Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#61

Post by wtvanhest » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #37

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.

I am being somewhat knit-picky, because your point is: "Self driving cars only have to be better than humans who are already very imperfect"

But...

It isn't just deaths that need to be prevented. It is a combination of total damages, delays, deaths etc. If self driving cars take forever to make a turn or have other AI failures like driving too slow, it won't be acceptable to a large number of people.

In addition, you will see a situation in the future where partially automated cars Level 2 or 3 are safer than current driving modes. That means that in order to go from level 3 to level 4, you need the car to be safer than level 3.

I want a fully automated self driving car so badly, but I suspect I have a long way before I can hop in a car with no steering wheel and sip an IPA while being rushed home from a tough day at the office.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#62

Post by Eridrus » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #41

bluGill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

What's the price and safety delta?

Btw, what is the death/accident rates for non-drunk people? Including accudents from drunk drivers crashing into them.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#63

Post by tyingq » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:46 PM UTC

Eridrus wrote: post #55

tyingq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A broken traffic light seems no different than a 4 way stop once you've realised it's broken, and I'm pretty sure Waymo can handle those already.

In my experience it's not the same, unless it's stuck red all four directions, and all the drivers understand that.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#64

Post by JamesBarney » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:47 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #41

bluGill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

Yes. Lets assume

a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0]

b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver

c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver

I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years.

That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo-car. Sober/well-rested that drops to 3.7 seconds of life lost per mile.

So I'd be giving up 3.7 seconds of life to be able to read/work/sleep instead of drive for every mile. For me this is a good deal @ high speeds(trade 3.7 seconds of life for a minute of time), and an absolute steal at lower speeds(usual commute averages 4 minutes/mile.)

[0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#65

Post by 3chelon » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

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…

- 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).

Surely you're missing the point? With V2V comms there will never be a need to go backwards. All vehicle trajectories become 100% predictable (mechanical failure aside). The problem of massive trucks on narrow country roads (which we have a lot of in the UK) is solved by simple forward planning. Hell, the trucks could get even bigger, so long as there are passing places.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#66

Post by random_upvoter » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #41

bluGill wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.

When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. A drunk driver, while impaired, retains a level of understanding of the situation but a program has nothing to fall back on. I suspect that accidents with automated driving, while rare, will tend to be more severe. Think train wrecks.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#67

Post by Retric » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:48 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #59

Retric wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy. Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)

I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired.

121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year

Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#68

Post by grzm » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #54

maxerickson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making. A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making. For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers. PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.

That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault.

Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly?

Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#69

Post by 3chelon » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

nickez wrote: post #39

losteverything wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree fully. I have a car, but I commute on the train because I value being able to multitask. I spent half a lifetime stuck in traffic and hated every minute of it.

The future cannot come soon enough for me.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#70

Post by mlvljr » Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 4:53 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #24

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.

Jealous of Elon, right?