←back to thread

597 points achristmascarl | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
afcool83 ◴[] No.44988724[source]
I live in one of the areas they are actively testing/training in. Their cars consistently behave better and more safely than most human drivers that I’m forced to share the road with.

As semi-autonomous and autonomous cars become the norm, I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.

replies(17): >>44988828 #>>44988868 #>>44989177 #>>44989308 #>>44989330 #>>44989469 #>>44991099 #>>44991289 #>>44991364 #>>44991734 #>>44992111 #>>44992248 #>>44992992 #>>44993041 #>>44993645 #>>44997874 #>>45040367 #
throwaway0123_5 ◴[] No.44989469[source]
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.

I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging.

The absolute most dangerous drivers I see on the road aren't bad drivers in the sense that they're unskilled at controlling their car. I can't weave between cars at 120 mph or cross three lanes of traffic to make an exit I didn't see until the last second without killing myself, but I routinely see people do that. Sure they don't care about driving safely and/or following the law, but they're probably sane enough to pull it together for a brief driving test.

The other big category of dangerous drivers is drunk/distracted (texting) drivers. Again, most of the people engaging in these behaviors are probably smart enough not to do them during a driving test.

replies(3): >>44991464 #>>44991670 #>>44992532 #
Retric ◴[] No.44992532[source]
Currently people will just ignore a revoked license the same way they ignore other traffic laws.

So I think ~level 5 self driving cars becoming common + a modification to prevent people using their cars just like we install breathalyzers for habitual DUI drivers is needed before revoking people’s licenses is really a meaningful punishment.

replies(1): >>44993273 #
throwaway0123_5 ◴[] No.44993273[source]
Doubtless some would ignore it, but you can go to jail for driving on a suspended license. I suspect there are a lot more people willing to risk a traffic ticket and a few $100 in fines for speeding, bad lane changes, etc. than there are people willing to risk jail for driving on a suspended license.
replies(2): >>44995030 #>>44996409 #
1. Retric ◴[] No.44996409[source]
Obviously it’s not 100% meaningless, but the kind of people losing their licenses here correlate with the kinds of people who will take these risks.

Thus for many it’s a symbolic gesture until the next time something happens which is little different than simply doing nothing until the next incident like say 3 strike laws.

replies(1): >>44999291 #
2. throwaway0123_5 ◴[] No.44999291[source]
I think that is probably true now (in the US), but the hypothetical is that it is made easier to lose your license.

DC recently banned "right on red" but it is routinely ignored and the penalty is apparently a $100 fine. If the penalty was loss of license (maybe not on first offense) I think there's a lot of people ignoring the current rule that would not be willing to ignore the possibility of losing their license.

replies(1): >>44999494 #
3. spauldo ◴[] No.44999494[source]
Any US jurisdiction that bans right on red is going to see a lot of violations - mostly from people who are unaware of the law or people who know the law but accidentally do it out of habit. If DC wanted to stop people from turning right on red, signs would be the only effective solution.

At least with Arizona, it's the whole state so most drivers won't have the habit.

Of course, if DC just wants to take in a lot of easy $100 tickets, this is exactly the way to do it.

replies(1): >>45004464 #
4. bruckie ◴[] No.45004464{3}[source]
Right turn on red being prohibited in Arizona is an internet myth, according to https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/misinformation-online-..., which links to the statute at https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00645.htm (paragraph A.3(b)).
replies(1): >>45010821 #
5. spauldo ◴[] No.45010821{4}[source]
It might be a myth, but it's certainly not an Internet myth. I first read about it in a Rand MacNally atlas in the 80s.