Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 19 2018, @10:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the bound-to-happen dept.
 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by pTamok on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:02AM (4 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:02AM (#655297)

    According to the reports I've seen, it wasn't 'technically' speeding - it was actually speeding - that is, its speed was greater than the applicable speed limit. Many people take the view that the posted speed limit is advisory, and being a few miles per hour (or kilometres per hour) over the limit is O.K., so long as you don't exceed some imaginary leeway. Such leeway is assumed by drivers in the UK as 10% + 2 mph*, so 35 in a 30 zone is OK, but legally, anything over the posted number is breaking the law, even if it is difficult to prove (radar sensor accuracy and stability since the last calibration is arguable in court).
    I think it is reasonable to require an autonomous vehicle to observe the limits - if you can only measure velocity to a certain accuracy, make sure your error margins don't exceed the posted speed. Car speedometers already do this: they deliberately read over the actual speed, as manufacturers are held to high standards on this point - speedometers are allowed to show higher than the actual speed, but not lower.

    Doing 38 in a 35 zone doesn't seem like much, but it adds 17.9% to the kinetic energy of the vehicle, and reduces the reaction time by 7.9% - that's enough to turn an accident that 'merely' injures a pedestrian (or just misses them) into a fatal accident. Someone else on this discussion has posted the pedestrian fatality rates by speed of collision at 20/30/40 mph. It's one reason (of several) why 20mph limits in residential areas is becoming more popular.

    *Some semi-official bodies have publicised this as a recommendation, basically saying that most (not all) police forces in the UK tend to apply that rule, but will apply the limits exactly if it is deemed justified i.e. you have been driving like a pillock and/or had an accident.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @11:16AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @11:16AM (#655324)

    > reasonable to require an autonomous vehicle to observe the limits

    Disagree -- it should be a judgement call and this could be quite difficult to turn into a useful algorithm--

      + Sometimes (as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion), the speed limits are stupidly high. Not all roads near schools have low limits during school hours. Personally, if I'm on a dark street with cars parked on both sides, I may be going slower than the limit. Same for suburban streets at dawn and dusk where there are deer (this is when deer seem to be most likely to move around and cross the road)...deer move a lot faster than pedestrians and pop out of wooded areas very quickly.

      + Sometimes it makes sense to observe the limits, in particular where the limits have been sensibly posted in towns/cities. Much of the time the limits are set by traffic engineers that have a clue (but not everywhere).

      + Other times it makes much more sense (and I believe is generally accepted to be safer) to move with the flow of traffic. One car obeying the limit makes trouble...on a freeway/motorway where everyone else is speeding.

    I believe that "driving at imprudent speed" is a judgement call cops can make just about any time they like. For example, failure to slow down through a temporary construction zone.

    Based on the limited data available at this time, I think Uber has a lot of work left to do.

    • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:49PM

      by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @08:49PM (#655611)

      "+ Sometimes (as mentioned elsewhere in this discussion), the speed limits are stupidly high."

      One isn't required to drive "stupidly fast" though; and in fact you are legally obligated to reduce your speed where safety requires it. The speed limit is the *maximum* it is legal to go; it's not a requirement.

      In theory if the majority of vehicles end up autonomous and they are programmed to observe the limits then they will effectively dictate the flow.

      Until then though, your note that it is safer to go with the flow is not wrong. But it's also a catch-22; speeding to go with the flow may be safer, but it is still speeding - its still illegal and if there is an accident, the damage will have been increased by the speeding factor. There is no real winning move there.

      There are so many such cases when driving, where you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Where the legal system is at odds with safety. Where the liability conflicts with safety. Where you can avoid an incident that won't be your fault, but in doing so increases the chances of an incident that will be your fault.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @12:36PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 20 2018, @12:36PM (#655340)

    I drive a car with more than 100 HP. Which is nothing by American standards, btw... That enough that if I look away from the speedo for a couple of seconds, the speed will easily climb from just below the speed limit to high enough to get a ticket (2 km/h over the limit).

    Yet, for some strange reason, they expect me to spend more time looking at traffic and pedestrians, than I do looking at the speedo.

    • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:53PM

      by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday March 20 2018, @05:53PM (#655521)

      That's just it though. Speedometers read a touch low. So if you are intentionally keeping your speed at 60km/h as shown by the speedo, and then climb to 62km/h by accident you are still ok. The manufacturers deliberately calibrate the speedos to overestimate your speed.

      The standard in the UK for examples is that a speedo must *never* show less than the actual speed, and must never show more than 110% of actual speed + 6.25mph. So at 100mph, its legal for your speedo to show anything from 100mph to 116.25mph. And from my (limited) experience most will probably show around 105-110. So if you are driving, and intentionally keeping it at 100mph as read by the speedo, you are *really* going mid-90s, and if you drift up to 102 now and again that's fine.

      Plus most speed traps themselves give a small bit of grace; to account for their own potential for error, except they are calibrated 'the other way'. So your speedo is always overestimating your speed (to ensure it never reads lower than you really are going), and police radar is underestimating it to ensure they never give you a ticket when you are within the limit, and the upshot is that if your speedo says 2km/h over the limit, you should have nothing to worry about. Unless your speedo is broken.