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

Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#21

Post by olalonde »

gambiting wrote: post #3

"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…

"Smoking, drinking and extreme sports" are not great comparisons because they only put yourself at risk (for the most part). Driving, on the other hand, can endanger other people's life on the road.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#22

Post by jessriedel »

dahart wrote: post #10

> Level by level or straight to level five? This strikes me as a slightly strange question. Maybe it's just an excuse to present the six level system as a framework for thinking about it, but a huge chunk of commodity new cars on the market this year are level 2. A small chunk of higher end cars are level 3. Teslas are arguably level 4, and we all know there are level 4 & 5 cars on the road around the bay and few oth…

The question is about the development strategy, not marketplace existence. So long as each higher level is more valuable but more difficult than the next, cars will appear on the market at each level progressively in time.

But the point is that, if you want to get to level 5, do you climb the ladder or build level 5 from the ground? In particular, if there is a handful of key tech advances that are necessary for level 5, and that make levels 1-4 trivial, then there's no point in climbing the ladder.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#23

Post by losteverything »

dahart wrote: post #10

> Level by level or straight to level five? This strikes me as a slightly strange question. Maybe it's just an excuse to present the six level system as a framework for thinking about it, but a huge chunk of commodity new cars on the market this year are level 2. A small chunk of higher end cars are level 3. Teslas are arguably level 4, and we all know there are level 4 & 5 cars on the road around the bay and few oth…

Do you think It's too late to bring them "back to port?"

I see one endgame where state referrendums put ballot questions to citizens that ban driverless vehicles or require drivers on non-Federally funded roadways.

Yeah, sensors will be added to cars (like seat belts were) and cars will be aware of other vehicles.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#24

Post by CPLX »

dahart wrote: post #10

> Level by level or straight to level five? This strikes me as a slightly strange question. Maybe it's just an excuse to present the six level system as a framework for thinking about it, but a huge chunk of commodity new cars on the market this year are level 2. A small chunk of higher end cars are level 3. Teslas are arguably level 4, and we all know there are level 4 & 5 cars on the road around the bay and few oth…

> vehicles of all six categories are on the road as we speak

Unless something truly crazy happens, like rain, or someone directing traffic, or a truck painted a similar color as the sky.

In self-driving Calvinball those things don't count apparently.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#25

Post by pif »

francoisdevlin wrote: post #13
losteverything wrote: post #4

Excellent overview and opinion of future outcomes. Is good for people like me whose gut says this is not desireable or workable as it gives simple language lawmakers can read.

What are you concerns? What should engineers in this space be considering?

Copying form an old comment of mine:

- Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on.

- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine).

- Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on.

- Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#26

Post by JulianMorrison »

gambiting wrote: post #3

"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…

There are kinds of driving that are fun and already not allowed on the road. For example, racing, or rallying, or just going very very fast. There are private tracks where you can pay to go and do that. Or sometimes they close the public roads and put up crash barriers for a big race. But they don't let you mix up your desire to go 200 MPH with regular commuter traffic.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#27

Post by jessriedel »

apendleton wrote: post #5

PSA: this is largely a summary of a video, and that's mentioned at the top of the article but the link isn't provided until the end. It's here: http://a16z.com/2017/01/06/selfdriving-cars-frank-chen/

Does the article add anything, or at least provide a compact summary?

Does anyone know where the video can be downloaded?

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#28

Post by tyingq »

pif wrote: post #25
francoisdevlin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you concerns? What should engineers in this space be considering?

Copying form an old comment of mine: - Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on. - Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). - Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you…

One I thought of when I encountered it the other day...

Driving through a red light when it's obvious something's gone wrong with the traffic signal, and it's stuck on red. Harder than it seems at first, because other drivers at the intersection seem to make up the rules interactively, with you, via facial expressions and hand waving.

There's also a fair amount of variables, like looking sideways to see if the cross traffic is also stuck on red or not.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#29

Post by knz »

lg wrote: post #11
gambiting wrote: post #3

"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…

if self-driving cars will be as safe as people say, manual driving should have the same legal status as drunk driving due to the unnecessary danger it creates.

It's a false comparison though.

1) Society tolerates a small amount of alcohol for most drivers.

2) Driving while drunk impairs your physical and mental ability to drive safely and only gets worse as you drink more. Obviously a manual driver has slower reaction times than an autonomous system but they are within a level that society tolerates and far better than someone who is drunk.

There are also risks with autonomous vehicles - the potential for equipment/sensor failure, software being unable to adequately handle bad weather, the potential for exploitation by hackers etc.

I'm currently in the process of buying a new vehicle and have been test driving vehicles with various sensors designed to prevent accidents (specifically the Subaru eyesight system). One of my first thoughts was that it would be easy to become reliant on the technology and have a serious accident when a sensor fails (particularly for blind spot detection). I'm still likely going to buy a vehicle with that functionality but am not sure how much I will trust it.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#30

Post by FrancoDiaz »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #17
gambiting wrote: post #3

"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road." I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people w…

Driving 100 mph is also a fun recreational activity that's mostly banned because it's dangerous. If you want to drive 100mph, you need to either go to a track or go to the Autobahn. In the future, I imagine that manually driving will be similarly constrained.

If you want to drive 100mph, you need to either go to a track or go to the Autobahn.

Obviously you don't have to go to those places.

Post reply on HN