this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
1723 points (99.1% liked)

Not The Onion

15081 readers
3166 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mark Rober just set up one of the most interesting self-driving tests of 2025, and he did it by imitating Looney Tunes. The former NASA engineer and current YouTube mad scientist recreated the classic gag where Wile E. Coyote paints a tunnel onto a wall to fool the Road Runner.

Only this time, the test subject wasn’t a cartoon bird… it was a self-driving Tesla Model Y.

The result? A full-speed, 40 MPH impact straight into the wall. Watch the video and tell us what you think!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 108 points 2 days ago (5 children)

"But humans can do it with their eyes!" - says the man not selling a human brain to go with the optical sensors

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

“But humans can do it with their eyes!”

That's the best part, they kinda can't.
There are videos from before they pulled the sensors of some pretty cool stuff where teslas slammed the breaks before anything visibly happened, based on lidar sensors sensing trouble a couple cars up the road, completely blocked to vision.

super cool safety tech, and then they pulled it....

one example here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcC2ZMePKI

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Pretty sure that wasn’t even lidar. It was radar which is even cheaper and pretty much every other new car has if they don’t have lidar.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

On the internet, nobody knows you’re just a brain in a ~~jar~~ car.

[–] jaybone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Check out moneybags over here who can afford a jar car.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Please don't vandalize their JarCar it has my mom's brain tissue in it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"But humans can do it with their eyes!"

The thing is, RADAR can see things humans can't. There was a whole article a while back about a Model X that avoided an otherwise unavoidable accident by bouncing radar under the car in front of it and seeing that car slam on the brakes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I will point out that if you (or your camera-only driver assist) can't stop without hitting the car in front of you when they slam on the breaks, then you're driving too close to them... You really shouldn't ever put yourself in a position where the person in front of you could cause you to unavoidably hit them.

That said... Yeah, radar/lidar are far better than camera alone and there's no good reason not to include them in the sensor suite unless you value profits over lives.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And I will point out that if the car in front of you isn't paying attention and rams a stopped car in the middle of the road, you are fucked no matter what.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not if you have the following distance to stop, but point taken: a crash decelerates you faster than breaks can and typical following distances are assuming breaking distance, not hard sudden halts.

So increase your following distance. It also has the benefit that it makes it easier to see what's ahead of the car in front of you.

There's pretty much no accident that's unavoidable (barring someone else plowing into you) if you drive defensively enough (assuming good traction and good breaks, but obviously you should increase your following or decrease your speed to compensate for that as well)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not if you have the following distance to stop

Maintaining a stopping distance like that is nigh impossible in a dense urban area. You'd be constantly cut off and causing tons of traffic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Really? I do it pretty frequently without issue...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Okay, random Internet person I've never met, you clearly know my driving habits and how things go when I'm commuting better than me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I know math, so let's do some of that:

The braking distance of a typical sedan at 70mph is 210 feet. Add another 70 feet for a reaction time and you're talking about an entire football field of following distance. And that's assuming you drive a sedan.

There's simply no way you can maintain that in a dense urban environment. Other drivers will cut in front of you like a waterfall. It's nothing to do with what kind of person you are.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Okay, let's do the math

(I just want to say here that 1: it's entirely possible I'll make an error here, I'm far from perfect and I'll own that, and 2: I recognize my last remark was snide and I was kinda pissed, and there's no real reason to be, so I'm sorry for my tone, and I'm making the conscious decision here to not respond heated but just discussing about facts as I can see them)

I'll go with 60 mph for this since that's what I find commonly tested (people seem to like 0-60, so 60-0 I guess makes sense to them)

Since the general rule is to maintain 2 or 3 seconds of following distance (depending on who you ask), let's see how far that is.

60 miles per hour, 60 minutes per hour, and 60 seconds per minute, so 60 / 60 / 60 = 0.0166 (continuous) miles per second. Multiply that by 5280 to get the number of feet per second: 88.

So, for 2 seconds, you'll have 176 feet between you and the car in front of you. At three seconds, that's 264 feet.

Quickly switching to 70 and those numbers become 102.66 (cont) per second, 205.33 (cont) for 2 seconds, and 308 for 3 seconds.

Just for comparison, I looked up the tested stopping distance for my car and 60-0 is about 120 feet (actually a little less than that). Which is good, but even your average (which I'm not finding a source that verifies that, but we'll assume it's correct) would put the stop at 280 feet for 70 mph, which is under the 3 second distance at that speed.

If you can see any flaws in my logic or math, I'd love to hear it. But I will add that I typically maintain between 2 and 3 seconds, and I'm rarely cut off. If anything, it makes me less likely to be cut off since there's room for someone to get in allowing traffic to move between lanes more easily, and I just adjust my distance in response.

I don't know what drivers are like there, but we have some pretty aggressive drivers here, and other than the occasional asshole tailgating me (which I slow down for to give them more chance to respond if I need to stop suddenly... They don't like that, but tough, I'm not risking my neck for their impatience), I don't really have any problems with it.

If you can't stop by the end of your current vision, you're going to fast around a corner... By the same token, if you can't stop by the tail end of the vehicle in front of you, you're driving too close to them. For the most part, we don't really follow that, but at the very least, if we're not in a middle lane and there's a shoulder, we should at least be able to dodge them if needed.

My point is, just about any accident involving your car hitting another going forward, barring something like mechanical failure or the person behind you hitting you into them, is likely avoidable through more defensive driving and greater (but still reasonable) following distances.

As a side note, I spent several months refusing to drive over 55 mph (in the far right lane at all times, except for the like 2 times I actually had to pass someone) and did not have any issues from it. In fact, it had very little impact on my time to destination, and made the commute smoother since I wasn't having to vary my speed to keep pace with traffic. It also made the drive less stressful and used way less gas. This is in spite of the "common wisdom" I seemed to get from people saying that driving that slowly was far more dangerous.

[–] limonfiesta 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Are you seriously driving at speeds of 70 mph in dense urban environments....?

Because, speaking as someone who has lived in many dense urban environments, that's insane.

The only time you should reach those speeds is on the freeway, in which case, there's no reason not to maintain safe distances, when at those speeds.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 14 points 2 days ago

dude is living proof brains are optional

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The thing is, yes humans can do it with their eyes. But even with the giant amount of progressing power from the brain they are still not great at it.

So of the ultimate goal is to the minimum/cheapest to be almost as good as human then yes, optical sensors only are enough.

Of the goal is to prevent deaths and significantly reduce the number of accidents compared to then lidar is the best option.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Very interesting!

What’s the payoff period, I wonder, assuming everyone could afford optical only before everyone could afford better tech.