| ▲ | maelito 3 days ago |
| The most useful thing I expect from robotaxis is speed regulations. What's considered normal for humans, driving higher than the speed limits, will not for automatic cars. |
|
| ▲ | whazor 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes! And it's not just about traffic safety-regulating roads overall becomes simpler. A robotaxi doesn’t care where it can or can’t drive. It just follows graph search and speed limits. That means we can design cities around how we want them to look, instead of bending everything around today’s messy car infrastructure. |
|
| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I disagree wholeheartedly. I think the most useful thing about robotaxis is that you can count on them to pay attention and react within a given timeframe and that speed limits will either be expanded greatly, eliminated or calculated as a function of the capabilities of the individual hardware in question rather than our best guess as to how an average person would probably react. I'm looking forward to driverless cars careening about at 200+ mph because they can actively communicate and coordinate with traffic around them in order to do so safely. |
| |
| ▲ | Alive-in-2025 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd be terrified if we allow them to go really fast. They have software and sensor faults, the Teslas are just regular teslas without redundant hardware. They don't have extra sensors, they don't have two sets of their HW4 hardware. If there is a fault the driver has to immediately take over. They can't handle rain well, snow etc. FSD is interesting but it's not nearly ready to be a near fulltime driver. Waymo is much more advanced and experienced but I don't want to see them driving at high speeds. Maybe after 10 years of exp with reundant hardware and software. | |
| ▲ | cyberax 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Speed doesn't matter at all in city driving on regular roads. Going from 35mph to 25mph doesn't materially affect the trip time. Think about SF, its size is (famously) around 7 by 7 miles. So it'd take 12 minutes to cross (as the bird flies) from one side to another at 35 mph and 17 minutes at 25mph. Which is completely unrealistic, because real travel times are dominated by traffic lights and congestion. This calculation changes only when we're talking about long-distance travel on freeways. But honestly, I expect that fast long-distance trains with seamless transfer to self-driving taxis would be a better idea. | | |
| ▲ | worik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Going from 35mph to 25mph ...dramatically reduces likelihood and consequences of a crash |
| |
| ▲ | tim333 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't like the idea of them doing 200+ mph anywhere near me, but the Musk idea of them doing high speeds along dedicated tunnels would be quite cool if they could make it work. (Musk 6 years ago saying it's happening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8X8NdcV7Wc It hasn't yet of course) | |
| ▲ | Workaccount2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Reminds me of the .gif floating around years ago showing an intersection with cars blowing through it in both directions while very intentionally just missing other cars. | |
| ▲ | stfp 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're talking about long highway trips? Parent is probably talking local trips, where 200+ mph is never going to be safe, and would not even be useful. |
|
|
| ▲ | echelon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm reminded of this prescient scene from the movie Logan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAwc1XIOFME |
|
| ▲ | RandallBrown 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Although eventually I imagine self driving cars will be able to go considerably faster than human driven cars in lots of places. |
|
| ▲ | techterrier 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| no thanks, I don't fancy dodging 120mph robots when I'm crossing the road, or breathing in the extra pollution that this would create (even if its an EV!) |
| |
| ▲ | riffraff 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you misinterpreted, OP meant that robots will respect the rules, which humans typically don't, e.g. driving at 50 where the limit is 30. | | |
| ▲ | techterrier 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | in which case I apologise :) I've seen plenty of robotaxi huckers advocate for speed limits 'appropriate for robot response times' | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I haven't. It's part of discussions around hypothetical futures where everything is self-driving and the vehicles communicate with each other to form dense convoys on places like freeways where there aren't pedestrians. I certainly haven't heard any mainstream suggestions that self-driving taxis ought to drive faster than humans in spaces they share with human drivers and human pedestrians. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I've seen plenty of robotaxi huckers advocate for speed limits 'appropriate for robot response times' Where? | | | |
| ▲ | tim333 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think maybe robotaxis should have speed limits appropriate for driving into trees and fire trucks. |
| |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | yes, but no. Yes, they'll do it for now. No, once they're as normal as humans, they'll definitely be tweaked to maximize profit. And that will include as much speeding as risk/reward dictates. So yeah, they'll do the same thing as humans eventually. | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A company that systematically speeds is a nice fat piggybank for governments wanting a little extra money in their budget or a political win. These vehicles are logging their current locations and speeds constantly against a map of known speed limits. It's much easier for a government to request those records and assess a fine than go after individual motorists with politically unpopular measures like speed traps and traffic cameras. | | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > that will include as much speeding as risk/reward dictates Speeding can usually be brushed off as carelessness. Where it can’t, we charge it more harshly. A robot programmed to speed serves a jury mens rea on a plate. | | |
| ▲ | techterrier 3 days ago | parent [-] | | He means that robotaxi companies will make more money if they can fit more 'rides' into a given period. It won't be long before some mba big brain figures out lobbying for increased speed limits will do just that. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > lobbying for increased speed limits So we're describing a hypothetical problem a decade or more out in respect of a technology evolving so quickly a significant fraction of people still don't even believe it's real. | | |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Its because using the fact that robotaxis follow "logic" excludes they from the same risk taking as humans ignores the bootstrap that will happen and the inhetent shittification we see with all capitalism meets social programming. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I expect robots to run at 120mph only when it is safe. Meaning I can safely cross the road, if they are going 120mph it is because they have correctly figured out I'm not going to cross the road in front of them. |
|
