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

111–120 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#111

Post by sgustard »

aninhumer wrote: post #86
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.

I'd love to see that cost comparison. I lease a Fiat 500e for 100/month and insurance plus electricity costs the same for 1000 miles of monthly driving as one Uber to the airport and back, and I don't live in a remote area. Obviously urban areas with expensive parking are different but are already served by public transit.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#112

Post by vertex-four »

aninhumer wrote: post #90
cr0sh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ov…

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

Significantly! You can stand up and walk the whole length of a train if you desire without having to stop. There's food and drink brought right to your seat, and hot food if you walk to the buffet car or are in first class. In the UK, if you book a non-Advance ticket, you can get out of the train, leave the station, go wherever you like, and get on any later train. On certain routes, you can even get on the train one evening, have dinner, go to sleep, and wake up the next morning pulling into your destination with breakfast waiting for you. Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#113

Post by alkonaut »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #16
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…

AFAIK there are no cars yet that are _truly_ levels 4 or 5. Both Google and Tesla's cars strive towards that goal, but SAE level 4 requires that the system perform ["all aspects of the dynamic driving task, _even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene_"][1]. (Emphasis mine.) So until you can fall asleep at the wheel without endangering yourself or other passengers, neither of those…

Add to that the requirement to work without up to date map data, with inputs that require reading and understanding written text on road signs etc. To drive as a human in all situations you basically have to be human. You need to be able to understand the world like a human.

Example: a highway has one side closed for roadwork. It's dark and it's snowing. At the start of the construction work there is a sign that says "wait at this point for escort car". The text might be partially covered in snow. When the escort car arrives it leads the queue of waiting cars past the road construction, in the oncoming lane.

A human driver understands that the right thing to do is wait at the sign. If the sign isn't readable because of snow, the driver just gets out and brushes off the snow.

The human driver understands which car is the escort car because of its markings and behavior.

The human driver understands the reason the escort car is there is because traffic has to take turns in the same lane and there are no traffic lights. Even when a human driver encounters this for the first time, it will realize what's going on (it confused me the first time).

I'm not sure it would even be possible to teach an autonomous agent to adapt to any unknown situation where the information is lacking, incomplete or conflicting.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#114

Post by antisthenes »

aetherson wrote: post #75
JamesBarney wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a well-reasoned answer, but probably not the same trade-off that most people would make. For example, if a car was twice as bad as the average driver (2 fatalities per 100 million miles), then you'd say 29.6 seconds per mile -- maybe something you wouldn't do at freeway speeds, but you would do at city street speeds. But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as…

The average movement speed of a car over a trip is ~22 mph anyway.

The gains from coordinated robotic driving could very well be enough to actually reduce speed limits by a significant value, which not only reduces overall fatalities (due to laws of physics), but also makes the equation better for the robotic cars, which might convince more people to switch, leading to a positive feedback loop.

That's an optimistic scenario, though.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#115

Post by alkonaut »

MR4D wrote: post #99
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…

Imagine some drunk guy hops into his car in bad weather. He taps the auto-cruise button and then passes out. Snow, rain, construction, - something - hinders the ride somewhere along the way home. Car cannot process the issue correctly, and slows to a stop, alerting the driver. Driver, being sound asleep, cannot hear the annoying alert tone. Alert continues, and possibly after some time, alerts authorities of it's dis…

Until cars are reliably at the highest level of replacing humans along the entire way of any drive (I.e cars don't have drivers seats) then obviously it must be a criminal offense to be the "driver" while drunk, even if the driver was hoping to sleep all the way home. What has happened here is really better: the drunk guy is asleep in a stopped car, rather than asleep in a car that just hit another car.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#116

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

schintan wrote: post #106
yoz-y wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Factually that may be true, but its a matter of belief. When I drive, I am 100% confident that I will not get into an accident. A self driving car with <100% safety is a net loss in my mind.

If you are 100% confident that you won't have an accident, you're deluding yourself. Unexpected phenomena like an animal crossing the road, a drunk or reckless driver driving against traffic or barging in from an intersection where you have the priority, etc. can get anyone.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#119

Post by maxerickson »

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.

I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox.

(According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher.

From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...

So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC.

(again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#120

Post by sebastos »

JamesBarney wrote: post #64
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.

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…

Okay, I've designed a new pill. 1 out of 4 people have adverse reactions to its contents and die instantly, but people who don't live long virile lives until, on average, the age of 100!

Your expected gain would be nearly 5 additional years of life! Should I sign you up?

Post reply on HN