Interesting, but crying out for a comparison with crash type frequency of non-AVs. If rear-ending is of a similar frequency there, then it would suggest that it's the following driver rather than...
Interesting, but crying out for a comparison with crash type frequency of non-AVs. If rear-ending is of a similar frequency there, then it would suggest that it's the following driver rather than the struck vehicle at fault. Or at least that the AVs are indeed behaving like human drivers.
One note on those stats, they are from the pre-smart phone era. Rear end collisions have greatly increased in frequency from 2015-present as smart phones have become ubiquitous. Unfortunately I...
One note on those stats, they are from the pre-smart phone era. Rear end collisions have greatly increased in frequency from 2015-present as smart phones have become ubiquitous. Unfortunately I just know this anecdotally from working in the insurance industry so I don't have great stats to share.
Right, basically all we've learned is getting rear-ended is the most common accident for AV and the majority of the accidents are human drivers hitting AVs.
Right, basically all we've learned is getting rear-ended is the most common accident for AV and the majority of the accidents are human drivers hitting AVs.
I know that google programs a certain amount of rule breaking into their AVs, and in-fact that's the reason it had it's one and only at fault collision under complete AI control. It was trying to...
I know that google programs a certain amount of rule breaking into their AVs, and in-fact that's the reason it had it's one and only at fault collision under complete AI control. It was trying to merge and vehicles weren't letting it so it went into "assertive" mode and started creeping into the lane, the bus driver called it's bluff and the two had a low speed collision.
I think the same rule breaking behaviours could happen for the "zone of uncertainty" to reduce these types of collision as well as some rolling stop behaviours but the problem then is who is liable? If the AV is breaking the law by default I would suspect it's the manufacturer, if it's a setting the driver enables after reading a disclaimer then it's on them. Ultimately I think keeping the AVs following the rules and letting the other driver be at fault for not following at a safe distance and paying attention to the road is the right call, even if there is a transition period of where there are more collisions.
Eventually the problem will right itself whether we learn to co-exist with AVs or when the majority of vehicles on the road are AV and insurance rates for manually driven vehicles begin to skyrocket.
Maybe they just need to start slowing down sooner when coming to a stop.
from my experience they decelerate annoyingly slow
Interesting, but crying out for a comparison with crash type frequency of non-AVs. If rear-ending is of a similar frequency there, then it would suggest that it's the following driver rather than the struck vehicle at fault. Or at least that the AVs are indeed behaving like human drivers.
One note on those stats, they are from the pre-smart phone era. Rear end collisions have greatly increased in frequency from 2015-present as smart phones have become ubiquitous. Unfortunately I just know this anecdotally from working in the insurance industry so I don't have great stats to share.
Right, basically all we've learned is getting rear-ended is the most common accident for AV and the majority of the accidents are human drivers hitting AVs.
I know that google programs a certain amount of rule breaking into their AVs, and in-fact that's the reason it had it's one and only at fault collision under complete AI control. It was trying to merge and vehicles weren't letting it so it went into "assertive" mode and started creeping into the lane, the bus driver called it's bluff and the two had a low speed collision.
I think the same rule breaking behaviours could happen for the "zone of uncertainty" to reduce these types of collision as well as some rolling stop behaviours but the problem then is who is liable? If the AV is breaking the law by default I would suspect it's the manufacturer, if it's a setting the driver enables after reading a disclaimer then it's on them. Ultimately I think keeping the AVs following the rules and letting the other driver be at fault for not following at a safe distance and paying attention to the road is the right call, even if there is a transition period of where there are more collisions.
Eventually the problem will right itself whether we learn to co-exist with AVs or when the majority of vehicles on the road are AV and insurance rates for manually driven vehicles begin to skyrocket.