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

The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#141

Post by rconti »

chiph wrote: post #6
rconti wrote: post #2

I just bought a 2016 Volkswagen that has laser cruise control and lane assist. I ordered the fully loaded package because the incremental cost was not large, and I figured I might as well have all the toys if I was going to the expense of buying a brand-new car. I consider myself an enthusiast; I have a fair bit of time on the racetrack in lapping days and amateur races, sometimes I volunteer at car control clinics a…

I have mixed opinions on the new assistive technology. Blind-spot monitoring is pretty good - it's not intrusive (just a yellow light in your outside mirror) and can save you from an embarrassing accident. Same with the ultrasonic/radar parking assist. I rarely parallel park (there just aren't that many of that style parking spots any more) so the system really helps me judge where the back corners of the car are. I…

This is my first car with the ultrasonic parking sensors; they're nice to have for sure. I won't know the corners of the car as well, but, frankly, today's cars are getting harder than ever to see out of anyway, so likely I never would have been as comfortable in a new car.

Also, part of "knowing the corners" of your car implies at least some gentle contact at some point in time, which it's best to avoid entirely.

One of my favorite features so far is rear assist, which is able to detect oncoming cars as I'm backing out of a parking spot. The bigger the car the more useful this is. It doesn't tell you when you're 6" from a vehicle, it tells you when there's a vehicle traveling at speed further away that you're about to back towards.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#142

Post by mtviewdave »

DanBC wrote: post #129
GVIrish wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car. >That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads. The problem with that is the time period before AI cars are ub…

Yes, car drivers need to learn to drive, and that means they need to learn to slow the fuck down when there are pedestrians around. When a car driver says "careless pedestrian" I hear "inattentive, selfish, driver". This is probably a cultural thing, because jaywalking isn't a crime here.

Recently I was in a car with a friend in Southern California. We were stopped at a red light, needing to make a right turn. On our right were two people standing on the corner. They had activated the crosswalk but were not crossing, instead were focused on their (animated) conversation. Cars were coming from the left. The driver alternated between looking at the pedestrians and looking at the other cars, waiting for the other cars to pass while she also tried to figure out if the pedestrians were going to cross or not.

After about 10-12 seconds, the other cars had cleared, and the crosswalk light had switched from the green hand to the red countdown. She started to make the turn, at which point the two pedestrians literally ran into the crosswalk, and in front of her car, with no warning. Apparently they had just noticed the countdown timer and wanted to make it across the intersection without waiting for another cycle.

Fortunately she noticed the pedestrians and stopped. The pedestrians continued their run across the intersection, apparently oblivious to the fact that they'd almost been struck

Keeping in mind the following:

1. Right turns on red are legal and expected.

2. It is illegal for a pedestrian to enter a crosswalk once the countdown timer starts.

3. Full evaluation of this intersection required visually evaluating an area of 180-200 degrees, but human beings don't have vision that wide, and so it was impossible for the driver to continuously evaluate both the oncoming cars on the left and the pedestrians on the right.

4. Drivers in California are trained to look left while making a right turn.

What was the driver supposed to do in this scenario? Should the driver have been at fault if she had struck the pedestrians, and if so, why?

I was sitting in the passenger seat, so I could evaluate the intersection and see how my friend was evaluating it as well. As far as I could see, she did nothing to violate either California law or driving custom. On the other hand the pedestrians both entered a crosswalk illegally, and also violated section 21950(b) of the California Vehicle Code (which requires pedestrians to exercise due care for their own safety when entering a roadway). So I don't think that if she had struck them, she would have been at fault. But am I wrong? If so, why?

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#143

Post by GVIrish »

DanBC wrote: post #129
GVIrish wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Pedestrians and cyclists may also learn that they can freely cut off an AI car at anytime they please. Why wait for a walk signal? Why walk all the way to the intersection? Just saunter across anywhere you like, so long as you cross in front of an AI car. >That's probably a good thing. Car drivers need to get out of the mindset that they own the roads. The problem with that is the time period before AI cars are ub…

Yes, car drivers need to learn to drive, and that means they need to learn to slow the fuck down when there are pedestrians around. When a car driver says "careless pedestrian" I hear "inattentive, selfish, driver". This is probably a cultural thing, because jaywalking isn't a crime here.

There are certainly plenty of inattentive drivers but what I'm talking about is pedestrians who don't even look before walking into the street. They just assume that the driver(s) sees them and has time to stop.

Growing up it was always drilled into us to look both ways before crossing, even in the crosswalk. Now people can't be bothered to look even one way.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#144

Post by edc117 »

bdavisx wrote: post #114
kobayashi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.

You don't have to raise the rates of someone who doesn't use the tracking; you simply lower the rates of someone who does - that's how the current tracking systems work, several insurance companies already have them.

I'm guessing here (no numbers to back it up), but likely the reason you don't see more of this is safe drivers would sign up for it, and in insurance the safe/low risk drivers are the ones already subsidizing the crazies and making it work. I took part in something similar for my insurance company (Progressive) and received a whopping 6% discount for safe driving.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#145

Post by mikeash »

rconti wrote: post #140
mikeash wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally found that lane departure warning made me a much more precise driver. I like that a lot. It goes off in error sometimes too, but it's rare now that I've been trained to properly stay within the lines.

I was actually wondering if assistive techs like this might make people more likely to signal, as there's a slightly negative feedback to departing one's lane without doing so first.

God, I hope so. I don't understand why people don't signal. I'm pretty lazy, but I can't understand how anyone can be that lazy.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#146

Post by jacobolus »

pc86 wrote: post #123
jacobolus wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be very happy if all taxis and other commercial vehicles (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would have their speed tracked and automatic citations issued for going more than 15 mph above the speed limit. As it is the taxis and Uber cars speed along my 25mph limit residential street at 50mph+ all night long.

Why not just increase the speed limit by 15 mph and issue citations automatically at SL+1?

Well, personally I would prefer they drive 25 mph, as that’s the most reasonable speed on a residential street. But if they go 35 it’s at least not too insane. 55–60 on the other hand is pedestrian murder waiting to happen.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#147

Post by unclebucknasty »

robmcm wrote: post #126
unclebucknasty wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the bigger question is WRT the ongoing quest to marginalize human beings. Once we automate everything, then what?

I imagine the same argument was made about the industrial revolution. There is still a lot to work for once we remove the more mundane parts of our existence.

>the same argument was made about the industrial revolution.

A bit of a specious comparison which assumes that the degree and quality of the technology are irrelevant.

There was no Deep Mind during the Industrial Revolution.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#148

Post by WalterBright »

pnut wrote: post #120
WalterBright wrote: post #82

I'm going to miss shifting gears and double clutching.

Double clutching, seriously? That is some niche hardware you are driving - all manual transmissions are synchromeshed nowadays, unless you're driving a racecar maybe.

Double clutching makes downshifting at high revs much smoother, and reduces wear&tear on the clutch & transmission. (I have a pretty grabby clutch, yes, it's aftermarket.)

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#149

Post by revelation »

mtviewdave wrote: post #142
DanBC wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, car drivers need to learn to drive, and that means they need to learn to slow the fuck down when there are pedestrians around. When a car driver says "careless pedestrian" I hear "inattentive, selfish, driver". This is probably a cultural thing, because jaywalking isn't a crime here.

Recently I was in a car with a friend in Southern California. We were stopped at a red light, needing to make a right turn. On our right were two people standing on the corner. They had activated the crosswalk but were not crossing, instead were focused on their (animated) conversation. Cars were coming from the left. The driver alternated between looking at the pedestrians and looking at the other cars, waiting for…

If you do not feel capable to safely operate a vehicle at any time, you simply can choose not to do so.

This is insanity on the level of blaming the sun for your lack of vision. If you can't see shit, you first and foremost need to stop.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#150

Post by unclebucknasty »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #147
robmcm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the same argument was made about the industrial revolution. There is still a lot to work for once we remove the more mundane parts of our existence.

> the same argument was made about the industrial revolution. A bit of a specious comparison which assumes that the degree and quality of the technology are irrelevant. There was no Deep Mind during the Industrial Revolution.

Edit: there was no Deep Blue, that is.
Post reply on HN