Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#21

Post by baddox »

seibelj wrote: post #2

I'm a big self-driving cars skeptic. Expecting humans to "drive less idiotic" is basically saying that google's cars won't work until human drivers are banned. Driving is something of an art, and it's full of edge cases. So many edge cases. I'll just keep reading articles that say they are 5 years away, just as I did 5 years ago, and the armchair futurists will keep dreaming...

I can appreciate the claim that driving is an art, full of edge cases. But that claim on its own conceals the reality that humans are extremely bad at it. A ludicrous number of people die in automobile accidents. While it may be a long while before self-driving cars can match the prowess of an excellent driver, much less a professional one, I doubt we're far off from being able to exceed the ability of the average driver.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#22

Post by rlpb »

civilian wrote: post #13

Heh, google is training cars to drive like grandmas. > But the technology, like Google’s car, drives by the book. It leaves what is considered the safe distance between itself and the car ahead. This also happens to be enough space for a car in an adjoining lane to squeeze into, and, Mr. Windsor said, they often tried. Yeah. We just don't have the infrastructure in major cities for all of us to drive safely. We've be…

I'm not convinced that leaving shorter gaps between cars increases volume. Instead it creates waves of drivers slamming on the brakes because they are unable to react gradually, creating congestion instead.

If we all left bigger gaps, we'd all be able to drive faster, increasing throughput (on highways, at least).

> Now I wonder if google-driven cars would actually be less efficient for LA. Sure there wouldn't be any traffic-slowing accidents, but there'd be 50% less volume traveling 20mph slower.

Self-driving cars in a line could detect and link up with each other, sharing sensor data on obstacles up ahead. In the end, this has the potential to safely reduce the gaps between cars at higher speeds and thus actually increase throughput, since the congestion issues with human drivers reacting separately would not apply.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#24

Post by just_had_tea »

civilian wrote: post #13

Heh, google is training cars to drive like grandmas. > But the technology, like Google’s car, drives by the book. It leaves what is considered the safe distance between itself and the car ahead. This also happens to be enough space for a car in an adjoining lane to squeeze into, and, Mr. Windsor said, they often tried. Yeah. We just don't have the infrastructure in major cities for all of us to drive safely. We've be…

That is both sexist and ageist. There is nothing about being female, old and/or having reproduced which makes one follow rules to the letter. "Google is training cars to drive like sticklers" is perhaps a more appropriate version.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#25

Post by duaneb »

rlpb wrote: post #22
civilian wrote: post #13

Heh, google is training cars to drive like grandmas. > But the technology, like Google’s car, drives by the book. It leaves what is considered the safe distance between itself and the car ahead. This also happens to be enough space for a car in an adjoining lane to squeeze into, and, Mr. Windsor said, they often tried. Yeah. We just don't have the infrastructure in major cities for all of us to drive safely. We've be…

I'm not convinced that leaving shorter gaps between cars increases volume. Instead it creates waves of drivers slamming on the brakes because they are unable to react gradually, creating congestion instead. If we all left bigger gaps, we'd all be able to drive faster, increasing throughput (on highways, at least). > Now I wonder if google-driven cars would actually be less efficient for LA. Sure there wouldn't be any…

> Self-driving cars in a line could detect and link up with each other, sharing sensor data on obstacles up ahead. In the end, this has the potential to safely reduce the gaps between cars at higher speeds and thus actually increase throughput, since the congestion issues with human drivers reacting separately would not apply.

Isn't this already true to a certain extent with map software? It automatically directs you to the fastest route—congestion relief is, in a way, built-in to open infrastructure.

It seems to be the topology of the highway system would have a much larger impact on congestion than the drivers themselves. Among other things, it's going to be a long time (hopefully never. IMHO) before human drivers are off the road.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#27

Post by rasur »

jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

This. A Million times this.

However I fear the subtlety will be lost on the majority, as we continue to construct our own cages around ourselves.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#28

Post by sschueller »

Two driverless cars are about to crash into each other on a tight mountain pass (maybe a bug that couldn't for see the accident).

There are 3 possible outcomes:

  1. Car 1 and Car 2 crash into each other killing all passengers.
  2. Car 1 with 3 passengers drives of the cliff, car 2 with 1 passenger survives.
  3. Car 2 with 1 passenger drives of the the cliff, car 1 with 3 passengers survives.
The cars can communicate with each other. The logical resolution would be to drive the car with the least passengers off the cliff to save as many lives as mathematically possible.

I don't know how I would feel about my car killing me although logically I wouldn't have a chance of survival anyways.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#29

Post by wereHamster »

jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

OTOH, if you start applying the law to the letter as it is written in the books, you'll quickly see how stupid certain laws are. And here stupid could be anything from not enforcable without arresting everybody, inconsistent, contradictory, etc. Think of it as formal verification of the law. The result, in turn, you can show to politicians or the people and convince them to change it.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#30

Post by jasonjei »

I think it would be great if at some point some lanes of the freeways are dedicated for autonomous vehicles connected to a city or state-controlled system with some fallback. I suspect there is a fallacy somewhere in my idea, but I think the first step is to make some lanes only for autonomous vehicles on the freeway, and eventually all lanes as autonomous vehicles become more commonplace.

I'm not a civil engineer, but I suspect this could eliminate a lot of traffic if all the cars are placed in the most optimal lane, assuming all vehicles on highways are autonomous.

Post reply on HN