# Tesla On Autopilot Slams Into Stalled Car.



## everythingsuber

An everyday scenario.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lancee...alled-car-on-highway-expect-more-of-this/amp/
"According to the driver of the Tesla, another car cut in front of him, staying there fleetingly, then moved rapidly over to the next lane, and within moments it became apparent that a car was stalled up ahead, and he and his Tesla were going to ram right into it, full force. He and his Tesla did so, and luckily he lived to tell the tale."


----------



## Pax Collector

Human instinct can't easily be replaced, no matter what they try to preach. That technology is still at its infancy. The only way this autonomous car fiasco is going to work is if all the cars on the road are autonomous.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

Pax Collector said:


> Human instinct can't easily be replaced, no matter what they try to preach. That technology is still at its infancy. The only way this autonomous car fiasco is going to work is if all the cars on the road are autonomous.


Yeah that isn't going to happen,


----------



## Udrivevegas

Pax Collector said:


> Human instinct can't easily be replaced, no matter what they try to preach. That technology is still at its infancy. The only way this autonomous car fiasco is going to work is if all the cars on the road are autonomous.


And linked so they are in constant communication with each other. But yeah, not gonna happen.


----------



## goneubering

Pax Collector said:


> Human instinct can't easily be replaced, no matter what they try to preach. That technology is still at its infancy. The only way this autonomous car fiasco is going to work is if all the cars on the road are autonomous.


And POP goes the $7 Trillion bubble!!


----------



## UberAdrian

This is bad, I have TSLA long positions!


----------



## Pax Collector

UberAdrian said:


> This is bad, I have TSLA long positions!


It's going to be a looooooooooooooooooooong wait :biggrin:


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer

The stalled car was there before the other car cut in front of the Tesla, out of the Tesla’s sensors range.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> The stalled car was there before the other car cut in front of the Tesla, out of the Tesla's sensors range.


E M E R G E N C Y
E M E R G En/cy%?x=scri.eng /g2xL


----------



## 911 Guy

Pax Collector said:


> Human instinct can't easily be replaced, no matter what they try to preach. That technology is still at its infancy. The only way this autonomous car fiasco is going to work is if all the cars on the road are autonomous.


I agree, but...

There was a human there. They even call them "Safety Drivers". WTH man?


----------



## Pax Collector

911 Guy said:


> I agree, but...
> 
> There was a human there. They even call them "Safety Drivers". WTH man?


The safety driver was probably too busy looking down at their phone just like the one in Arizona.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust

Wolfgang Faust said:


> E M E R G E N C Y
> E M E R G En/cy%?x=scri.eng /g2xL


E M E R*note/safety,drive,alert/com2X,Brake


----------



## badratings

How many human drivers have crashed in similar situations? 
I've been in close calls where you have few clues of knowing there's a stopped obstacle ahead until the car in front swerves out of the way.
AI cars can easily avoid these situations by always using safe operating practices, and letting the human take over for any higher risk maneuver such as tailgating, speeding etc.


----------



## 911 Guy

badratings said:


> How many human drivers have crashed in similar situations?
> I've been in close calls where you have few clues of knowing there's a stopped obstacle ahead until the car in front swerves out of the way.
> AI cars can easily avoid these situations by always using safe operating practices, and letting the human take over for any higher risk maneuver such as tailgating, speeding etc.


All true, but think about this a bit deeper. Tesla announced that they will have a million cars willingly used by owners for AI RS. If you paid for a Tesla are you gonna want to deal with this situation when it happens with pax onboard.?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust

911 Guy said:


> All true, but think about this a bit deeper. Tesla announced that they will have a million cars willingly used by owners for AI RS. If you paid for a Tesla are you gonna want to deal with this situation when it happens with pax onboard.?


Technology is great assisting hunana-not replacing them. Do these SDC proponents want to sleep with robots, too?


----------



## 911 Guy

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Technology is great assisting hunana-not replacing them. Do these SDC proponents want to sleep with robots, too?


In some places, technology absolutely is better than humans. In others, it never will be. Some of them may already be ordering from Japan.


----------



## goneubering

UberAdrian said:


> This is bad, I have TSLA long positions!


Uh oh!!



911 Guy said:


> All true, but think about this a bit deeper. Tesla announced that they will have a million cars willingly used by owners for AI RS. If you paid for a Tesla are you gonna want to deal with this situation when it happens with pax onboard.?


Don't believe everything Elon says.


----------



## 911 Guy

goneubering said:


> Uh oh!!
> 
> 
> Don't believe everything Elon says.


I don't. I thought I made that clear, but apparently my sarcastic abilities are waning in the heat.


----------



## emdeplam

Replace SDC with microwave oven and this could be the 1950’s


----------



## Wolfgang Faust

emdeplam said:


> Replace SDC with microwave oven and this could be the 1950's


Do you go for a ride in a microwave oven on the freeway at 75 MPH often?


----------



## emdeplam

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Do you go for a ride in a microwave oven on the freeway at 75 MPH often?


You can ask your mother or grandmother about the stories associated with microwaves when introduced. Children and adults backed away....damaging radiation...mutation. Google it for kicks. It's like the antivac s movement about an appliance


----------



## 911 Guy

emdeplam said:


> Replace SDC with microwave oven and this could be the 1950's


I get the point, but to make SDC work will take one of two things that will never happen IMO.

1. Destroy all the roads in cities to install fixed sensor inputs and add aerials. Or...
2. Trust the local governments to provide real time GEO updates on every construction project.

Your mention of microwave only served to make me crave a Hot Pahcket.



emdeplam said:


> You can ask your mother or grandmother about the stories associated with microwaves when introduced. Children and adults backed away....damaging radiation...mutation. Google it for kicks. It's like the antivac s movement about an appliance


Yep. Early adopters pay the price. The smart pax won't be in SDCs for a decade minimum.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

emdeplam said:


> Replace SDC with microwave oven and this could be the 1950's


Except....

Microwave ovens never replaced the chef and cooking jobs were not replaced by those evil machines.

Microwaves are for REHEATING only, maybe an occasional microwave meal, which as I shouldn't have to remind you is a pale imitation of an actual cooked meal.


----------



## emdeplam

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Except....
> 
> Microwave ovens never replaced the chef and cooking jobs were not replaced by those evil machines.
> 
> Microwaves are for REHEATING only, maybe an occasional microwave meal, which as I shouldn't have to remind you is a pale imitation of an actual cooked meal.


+1 and to all those losers who think gas or artificial pellets taste anything like charcoal


----------



## 911 Guy

emdeplam said:


> +1 and to all those losers who think gas or artificial pellets taste anything like charcoal


-1 to anyone that prefers charcoal over wood.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust

The Boeing 737 crashes we're caused by pilot assist technology, where the pilots did not have training to override the "feature".


----------



## goneubering

911 Guy said:


> I don't. I thought I made that clear, but apparently my sarcastic abilities are waning in the heat.


My bad. I missed it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

badratings said:


> AI cars can easily avoid these situations


but they didn't and they don't and they crash into things for no reason at all far more often than humans


----------



## treesweets dancer

In 1900: people would never fly. Machines were diving to the ground all the time trying to fly. Yeah, not gonna happen, idiots. People can't fly. All these smart people thinking they can advance technology are idiots.

2019: flying to the moon is old news & probes have left the solar system. But self driving cars, never gonna happen. Despite all the other miraculous technology that's arisen in the last single generation. Dudes sitting in Nevada controlling drones murdering people 4,000 miles away. Flying is trivial now.

Gd some of you aren't bright. It's astonishing. Self driving already works. Just not very well yet. But compared to 20 years ago, it's amazing. Like over 10,000 people a year **** up & crash. It's only a matter of time before self driving does better than humans. Nobody writes an article each time the Tesla succeeds at not crashing either.

Talk about stupid tho. I'm on here trying to explain obvious stuff to people who couldn't figure out the obvious for themselves. Well, I didn't say _I wasn't_ stupid too. Just a different kind of stupid than all these never learn from the past folks.


----------



## goneubering

treesweets dancer said:


> In 1900: people would never fly. Machines were diving to the ground all the time trying to fly. Yeah, not gonna happen, idiots. People can't fly. All these smart people thinking they can advance technology are idiots.
> 
> 2019: flying to the moon is old news & probes have left the solar system. But self driving cars, never gonna happen. Despite all the other miraculous technology that's arisen in the last single generation. Dudes sitting in Nevada controlling drones murdering people 4,000 miles away. Flying is trivial now.
> 
> Gd some of you aren't bright. It's astonishing. Self driving already works. Just not very well yet. But compared to 20 years ago, it's amazing. Like over 10,000 people a year @@@@ up & crash. It's only a matter of time before self driving does better than humans. Nobody writes an article each time the Tesla succeeds at not crashing either.
> 
> Talk about stupid tho. I'm on here trying to explain obvious stuff to people who couldn't figure out the obvious for themselves. Well, I didn't say _I wasn't_ stupid too. Just a different kind of stupid than all these never learn from the past folks.


Joined May 4th. Not surprising to see you again.


----------



## U/L guy

emdeplam said:


> Replace SDC with microwave oven and this could be the 1950's


I agree it'll be another half century before SDCs will be on the road as a means of mass transportation, potholes alone will destroy most SDC in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Bubsie

Wolfgang Faust said:


> The Boeing 737 crashes we're caused by pilot assist technology, where the pilots did not have training to override the "feature".


In the first crash the pilots weren't even aware the half baked MCAS system had been installed, because Boeing never put it in the manual. Criminally negligent. And then management did nothing to ground the 737 max fleet while they worked on a software fix. The people in the second crash could have been alive today, were it not for greed.


----------



## badratings

uberdriverfornow said:


> badratings said:
> 
> 
> 
> AI cars can easily avoid these situations
> 
> 
> 
> but they didn't and they don't and they crash into things for no reason at all far more often than humans
Click to expand...

Sometimes, the full sentence is worded the way it is for a reason.


badratings said:


> AI cars can easily avoid these situations by always using safe operating practices, and letting the human take over for any higher risk maneuver such as tailgating, speeding etc.


The reason AI cars crash into things is because automakers allow them to operate beyond safe practices such as allowing them to speed, and allowing them to follow the car in front too closely. Tesla lets autopilot speed because it knows that nobody would want to buy autopilot if it always followed the speed limit, or maintained enough following distance to be easily cut off. Proper self driving tests by self driving employees have far lower accident rates than human drivers. The safe thing for Tesla to do would be to disengage autopilot any time the owner wants to speed or tailgate.


----------



## Bubsie

LiDAR not required says Musk...radar input being disregarded near overpasses...lot of compromises to avoid false braking....autopilot needs to be restricted to select roads


----------



## NotanEmployee

They totally will happen but not for a long time. The tech isnt there yet. I also agree that removing the human element will be necessary to make it truly safe (no human drivers). Humans cause accidents now and will continue to cause accidents as long as they are allowed to be in control. It amazes me the stupid shit i see people do on a daily basis. The drivers test should have a common sense portion because too many are really too stupid to drive safely....clueless.


----------



## KevinH

I had an opportunity to drive a shop loaner car that was a current model Tesla Model S equipped with the latest SDC gadgets. I used the autopilot on an number of occasions in order to learn about it and was very disappointed. Once, it wanted to drive over the curb and up on a sidewalk when it entered a moderate curve. The other frustrating part was that the "visibility range" is just a few hundred feet. So if traffic is stopped ahead, it wants to go full blast until it detects the problem. I had the autopilot feature engaged and was sitting at the crosswalk at the stoplight on a boulevard in San Francisco when the light turned green. The boulevard has a speed limit of 35 mph.and as the car accelerated, the light at the next block or two turned red. I was the lead car in my lane and we zipped up to the red light intersection. I knew from the length of the stoplight that I would have some waiting time at that intersection as well. I would normally have slowed the car to save the braking and acceleration, but the autopilot drove at 35 up until it detected the cars ahead of me and then braked hard. It was not comfortable. As one SDC critic said: "Humans can see into the future". There are many times when I approach stalled or stopped traffic on a fast street or freeway when I deliberately slow early to signal the cars behind me and give an potential inattentive follower a signal that we all need to slow and maybe stop.

When Google reported SDC accidents in its early testing on the San Francisco peninsula, the accidents were nearly all the fault of a following driver that had rear-ended the test vehicle. Most of the SDC efforts have seen similar problems with the systems incorrectly identifying right-of-way challenges from swooping birds, moving pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. The Uber SDC fatality in Arizona is related because their system repeatedly slammed on the brakes when not needed. Uber, rather than focusing on solving the problem, turned the feature off.


----------



## got a p

NotanEmployee said:


> They totally will happen but not for a long time. The tech isnt there yet. I also agree that removing the human element will be necessary to make it truly safe (no human drivers). Humans cause accidents now and will continue to cause accidents as long as they are allowed to be in control. It amazes me the stupid shit i see people do on a daily basis. The drivers test should have a common sense portion because too many are really too stupid to drive safely....clueless.


here's the problem you are overlooking. fully autonomous uber fleet will be hackable. if there are a million (or worse, millions) of uber-robot-taxis out there, their fleet will be hacked and the death and destruction will make hiroshima look like a walk in the park. can you say "_*a million dead in 1 minute*_"?

there are many countries with rich billionaires who would gladly pay a group of the worlds best hackers, who would put ubers' I.T. dept. to shame, hundreds of millions of dollars to attack america using its own autonomous vehicles as their WMD's. after the last couple decades we've picked up many powerful and wealthy enemies.

you can't hack a human :cools:


----------



## mbd

everythingsuber said:


> An everyday scenario.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/lancee...alled-car-on-highway-expect-more-of-this/amp/
> "According to the driver of the Tesla, another car cut in front of him, staying there fleetingly, then moved rapidly over to the next lane, and within moments it became apparent that a car was stalled up ahead, and he and his Tesla were going to ram right into it, full force. He and his Tesla did so, and luckily he lived to tell the tale."


Who gets sued in a autonomous vehicle accident 
company like TSLA or the 
Owner??? 
If you use auto car to pick up somebody and it has a accident on the way ... no human inside


----------



## got a p

KevinH said:


> I had an opportunity to drive a shop loaner car that was a current model Tesla Model S equipped with the latest SDC gadgets. I used the autopilot on an number of occasions in order to learn about it and was very disappointed. Once, it wanted to drive over the curb and up on a sidewalk when it entered a moderate curve. The other frustrating part was that the "visibility range" is just a few hundred feet. So if traffic is stopped ahead, it wants to go full blast until it detects the problem. I had the autopilot feature engaged and was sitting at the crosswalk at the stoplight on a boulevard in San Francisco when the light turned green. The boulevard has a speed limit of 35 mph.and as the car accelerated, the light at the next block or two turned red. I was the lead car in my lane and we zipped up to the red light intersection. I knew from the length of the stoplight that I would have some waiting time at that intersection as well. I would normally have slowed the car to save the braking and acceleration, but the autopilot drove at 35 up until it detected the cars ahead of me and then braked hard. It was not comfortable. As one SDC critic said: "Humans can see into the future". There are many times when I approach stalled or stopped traffic on a fast street or freeway when I deliberately slow early to signal the cars behind me and give an potential inattentive follower a signal that we all need to slow and maybe stop.
> 
> When Google reported SDC accidents in its early testing on the San Francisco peninsula, the accidents were nearly all the fault of a following driver that had rear-ended the test vehicle. Most of the SDC efforts have seen similar problems with the systems incorrectly identifying right-of-way challenges from swooping birds, moving pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. The Uber SDC fatality in Arizona is related because their system repeatedly slammed on the brakes when not needed. Uber, rather than focusing on solving the problem, turned the feature off.


i agree. after driving one of the older fast models, not the economy ones, i fell _in love_ with teslas...HARD, lol! it was like being in a spaceship: you hit the accelerator, get slammed into your seat but there's no revving.

i was definitely going to drop $1k to reserve one of the new budget friendly models, but recently after finding out that there's no real manual over-ride (manual as in an analog switch) to completely shut off everything SDC i will not be buying one. if the switch itself is digital then they can't be trusted.

i just wanted an electric car with a long range, don't think i will ever in my lifetime trust anything SDC. only way that _might_ be possible if there's a switch that completely shuts off anything except my ability to drive the car the old fashioned way.


----------



## badratings

got a p said:


> here's the problem you are overlooking. fully autonomous uber fleet will be hackable. if there are a million (or worse, millions) of uber-robot-taxis out there, their fleet will be hacked and the death and destruction will make hiroshima look like a walk in the park. can you say "_*a million dead in 1 minute*_"?
> 
> there are many countries with rich billionaires who would gladly pay a group of the worlds best hackers, who would put ubers' I.T. dept. to shame, hundreds of millions of dollars to attack america using its own autonomous vehicles as their WMD's. after the last couple decades we've picked up many powerful and wealthy enemies.
> 
> you can't hack a human :cools:


Humans are the easiest to hack of em all.

Your premise depends on "engineering" simply not being a thing. But engineering is a thing, and there are many ways to engineer systems to protect them from hacking. Engineering is not performed by the IT department, but by the multiple specialized engineering departments that car companies have.

Tech companies have many processes in place to nip exploits before they are exploited, such as white hat bounty hunting programs. As jerbs spiral into increasing irrelevancy thanks to automation, millions of people will have more and more free time. They could spend that time relaxing on the beach, they could also spend that time learning to code and contributing to anti hacking efforts. For every talented hacker willing to accept employment by some rich supervillain, there are 100s of talented hackers who have a vested interest in SDCs NOT being hacked.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust

badratings said:


> Humans are the easiest to hack of em all.
> 
> Your premise depends on "engineering" simply not being a thing. But engineering is a thing, and there are many ways to engineer systems to protect them from hacking. Engineering is not performed by the IT department, but by the multiple specialized engineering departments that car companies have.
> 
> Tech companies have many processes in place to nip exploits before they are exploited, such as white hat bounty hunting programs. As jerbs spiral into increasing irrelevancy thanks to automation, millions of people will have more and more free time. They could spend that time relaxing on the beach, they could also spend that time learning to code and contributing to anti hacking efforts. For every talented hacker willing to accept employment by some rich supervillain, there are 100s of talented hackers who have a vested interest in SDCs NOT being hacked.


I see lots of people with free time under the freeway.


----------



## badratings

Wolfgang Faust said:


> I see lots of people with free time under the freeway.


Indeed, a tremendous policy failure, which is why the UBI candidate is now polling top 10 in the democratic primaries.


----------



## KevinH

got a p said:


> i was definitely going to drop $1k to reserve one of the new budget friendly models, but recently after finding out that there's no real manual over-ride (manual as in an analog switch) to completely shut off everything SDC i will not be buying one. if the switch itself is digital then they can't be trusted.


The model S I drove had a switch to engage the SDC functions. It would also turn them off if it did not detect hands holding the steering wheel.
There are people out there that can hack the car's systems and provide an app to control almost everything. That costs about $1k


----------



## got a p

badratings said:


> Humans are the easiest to hack of em all.
> 
> Your premise depends on "engineering" simply not being a thing. But engineering is a thing, and there are many ways to engineer systems to protect them from hacking. Engineering is not performed by the IT department, but by the multiple specialized engineering departments that car companies have.
> 
> Tech companies have many processes in place to nip exploits before they are exploited, such as white hat bounty hunting programs. As jerbs spiral into increasing irrelevancy thanks to automation, millions of people will have more and more free time. They could spend that time relaxing on the beach, they could also spend that time learning to code and contributing to anti hacking efforts. For every talented hacker willing to accept employment by some rich supervillain, there are 100s of talented hackers who have a vested interest in SDCs NOT being hacked.


the best in the world make massive amounts of money, they are the black hats. offered an extraordinary amount of money they will hack SDC fleets. they are in all likelyhood lurking in uber/lyft/gm's systems as we speak. americas enemies aren't stupid and they know gigantic enormous fleets of SDC's are a godsend as WMD's.
these guys know IT better than virtually ANYONE in the world and make massive amounts of money on the black market. they are invisible in the world, anonymous, yet lurking everywhere in virtually all frameworks.


----------



## RabbleRouser

everythingsuber said:


> An everyday scenario.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/lancee...alled-car-on-highway-expect-more-of-this/amp/
> "According to the driver of the Tesla, another car cut in front of him, staying there fleetingly, then moved rapidly over to the next lane, and within moments it became apparent that a car was stalled up ahead, and he and his Tesla were going to ram right into it, full force. He and his Tesla did so, and luckily he lived to tell the tale."


Older Australians in Canberra have been given the opportunity to get around on a driverless shuttle.Image: AAP

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/older-community-tries-driverless-shuttle-c-128900


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RabbleRouser said:


> Older Australians in Canberra have been given the opportunity to get around on a driverless shuttle.Image: AAP
> 
> https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/older-community-tries-driverless-shuttle-c-128900


where's the video of these things actually in action ?


----------



## CarpeNoctem




----------



## RabbleRouser

treesweets dancer said:


> In 1900: people would never fly. Machines were diving to the ground all the time trying to fly. Yeah, not gonna happen, idiots. People can't fly. All these smart people thinking they can advance technology are idiots.
> 
> 2019: flying to the moon is old news & probes have left the solar system. But self driving cars, never gonna happen. Despite all the other miraculous technology that's arisen in the last single generation. Dudes sitting in Nevada controlling drones murdering people 4,000 miles away. Flying is trivial now.
> 
> Gd some of you aren't bright. It's astonishing. Self driving already works. Just not very well yet. But compared to 20 years ago, it's amazing. Like over 10,000 people a year @@@@ up & crash. It's only a matter of time before self driving does better than humans. Nobody writes an article each time the Tesla succeeds at not crashing either.
> 
> Talk about stupid tho. I'm on here trying to explain obvious stuff to people who couldn't figure out the obvious for themselves. Well, I didn't say _I wasn't_ stupid too. Just a different kind of stupid than all these never learn from the past folks.


You're trying to reason with
Baby Boomers opposed to new technology, new ways of working and indoor plumbing 
AKA: Luddite


----------



## treesweets dancer

RabbleRouser said:


> You're trying to reason with
> Baby Boomers opposed to new technology, new ways of working and indoor plumbing
> AKA: Luddite


Probably. It just surprises me every time. I mean, 10 years ago the same people woulda probably thought the autonomous driving _that is_ possible today would never happen. But they didn't even learn from _that_.

So now do they think: "this is as far as it goes, they'll never improve from here"?

But that's not what a Luddite is. Luddites were a movement trying to resist having humans be turned into automatons during the explosion of factory jobs. In other words, they weren't against technology, just against it being used to turn them into robotic workers. & they weren't wrong. That era normalized alienation from ones work. & now the corporate world that steamrolled those Luddites calls us "human resources", like we're cobalt or something to be harvested & used for profit.

Ironically, a word now used to mock people for automatically reacting negatively to new technology, comes from _forward thinking_ people who predicted their children's fate. I think Ludd was someone's name or something. I don't know any specifics about them.

Not correcting u just for the sake of it. I see/hear that word misused all the time thru my whole life, to mock people for not "getting" new technology or automatically thinking it's bad. But it was actually a noble cause.

Mocking them seems like what the bosses would have done to discredit their POV. Saying that they're just afraid of progress to dissuade their fellow working classers from listening to them.


----------



## Uberselectmafiakiller

Pax Collector said:


> It's going to be a looooooooooooooooooooong wait :biggrin:


really? i made $127,000 since buying at $177 per share since it's at $235. Not Sure what your talking about.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

badratings said:


> How many human drivers have crashed in similar situations?
> I've been in close calls where you have few clues of knowing there's a stopped obstacle ahead until the car in front swerves out of the way.


Aaaaaand this is why these accidents happen. As you point out, the driving technique here is to focus on the car in front. Preferably riding its bumper at freeway speeds and certainly no further than one car length from it.

This contrasts heavily with the driving in other countries where the drivers have more advanced skills. Drivers are taught to not focus on the car in front and ride its bumper (as you correctly state, this gives "few clues of knowing there's a stopped obstacle ahead"). No; they are taught to drop back from the car in front to allow the driver to get a good view of traffic ahead, and at freeway speeds to scan the road 1/8 to 1/4 mile ahead. In order to see what's going on ahead.

The driving here in the US is horrific; the worst I have seen out of many different countries. Driver education and proper driving tests would be a start, although obviously not going to happen.


----------



## RabbleRouser

The Gift of Fish said:


> Aaaaaand this is why these accidents happen. As you point out, the driving technique here is to focus on the car in front. Preferably riding its bumper at freeway speeds and certainly no further than one car length from it.
> 
> This contrasts heavily with the driving in other countries where the drivers have more advanced skills. Drivers are taught to not focus on the car in front and ride its bumper (as you correctly state, this gives "few clues of knowing there's a stopped obstacle ahead"). No; they are taught to drop back from the car in front to allow the driver to get a good view of traffic ahead, and at freeway speeds to scan the road 1/8 to 1/4 mile ahead. In order to see what's going on ahead.
> 
> The driving here in the US is horrific; the worst I have seen out of many different countries. Driver education and proper driving tests would be a start, although obviously not going to happen.


I was taught to remain 1 car ? length per 10mph behind the lead car.
50mph = 5 car lengths behind.
And yes, we are a rough ?? country ?? for the sensitive types.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RabbleRouser said:


> I was taught to remain 1 car ? length per 10mph behind the lead car.
> 50mph = 5 car lengths behind.
> And yes, we are a rough country for the sensitive types.


The exceptionally low standards of driving here are unrelated to sensitivity or lack of. It's a matter of missing driving skills and the substandard amount of driver training required to pass one's test.


----------



## Pax Collector

Uberselectmafiakiller said:


> really? i made $127,000 since buying at $177 per share since it's at $235. Not Sure what your talking about.


Consider yourself lucky for buying in low.


----------



## badratings

The Gift of Fish said:


> Aaaaaand this is why these accidents happen. As you point out, the driving technique here is to focus on the car in front. Preferably riding its bumper at freeway speeds and certainly no further than one car length from it.
> 
> This contrasts heavily with the driving in other countries where the drivers have more advanced skills. Drivers are taught to not focus on the car in front and ride its bumper (as you correctly state, this gives "few clues of knowing there's a stopped obstacle ahead"). No; they are taught to drop back from the car in front to allow the driver to get a good view of traffic ahead, and at freeway speeds to scan the road 1/8 to 1/4 mile ahead. In order to see what's going on ahead.
> 
> The driving here in the US is horrific; the worst I have seen out of many different countries. Driver education and proper driving tests would be a start, although obviously not going to happen.


Wrong.

Try being in a smaller car that is following any slightly large vehicle, eg. a van, with a 3 second following distance on a perfectly straight road. Especially if the van is leaning on the left side of the lane, there will be *NO WAY* to see what is on the road directly ahead of it, in this situation there is no such thing as "getting a good view of traffic ahead" at ANY distance. If the van swerves out of the way of a stopped vehicle, you will have very little time to react. The only way to mitigate this is to maintain enough following distance (around 6+seconds) so you can come to a complete stop in the event the vehicle in front suddenly stops. The problem with a 6 second following distance is other drivers will view that as license to cut in front of you, so you will have to keep slowing down to re-establish following distance. It's the safe thing to do but good luck explaining that to passengers.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

badratings said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Try being in a smaller car that is following any slightly large vehicle, eg. a van, with a 3 second following distance on a perfectly straight road. Especially if the van is leaning on the left side of the lane, there will be *NO WAY* to see what is on the road directly ahead of it, in this situation there is no such thing as "getting a good view of traffic ahead" at ANY distance. If the van swerves out of the way of a stopped vehicle, you will have very little time to react. The only way to mitigate this is to maintain enough following distance (around 6+seconds) so you can come to a complete stop in the event the vehicle in front suddenly stops.


There, you see? You answered your own question. In situations where the driver's view of the road ahead is obstructed, regardless of the cause, the answer is indeed to increase the distance between the driver and the vehicle ahead. In countries with more advanced driver training, the mantra that is taught to new drivers is, "you should be able to stop within the distance that you can see to be clear". This applies to _all_ driving situations, including your example of driving on a dead straight road behind a large vehicle. If you can't see what is going on in the road ahead within your stopping distance then you need to slow down and thereby increase the zone available to you for stopping in; it's as simple as that. This is basic, basic driving technique.


> The problem with a 6 second following distance is other drivers will view that as license to cut in front of you, so you will have to keep slowing down to re-establish following distance. It's the safe thing to do but good luck explaining that to passengers.


I don't follow use a set number of seconds i.e. 3 or 6 or whatever to set my stopping distance. The first reason for this is that stopping distance is not a linear function of speed - it is in fact an exponential function. The second reason is that I don't go down the road with a stopwatch in my hand and time the distance between myself and the vehicle in front. Instead, I rely on the concept above of driving at a distance that I can see to be clear. The complementary technique of scanning the road ahead 1/4 to 1/2 mile ahead to see traffic conditions is just that - complementary.

Given the hugely erratic driving style here, with the panic brakers, the freeway slalom lane swooper specialists, the tailgaters etc etc, I maintain a distance of 15 to 20 car lengths from the car in front on the freeway. It is true that vehicles do change lanes to occupy this safety space, although not as often as one might think. As stated above, the typical driver behind me will be concentrating only on my rear bumper and riding it as close as possible, totally oblivious to what's going on ahead of me. Consequently they don't tend to overtake. Generally, though, I find that 1 or 2 cars every minute will cut in in front of me from lanes next to mine and I will frequently have to restore the safe stopping distance space. But this has no material effect on my journey time. If I have to drop back 200 feet every minute to accommodate impatient drivers, my calculator tells me that this is a reduction in my travel speed of 2.2 miles per hour. A very acceptable penalty to pay for driving more safely.

And no, my pax don't complain about this. On the contrary, I get many compliments both verbally in person and on the apps commending my safe driving.


----------



## iheartuber

emdeplam said:


> Replace SDC with microwave oven and this could be the 1950's


Translation-

Hi, I'm a corporate shill. If this robo taxi dream happens one day it could save us here at corporate HQ a ton of cash (but only if it happens exactly as we imagine it- no surprises!)

So here's my argument for why robo taxis are gonna happen- 50 years ago we had tech that would be considered primitive by today's standards. So 50 years from now our tech will be crazy advanced.

So.. that's why. The end.


----------



## badratings

The Gift of Fish said:


> There, you see? You answered your own question. In situations where the driver's view of the road ahead is obstructed, regardless of the cause, the answer is indeed to increase the distance between the driver and the vehicle ahead. In countries with more advanced driver training, the mantra that is taught to new drivers is, "you should be able to stop within the distance that you can see to be clear". This applies to _all_ driving situations, including your example of driving on a dead straight road behind a large vehicle. If you can't see what is going on in the road ahead within your stopping distance then you need to slow down and thereby increase the zone available to you for stopping in; it's as simple as that. This is basic, basic driving technique.
> I don't follow use a set number of seconds i.e. 3 or 6 or whatever to set my stopping distance. The first reason for this is that stopping distance is not a linear function of speed - it is in fact an exponential function. The second reason is that I don't go down the road with a stopwatch in my hand and time the distance between myself and the vehicle in front. Instead, I rely on the concept above of driving at a distance that I can see to be clear. The complementary technique of scanning the road ahead 1/4 to 1/2 mile ahead to see traffic conditions is just that - complementary.
> 
> Given the hugely erratic driving style here, with the panic brakers, the freeway slalom lane swooper specialists, the tailgaters etc etc, I maintain a distance of 15 to 20 car lengths from the car in front on the freeway. It is true that vehicles do change lanes to occupy this safety space, although not as often as one might think. As stated above, the typical driver behind me will be concentrating only on my rear bumper and riding it as close as possible, totally oblivious to what's going on ahead of me. Consequently they don't tend to overtake. Generally, though, I find that 1 or 2 cars every minute will cut in in front of me from lanes next to mine and I will frequently have to restore the safe stopping distance space. But this has no material effect on my journey time. If I have to drop back 200 feet every minute to accommodate impatient drivers, my calculator tells me that this is a reduction in my travel speed of 2.2 miles per hour. A very acceptable penalty to pay for driving more safely.
> 
> And no, my pax don't complain about this. On the contrary, I get many compliments both verbally in person and on the apps commending my safe driving.


A component of figuring out whether you are in a situation where it is possible "to stop within the distance that you can see to be clear" is to figure out the stopping distance so you know whether things you see are inside your stopping distance. The rule of thumb used to figure out the stopping distance is the x second rule. Rule of thumbs are engineered with a margin of safety and apply to a high amount of situations. 2 to 3 seconds is just the minimum for normal conditions, the driver can always add more seconds to account for high speeds, low traction etc.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

badratings said:


> A component of figuring out whether you are in a situation where it is possible "to stop within the distance that you can see to be clear" is to figure out the stopping distance so you know whether things you see are inside your stopping distance. The rule of thumb used to figure out the stopping distance is the x second rule. Rule of thumbs are engineered with a margin of safety and apply to a high amount of situations. 2 to 3 seconds is just the minimum for normal conditions, the driver can always add more seconds to account for high speeds, low traction etc.


As I said, I don't time a set number of seconds to establish following distance while driving. I have 30 years' driving experience and have a good understanding of stopping distances. But, yes, the timing method can indeed be a good way for people who are less experienced or less skilled in high speed driving to get a feel for the distances required.

Any viable conscious effort to maintain a suitable following distance is better than the usual MO here of tailgating the driver in front and focussing no further than that car's rear bumper.


----------



## Ballermaris

Wolfgang Faust said:


> The Boeing 737 crashes we're caused by pilot assist technology, where the pilots did not have training to override the "feature".


Actually it was a hidden bug-feature in the aircraft that was outsourced to $9 an hour software engineers. Can anyone say India.



badratings said:


> Sometimes, the full sentence is worded the way it is for a reason.
> 
> The reason AI cars crash into things is because automakers allow them to operate beyond safe practices such as allowing them to speed, and allowing them to follow the car in front too closely. Tesla lets autopilot speed because it knows that nobody would want to buy autopilot if it always followed the speed limit, or maintained enough following distance to be easily cut off. Proper self driving tests by self driving employees have far lower accident rates than human drivers. The safe thing for Tesla to do would be to disengage autopilot any time the owner wants to speed or tailgate.


No. It allows them to sell more cars. Everyone gets a cut. The auto makers and if it is really fugly, the undertaker.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack

KevinH said:


> There are many times when I approach stalled or stopped traffic on a fast street or freeway when I deliberately slow early to signal the cars behind me and give an potential inattentive follower a signal that we all need to slow and maybe stop.


What I generally do in that situation is hit my brakes and then take my foot completely off the brake pedal. Hit the brakes again and release and just keep repeating that. I go at a frequency of about 1 Hz and then start holding the brake pedal longer as I actually need to slow down. It creates kind of a jerky braking sensation for anybody in the car, but my objective is that the blinking of my brake lights on and off will help to get the attention of the driver behind me if he is distracted or not paying close attention.


----------

