Brake checking by human drivers is being applied to self-driving cars too.
getty
We’ve all been brake-checked at one time or another.
Brake checking refers to the notion that a car ahead of you will pump on its brakes to try and send you a signal. Presumably, the signal primarily being conveyed is that you ought to slow down. In addition, the same signaling usually is trying to warn you to back off and keep a greater distance between your car and the car that is doing the brake checking.
Of course, one might argue that the brake checker is merely making sure that their brakes are functioning. Perhaps they are simply ensuring that when the time comes to be able to invoke the brakes, they are sufficiently capable of working. Sure, that kind of brake checking does happen, though the actual type of brake checking that most of us witness are not due to a driver that is innocently seeking to test their brakes as a precautionary measure.
Another somewhat innocuous form of brake checking entails the act of purposely slowing a car while on a steep downward sloping road. Many people do a series of short braking pumps while on an especially precarious downhill descent. This is in fact a usually recommended practice. Namely, rather than continuously riding on your brakes, it is typically advisable to intermittently utilize the brakes and bring about a staccato slowing action. The hope is that the brakes won’t somehow otherwise burn out from overuse amid nonstop frictional forces being applied.
Setting aside those lesser alarming forms of brake checking, let’s focus on the kind of brake checking that encompasses an intentional act of telling other cars that this driver is letting you know what’s up.
Here’s what oftentimes happens.
A driver looks in their rearview mirror and sees a car coming up quickly from behind. The driver doesn’t like the driving antics of this upcoming miscreant. It could be that the car coming up fast is speeding and thereby flagrantly disobeying the law. Or perhaps the quickly approaching driver is weaving dangerously throughout traffic, an aspect that the brake checking driver finds distasteful and ought to be put to a stop.
All told, the brake checker decides that if there are no other means to get the other car to cease and desist its wrongful driving ways, the prudent and rightful course of action involves using the ubiquitous brake checking maneuver. Generally, this driving tactic consists of making sure to be directly in front of the offending car, and then tapping the brakes, doing so repeatedly. The brake lights will illuminate and are supposed to somewhat flash on and off, but not in too fast a repetition. The pace of the brake checking has to be just right, a kind of Goldilocks timing, not too fast and not too slow.
Not every brake checking aficionado does the action with the same aplomb. Some are feverish and pump those brakes as though they are pounding on a drumkit with all the energy they can muster. Others do the brake pumping at lengthy intervals, which then makes it difficult to discern whether the person is purposely pumping their brakes or maybe just lazily and by happenstance doing so.
That brings up an important aside. Some people just love their brakes. They use them all the time. By this, I mean that when there is not even any notable cause to apply the brakes, these drivers will do so anyway. For them, perhaps there is a sense of safety and warmth that comes from coddling the brakes and using them incessantly during a driving journey.
Such drivers might also do brake checking, though it can be hard to discern whether they are simply the brake riding types or they are suddenly shifting into a mode of being a bona fide brake-checking proponent.
You can usually readily figure out whether someone is purposely acting as a brake checking advocate by other additive telltale signs. For example, the brake checking driver might change lanes to position their car directly ahead of the oncoming car that is presumably being disrespectful or acting as a scofflaw.
Speaking of changing lanes, the upcoming car that spies a brake checking actor ahead of them is likely to change lanes, figuring it is easiest to simply go around the apparent self-selected traffic enforcer. So, in a cat and mouse gambit, the fast-moving driver will change lanes, and then if the brake checker also changes lanes, a series of the lane going ping pong will take place.
This is when things get extremely dicey.
It is already risky enough to be using the brake checking maneuver, let alone doing so by switching lanes repeatedly too. The chances of a collision are going to get heightened by this type of scary game. Keep in mind that the collision won’t solely involve the two cars there are immersed in this vehicular battle, since the odds are that other cars nearby will inevitably get carried into the risky action taking place.
The person doing the brake checking is apt to believe that they are doing the right thing. Yes, they would admit, their brake checking driving efforts are adding risk, but this is worthwhile when you consider that they are going to presumably put to a stop the crazed driving of the other driver. In essence, one wrong can make a right, as it were. By aiming to get the wild driver to slow down and be more careful, the end result is that all nearby and ensuing traffic will be safer overall.
Some would say that this is both egotistical, meaning that the brake checking driver is over endowing their own driving acumen, and idealistic thinking too. The reason that there is idealism involved is that the other driver is apt to not react in the manner that the brake checking driver assumes they will.
A driver that comes upon a brake checking advocate is likely to resent being brake checked. That resentment is usually going to translate into a hardened belief that the brake checker is wrong, and either to be avoided or ought to be shown a lesson. This turns the already upcoming driver into having a now second passion. They want to proceed unfettered and simultaneously they want to showcase to the brake checking driver that the primitive and impotent effort to prevent traversal is not going to succeed.
In short, the whole matter can devolve into road rage.
Throughout this discussion, the implication has been that the brake checking driver was technically in the right per se, but that is unlikely to be the case. Suppose that the upcoming driver is not speeding and otherwise is perfectly law-abiding. There are certainly instances of a brake checking driver that decided to use the brake checking gambit even though there was no demonstrable cause to do so. You might say this is a type of misguided brake checking.
The other crucial facet to realize is that brake checking is normally considered unwise and altogether illegal in most states. For example, in California, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has a vehicle code numbered 22109 that is commonly referred to as the brake checking rule. Even if there isn’t a specific rule or statute that makes brake checking a driving offense, there is usually a catchall rule that says you cannot impede traffic or driver in a manner that could be construed as improper.
A key point by most authorities is that intentionally doing brake checking is a bad thing to do (i.e., brake checking of the nature that is designed to try and instruct or obstruct other drivers). Though the driver doing the brake checking might believe in their own minds that they are helping the world at large, the chances are that instead, they are making a potentially bad situation into a worse one.
Despite that kind of admonishment, you can bet that those that believe in the brake checking method are going to continue to deploy the handy instrument. They would likely argue that it is a real-world practice and they are willing to take a chance on getting a ticket because they fervently believe that the brake checking on the-whole balances the world and makes for safer traffic conditions.
An example of this way of thinking entails circumstances wherein the upcoming driver does opt to slow down and does start to maintain a proper distance to other cars. Maybe that driver was in a muddled haze and the brake checking got their attention. The driver might have felt sheepish and embarrassed that they were mindlessly driving in a somewhat reckless manner. By being startled into a proper state of driving awareness, they are mentally restored into driving more safely.
All it takes is for a few of those instances to then reinforce to the brake checking driver that they are ostensibly correct in their brake checking ritual. You win some, you lose some, would seemingly be the mantra. There are going to be occasions when the brake checking accomplishes its goal, and then other situations wherein the brake checking flops.
To reemphasize, that kind of logic is not sound according to most authorities and is replete with problematic concerns.
Shifting gears, the future of cars entails the advent of self-driving cars.
True self-driving cars are vehicles that are driven entirely by an AI-based driving system (see my coverage at this link here). There isn’t a human driver involved. We will gradually and inexorably have self-driving cars on our highways and byways, and we’ll see them and be riding in them daily.
Here’s an intriguing question: Will the emergence of AI-based true self-driving cars cast away the infamous act of brake checking?
Let’s unpack the matter and see.
Understanding The Levels Of Self-Driving Cars
As a clarification, true self-driving cars are ones that the AI drives the car entirely on its own and there isn’t any human assistance during the driving task.
These driverless vehicles are considered Level 4 and Level 5 (see my explanation at this link here), while a car that requires a human driver to co-share the driving effort is usually considered at Level 2 or Level 3. The cars that co-share the driving task are described as being semi-autonomous, and typically contain a variety of automated add-on’s that are referred to as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems).
There is not yet a true self-driving car at Level 5, which we don’t yet even know if this will be possible to achieve, and nor how long it will take to get there.
Meanwhile, the Level 4 efforts are gradually trying to get some traction by undergoing very narrow and selective public roadway trials, though there is controversy over whether this testing should be allowed per se (we are all life-or-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking place on our highways and byways, some contend, see my coverage at this link here).
Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of those types of cars won’t be markedly different than driving conventional vehicles, so there’s not much new per se to cover about them on this topic (though, as you’ll see in a moment, the points next made are generally applicable).
For semi-autonomous cars, it is important that the public needs to be forewarned about a disturbing aspect that’s been arising lately, namely that despite those human drivers that keep posting videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a Level 2 or Level 3 car, we all need to avoid being misled into believing that the driver can take away their attention from the driving task while driving a semi-autonomous car.
You are the responsible party for the driving actions of the vehicle, regardless of how much automation might be tossed into a Level 2 or Level 3.
Self-Driving Cars And Brake Checking
For Level 4 and Level 5 true self-driving vehicles, there won’t be a human driver involved in the driving task.
All occupants will be passengers.
The AI is doing the driving.
One aspect to immediately discuss entails the fact that the AI involved in today’s AI driving systems is not sentient. In other words, the AI is altogether a collective of computer-based programming and algorithms, and most assuredly not able to reason in the same manner that humans can (see my explanation at this link here).
Why this added emphasis about the AI not being sentient?
Because I want to underscore that when discussing the role of the AI driving system, I am not ascribing human qualities to the AI. Please be aware that there is an ongoing and dangerous tendency these days to anthropomorphize AI. In essence, people are assigning human-like sentience to today’s AI, despite the undeniable and inarguable fact that no such AI exists as yet.
With that clarification, you can envision that the AI driving system doesn’t natively somehow “know” about brake checking. This is an aspect that needs to be programmed as part of the hardware and software of the self-driving car.
Let’s dive into the myriad of aspects that come to play on this topic.
First, we will set aside for the remainder of this discussion the legitimate uses of a brake checking maneuver such as invoked when going down a steep hill. Assume that self-driving cars will potentially be explicitly programmed with such a capability and are aiming to be used when the driving situation is aboveboard for the use of brake checking.
Thus, we will only consider the “illegitimate” uses of brake checking, which I encompass in quotes because there are some that would still argue that the use of brake checking to signify to other drivers that they are too slow down or maintain a proper distance is (in their view) entirely legitimate (I trust that I’ve already clarified that aspect earlier).
We might reasonably assume that AI-based true self-driving cars will not employ the illegitimate uses of brake checking.
Note though that this is predicated on being programmed to only use the brake checking technique in presumed legitimate circumstances. In other words, if self-driving cars do have a programmed capacity to do brake checking, in theory, this could be applied at any time in any situation. This means that the programming would also have to include the bounds upon which brake checking was to be used and that the AI driving system abided accordingly to these restricted bounds.
The point is that if the AI driving system is weakly programmed and does not encompass any particular bounds, this would imply that the AI driving system could use the brake checking technique whenever mathematically it was computed as something seemingly viable to employ.
We must also include the oddball chances of the AI driving system containing an error in logic or having some other malfunction or hack that led to the use of the brake checking, despite any other prior programmed boundaries or restrictions.
I think it is sufficient to suggest for now that the AI will be programmed with appropriate bounds and that the AI driving systems will usually and normally avoid using brake checking other than when a needed legitimate occasion arises.
Okay, so you don’t have to worry as a human driver that a self-driving car is going to brake check you.
That seems reassuring.
There is though an unfortunate twist.
When human drivers encounter other human drivers, there is an assumed notion that brake checking could be used (encompassing the considered illegitimate instances). If human drivers realize that self-driving cars won’t customarily use brake checking that human drivers do, will this be a kind of green light that self-driving cars are sheep and ought to be treated as such?
I’ve previously covered extensively this same general aspect in my column (see the link here). Most self-driving cars are being programmed to act as timid drivers. One concern that some have raised is that human drivers will rely upon that timidity and therefore drive in even worse and more brazen ways when they are nearby self-driving cars. Indeed, human drivers are already bullying self-driving cars (this is occurring in many ways, see my columns for numerous examples).
We don’t need to worry that somehow the AI will get its feelings hurt (again, let’s not anthropomorphize AI). The real problem is that human drivers already are apt to drive poorly, and when they begin to believe that self-driving cars can be bamboozled, it will be both fun (for some) and advantageous to leverage that aspect. This will likely lead to more car crashes as those human drivers become increasingly reckless at driving.
There is certainly a bit of irony that the advent of self-driving cars is anticipated to make driving safer, but at the same time, we need to include the role of human drivers that will still be driving conventional cars and might opt to drive worse than they do now.
There are about 250 million conventional cars in the United States alone, and they won’t be transformed overnight into self-driving cars. The real world is going to be a mixture of conventional human-driven cars and those newly emerging self-driving cars, likely for many decades. We might always have human-driven cars if you take the absolute word of those that earnestly state they will never give up their driving until the day that you pry their cold dead hands from the steering wheel.
We’ve now covered that self-driving cars will presumably not do brake checking for any illegitimate reasons.
This regrettably bodes for some qualms in that human drivers will figure out that AI driving systems aren’t going to brake check them and thus they can drive without any such blockage or concern. A potential saving grace could be that since self-driving cars are equipped with a suite of sensors, including video cameras, there is a possibility that the AI driving systems might detect foul driving by humans, and the sensory data sent to the police to then go after those so detected drivers (I’m sure my mentioning this possibility sent shivers up your spine since it has tremendous Big Brother-related implications).
What about human drivers that opt to brake check self-driving cars?
Sure, humans are going to do so.
In fact, I witnessed such an act the other day.
A self-driving car was next to me in traffic. The car ahead of the self-driving car was human-driven. I watched in rapt attention as the human-driven car proceeded to brake check the self-driving car.
Here’s why it was seemingly odd.
The self-driving car and its AI driving system had appeared to have been programmed to keep a proper distance from other cars ahead while in traffic. Furthermore, the self-driving car was strictly obeying the speed limit. Unlike a human driver that might be violating one or both of those precepts, the self-driving car was being as lawful as one could envision.
Why was the human driver opting to brake check the self-driving car?
We weren’t on a downhill slope. The self-driving car was keeping a good distance and driving cautiously. The human driver had started doing the brake checking at the same time that the self-driving car traversed into being behind the human-driven car, so it did not seem to be coincidental and instead appeared to be a purposeful act of brake checking.
Maybe the human driver was toying with the self-driving car. This could be done as a joke or out of curiosity (either way, don’t do this!). Some human drivers try to justify playing tricks on self-driving cars by claiming they are helping to train the AI driving systems for coping with human-driven vehicles (no thanks, there are enough bad drivers for that already).
Another possibility is that the human driver was unsure of what a self-driving car might do.
To be on a defensive posture, the unsettled human driver might have opted to do brake checking in hopes of keeping the self-driving car at bay. That being said, the human driver could have switched lanes, or turned to take another street, if they were especially queasy about the self-driving car.
The thing is, human drivers are human drivers.
We cannot necessarily discern what is going on in their noggins. In this case, the self-driving car maintained its distance. I am doubtful that the AI driving system had been programmed to detect brake checking per se, and likely was simply responding to the instances of the brakes being used, without noting an overall pattern.
Some believe strongly that AI driving systems ought to be able to analyze a driving setting and ascertain when brake checking is taking place. Of course, it is one thing to detect the physical act of brake checking, and an altogether different matter of trying to discern why someone is using brake checking. That’s why AI driving systems need to include a “theory of mind” about how human drivers think, since human drivers are both fellow drivers on our public roadways and also, regrettably, adversaries in some ways too.
Digging into the human mind though is not necessarily the most pleasant of tasks. If AI is incrementally advanced and can someday aid in discerning the human mind, that’s the kind of thing we might want to encourage, or if that seems untoward, possibly deploy some of that revered brake checking instead, stopping from not going too deeply into the inner sanctum of what makes humans tick.
