any circumstances, stop to let a waiting pedestrian cross on a four lane street. I'd rather get a (wrongfully issued) ticket for failure to yield than contribute to someone's death.
So what happens when 2 cars turn up at the same time, crossing each others' path?
The one on the right goes first, but most of the time when it looks like this is going to happen, one person will intentionally take longer to stop in order to make it clear that the other person should go first.
Having to repeatedly stop, or even slow down, is incredibly frustrating even when there's no issue of safety.
Also, where on earth are you getting 1 second gap per 10mph? The point of using a gap measured in seconds is that it gets longer the faster you're going. Increasing the distance by 1 second per 10mph results in absurd required following distances. At 80mph - a reasonable speed for Arizona freeways - that translates to a following distance of nearly a quarter mile. The state where I grew up recommended 2 seconds following distance, and the state I live in now recommends 3 seconds. Even the latter seems excessive and unnecessary.
That's a whole lot of steep conditions that need to be met to replace a solution that is up and running and has been for more than a century.
[Self driving cars] just need to be better than 50% of drivers.
Not if they are going to be commercially viable. Whether or not it's true (it's not), most people *perceive* themselves to be good drivers. They're not going to buy a vehicle that they think won't drive as well as they do. So if SDCs are going to be commercially viable, the people buying them need to consider them to be better drivers than themselves, which is a much higher threshold.
Jack up insurance in NJ and NYC for "human driven cars" and drop it for autonomous vehicles, the problem will fix itself.
Insurance rates aren't there to enforce the law. They're there to cover the cost of coverage plus a reasonable profit. No insurance agency is going to unilaterally jack up rates on drivers, because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage, and they're not going to do so in concert with other insurance agencies, because that's price fixing, which is a federal crime.
Criticism is great - as long as its basis is fact. But that's not what Trump does. He dismisses entire organizations out of hand when they report factually on things that present him in a negative light. He calls the media "the enemy of the people". He tells people to trust him, not the media. His legal counsel says dumb shit like "Truth is not truth".
"Journalism", not "journalists".
Nope. He's saying that you can't dismiss the stupid behavior of the Waymo vehicle by accusing the human driver of also behaving stupidly.
But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road
Yes I am claiming this 100% and the law will claim it too.
You should reconsider your position.
You shouldn't follow people so closely that if they were to slam on their brakes, you collide with them. It doesn't matter why they slammed on their brakes. You still crashed into them because you were following too close. Don't drive like an idiot.
Slamming on the brakes for no reason is also "driving like an idiot".
The ideal solution would be to redesign the road system ...
Given that there's nearly 9 million lane-miles of roads in the US alone, I'm going to come down firmly on the side of "that's not the ideal solution".
Judging by the number of people who only clear a one foot square in front of the driver around here, not very many.
The lack of bad weather is probably one of the main reasons they chose the location. It's the least complex scenario, to create a baseline working autonomous vehicle.
This is why any claim that these cars are already safer than humans is bunk. Human stats include driving in situations Waymo et al wouldn't dream of putting their cars into. It's an apples-to-sprockets comparison.
The onus is on Waymo to drive in a predictable fashion here.
No, it really isn't.
If they want to brag about how much they improve safety on the roads, it sure as hell is. If introducing a "safer" driver to the road ecosystem causes an increase in accidents because it doesn't behave the way "bad" human drivers expect it to, it isn't actually safer, no matter how rational or law-abiding it may be.
Wait til they encounter some of the blinking red and yellow arrows recently installed on traffic signals around here. I don't have the slightest idea what they really mean. Neither does anyone else.
Flashing yellow arrows are becoming quite common around here. Other than one woman who wrote an editorial about them, no one has had any problem figuring out that they mean "turn left when safe to do so, yielding to oncoming traffic". They typically replace solid red arrows, and are a delightful improvement.
We don't have the flashing red arrows, but applying a bit of logic, I'd be really surprised if they meant anything other than "Stop, then you may turn left when it is safe to do so."
Which job losses are Obama's fault, caused by which policies, through which mechanisms?
Absent a compelling mechanism demonstrating causation (which was not provided by the GP), why should we accept that correlation implies causation?
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder with a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. Those affected often spend a lot of time thinking about achieving power or success, or on their appearance. They often take advantage of the people around them.
...
...
Self-confidence (a strong sense of self) is different from narcissistic personality disorder; people with NPD typically value themselves over others to the extent that they openly disregard the feelings and wishes of others, and expect to be treated as superior, regardless of their actual status or achievements. Moreover, the person with narcissistic personality disorder usually exhibits a fragile ego (self-concept), intolerance of criticism, and a tendency to belittle others in order to validate their own superiority.
The DSM-5 indicates that persons with NPD usually display some or all of the following symptoms, typically without the commensurate qualities or accomplishments:
1) Grandiosity with expectations of superior treatment from other people
2) Fixated on fantasies of power, success, intelligence, attractiveness, etc.
3) Self-perception of being unique, superior, and associated with high-status people and institutions
4) Needing continual admiration from others
5) Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others
6) Exploitative of others to achieve personal gain
7) Unwilling to empathize with the feelings, wishes, and needs of other people
8) Intensely envious of others, and the belief that others are equally envious of them
9) Pompous and arrogant demeanor
Obama never claimed what you claim he did.
Awwww! But it was such a nice straw man!
Obama also caused ...
Correlation !=causation
Probably because the truth is so blatantly biased against Trump.
Fixed it for you.
Trump has improved the trends, with both a rising labor participation rate
Nope. It's been flat since two years before Trump took office.
and low unemployment numbers.
Low unemployment numbers which continue the trend started a decade ago under Obama.
But, I truly do thank you for illustrating the issue: Trump's rhetoric is at odds with reality, and his supporters would rather believe him than their own lying eyes.