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

311–320 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#311

Post by caf »

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…

One thing to push for might be the idea that once you get to that far-off land of "all cars are autonomous, there are no traffic lights", pedestrians would have unlimited right of way such that you would be accustomed to just stepping out into a busy street and having all the vehicles stop for you.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#312

Post by dmitrygr »

carb wrote: post #289
nradov wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One edge case I have seen is law enforcement officers using loudspeakers on their cars to give drivers specific instructions such as to pull over in a certain spot or move out of a certain area. How will level 5 autonomous vehicles handle that case? There is no useful visual signal, just the audio. Will they need speech recognition and NLP that works in noisy environments?

In theory you could have an API integration with law enforcement that allow them to switch the car into "pull over" mode.

Scary...

Also: hacked in...3...2...1...

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#313

Post by sandworm101 »

aurelianito wrote: post #281
sandworm101 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that transition has been repeatedly tried, and abandoned, in less-demanding autopilot fields. Trains, planes and ships are all less computationaly difficult yet attempts to remove drivers from the equation have come to nothing. If it isnt 100% than it just isnt acceptable.

Paris metro line 14 has no driver in the trains. Madrid'd airport has a fully automated train shuttle between terminals. I have ridden both of them and they were quite successful removing the drivers on those.

Such trains are on short and closed routes above or below ground, or at least protected behind fences. They arent cargo-hauling trains crossing open country. Those all have crews.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#314

Post by losteverything »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #140
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…

I'm very much of a freedom loving libertarian but this comment comes across as incredibly foolish to me. One should have the freedom to choose self driving car or not. Personally, I can't wait to have one.

It was my opinion on why driverless cars will not be accepted.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#315

Post by WillPostForFood »

Dr0Dre wrote: post #256
WillPostForFood wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking a 30 minute video and distilling into a ~5min read is value add.

Agree, but why didn't he link to the video at the beginning of his blogpost. I had to google the video to find it.

Yeah, he should have put near the top, but he did link it at the end of the article.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#316

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

Honest question: where's the self-driving motorcycles? I don't care one jot about cars, self-driven or not, but in a past life (like, around high-school) I was a classic motorcycle nut [1].

Anecdotally, and from my experience, most people who ride motorcycles do it because they like motorcycles, not out of need, or for convenience.

So- what will happen with them? Will they still be able to enjoy their hobby once every car is autonomous, or not?

_________

[1] I owned and renovated one of these:

http://tvk1984.no/?attachment_id=220

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#317

Post by j7n »

Am I missing something? What is the Medium post author's value add- it's just a recap of the original presentation. It says "deep dive" but it's just copied slides.

The original talk by Frank Chen was already excellent.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#318

Post by gambiting »

wtbob wrote: post #309
maverick_iceman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second hand smoking puts others in risk too.

> Second hand smoking puts others in risk too. No, no it does not. So-called 'second-hand smoke' (a genius marketing term for smoke) is no more harmful than any other smoke. It is , however, a wonderful excuse for the sort of people who like controlling other people to … control other people.

>>So-called 'second-hand smoke' (a genius marketing term for smoke) is no more harmful than any other smoke

I've read this sentence literally a dozen times and I still don't understand how it relates to the point we made about second-hand smoke being bad - you are trying to make a point about incorrect naming, to maybe detract from the main point?. Smoke harms other people. If you smoke, you harm other people, who get in the way of your smoke. Here, is that easier to process?

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#319

Post by dragonwriter »

wtbob wrote: post #309
maverick_iceman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second hand smoking puts others in risk too.

> Second hand smoking puts others in risk too. No, no it does not. So-called 'second-hand smoke' (a genius marketing term for smoke) is no more harmful than any other smoke. It is , however, a wonderful excuse for the sort of people who like controlling other people to … control other people.

> So-called 'second-hand smoke' [...] is no more harmful than any other smoke.

While true (in fact, it's less harmful than first-hand cigarette smoke, which is what the "second hand" is distinguishing it from) that doesn't contradict the fact that it puts others at risk. Smoke (whether cigarette smoke or otherwise) is a fairly significant health hazard that you don't want spend lots of time exposed to.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#320

Post by yoz-y »

tbrownaw wrote: post #155
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are 100% confident that you won't have an accident, you're deluding yourself. So? That's something humans tend to do, and anyone trying to sell self-driving cars will have to account for it.

I think that when, at some point, it will be proven that driverless cars are safer then the regulators should come in and simply ban humans from driving vehicles that do not expressly require to do "weird stuff".
Post reply on HN