| ▲ | cucumber3732842 11 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> Can you imagine being dumb enough to drive over the speed limit around a double parked SUV in a school zone? Can you imagine being dumb enough to think that exceeding a one size fits all number on a sign by <10% is the main failing here? As if 2mph would have fundamentally changed this. Pfft. A double parked car, in an area with chock full street parking (hence the double park) and "something" that's a magnet for pedestrians, and probably a bunch of pedestrians should be a "severe caution" situation for any driver who "gets it". You shouldn't need a sign to tell you that this is a particular zone and that warrants a particular magic number. The proper reaction to a given set of indicators that indicate hazards depends on the situation. If this were easy to put in a formula Waymo would have and we wouldn't be discussing this accident because it wouldn't have happened. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | BugsJustFindMe 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> As if 2mph would have fundamentally changed this. Pfft. According to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46812226 1mph slower might have entirely avoided contact in this particular case. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jsrozner 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That was my point. The Waymo should have been going much slower than 15 around the double-parked car. Potential speeding makes it worse. The fact that it’s hard to turn this into a formula is exactly why robot drivers are bad. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | fwip 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
The default, with good visibility in ideal conditions, should be to not exceed the speed limit. In a school zone, when in a situation of low visibility, the car should likely be going significantly below the speed limit. So, it's not a case of 17mph vs 15mph, but more like 17mph vs 10mph or 5mph. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||