"So, here’s the Cambridge Test: When perfected, what will an automated vehicle do on that nasty stroad in your community, the one where the cars today drive too fast and the drivers are too oblivious, where nobody sane would dare to cross? When all cars are AV, what happens when someone crosses midblock?
The obvious answer is that the vehicles stop and allow the person to cross. They don’t run that person down. They don’t kill them. The automated vehicle will be programmed to always stop when someone steps out into traffic. As a society, we would not have it any other way.
So, knowing this, who is ever going to stop and wait at another traffic signal? What person on foot, in their right mind, would wait for a gap to open so they can cross without impacting the flow of traffic? Nobody."
This is supremely unrealistic. No one on the right side of crazy is going to face the judgement of several of their peers to cross in the middle of traffic. The only exception being drunken friends doing it both to save time and as a troll to drivers.
If self-driving vehicles ever do become reality (i.e. a corporation takes legal liability for mistakes the vehicle makes) it will be a boon for cyclists and pedestrians. Knowing that the vehicle beside you when cycling isn't texting, and knowing that when you're crossing nobody's late trying to beat a red light would make not using a car much easier.
It's an interesting article, in that the lede was one I didn't personally expect.
The common complaint lodged against AVs is that they'll never have the common sense that people do, and this will lead to inexcusable accidents in dense urban environments: the Uber/Arizona case being the poster child for this type of incident.
The article complains however, that the inverse might happen, and that this would in fact be more problematic: in order to avoid accidents, AVs will be too safe in a game of tug of war with urban pedestrians, bringing traffic to a frequent standstill.
To overcome this challenge, towns will face a lot of pressure from privileged AV-operators to enforce jaywalking ordinances and erect barriers to pedestrian traffic, which would degrade the urban walking experience people currently enjoy in downtown environs; hence "make our streets worse". I also liked the distinction between "street" and "road".
Overall, an interesting/nuanced take on the practical impact and application of AVs from somebody who's clearly spent some time ruminating on the subject.
The obvious answer is that the vehicles stop and allow the person to cross. They don’t run that person down. They don’t kill them. The automated vehicle will be programmed to always stop when someone steps out into traffic. As a society, we would not have it any other way.
So, knowing this, who is ever going to stop and wait at another traffic signal? What person on foot, in their right mind, would wait for a gap to open so they can cross without impacting the flow of traffic? Nobody."
This is supremely unrealistic. No one on the right side of crazy is going to face the judgement of several of their peers to cross in the middle of traffic. The only exception being drunken friends doing it both to save time and as a troll to drivers.
If self-driving vehicles ever do become reality (i.e. a corporation takes legal liability for mistakes the vehicle makes) it will be a boon for cyclists and pedestrians. Knowing that the vehicle beside you when cycling isn't texting, and knowing that when you're crossing nobody's late trying to beat a red light would make not using a car much easier.