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

81–90 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#81

Post by Retric »

grzm wrote: post #68
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.

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…

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St...

Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#82

Post by dahart »

jessriedel wrote: post #22
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 leve…

Fair enough, though the biggest hurdles are likely to be regulatory and not technical, right? A self driving car company could conceivably kill itself by solving all the technical problems and going straight to level 5 without regard to what lawmakers allow.

The question has big implications... the post mentioned the follow-up question of whether we need stoplights anymore. We don't need stoplights anymore if all existing cars disappeared all at once, and all car manufacturers go straight to level 5 at the same time. We do need stoplights for the time being if for some reason that doesn't happen.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#83

Post by Fricken »

valine wrote: post #35

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.

I would much rather you didn't place so emphasis on the control premium. The cumulative effect of everybody pursuing their self interest with no regard for the sanctity of our shared spaces has been resoundingly bad. It's the tragedy of the commons in a nutshell.

With personal automobiles we've already completely jumped the shark. People travel from all over the world to visit cities like Paris, but I can't think of an urban environment built post-car that's worth visiting just to hang out. They are undesirable- they're ugly, hostile, wasteful dystopias. It's a trend we want to reverse.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#84

Post by ghaff »

random_upvoter wrote: post #66
aetherson wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The liability situation at scale will also be "interesting." With the exception of pharmaceutical side-effects (which, in the case of vaccines are even explicitly dealt with through the government), it's hard to think of another consumer product, properly maintained and operated, where faults randomly kill people because "stuff happens" without consequences.

GM didn't get to play the engineering is complicated and there are always tradeoffs card with its ignition switches. (And, yes, I know this was a case of a known problem but product defects still usually trigger liability in any case.)

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#85

Post by schintan »

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.

When I drive, at least I am in control. I don't give any thoughts to accident statistics. A self driving car may become safer statistically, but I don't see myself in a self driving car that is safer on an average but still has a non-zero chance of getting me in an accident.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#86

Post by aninhumer »

valine wrote: post #35

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.

I expect the option to own a self-driving car instead of taking taxis will exist, and various people it will be worthwhile (e.g. people in more remote areas).

However, I expect this to be quite a bit more expensive overall, and I think a lot of people might not care so much about owning a vehicle once they see that cost difference.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#87

Post by yoz-y »

schintan wrote: post #85
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.

When I drive, at least I am in control. I don't give any thoughts to accident statistics. A self driving car may become safer statistically, but I don't see myself in a self driving car that is safer on an average but still has a non-zero chance of getting me in an accident.

There will never be a non-zero chance of getting into accident. But if the car is a safer driver than you then it is a net win.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#88

Post by figers »

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.

Self driving car can avert accidents caused by drunk / sleepy drivers a human wouldn't react to in time. There are videos of Tesla's automatically avoiding many dangerous situations and those cars are the very first of the first self driving cars to come...

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#89

Post by sgustard »

Fricken wrote: post #83
valine wrote: post #35

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.

I would much rather you didn't place so emphasis on the control premium. The cumulative effect of everybody pursuing their self interest with no regard for the sanctity of our shared spaces has been resoundingly bad. It's the tragedy of the commons in a nutshell. With personal automobiles we've already completely jumped the shark. People travel from all over the world to visit cities like Paris, but I can't think of…

Hm, to me the "on demand" economy, which Uber and the like are part of, is the ultimate pursuit of self-interest. The entire model is built on getting exactly what you want when you want it, with no downsides. Once there are robot cars there is no longer a limit to how many cars can be on the road. Imagine one car zipping around for every Amazon delivery, 24 by 7.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#90

Post by aninhumer »

cr0sh wrote: post #74
nickez wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified? One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make. In America, part of the reason we feel this way…

>So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"?

It's the freedom to be able to get around without having to babysit a tonne of metal, and then find somewhere to put it when you get near where you're going, and then have to go back for it later.

>How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport?

Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances.

Post reply on HN