Comment by QuantumSeed a day ago
I was in a Waymo in SF last weekend riding from the Richmond district to SOMA, and the car actually surprised me by accelerating through two yellow lights. It was exactly what I would have done. So it seems the cars are able to dial up the assertiveness when appropriate.
A human can know the yellows on a few routes. A Waymo can pull over, observe a given intersection for an hour, and tell every other Waymo that exists precisely how long that light lasts.
It's not just collecting the information; it's the ability to spread it.
When red-light cameras are installed at an intersection, the number of rear-end accidents typically increases as drivers unexpectedly slow down instead of speeding up at yellow lights.
The cost of these accidents is borne by just about everyone, except the authority profitably operating the red lights. (To be fair, some statistics also show a decrease in right-angle collisions, which is kinda the point of the red-light rules to begin with.)
> it’s an unsolvable problem because there is an asymmetric risk of stopping vs accelerating
This just sounds like everyone is speeding and/or distracted.
>speeding up at yellow lights
I remember reading somewhere accelerating at orange light is actually a ticket-able offense?
My memory may be outdated or only local to my jurisdiction but my understanding is that yellow means “do not enter the intersection” where “intersection” begins before the box, usually with some alternate street indicator, like broken white lines turning to solid, at a braking distance that accounts for posted speed limit and yellow light duration.
It doesn't seem impossible technically to up the assertiveness. The issue is the tradeoffs: you up the assertiveness, and increase the number of accidents by X%. Inevitably, that will contribute to some fatal crash. Does the decision maker want to be the one trying to justify to the jury knowingly causing an expected one more fatal incident in order to improve average fleet time to destination by 25%?