Live data from Hacker News

Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

medium.com

171–180 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#171
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.

Do you use Taxis? How do you know that they aren't sleepy/inexperienced/a bad driver?

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#172
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and, yet, you need something at least very close to that before you can have cars without anybody in them shuttling around to pick up people or deliver a pizza. (Which is why anyone who thinks they're going to be able to hail a roboUber in Manhattan within a decade is... optimistic.) I suppose you can construct really elaborate corner cases that you might give a car a pass on. And maybe there are ways to make…

It'll be a while before the human is completely out of the loop, but Waymo has filed a patent for 'remote assistance in low confidence situations', and many of the companies pursuing robotaxis have signalled similar initiatives.

The handoff speed is an issue as is the fact that the vehicle would have to recognize a problem in order to ask for help. But, yes, some sort of remote assistance system would seem to be one solution to at least certain edge cases.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#173
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.

Have you ever been in a taxi? You aren't in control there.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#174

In an article that has obviously been well thought out and reasoned, it's disappointing to see the author using the current accident rates as reported by self driving car developers as if they were a representative sample and subsequently used as a lemma for further arguments. Simply put, the current rates reported aren't a representative sample. In fact they aren't even naively semi-representative. They are delibera…

Dunno if you live in Silicon Valley, but here in the Mountain View / Sunnyvale area, they absolutely do drive the same miles that humans drive, in the same conditions. There is about the same chance that you'll see a WayMo self-driving car on your trip as that you'll see a VW Bug, perhaps slightly higher. There's a significantly higher chance than seeing a Tesla or McLaren, even though both of those marques are quite…

By virtue of the typical working hours of engineers alone, they are unlikely to drive in the same conditions, roads, and traffic as normal drivers. Their operating hours skew heavily towards driving in city traffic during non rush hours. They skew heavily away from driving at night, during rush hour, during lunch times, and during extreme weather events.

I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour.

Seeing them on the road commonly is not a guarantee that their driving patterns are representative. Their driving patterns are deliberately designed to not be representative...not because it helps their metrics, but because it is the only feasible path for development. Back when the first DARPA challenge was around, the only objective was to make it from point A to point B in an empty, flat, and mostly obstructionless desert (and everybody failed). By the time of the last challenge, they had to navigate a suburban-ish area devoid of people but populated with demarcated roads and carefully placed obstructions. Now they are on relatively slow city streets with actual people but controlled times/conditions.

So this phenomenon is obviously not new...SDC engineers have known this from the beginning. But now we have a new class of SDC boosters that don't actively involve themselves with development and don't seem to realize that their metrics are representative of the current state of SDCs and not a guarantee that can reliably extrapolate.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#175
post #143

"Every city has different driving culture, so how will autonomous cars treat these unique conditions. What’s safe in Bangalore may cause a traffic collapse in Boston, etc." This will be a really interesting problem to solve. The ability to turn on a red light for example will require a city specific profile and will change over time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red

Honestly, I think these special cases for robust systems like Waymo's will be more a matter of custom configuration than something particularly novel. Yes, they'll run into scaling to every city immediately, but that happens already with software-only technology.

I think it's the combination of mandatory updates and zero tolerance for error that will be interesting.

For example city X decides to change some traffic rule on date Y. Each autonomous vehicle will need to receive an update by date Y. What happens if a vehicle hasn't been updated soon enough?

One solution is a mandatory update scheme. Every day a vehicle checks if it has received its daily update, if not the vehicle is disabled. Another more long term solution could be close co-ordination with cities to determine which upcoming traffic rule changes warrant mandatory (vehicle cannot be enabled without update) updates.

These corner cases may seem trivial, but with zero tolerance for error across hundreds of thousands of cities careful strategies will need to be developed.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#176
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.

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% (6,86…

First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You.

Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing.

However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I visited Mendocino a couple of weeks ago. The natural beauty of it had us talking about the possibility of living there. The first obvious concern: Employment. It's a 3 hour drive to San Francisco. My first thought was autonomous electric vehicles and exactly your point. Charge the batteries with sunlight and let the car do the driving to the office in San Francisco and back while I'm pounding out code,…

Motion sickness?

Doesn't impact plenty of people.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe you could lease your self driving car to self drive others around and pay for it that way...

Perhaps, but in doing so you trade off many of the benefits of ownership (i.e. personal space). Plus you'd need to time-box the rental to ensure availability when you need it, whereas the taxi user can just decide to go somewhere. (So maybe you choose to use a taxi in those cases...)

I think you'd end up blurring the line with taxis so much that the ownership would hardly be worth it.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#179

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?

youtube-dl supports downloading from Vimeo.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#180

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 f…

Being that cars operate in physical reality, my guess is the machine would ignore your obviously incorrect spike of data and rely instead on its LIDAR and cameras. Frankly, I see V2X as basically useless outside of coordinating complex maneuvers (high speed, high efficiency car trains on freeways or stopless intersections). But why even have it if the sensors are already aware of what's going on to a reasonable degre…

When you have mutliple vehicles, each potentially with their own variant of control software, then each could be internally deterministic but "foreign" to the other vehicle. Kind of like a double pendulum.

Edit: But also like that cool double/triple pendulum thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyN-CRNrb3E) you don't necessarily have to be able to predict the future if you are simply monitoring the present state at a high enough sampling rate. Note that this thing is sampling at 1ms. Not sure what kind of sampling would be necessary for cars, certainly a function of velocity and braking power.

Post reply on HN