Given how reckless some drivers are, I'd imagine the distribution of crashes among drivers is very skewed. I don't know numbers, but I'd expect to see something like 80% of car crashes involving (or objectively caused by) 20% of the drivers, with most car crashes involving people who have been involved in numerous crashes, and a large minority of drivers having been involved in zero car crashes.
There is a lot of variation in drivers. Young ones with good reflexes and senses but bad on experience, old ones with worse reflexes and senses but better on experience. Ones that stop at stop signs, ones that blow through them if they think they can get away with it. Cities like New Orleans where drivers are much more aggressive because the cops don't care, etc...
It matters who is driving what cars. If you're taking safe drivers and having them drive FSD cars, and comparing the average of that against the average of all non-FSD driven cars (which includes a lot of really shitty drivers in the average), then the net safety impact of this could be nothing. Introducing FSD cars would have no impact to overall car safety, and might even have a negative impact, if the FSD software is worse than the good drivers who are now not driving manually-steered cars but are driving FSD cars instead.
I present, "Canada's Worst Driver," a series that I watched quite a bit when I had a cable subscription. Besides being hilarious, it should make you think a time or three before crossing the street. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHB4WuM7Y_eP-PFv5F6To...
The Vertrauensgrundsatz does not account for distracted, tired and inebriated drivers.
Basically, maybe there’s better ways than standard vision (which for computers is still kinda basic compared to a person) to solve the pedestrian hitting problem.
The cars are clearly the danger to everyone who isn’t in a car, why would the burden be on everyone else, all the time?
I really don't want to be fair though, because I think your point is totally correct.
Because reality.
Since the advent of motor vehicles, I would argue risk has generally scaled with the efficiency and power of vehicles.
At the minimum, for 70 years we have known that danger to both pedestrians and safe drivers is ever present and growing. The reality is not about who SHOULD deal with this problem, but how to most effectively arrive at a functional solution which actually reduces risk for drivers and pedestrians alike.
As well, it's worth noting most accidents occur in areas where you drive most often and you're most familiar. And the increase in traffic accidents and fatalities over the last 10+ years has been due to driver distractions, ie cell phones etc, more than anything by a lot.
Yes there are reckless drivers out there doing stupid shit. However, that's always been the case. Now it's just easier than ever to capture them on camera and for them to go faster than ever for cheap. However, even back in the 70's, crash safety technology was laughably behind anything we have so it goes both ways imo.
It would be more remarkable if most accidents occurred in areas where you rarely go.
https://hackaday.com/2022/10/20/render-yourself-invisible-to...
No, but there's probably a good reason it's suspended. It's not that you forgot the rules. It's just that you're not following them.
Presumably by paying their child support.
I don't know if it works as intended, and it wouldn't surprise me if people have horror stories about clueless rulings by clueless judges, but obviously the intent is that the license is suspended because the person is intentionally not paying child support.
> No, but there's probably a good reason it's suspended.
Not paying the renewal fee on time is a big reason. That's a rule, indeed, but nothing related to driving or safety.
There have been suggestions that pedestrians could make cities interesting, since a place like New York would have every pedestrian no longer afraid to just walk into traffic. The cars will just wait until a fully clear moment that may never come
As you say, if you know the cars will stop and let you go, this power will corrupt.
Extend this thinking to bicyclists, skateboarders, delivery riders, motorcyclists, car enthusiasts driving themselves - all able to simply cut off a self driving car knowing it will give way.
But there is more adversarial out there.
AI input hacking to get known responses. Cars disabled because of gang tagging on sensors.
Car enthusiasts or privacy enthusiasts (privacy shouldn't require enthusiasm but here we are...) updating car firmware/software. People with full physical access!
And we haven't touched on the ethical stuff which is a world of discussion in itself.
Self driving cars by evolution in current societal rules etc will take a LONG time.
> Extend this thinking to ... - all able to simply cut off a self driving car knowing it will give way.
But this is already the case; if I jump into slow moving traffic in a (western) city centre the cars will let me through, possibly even without honking. The only things to fear are distracted drivers (which is the same with the AI, because I can't know whether the AI sees me) and the occasional madman, but those are rare.
What's more interesting as you point out are situations where other drivers will take advantage of the AI's adherence to rules and safety. That's going to be especially fun in cities like Napoli, where things like driving through red signal are completely normal. It's probably not going to work there at all in its current state.
Would stepping out in front of a car be illegal?
https://laist.com/news/transportation/understanding-new-cali...
If "person walks in front of car" event is rare, then the automatic car stop saving a life or minimising injury is nice. Saved a person from a bad day for a minor inconvenience for the car people.
If a NY city worth of people do it without regard, then cars will be gridlocked.
My guess is:
- Assuming self driving cars that that stop for pedestrians are common
- then laws against deliberately walking in front will exist
- to judge the dispute of "deliberate" there will be more cameras, because why wouldn't there be...
London already has near suicidal pedestrians.
And I say that with respect: it's the opposite of the usual tragedy of the commons. Every pedestrian in central London who just crosses the street without looking places themselves in appreciable danger, but contributes a tiny bit to training London drivers to be extra careful.
(Going off on a tangent: tipping is an interesting opposite.
If everyone in the US stopped tipping tomorrow, economic equilibrium would shift so that service sector people would have comparatively higher nominal wages and roughly the same overall income. That's how it is in Japan or Australia or Singapore (or the US before the 20th century), where tipping is either less common or severely frowned upon.
Because eg prospective waitstaff in the US expect to be tipped, they accept lower wages. Similarly, a single patron not tipping in the US gets a lot of social awkwardness without shifting the equilibrium much. A single waiter in the US not accepting tips loses out on income and also gets social awkwardness, also without shifting the equilibrium much.)
Next round of CAPTCHA: click the squares with blind pedestrians
think about it, this is how these things are being trained--by people frantically trying to click stupid images just to get to the webpage they wanted.