←back to thread

597 points achristmascarl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.304s | source
Show context
vinkelhake ◴[] No.44987373[source]
I live in the bay and occasionally ride Waymo in SF and I pretty much always have a good time.

I visited NYC a few weeks ago and was instantly reminded of how much the traffic fucking sucks :) While I was there I actually thought of Waymo and how they'd have to turn up the "aggression" slider up to 11 to get anything done there. I mean, could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?

replies(13): >>44987402 #>>44987434 #>>44987566 #>>44987773 #>>44987794 #>>44988469 #>>44988487 #>>44988623 #>>44989128 #>>44989185 #>>44989296 #>>44992865 #>>44993957 #
setgree ◴[] No.44987402[source]
Semi-related, but just once in my life, I want to hear a mayoral candidate say: “I endorse broken windows theory, but for drivers. You honk when there’s no emergency, block the box, roll through a stop sign — buddy that’s a ticket. Do it enough and we’ll impound your car.”

Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…

replies(11): >>44987457 #>>44987497 #>>44987533 #>>44987639 #>>44987665 #>>44987768 #>>44987936 #>>44988163 #>>44988214 #>>44988298 #>>44988999 #
chrisshroba ◴[] No.44987497[source]
This always astounds me about cities who have a reputation for people breaking certain traffic laws. In St. Louis, people run red lights for 5+ seconds after it turns red, and no one seems to care to solve it, but if they'd just station police at some worst-offender lights for a couple months to write tickets, people would catch on pretty quickly that it's not worth the risk. I have similar thoughts on people using their phones at red lights and people running stop signs.
replies(10): >>44987653 #>>44987850 #>>44988100 #>>44988152 #>>44988170 #>>44988205 #>>44988345 #>>44988790 #>>44988794 #>>44998180 #
Aurornis ◴[] No.44988205[source]
It’s amazing how effective even a slight amount of random law enforcement can be.

Several of the hiking trails I frequent allow dogs but only on leash. Over time the number of dogs running around off leash grows until it’s nearly every dog you see.

When the city starts putting someone at the trailhead at random times to write tickets for people coming down the trail with off-leash dogs suddenly most dogs are back on leash again. Then they stop enforcing it and the number of off-leash dogs starts growing.

replies(1): >>44988444 #
pradn ◴[] No.44988444[source]
Random sampling over time is substantially as effective as having someone enforce the law 100% of the time. It's something like how randomized algorithms can be faster than their purely-deterministic counterparts, or how sampling a population is quite effective at finding population statistics.
replies(1): >>44988756 #
groggo ◴[] No.44988756[source]
It feels less fair though. When everyone is driving x mph over the limit but only you get pulled over, it sucks. So I agree for efficiency of enforcement, but I'd rather see 100% enforcement (automated if possible), with more warnings and lower penalties.
replies(4): >>44988876 #>>44989115 #>>44989238 #>>44989467 #
1. ◴[] No.44989115[source]