I was a bad driver. It would frequently beep at me to let me know that I had braked too hard. I was mystified. "What should I have done differently," I'd think, as I raged at the objective machine that judged me so.

The next time my brother came to visit, he called mom. "Oh, and presidentender is a good driver now." I didn't put the pieces together right away, but it turned out that the dongle had actually trained me, like a dog's shock collar.

The reason for my too-frequent hard-braking events wasn't speed, although that would be a contributing factor. It was a lack of appropriate following distance. Because I'd follow the drivers in front of me too closely I'd have to brake hard if they did... Or if they drive normally and happened to have a turn coming up.

Over the period I had the insurance spy box in my truck I learned without thinking about it to increase my following distance, which meant that riding with me as a passenger was more comfortable and it beeped less often. Of course since I'd been so naughty early during the evaluation they didn't decrease my rates, but I think the training probably did make me statistically less likely to crash.

Incredibly frustrating, and I've driven all over North America - there's practically no major city where this doesn't happen. If you're not maintaining a safe following distance on city/residential streets, that's a different matter.

But even if 2 dozen people go around you and creep into that following space, you've been cost like 45 seconds at worst. Better not to play the game.

Not a significant cost. But they sure as shit aren't getting what they think they're getting. Meaningfully farther ahead.

I now see it all as a risk assessment rather than as ritualistic combat.

The article stuff definitely doesn't.

Driving with bad drivers should incentivize you to follow less closely and require less hard braking, not more.

There's a motte where some poor fellow is always maintaining the car-length-for-every-10-mph rule and yet keeps being passed inside that distance by innumerable bad drivers the fellow is surrounded by.

I pity that fellow.

He has an excuse.

He also isn't observably real in any of my 21 years of driving in Buffalo, Boston, and Los Angeles.

I feel harsh for saying this, I am only saying it because A) this subthread is specifically about there isn't an excuse B) this stuff involves our lives. Thus, this is an appropriate venue because the people in the venue know what to expect, and poking at someone's thoughts on it may help them immeasurably.

It's almost as if the purpose of the system is what it does.

It does require patience to do this, because all aggressive drivers will use the space you provide. But ultimately the travel time difference in flowing traffic is negligible.

And from personal experience in some places, keeping such a buffer, in some traffic conditions would just literally be impossible. There are sometimes enough aggressive drivers such that they can just consume it faster than one would be able to create it. It is simply not always the case that you have sole power to create and keep the recommended buffer size (although very often it is and you can).

I keep a decent buffer whenever I am able, but at some point, you have to bow to road conditions.

The only people who cut too close to me are driving recklessly.

That being said: If you're in the mode where people are constantly changing lanes in front of you, think a bit about how you're driving: On the freeway you're supposed to stay to the right except to pass, and you're expected to keep up with the flow of traffic. Are you going slow in the left lane? Are you driving too slow? Are you camping in the right lane by a busy interchange?

This is very state dependent, if we are talking about legality.

In WA state, for example, there is no "flow of traffic" law or similar. The limit is the limit, and any excess of the speed limit is illegal regardless of what all other drivers are doing. So even if the right/slow lane is going 100MPH through the 70MPH zone, you are legally expected to still go 70.

Thankfully we do have laws against left lane camping, but I rarely see it enforced.

1. In any amount of traffic above “a few cars” people will cut in front of me, sometimes two, negating the safe following distance. Regardless of speed.

2. If I have a safe following distance while waiting for someone to get over. (I e they’re going 60, I want to go 70), if I have my distance set at a safe following distance, people are much more likely to weave / pass on the right. (My theory would be that the distance I’m behind the person in front of them signals that I’m not going to accelerate / pass when the person gets over ).

Disclaimer: I don’t usually have to drive in any significant traffic, and when I do (Philly, New York City), I’m probably less likely to use the automatic features because the appropriate follow distance seems to increase the rage of drivers around me.

At any rate, even if people are continuously going around you like water going around a rock in a stream, you only have to drive 2 mph slower than traffic to constantly rebuild your following distance from the infinite stream of cutoffs. But my experience is the majority of following distance is eaten up by people randomly slowing down, not cutting in.

The issue is not that I can’t rebuild the following distance, the point I’m trying to make is that even if I constantly rebuild the following distance it sets off a cascading effect.

I’m following at set speed, car cuts in front, hits brakes, I now slow down, car behind me slows down, I rebuild following distance and car perhaps 7-8-9 cars behind me repeats because at some point the cascade magnifies to a larger slowdown behind.

Can I mitigate this by manually letting my distance be closer for a time, and slowly easing to larger ? Yes.

But if I allow the car to do it automatically, it will increase the follow distance at a rate that causes a cascade in tight traffic.

Though - I do think with these discussions on HN- it does depend on where you’re driving.

My experiences are centered on East Coast, thinking of route 80, 81, 83, etc. or Philly / New York City.

The driving experience is radically different in California, Florida , or the mid west.

I would say when driving in California people seem to navigate traffic better. (SF, LA) then on drivers on 80/81/83. (Or perhaps it’s due to better designed roads ).

However - I will say most of the roads I’m on are 2 lanes of traffic. I will have to experiment and see if this doesn’t occur when there are 3 or 4 lanes.

One part of your post was about people passing on the right. People won't do that if you're in the rightmost lane.

What I will say is some of this may be the difference between manual driving - and automatic.

If I’m manually driving - where my follow distance fluctuates more due to speed / traffic - almost no one cuts in.

If I am driving where I’m using the vehicle to maintain a perfect set distance, people cut in.

Again, anecdotal

I recently pulled my travel trailer from OK to Charleston, SC and back. I never drive over 65 MPH for safety and MPG reasons. I always stay in the right hand, slow lane except if I have to take a left lane exit. Since I was always driving slower then everyone else, not once did I have to hard brake. Tailgating is a choice and a dangerous one.

I was never honked at, even by the crazy semi truck drivers.

So much of road etiquette boils down to leaving adequate space so others can maneuver around you. Trying to optimize your travel by destroying any gaps as soon as they appear actually has the opposite effect.

Because you were towing a camper and "slow and in the right lane" fits people's mental model of how recreational/nonprofessional heavy traffic or otherwise "handicapped" vehicles ought to behave.

When you have problems is when you behave to a standard beneath what other people expect from whatever kind of traffic you are.

Having driven all over NA, and Europe, I find it more prevalent in NA. Less distance, more people in large pickups throwing their weight around to make someone move out of the way.

And a design of giant freeway interchanges that require shifting lanes.

E.g. on the 405 in CA. 7 lines going South from the Valley towards Santa Monica.

That's 7 lanes you need to cross if you're in the HOV lane.

More like a few seconds.

Every car that merges in front of you only costs you their following distance. If the average following distance is 1 second, then you are simply 1 second slower than you'd have otherwise been. So unless this is happening continuously every 30 seconds on your 30 minute commute, you will lose less than a minute.

The "but if I kept reasonable following distance, people will keep merging in front of me and I'll lose time" excuse is pretty thin given this analysis.

And an insurance claim can easily eat 40 hours of time between the insurance companies, other lawyers, buying a new car, medical appointments and recovery. That's 19,200 minutes you won't get back, or about 52 years of driving 1 minute slower each day.

Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.

I can easily shave 10% off my commute by lane changing to avoid the lanes where turn lane traffic tends to back up into the travel lanes, ramp traffic and "problem people". I test the null hypothesis several times a month by carrying bulky topheavy cargo that precludes a bunch of lane changing without more effort than I want to put in.

A slight increase in average speed really only makes a significant difference over long drives. (5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive can cut off 50 minutes).

Otherwise we are talking about small differences in efficiency.

(I would be very open to another opinion here.).

My opinions are formed by nearly ~2 million miles driven at this point, two different driving courses, and the motorcycle safety course.

One thing I truly think that’s overlooked is how reduced road noise in the vehicle cabin can both reduce driver fatigue, but also frustration in traffic.

Yes! I feel like I can't shout this loud enough. In addition to maintaining a safe driving distance, just leave a little earlier. The stuff I've seen people do in order to save 20 seconds boggles the mind.

Unfortunately, I think commuters fall into a gamification mindset. They're trying to set a new lap record each day, and you can see the results just by driving (or walking) during rush hour...

You can't really say that without knowing the starting speed, or alternatively the distance. All you can say is that a 5 mph increase over a 10 hour drive with get you 50 miles farther.

If you do a comparison of a 600 mile trip at 60 vs 55 you’re pretty close.

But yes, to be pedantic and more exact, you are spot on that it will get you 50 miles closer.

But in real world examples,

If you’re traveling 700 miles.

65 vs 70, 70 will reduce your time by 43 minutes.

So in certain scenarios, 5 mph difference must be able to save you 50 minutes ! ;)

(I do understand your point, and you’re correct. I’m just poking fun at it- my point with the mph difference is because 50 miles doesn’t have the same translation for most people at 50 minutes, but is a more accurate data approach. )

Also "Keep Two Chevrons Apart" is going to be the name of my specialist Citroën breaker's yard.

On the occasion when I am towing our travel trailer, it is really incredible how unsafe that makes other drivers act around me. They will jam themselves in front of me at all costs, with no consideration for physics.

I know you were probably writing tongue in cheek, but that is one of those "solutions" that doesn't stop bad actors and makes good actors more miserable than usual.

Somebody on the radio said that "just set the adaptive cruise control to max distance and your windshield will last way longer". It does feel overprotective at times, especially in slow and dense traffic, but I think there's a nice point in general.

To be sure, it's more mentally taxing to hold a tight gap, so it's not something you want to do all the time, but it's fine.

Indeed, when someone changes lanes in front of me, I gently let off the accelerator, but as someone else noticed, that can enrage drivers behind me (I don't take it personally), and I'm definitely traveling fast enough to remain in the middle lanes.

Just a few of these was enough that my "discount" was only a few dollars. I regret giving Progressive my driving data.

The only possible fix as a driver was to try to develop an intuition for spotting “stale” greens and start slowing down despite the green, anticipating the yellow.

I feel at least partially vindicated by the fact the lights in question eventually had their yellows extended.

What will happen if there's some oil spill or brake failure at the point you think you should break hard?

Obviously the calculus changes at rush hour when the exit ramp (and highway) begin to back up. And in those cases, yes, of course the correct answer is to slow down before the ramp, even if it means impeding traffic. (Or take the next exit.)

Just for fun, there's also a very short entrance ramp onto a 65mph highway in this city, which requires you to accelerate uphill from a stop sign with a very limited runway (~200 ft.) This entrance has been responsible for far more accidents and crashes than the exit I initially described.

This diagram changed how I think about following distance: https://entropicthoughts.com/keep-a-safe-following-distance

Unless it’s in Netherlands, where it’s 100%.

It's probably the best single thing anyone can do to improve safety. It also reduces wear-and-tear on your car, and increases your fuel economy as a side benefit.

Why hasn't gamification of safe driving habits been built directly into the car itself before now?

It also shows how close you are to the car Infront in "car length" units with a nice big indicator and the adaptive cruse control will follow that distance mostly on its own between 30-100mph

I'm all in for traction control and to some extent ABS, but braking hard and upsetting the car's balance when you don't need it is dangerous.

That drives me nuts. When you put x amount of force into the brake pedal, you should know you're going to get y amount of deceleration. Don't double the brake boost just because you decided it's an emergency due to some opaque criteria.

I think it will also back down the cruise control (if set) if it detects that you are gaining on the car ahead. That might be MILs Toyota though.

I learned the "two second rule" in Driver's Education 45 years ago and generally follow that. Nothing more annoying than having the car behind you riding your bumper.

I am so glad it hasn't. Data point of one, but gamification now has the opposite effect on me: it's such a well-worn pattern that it just annoys me. It was great when it was novel. I wonder how many others feel the same but without sampling it's hard to know.

I also think some of the car sensors (Subaru especially) that are trying to make you safer are notoriously bad.

I also find the random “coffee break” notice on Subarus frustrating.

My personal examples: “eyes on the road” - triggered frequently by one pair of sunglasses I have, looking left to check blind spot, checking mirrors, etc.

“Hands on the steering wheel” - triggered occasionally on long drives when I have been giving input, but very light input.

I'd barely left the yard, certainly hadn't made it across town.

It went off when I actually did stop for a coffee, but went on again 15 minutes after I left the car park.

I have to say its various combinations of bings and bongs and beeps were about the most distracting thing I've ever experienced in a vehicle.

Also, a bad driver mis-breaking trips the cars behind into breaking too, which multiplies the energy waste and may also cause accidents through fatigue.

Mare experienced drivers will give you more leeway to avoid tapping the brakes with you, or simply go for a staring overtake.

I remember being too aggressive when I got to the Bay Area, and learning how nice it was to be let into the lane I needed to avoid being forced on a 5mi U-turn. When visiting back home I was too nice and people told me so.

I've reached a balance. Aggressive enough not to be taken advantage of, but being nice to drivers in need, specially when it doesn't really change things for me, like when letting a driver in costs me nothing because of how bad traffic is.

Calling that person an idiot for your misunderstanding is not cool.

Now she still has the machine, still follows too closely, and still breaks too hard in her new car...

Good it worked for you though!

No smooth maintaining of speed and nice passes as able without slowing down.

Surprisingly, his accidents have mostly seemed to involve gas pumps, barriers, and other obstacles at low speed.

This always stuck with me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJFOTSYJrtw&t=466s

Although I keep a varying follow distance, if there is an open lane immediately adjacent to me, I don't care if i'm tailing someone a bit, but if I'm boxed then you better believe it's 6+ car distance.

Not in my case. I keep plenty of following distance, 9 times out of 10 my hard braking is because some idiot cuts into that following distance and brake-checks me.

Google is measuring where on the road most hard braking events happen.

Insurers measure who is having the most hard braking events.

Similarly, people often don't like it when insurers track and score their driving. However, this allows insurers to offer lower insurance fees to more people by _not_ offering lower insurance fees (or instead charging higher fees) to people that are driving in a risky manner. This does of course assume a competitive market for insurance but I think in most countries that's a reasonable assumption.

There's nothing fairer than user-pays, especially when users can choose to pay less by changing their behavior.

Example: open space on either side of the road, tends to encourage people to drive faster.

Closing that space (whether by buildings, shrubbery, etc ) will slow the speed.

But I will say there are also “obvious” bad designs - the rare far to short on ramp to merge, where drivers don’t understand how to adjust.

Or the one I most frequently encounter are “blind spots” created by the speed of an intersecting road, where a mirror may be attached to a pole / tree, or a sign reminding people to look left right left, or even instructing where cars should be beyond for a safe pull out.

I know of one intersection near me that both has markers on the road(don’t pull out if cars are at or beyond this marker), and a reminder about looking, but still has a high frequency of accidents.

In the rural case, the offramp will branch off first and the on ramp will be after the overpass and the drivers taking each never meet.

In the space constrained case, theres one extra lane that serves both, where the drivers taking the on-ramp cross paths with those taking the off ramp. This configuration is absolutely cursed!

The cause of hard braking isn’t mutually exclusive: bad driving or bad road design.

Have a look at a few dash cam accident videos [1]. There are many maladaptive patterns of behavior, but a frequent one that the average good driver can improve on is limiting speed on two occasions: when approaching a blind spot, and when passing stopped or slow traffic.

That second one gets lots of otherwise good drivers. They seem to think that by limiting their speed vs slow/stopped traffic they'd be encouraging people to dart in front of them. Which is somewhat true. But with limited speed, that's an avoidable or less injurious accident. By gunning it past stopped traffic, you make the accident unavoidable and more serious.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@IdiotsInCars1

Inb4 deaths per mile driven, I'd argue higher VMT in the U.S.A. only proves the point - too many cars being driven too much because of silly land use. High VMT is acutally a symptom of a dangerous mobility system as much as a cause.

I (an American) was on holiday and Switzerland and was explained the process of getting your license back if you lose it. It is a big disincentive to driving badly and putting yourself at risk of that, to be sure.

People don’t usually act erratically for no reason. Maybe they suddenly stop because they see a deer sprinting towards the road off in the distance, and the person behind them didn’t see it. There are tons of reasons that look like they “erratically stop”, which are actually genuine safe behavior that the other may not know about.

But now even when in a car, I retain that "I'm invisible" mentality, which makes me much more aware of what other drivers are doing, and much more skeptical of their ability to make good decisions. This has saved me several times.

One thing HPDE taught me is that most people under brake in dangerous situations because they simply don't know the limit of their vehicle nor the sensitivity range of the brake pedal.

The hard braking heuristic makes sense when estimating risk of road segments, but not as a proxy for driver competence.

35 years without an accident on my record isn't because I'm a magnificent driver, it's because I always try to leave a way out for when something unexpected happens, because the unexpected _does_ happen.

The fact that some people may have the skill to drive more aggressively means nothing in the aggregate as far as insurance companies are concerned. If you are skilled enough to drive in that manner, you are skilled enough to avoid it as well. It's simply statistics.

Then use it? Mandate reaction speed tests or other driving mechanics competency evaluation (not road sign comprehension) and watch insurance margins explode.

The driver in my example did poorly and scored top marks in the heuristic.

> building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.

The cam car did not need to have a hard braking event (HBE) to start building distance.

Even if they did, the insurance companies are looking for a pattern of HBEs to assess risk. I agree that there is a theoretical high-risk driver that never has a HBE because they always try to maneuver instead of breaking. There are other heuristics for this (high lateral acceleration, high jerk). And the ultimate heuristic: failing to avoid accidents, thus having a claim history.

I realize this may come off as victim blaming, but I feel you should have an obligation to not endanger yourself even if by the laws of the road you are technically in the right. I would rather get cut off by and idiot and be at my destination thirty seconds later than having to deal with car repairs even when it is legally speaking not my fault.

Most people have near zero defensive driving skill, and view someone pulling out in front of them as "nothing I could have done", when the dashcam shows the offending driver showed 5 signs of pulling out ages before the accident occurred.

Much of being a good driver is just awareness.

One time my light turns green, I don't go. As my wife asks what I'm waiting for, a pickup blows the light. We weren't the first car at that light, and years later she still talks about how there's no way I could know. Well, I didn't get us t-boned at 80 so I must have done something right.

I do both and I am constantly surprised at the lack of situational awareness of drivers when I’m a passenger in their cars.

I think truckers probably get the same thing too.

First, the insurance company incurs costs just processing the claim. If things escalate with the other party, they may even incur legal and court costs.

Additionally, there are some costs that are incurred regardless of fault -- like personal injury protection.

Even defining "who was at fault" is a complicated situation. A lot of people presume that it is as simple as: whoever the police issues a citation to at the scene is 100% at fault. But that's not the way things actually work. The way liability is assigned depends on the state, but in a comparative negligence state you could be proportionately liable for as little as one percent of the fault of the accident. Maybe someone else ran a red light, you entered the intersection on green, and hit them. You could end up sharing some of the cost for that, if it is found that you could have avoided the accident but decided not to.

And even after all of this, if the other party runs out of money, doesn't have insurance, or runs away at the scene, your insurance company is stuck paying the costs under their uninsured/underinsurred motorist coverage.

It’s this obnoxious audio warning that tells me I had a hard breaking and it’s 9/10 because I stopped at a red light that I would not have made on yellow. And then it sends me tips and reminders about reducing hard breaking events and it’s annoying. I know they have done the analysis but it detects moderate hard breaking which is frustrating. One of those things that I am sure in net is positive but perhaps slices of the population it does not benefit.

Has this been studied in isolation? Many of the tools that notify upon hard braking also are used to impose financial penalties for doing so... I suspect people may be reacting to the financial incentives.

There is a minor financial aspect (price of fuel), but I’m far more interested in seeing if I can get a better “green score” at the end of the drive.

of course if they change such that they don't break hard when needed that is bad, but if the change such that they don't need to break hard in the first place because they slow down in places that are dangerious that is the point.

Yeah, if you want to do that, it would be helpful to know whether a financial incentive is required for the effect or not.

Is it that hard braking events are broadly indicative of surprises of lots of sorts, and so it happens that the only way to eliminate them all is to develop a full range of defensive driving habits?

More Goodhart's Law or Serenity Prayer?

It’s still out of the norm braking for my style of driver but from what I see on the road, people drive aggressively like this. Especially in the US.

- Road Accidents: "A driver caused this, let's determine who, and find them at fault."

- With Air Accidents: "The system caused this, let's determine which elements came together that ultimately lead to this event."

The first is essentially simplifying a complex series of events into something black and white. Easy to digest. We'll then keep doing it over and over again because we never changed the circumstances.

The second approach is holistic, for example even if the pilot made a mistake, why did they make a mistake, and what can we do to prevent that mistake (e.g. training, culture, etc)? But maybe other elements also played a part like mechanical, software, airport lightning, communications, etc.

I bet everyone reading this knows of a road near them that is an accident hotspot and I bet they can explain WHY it is. I certainly do/can, and I see cops with crashed cars there on a weekly basis. Zero changes have been made to the conditions.

if we could bridge that gap, the economic incentive for municipalities would be massive lower accident rates mean less property damage and fewer expensive liability lawsuits for the city. it's basically a potential safety feedback loop that just needs the right data sharing protocol to actually kick in.

PDF download: https://iase-pub.org/ojs/SERJ/article/download/215/119/726

In unknown roads/highways I can predict hard bumps/gaps by seeing dark oil spots in the middle of each lane.

I'll never use one of these dongles, though, because I don't want my every move second-guessed. There's nothing _inherently_ dangerous about isolated hard braking or cornering or acceleration events. It all depends on context. Am I braking hard to avoid an obstacle or mistake by another driver? Is there someone behind me that's likely to rear-end me, or am I in the middle of a highway in the desert? Did I just replace my brake pads and I'm bedding in the new pads?

I don't want to have to worry about whether I've used up my invisible quota before the algorithm decides I should be moved into a more expensive insurance bracket.

In theory, the most dangerous turns would probably have higher variance on hard braking data.

That's not gonna be something Google would research, of course, due to next to no alignment with their interests.

In a similar way that Google Maps shows eco routes, it’d be fun for them to show “safest” routes which avoid areas with common crashes. (Not always possible, but valuable knowledge when it is.)

"A 1974 study by Hall and Dickinson showed that speed differences contributed to crashes, primarily rear end and lane change collisions"

Hall, J. W. and L. V. Dickinson. An Operational Evaluation of Truck Speeds on Interstate Highways, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, February, 1974.

This research team used Google's first-party location data to identify San Jose's Interstate 880/US 101 interchange as a site with statistically extreme amounts of hard braking by Android Auto users.

But you don't need machine learning to know that... San Jose Mercury News readers voted that exact location as the worst interchange in the entire Bay Area in a 2018 reader poll [1]

It's not a lack of knowledge by Caltrans or Santa Clara County's congestion management agency that is keeping that interchange as-is. Rather, it's the physical constraints of a nearby airport (so no room for flyovers), a nearby river (so probably no tunneling), and surrounding private landowners and train tracks.

Leaving aside the specifics of the 880/101 interchange, the Google blog post suggests that they'll use this worst-case scenario on a limited access freeway to inform their future machine-learning analyses of other roads around the country, including ones where presumably there are also pedestrians and cyclists.

No doubt some state departments of transportation will line up to buy these new "insights" from Google (forgetting that they actually already buy similar products from TomTom, Inrix, StreetLight, et al.) [2]

While I genuinely see the value in data-informed decision making for transportation and urban planning, it's not a lack of data that's causing problems at this particular freeway intersection. This blog post is an underbaked advertisement.

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/13/101-880-ranks-as-bay-...

[2] https://www.tomtom.com/products/traffic-stats/ https://inrix.com/products/ai-traffic/ https://www.streetlightdata.com/traffic-planning/

From the article:

"Our analysis of road segments in California and Virginia revealed that the number of segments with observed HBEs was 18 times greater than those with reported crashes. While crash data is notoriously sparse — requiring years to observe a single event on some local roads — HBEs provide a continuous stream of data, effectively filling the gaps in the safety map."

So we don't have to wait until an accident actually occurs before we can identify unsafe roads and improve them.

I'd love to see them incorporate visual detection of vehicle crash debris as well. There are two intersections in my area that consistently have crash debris like broken window glass and broken plastic parts and license plates from crashes. I know they are dangerous, but I don't know if autonomous vehicles also know that they are dangerous.

Google/Apple probably collect a massively larger amount of data than those other companies, putting those other companies at a risk of losing future revenue.

Between Google and Apple pretty much every car in the US is monitored.

Where Google/Apple's coverage is quite valuable is for near-real-time speeds for atypical events -- say like yesterday's Super Bowl. But that's not what this blog post is about -- this post is about a well-established pattern that can be identified with historical datasets.

All that to say that vendors sell a wide variety of data products to transportation planners, but just because Google is now entering this niche market doesn't mean they'll be "the best" or even realize what their strengths are.

While you're at it, give me an option to avoid unprotected left turns and to avoid making a left turn across a busy road where cross traffic does not stop. (But only during heavy traffic; it's fine when nobody is on the road.) Not only are these more dangerous, they're also more stressful and they also introduce annoying variation into my travel time.