Wrecked Em
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 8,169
"How much turn signal I need to cross 8 lane?
None?
I turn now!
GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY ELSE!"
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Humans Will ‘Bully’ Self-Driving Cars
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
"How much turn signal I need to cross 8 lane?
None?
I turn now!
GOOD LUCK EVERYBODY ELSE!"
5150Joker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,568
I'd say about 15 years more realistically before almost everyone has one in the US.
Like a few people mentioned, having a number of smart cars recording this and forwarding the footage straight to the police department would curb this behavior rather quickly.
Only if someone figures out how to master weather control cause these autonomous systems sure can't deal with that yet.
Post me a link of an autonomous car managing an icy road, I bought a Apple flavored hat just for the event
Yeah they won't get over to the slow lane even in their robot cars.
Not only aren't self-driving cars of today close to driving as fast as humans, they won't break any laws or deviate from the optimum. It will probably take you upto 2x longer just to travel the distance. Roads will become parking lots for that reason alone.
Ain't nobody managing an icy road unless it's perfectly flat and they go very slowly -- or unless they have spiked tires in which case the autonomous car would be fine.Only if someone figures out how to master weather control cause these autonomous systems sure can't deal with that yet.
Post me a link of an autonomous car managing an icy road, I bought a Apple flavored hat just for the event
People are idiots. Always have been, always will be.
As demonstrated, a shockwave traffic jam in a closed loop:
Cruise at a constant speed, one moron spreads his idiocy to other people like a virus. This won't be the case once you remove humans from the equation. You see, I believe once that happens, it will be twice as fast to travel the distance than today. No longer will you have grandma in the passing lane going 20 mph under the speed limit when no cars are in the right lane. But at the same time, you won't have that idiot in his Mustang who cuts people off within inches, forcing people to slam their breaks causing these types of jams. They believe they're saving seconds, but they're instead adding to the time it takes everyone to get anywhere.
First, the majority of people need to learn how to drive before we let them learn how to fly.
Do you think if a sdc jams the brakes on a single lane road, the Sdc behind isn't going to brake hard as well and so on and so on. The safe thing will be not to immediately accelerate since the cause of the car ahead of you braking may not uncalled for. So while slowing down will be abrupt and immediate, resuming speed will be slow. So you will get a shock wave as well.
If you have 22 cars which can communicate with each other, they can synchronize, at the very least, a thousand times better than any human. Will traffic jams still occur? Sure. Cars will break down unexpectedly the same that happens now, where the car can't pull off onto the side. But you won't have pricks who refuse to zipper merge, and you won't have people who are on the cell phone completely oblivious that they should be moving, etc. I drive an hour to work each way, every day. And every day there is always an accident. One portion of the road was deemed one of the most accident prone spots in the country, with over 800 accidents occurring every year in a 1/4 mile stretch. It's a straightaway with no obstructions. I do trust computers more than I trust humans when it comes to driving.
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 38,860
People with more "combative" driving styles should have their licenses revokes.
And the criminals will soon figure out all the need to do is stand in front of a self driving car and it will come to a stop.
Have a couple friends quickly stand behind and walk up the drivers window with a gun to rob the riders.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Make freeways in big areas (not main highways connecting distant cities) as auto-only, no human drivers, human drivers can drive on city streets to get where they want to go. And bam problem solved 
IcePickFreak
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,714
Everything old is new again. Rush hour!
Come on though, you guys have to admit it. This idea that humans will bully autonomous cars is kind of silly when we all realize that all anyone has to do is signal and the autonomous cars are going to just yield right of way to the other car. Not much point in trying to force your way through unless it's just for shits and giggles but it seems kind of a boring way to get your kicks. It's not like you are going to get a rise out of the computer right.
N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
I can definitely see abuse in traffic situations, it'll be quite easy to figure out the proximities and reactions of them and exploit that.
Like in Thai traffic. They'll literally jam the front few inches of the corner of their bumper, in the gap between your bumper and the car in front (they ride your ass there to discourage this), just to wedge into the traffic in front of you. We are talking taking advantage of the natural curve of the lights of a modern car, being a few inches recessed compared to the front of it...
Like in Thai traffic. They'll literally jam the front few inches of the corner of their bumper, in the gap between your bumper and the car in front (they ride your ass there to discourage this), just to wedge into the traffic in front of you. We are talking taking advantage of the natural curve of the lights of a modern car, being a few inches recessed compared to the front of it...
So long as self driving cars always yield the right of way to faster traffic when in the left lane, we will get along fine. The minute it starts driving like these pricks who pull into the left lane and block the flow by not passing, my twin turbo v6 will teach it to respect highway etiquette.
In the US, most states have designated the leftmost lane on highways as the passing lane. as you describe. Since SDCs follow the laws - to the point of being criticized for it - you can safely assume they won't be doing what you describe.
Just be aware that not all roads with 2 or more lanes in the same direction have passing lanes. There are roads in my area with 2 lanes in each direction that are definitely not highways; if you're road raging over people using left lanes on those roads, you're an idiot.
The thing is, some of us don't have a destination. We drive, just to go driving, cause we like driving.
This is a daily occurrence for me with German drivers. Everyone is sitting in the left/right as long as possible, until the road shrinks for the merger. Of course, there are laws saying they have to do a zipper effect, which doesn't always happen.
For the states, probably work. For Germany, useless. Dash cam footage isn't useable in court.
We don't have to admit it, cause we know that's not what is going to happen. No one signals now, why you think they'll signal just because it's an autonomous car? They know simply moving into the lane will gain the same result. That's one less thing they have to do. No need to remove their hands off their cellphone or steering wheel.
When I'm in the states, I tend to not signal. Why? Cause signalling signifies that I want to get into the other lane, so it's taken as a cue that the other driver in that lane to speed up, so I can't get in. That habit will simply carry over to autonomous cars also. I'm not going to do one thing for normal driver cars and another thing for autonomous cars. I'm going to do one thing for both cars. That is, not signal to get into the lane.
That's not to say I'm cutting anyone off. I don't cut ppl off, cause I don't trust other drivers. Like they'd freak out and accidentally mash the gas and rear end me or shoot at me. I give 2-3 car lengths between me and the car in front. Same thing for when I move back into the slow lane. Wish Germans would too, but they love tail gating. I just force them to do it, by engine braking everywhere. They wig out with the lack of brake signals, so they back off.
I'm all for self driving cars.
A. A self driving car will not ride in the fast lane doing the speed limit
B. They will not creep at 10mph while their gps is rerouting
C. Less overall backup of traffic due to traffic anomalies and over reactive drivers.
D. more likely to stay in their lane of traffic and not bounce between the lines getting dangerously close to hitting you.
various other reasons as well, but ya self driving cars would be awesome as long as they still had a manual mode.
A. A self driving car will not ride in the fast lane doing the speed limit
B. They will not creep at 10mph while their gps is rerouting
C. Less overall backup of traffic due to traffic anomalies and over reactive drivers.
D. more likely to stay in their lane of traffic and not bounce between the lines getting dangerously close to hitting you.
various other reasons as well, but ya self driving cars would be awesome as long as they still had a manual mode.
Read what I said, highway etiquette.
Exactly... Self driving cars will quickly become despised by commuters. It will be like getting stuck behind a school bus or garbage truck. Early adapters will find their cars viciously "keyed" and when the public rejects self-driving cars (like google-glasses) they will sell their cars for pennies on the dollar.
What I honestly think is going to happen, though I'm in favor of self driving cars, is more of a compromise. You won't have true self driving cars, but they'll have a computer which will limit what you can and cannot do. E.G. You won't be able to switch lanes without giving 3+ seconds of signaling. You won't be able to tailgate a commuter (the computer will keep a minimum distance). You won't be able to weave in and out of lanes. The computer will force you out of the passing lane. You won't be able to drive 75 in a school zone. Etc.
To truly see improvements in the flow of traffic, you HAVE to remove the human from the equation entirely.
Once you do that, you can pretty much eliminate traffic jams and drastically reduce energy consumption.
So what I see happening are certain highways that are expressly limited to autopilot vehicles only, starting with all tollways.
This would incentivize people and businesses to upgrade their vehicles, while still allowing poor people with old cars the ability to get around.
And it would allow for organic growth, as more and more roads become autopilot only access ways, until self-driving cars are mostly a thing of the past, at least on major arteries. So you could still drive a cool Model T out of Jay Lenos garage, but you'd be restricted to 35mph city and suburb roads and the like, and off major commuter roads, where with communicating networked automated vehicles, you could also increase the speed limit significantly.
Its not a problem for a bunch of 18 wheelers for example to form a convoy and cruise at 100mph, as they can draft and combined have great fuel efficiency.
An issue is that you can't have an autonomous only highway, it will never work while human controlled cars exist. As an example, parkways (at least around here) are car only by law, and at least once a month you get a truck which goes on them. (And then the truck inevitably gets stuck under a bridge, which causes a several hour closure while it has to be disassembled to be removed, thus causing all the backroads to be congested.)
What they could do though is might lower tolls, like with the EZ-Pass. Instead of a toll costing $12.50, it might be $10 with a self driving car. (Well, actually, it will probably still be $12.50, and they'll raise the cost of non self driving cars to $20. I can see trucks going this route. Apparently they have to pay $100 for a toll already.)
But if you have even a few cars on the highway that aren't automated, you can't see the real benefit. It really has to be all or nothing, as far as I understand it, to realize the potential of automated highways.
So you could have a walled off pair or trio of "autopilot" lanes perhaps, similar to how Houston does its HOV lanes.
One enforcement method would be that they are talking about future automated systems communicating with one another, so the vehicle will be broadcasting whether or not its automated. If a vehicle passes an automated sensor/camera that shows it is not on autopilot, it can inform law enforcement and also issue an immediate fine to the owner of the vehicle's license plate.
I bet you that shit would end REAL fast if you get pulled over, have your car towed, and not returned to you until you cough up $500 fine for illegally entering a autopilot highway on manual.
I signal, I even signal in parking lots. I signal when I am turning into my driveway.
Who else here is like me and signals say, 90% of the time when you are supposed to, and even when you are not required to by law?
Who else is a signaling mofo ?
It isn't like people can't learn, and even if they don't have to signal and can just bull there way through, so what. The little robots will just move aside so who cares?
Overall it's another stupid article, click bait.
You are right.
A. Self Driving cars will use all lanes as they do the speed limit and a human driver will have to wait for them to adjust safely and allow faster cars to pass making speeders stand out like a sore thumb to law enforcement.
B. No, they will pull off the roadway or simply miss their turns and reroute.
C. Because they won't all just stop in place waiting to be "told" over the network what to do?
D. Have you imagined what it will be like as a human driver seeing cars around you switching lanes for no reason you can see seemingly with cause. Human drivers really are somewhat predicable in their behavior which is why some stand out as such dumb asses. What will be our observed assessment of robot cars when we don't understand why they are doing what they are doing?
And again, let the road get a little icy let's see how well they deal then.
You're the one coming in with the complaint and making like 40 posts saying the same thing. Apparently you care or some shit. We'll just continue doing what we do. Not use signals.
CaptNumbNutz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 24,988
And this is how the cars will see us:
While I'm sure is true to a degree, I don't believe the problem will be as rampant. The reality is in most cases the reason for the aggressive driving is someone going under the speed limit, sitting in the left lane holding up traffic or generally being oblivious to traffic conditions. This won't be near as much as a problem as robots will just simply move instead of sitting there. Obviously this isn't every case and there are plenty of just assholes out there. However in at least a noticeable percent of cases the aggressive driving is usually escalated as a result of someone trying to control others.
And you don't have just as many? Ahh, you jump into a 2 page discussion and want to make comments about who is saying what?
But get it, facts don't count, like making claims that no one signals when there are plenty enough that do. Or that I have made 40 posts that say the same thing when I have made 9 posts and no more than two say the same thing.
But feel free to try and elicit the mob's support by claiming "we" for yourself in an effort to make me the lone fool.
Turn signal neglect a real danger, study shows
Therefore, people use their turn signals, properly, 52% of the time. Hmmmm.
Last edited:
What facts?
You mean this study that doesn't tell you really anything about the study. You'll find that useless studies, use 48% in it.
Hell, just look at who happened to write the stupid study. A guy that's been pushing smart turn signals 6 years prior with a paper. Another paper about it. A couple more papers about it. Then this study. He also works for the company that makes Intelliturn, a smart turn signal technology. The patent for it is under his name. Ya, no agenda there.
Want me to show you a study from Marlboro that says smoking doesn't cause cancer?
You ask what facts and then quote one from the same post.
Jesus, I wonder if Henry Ford had an agenda, perhaps his idea for the assembly line was bullshit.
What this guy is doing is how things happen in the world. To sell a product you have to have a market and he is trying to get people to see that a valid market exists. There is nothing wrong with that and if he's right than perhaps his new smart signals will take off. But that doesn't have any bearing on the study and it's stupid to invalidate the research because of it.
SAE International - Wikipedia
Of course all the noise for autonomous cars will go a long way toward making this issue OBE. But it invalidates nothing I have said nor have my comments warranted an attack by you and if you think I'm just going to roll over cause you bark you are very mistaken.
The article didn't really say anything about the study, the paper about the study says more.
Really where? All I quoted was guesses. You do understand what a sample statistic is right? It's calculated guessing. The smaller the sample size, the bigger the guess.
The fact that someone has an agenda can have a bearing on a study. They change the way they measure the data, change locations of where to measure the data, they do whatever possible to work the data in their favor and set a bias for their study. Remember those studies paid for by big tobacco about how their products don't cause cancer? I won't invalidate the research, but I sure as hell won't believe everything about it if someone has some kind of agenda for the research. Especially when I can't easily see the details of the "research", since you have to pay money just to read it. I'll take the research with a grain of salt, cause so far. Sounds like a money grab.
As for the assembly line, Henry Ford did have an agenda. The faster a product is made, the faster you can sell it. The more money you can make. It also wasn't his idea. It was used by GM before. It was also used in slaughterhouses, where the idea was taken from and presented to Henry Ford.
I didn't say anything you said is wrong, but saying it over and over again won't change that there are people that don't signal, that there are people that sometimes don't signal, and there are people that always signal.
I say this for the second time, I never repeated myself more than once. I know, I checked. Get the fuck off my dick.
I on the other hand am saying that you said things that are wrong. You said no one signals, I pointed to research that says over half of drivers signal properly and that of the other half, 48%, some of those simply forget to turn their signals off after signaling a turn or lane change. You use over statement to support your arguments. But you also think you can beat this by casting doubt on the validity of the research. You want to say this one researcher has an agenda, that he is biased, etc. It's possible, I didn't sign off on his work and publish it, SAE did. SAE backs his research, not me.
But this guy is not the only one that thinks there is valid room for improvement when it comes to how turn signals function because TRW has released a new product that will turn your signals off if you forget. Something that this researcher mentioned and is referenced by the news article.
TRW's digital turn signal control improvements are no joke - SAE International
But let's not stop there, let's clear up your assumptions about this research.
Turn Signal Usage Rate Results: A Comprehensive Field Study of 12,000 Observed Turning Vehicles
Are you sure this sounds like calculated guessing?
And one last thing. Do you see anywhere where the writer of this document was actually involved in the research itself? I don't. I only see that he wrote a paper that sites some of the results of the research. Now I wish I could find something that says one way or the other that this author was involved in the study but I just don't see it. I suppose one of us could email the author, perhaps Richard Ponziani would enlighten us.
Actually SAE doesn't back anyone's research. They simply provide an avenue for people to publish their works. Submit a paper, gets peer reviewed to make sure it isn't completely retarded, then post it. It's essentially Wikipedia.
A lot of "improvements" we get are just cost cutting measures. It's cheaper to manufacturer an electronic solution than a mechanical one. It's also easier to repair/replace. Why we have electronic ebrakes, drive by wire systems, etc. Your own link says such.
He watched 12,000 turns. 12,000 turns is an extremely insignificant amount.
How many turns happen in the US in 1 minute? How many in an hour? How many in a day? How many in a week? How many in a month? How many in a year? How different are these turns between east and west coasts? Northern states and southern states? Low population states and high population states? Age groups? Vehicle type? Weather conditions? What season?
Also, why would I have to email anyone? It took me all of a few seconds to find out.
Thinkers use blinkers: A guide to turn-signal mastery
"Ohio engineer Richard Ponziani drove around Dayton for almost two years using hand-held clickers to take note of his fellow citizens' "turn signal neglect rate.""
Same article say some insurance company did a survey and found 60% of drivers don't signal when changing lanes. Both "studies" I'll take with a grain of salt, seeing as one is just people responding to a poll. Ponziani's used a small pool of turns in one location. His study will apply to Dayton, maybe even apply to Ohio. Doesn't mean it'll apply everywhere else or the US as a whole. Anyone who's lived in podunk towns, slightly larger towns, cities, big cities, etc know that drivers are different.
Although, I don't know what to think about the article itself when they say "But Ponziani did find that when changing lanes, his peers failed to use blinkers 48 percent of the time, a figure reasonably close to the self-reported number in the Response Insurance survey". What is reasonably close about 48% and 60%? 1-2% difference I'd see reasonable. Even 5%. 12, not so much.
Maybe he should change his paper title. Don't think it's very comprehensive.
Turn Signal Usage Rate Results: A Field Study of 12,000 Observed Turning Vehicles in Dayton, OH
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,433
Humans have been bullying human drivers since cars were invented. It would be surprising to think that would change.