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

321–330 of 341 posts

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#321

Post by 3chelon »

jcranmer wrote: post #232
3chelon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of problem has long been solved in the mobile comms world by strong ECC codes and robust modems and channel coding algorithms. We routinely send autonomous vehicles into interplanetary space so I can't see that linking vehicles on a road is going to be a major blocker. Especially if they're on a redundant mesh network, or a smart highway.

Except the cases where you're likely to meet a large vehicle on a one-way road are most likely to be in extreme rural situations, where cell-phone coverage is far from guaranteed. And if you expect you can force non-connected cars to not exist on rural roads sometime this century, you are delusional.

Delusional is a strong word.

Exactly 100 years ago they outlawed horse-drawn carriages from the streets of New York City (https://www.nytimes.com/store/horse-cars-last-days-1917-nson...). Based on that, I cannot imagine what the roads will look like at the end of this century, but is it inconceivable that manually-operated cars will look as outdated as horses?

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#322

Post by nickez »

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…

> In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping.

This is because your country/states/cities are designed that way. I live 15 minute walk from three grocery stores. About 10 minute on bike to work. I do have a car, which I use sometimes for long distance travel if public transport isn't available. But it is a huge cost both in mental capacity and money to keep that thing going. Like keeping it serviced and full on fuel and so on..

If you want to visit a friend and have a beer, do you take the car? How do you get home?

In summary I do use a car maybe once or twice a month to go places, but if Uber made self-driving cars that could do those trips for me super-cheap then I would definitely sell my car. For me that would be freedom and like a sibling commenter said, even if you are using a car you heavily depend on others.

> /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud

I also actually enjoy driving, when I'm _not_ going from A to B. I don't see a reason to inhibit that..

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#323

Post by Jarwain »

uytyuiyu76678 wrote: post #293
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world where the breathalyzer tech we have had for a couple of decades now was installed into cars and simply prevented drunk people from driving. This is coming; I've seen mentions of a system with passive alcohol detection (just from the air inside the car) plus active "blow in tube" test if the passive test triggers that will start rolling out to cars soon. But it seems if stopping drunk drivers was reall…

That will just spurn a small industry with hobos camping near bars, ready to blow for ten bucks (no pun intended).

I wonder how unique the chemical makeup of an individual's breath is

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#324

Post by kd5bjo »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #292
galdosdi wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This puts a positive spin on the culture in busier urban areas of expecting drivers in front to start very quickly at a green or else get a friendly reminder honk. If you're going to look at your phone at a red, know the light timings or look at the transverse pedestrian crossing signal or transverse yellow light so you know how long you have.

>This puts a positive spin on the culture in busier urban areas of expecting drivers in front to start very quickly at a green or else get a friendly reminder honk I think it puts a positive spin on itself. Traffic lights work best when the green duration is utilized to the fullest extent.

In my experience, the best use of the first second of green is to allow cross traffic to clear so that I don't get hit by someone running the red.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#325

Post by aurelianito »

sandworm101 wrote: post #313
aurelianito wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. But you are moving goals now.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#326

Post by semi-extrinsic »

uytyuiyu76678 wrote: post #293
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world where the breathalyzer tech we have had for a couple of decades now was installed into cars and simply prevented drunk people from driving. This is coming; I've seen mentions of a system with passive alcohol detection (just from the air inside the car) plus active "blow in tube" test if the passive test triggers that will start rolling out to cars soon. But it seems if stopping drunk drivers was reall…

That will just spurn a small industry with hobos camping near bars, ready to blow for ten bucks (no pun intended).

Cars already have sensors that can tell if you're sitting in your seat or not. So avoiding this is just a matter of putting the tube you blow into in such a position that it's almost impossible for someone not sitting in the driver's seat to blow into it; also you could require that the passenger seat is empty and both front doors are closed.

Remember, the breathalyzer is only a backup in the situation where the car has detected alcohol vapors in the air, and is wanting to confirm that the driver is not the one who has been drinking. So it's not something you do every day, ergo it can be a bit of a hassle.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#327

Post by sytse »

jpindar wrote: post #302
sytse wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that when there is an unexpected situation that car stops and the teleoperator would indicate the best path forward. The human would not drive like an RC car but more like a rally car navigator. This is for example mentioned in http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/self-driving/after-m... "Eventually, nuTonomy will transition to full autonomy with the option for teleoperation."

There's plenty of places that have no cell phone reception. I go through one on my commute, and it's not even all that rural.

That is a problem. But I do think that teleoperation will be a thing despite that.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#328

Post by bluGill »

secabeen wrote: post #253
Animats wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big change is between levels 2 and 3. That changes who's responsible. At level 2, the driver is responsible for accidents; at level 3, the manufacturer is. California and Michigan have already enacted that into law, that's what NHTSA recommends, Volvo's CEO publicly endorses that, and the big US automakers accept it. Tesla finally accepts it. Uber is still whining, but that's Uber. Volvo's is starting a 100 vehic…

You have hit the nail on the head here. The 2/3 liability transition is a big one. My guess is that companies will actually delay deploying level 3 systems until they are nearly perfect. This will result in systems that seem really really good at driving (especially in sunny southern california), yet still insist that the driver wiggle the wheel or show some other sign of attentiveness to prevent liability transfer.

My guess is soon after the first company releases this they will show statistics on how much safer their cars are and governments stop sales on new cars that are not level 3 in whatever situations their car handles. (this to repeat again as we move up the levels)

Even if you are right because of the above all manufactures would be stupid to not have a significant investment: the day when they have no choice might be out of their control and if they are not ready they go out of business (or confine their business to poor countries with loser laws - but these countries tend not to sell many high profit new cars).

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#329

Post by aetherson »

Nition wrote: post #246
nostrademons wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a pretty attractive proposition. The long, slow decline during your last decade of life is miserable , on both you and on loved ones. There are certain strategic times in life where you'd want to take this, though. Ideally after the kids are grown up and don't need you anymore (so you either drop dead painlessly & predictably, or get a nice long life in great health so you can see the grandchildren grow up),…

I'd suggest keep the pill in your pocket until you're about to die, and take it then. That way you have a 1/4 chance of the same result and a 3/4 chance of major improvement. Not taking the pill already of course risks dying in your sleep.

The pill only works before you're 40 because it's a magic thought experiment.

Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars

#330

Post by perlgeek »

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"…

> I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks.

Society as a whole could decide that the obvious safety risk has no place on public road, and if you want to drive motorcycles, you could do so on private property, and/or in places specifically designed/reserved for that. Same for manual driving of cars.

That would be a big change, and it'll likely take decades until we get to such a point, or maybe we'll never get there. But I could very well imagine it happening.

Post reply on HN