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

261–270 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#261

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

galdosdi wrote: post #210
stale2002 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. If something goes wrong, 99.9% of the time, the solution is to slam on the brakes, and maybe swerve a little to avoid an immediate obstacle. If a self driving car only does this, it will be a way better driver than a human. Talking about weird edge cases misses the point. Edge case = slam on the brakes.

Really? So easy to think of scenarios where there _is_ no safe answer. For example, what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions and sensors suddenly begin failing so the software no longer trusts is inputs? Based on recent good inputs, accelerating, swerving, or breaking are all dangerous, and based on the loss of "vision" continuing at current speed is…

> what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions

I would assume that a self-driving car would allow more than 1 space between cars when going 50 mph, and probably wouldn't be going 50 mph when there's black ice around.

Hell, most humans wouldn't be.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#262

Post by JamesBarney »

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…

I think lots of people make this decision all the time without realizing it because it's not as intuitively scary to them as robo-driving. I would wager that the majority of people on hacker news have driven on 5-6 hours of sleep at some point and a sizable portion make this a habit.

[0]http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/06/50444863...

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#263

Post by twinkletwinkle »

sgustard wrote: post #89
Fricken wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Once there are robot cars there is no longer a limit to how many cars can be on the road

But there are resource costs.

Also your reductio ad absurdum doesn't make sense. No one is saying there should only be one car that everyone shares. However it's reasonable to say the optimal number of cars (where I might define optimal as "One is always available to you in a short amount of time") is somewhere less than the number of people.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#264

Post by gertef »

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…

If a car has trouble, it pull over to the shoulder or right lane. This is what people (should) do, and what cars will do. Yes, it can be annoying, the question is, is it orders of magnitude MORE or LESS likely to happen in an automated car.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#265

Post by agumonkey »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #208
agumonkey wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, I admit having a very egocentric POV on the matter, I mostly picture things in Europe and US ... There are a lot of places elsewhere. That said, it's probable that EU and US will be the first markets to take off. Japan, China, India soon after. Also outside of cities, isolated places, if SD kits are affordable could enjoy regular refill.

I'm not sure, I think Asia could be the first destination since they have the least vested interest in personal cars, and the most pressing problems that self driving cars could solve. The only issue is training the cars to deal with lawless pedestrians and e-bikes.

Possibly, but commpanies need to export/produce there, at an affordable price. I thought they'd plan to go for western markets first.

If an asian company catches up fast then yeah it will move faster there.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#266

Post by gertef »

RangerScience wrote: post #224
MR4D wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Simpler than that; Nissan's been working on it, and it's finally been announced: http://www.autoblog.com/2017/01/10/nissan-self-driving-cars-... > For example, Sierhuis described a situation where a temporary construction site, something like a crew repairing a traffic light, would confuse the car. Not only would the traffic signal be missing for the AI to process, but we would also have a worker waving cars through…

Drone cars! Why isn't remote control driving progressing apace with self-driving cars?

Outsource Uber driving to lowest-wage drivers in India, Bangladesh, or Nigeria.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#267

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #125

No mention of pedestrians, cyclists, or how cars (self driving or otherwise) affect the urban realm. So much of the self driving discussion seems to be wholly about the automobile technology in a bubble, with near zero thought put into the impacts on people, cities and society. The fact that the idea of signal less intersections, a concept that ignores the existence of pedestrians and cyclists entirely, is even a poi…

Are there cycling/pedestrian advocacy groups that are against self-driving cars? I'm sure there's some concern about the early stages, but these groups are so acutely aware of the deficiencies of human driving that I find a lot of enthusiasm for automation.

A driving infrastructure that's advanced as far as signal-less intersections is one that will almost certainly have dedicated space for human-powered transport. Automated driving, as a whole, appears to be far more compatible with peds and cyclists. As far as whether resources will be allocated to build the ped/cyclist friendly infrastructure, just ask any realtor what a 'walkable' neighborhood does to property values.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#268

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

agumonkey wrote: post #142
nostrademons wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite possibly no parking spot locations. A self-driving car service would drop off one passenger and then immediately move to pick up the next passenger. I suppose there'd still be parking lots to handle shifts in aggregate demand over the day, but they'd be well outside the city, in some barren desert land or garage.

You're already thinking two steps ahead. This would mean sharing SDV. I don't know if people still want to own cars or not. ps: a stream of e-SDV, possibly solar recharged would not be a sad thing for humanity.

Once people see the cost of ownership vs. sharing, I think the decision will be made for many. Ownership would likely persist at some level, but it's hard to imagine it as much more than a slim minority.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#269

Post by Animats »

RangerScience wrote: post #224
MR4D wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Simpler than that; Nissan's been working on it, and it's finally been announced: http://www.autoblog.com/2017/01/10/nissan-self-driving-cars-... > For example, Sierhuis described a situation where a temporary construction site, something like a crew repairing a traffic light, would confuse the car. Not only would the traffic signal be missing for the AI to process, but we would also have a worker waving cars through…

Except that Google was able to handle construction sites, traffic cones, and people directing traffic last year. Watch Urmson's video from SXSW.[1] Google has put a lot of effort into handling unusual situations. Those cars driving on residential streets in Mountain View and Austin have accumulated data on the hard cases.

The California DMV continues to publish autonomous vehicle crash reports. The last one was in October.[2] A Google vehicle was rear-ended at 3mph when it was entering an intersection with poor visibility, detected cross-traffic, and stopped.

I'm looking forward to the 2016 self-driving disengagement reports appearing on on the California DMV site.[3] Those were due January 1, covering the year ending 1 December 2016. Then we'll have comparative info on how all the players are doing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [3] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#270

Post by quacker »

theincredulousk wrote: post #145

If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive." It is difficult to decide if this statement is idealistic, naive, or written by an algorithm. I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks. This may come as a shock, but minimizing risk isn't the sole goal of everyone's life on earth. By this logic, we shouldn't "let"…

> By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. There were about ~35000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015[1]. When we have the opportunity to reduce this number to (nearly) zero, the question becomes: is it worth paying 35000 lives to allow our society to satisfy its recreational driving needs? I think the answer is clearly, no.

It is one thing for a person to risk their own life base jumping or rock climbing, for example. It is a different thing for others to risk my life (or vice versa) on my way home from work each day. There are plenty safe ways to accommodate demand for recreational driving in a world where humans driving cars is otherwise illegal. You can go to a track, or maybe certain roads could be available for human use, or maybe human driving is allowed only on certain days or hours.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

Post reply on HN