Hacker News Reader

Comment by michael1999 | Hacker News Reader

michael1999

Then cities should adopt the yield signs that say that. I agree our system could be much smarter. So may timer-driven systems would be better if the computer knew the presence and number of cars, pedestrians, bikes, etc.

I could support this if you combined it with criminal and civil liability when you guess wrong and run someone over while blowing your stop-sign. Right now, that's a $500 ticket at best, and it happens every day.

The whole problem is that people don't look for pedestrians -- they look for another car that might hit them. So they are looking the wrong way. And then they tell the cops some sob-story about how the dead pedestrian "came out of nowhere".

View on HN

How about smart traffic signals that detect traffic and manage traffic accordingly. For example, there are traffic lights that manage the traffic between a high throughput road and a low throughput road. In this instance, it could wait to cycle when multiple -thresholds are met like amount of time plus presence of automobiles waiting. More sophisticated systems might optimize for flow/throughput without overly frustrating any driver.

The problem with that is that it gives people power to control them. We already see tons of tragedy of the commons behavior with municipalities screwing with light timing and speed limits. The less knobs to turn the better, because 99.999% of people who want to turn the knobs want to do it for selfish reasons.

How so? Can you give an example of a municipality that you feel like messed with light timing for "selfish" reasons?

People just treat "yield" signs as "look out" signs because of their severe underuse. Nobody would know to treat it like a stop sign in this case.

I live near a fairly busy (~3,000 vehicles/day) intersection that is controlled with a yield sign, which is itself a very unusual feature for this area.

This enables me to spend as much time as I wish observing how people use it.

Some people get it right. Many get it wrong -- either treating it like a stop sign (it isn't), or treating it as a Just Go sign (it isn't).

However, what's perhaps actually-interesting is that I've not noticed any wrecks there -- ever. So however it does or does not work, it seems to at least be "safe."

Except for the "you really ought to merge here" type yields where of course they must stop.

Um, no. If you hit and injure someone in a crosswalk you can be sure you will face civil liability. Hope you have enough insurance (the legally required minimums are far too low).

The problem with running stop signs and red lights is that all the real risk falls on other people. Your likely fine for making a no-look right on red over a kid in a crosswalk is maybe $500. And there isn't really a tort for killing children outside the USA.

As I said - I'd be happy to delegate more to the judgement of drivers, as long as we measure an eye for an eye, and a life for a life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com