The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books.
To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a point or rely on the drivers to obey the law vs just staying alive and in one piece.
> autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.
Hmm. Now this is interesting. We are almost there -- red light cameras, speed camers, automated toll booths, cars are always recording and logging their speed, acceleration and hundres of other parameters, onstar system. Now we just need an incentive such as an insurance discount to have cars be remotely disabled and pulled over of they speed too much where it becomes unsafe, or if they run red light.
At first you'd think nobody would buy it, but maybe if car insurance goes from $500 a quarter to $150 there would be some takers. Then before you know it, it would become illegal to drive cars that don't have that feature.
I would be very happy if all taxis and other commercial vehicles (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would have their speed tracked and automatic citations issued for going more than 15 mph above the speed limit. As it is the taxis and Uber cars speed along my 25mph limit residential street at 50mph+ all night long.
Well, personally I would prefer they drive 25 mph, as that’s the most reasonable speed on a residential street. But if they go 35 it’s at least not too insane. 55–60 on the other hand is pedestrian murder waiting to happen.
You know, in my country (Brazil), airbags were optional until last year, and this only after a lot of political fighting because of strong lobbying from the automakers. In a country with so many automobile related deaths (44,000 in 2010, more than gun related deaths, and there are a lot of gun deaths here) it's ridiculous that the bills were so hard to pass. Also, if you refuse a breathalyzer test, it can't be used agains you (the refusal), unlike what happens in many countries. So I'm all for regulation and logging, and penalties to speeding drivers. Sorry to the libertarians (I'm one on some issues) but, less regulation my ass.
That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.
You don't have to raise the rates of someone who doesn't use the tracking; you simply lower the rates of someone who does - that's how the current tracking systems work, several insurance companies already have them.
I'm guessing here (no numbers to back it up), but likely the reason you don't see more of this is safe drivers would sign up for it, and in insurance the safe/low risk drivers are the ones already subsidizing the crazies and making it work. I took part in something similar for my insurance company (Progressive) and received a whopping 6% discount for safe driving.
My bet is until automated driving reaches a point where it can become cheaper than the insurance premium otherwise. At that point lies the critical mass where so many will buy it to save money that the price plummets towards zero/fully integrated basic requirement.
The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books.
To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a point or rely on the drivers to obey the law vs just staying alive and in one piece.
> autonomous police cars who bringing reliable traffic enforcement to all road users.
Hmm. Now this is interesting. We are almost there -- red light cameras, speed camers, automated toll booths, cars are always recording and logging their speed, acceleration and hundres of other parameters, onstar system. Now we just need an incentive such as an insurance discount to have cars be remotely disabled and pulled over of they speed too much where it becomes unsafe, or if they run red light.
At first you'd think nobody would buy it, but maybe if car insurance goes from $500 a quarter to $150 there would be some takers. Then before you know it, it would become illegal to drive cars that don't have that feature.