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

31–40 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#31

Post by gambiting »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #26
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.

I never said anything about driving fast. I actually really enjoy my 45-60 minute commute to work, because controlling a car is just cool - and I get to listen to my favourite podcasts/music while I drive. It gives me a sense of satisfaction and of something well done when I reach my destination. Getting the car in the right gear, hearing the engine thrum - you don't need to be doing 100mph to enjoy that. But again, I don't want to be convincing anybody that they should love cars, that's not my point.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#32

Post by FrancoDiaz »

nmbdesign wrote: post #12
sharemywin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so guns should be banned? large knives? red meat because all the methane?

Please read my comment above, I'm not saying the TOOL or an object should be banned but a COMBINATION of a USE should be banned. And yes, the use large knives in public places where there is a risk of killing people should be banned, is there any objection to this?

Yes, there is objection to that. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to have a large knife in a public place..obviously.

There's only a risk of killing people unless you're ISIS or a psychopath. Do we ban everything because of a few assholes? Yes, we do a lot of the time, and that's pretty sad.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#33

Post by FrancoDiaz »

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…

And banning self-driving also is a convenient way for totalitarians to control the movement of the population. Of course we never hear about that around here.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#34

Post by losteverything »

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?

It is all gut. No data. No logic.

Cars == freedom.

Freedom == control

Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom.

We control our freedom.

Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them.

But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no substitute for this machine that affords is freedom control.

Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#35

Post by valine »

I dislike the idea of transportation as a service. I would much rather own a self driving car and use it as a mobile office. Being able to get work done during my commute would be a major benefit. I imagine having a full size monitor with a nice keyboard and mouse that I would leave in the car. That simply wouldn't be possible with a service like Uber.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#36

Post by roel_v »

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.

Not sure why you're down voted - I'm pretty sure this will happen in the not all that distant future, or certainly that driving manually will come with higher (and potentially prohibitive) insurance premiums.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#37

Post by bluGill »

CPLX wrote: post #19

I find it odd the way people talk about moving through the levels sequentially without really acknowledging there's a massive phase change that happens somewhere between level two and four, where a self-driving car could easily be way more dangerous than the average human driver. That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because…

Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#38

Post by bjt2n3904 »

On V2V / V2X Wireless Communications

> The major concern here is a protocol compatibility and efficiency of communication since the decision should happen in milliseconds and there is no time for extra computation related to differences in a communication “language”.

And again, security is NOT ON THE LIST. How destructive do you think it would be if I were to multiply my velocity vector by -1 while traveling on the freeway?

In fact, Ctrl+F Security. NOT IN THE ARTICLE!!

Holy crap people.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#39

Post by nickez »

losteverything wrote: post #34
francoisdevlin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no…

> Cars == freedom

That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#40

Post by BurningFrog »

The best solution would be for cars and roads to get automated together. The article touches on the idea in the V2X section.

Building super detailed world encompassing maps to tell the car about the road kinda works. But it would be vastly superior if the road itself informed the car as you pass through.

Unfortunately governments usually needs 10 years to evolve as much as the tech world does in one. So we'll have to do with workarounds for some time.

Post reply on HN