Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#41

Post by smokeyj »

akgerber wrote: post #28
menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

The reason why consumer/enterprise software is so lightly regulated is that very few people die when mistakes are made. (Embedded, especially medical, is a different story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 ) Meanwhile, cars (and roadways designed for high speeds without proper pedestrian accommodations) have been the #1 cause of injury deaths for kids for generations: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/Leading…

> The reason why consumer/enterprise software is so lightly regulated is that very few people die when mistakes are made

So few people die because computers are nearly unregulated and mass manufactured. Computers are cheap and safe because we allow the market to function.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#42

Post by criddell »

ghaff wrote: post #37
criddell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Resisting this is simple FUD? There's some psychology at work as well. Say self-driving cars cut the road accident and fatality rate in half but in the remaining incidents, half of those are driver error but the rest are all due to hardware and software problems. I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think…

It will also be somewhat new ground. As I've noted before, there are relatively few examples of consumer-facing technologies/products where properly maintained and used (or sometimes even misused) products kill and maim--and people are just fine with that because "stuff happens" and the cost/benefit is reasonable. Drug interactions are one of the relatively few areas today and even those often lead to lawsuits. (And…

Maybe self-driving car companies should be indemnified for anything other than gross-negligence until the technology matures a little.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#43

Post by andrewfong »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #27
rockinghigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US alone, 35000 people die and more than 2 million are injured every year in car crashes. Technology is our best hope to reduce these numbers. Airbags, blind spot detection, lane keeping, emergency braking can all contribute. Self-driving level 5 will not suddenly appear and work everywhere in every situation. It’s a gradual process. Another thing to keep in mind is that insurers will not insure these cars for…

Technology has helped a great deal. I'm saddened that enforcement hasn't played a bigger part, though. What I see around me on a daily basis is pure complacency . People switching lanes without turn signals, drivers with half their car in the bike-lane, tailgating, people who have their blinker on for several minutes (how did they forget? are they blasting music in their car such that they can't hear the clicking noi…

> (2) police departments are facing budget cuts, so enforcement probably will not increase.

I would assume the opposite. Speeding tickets are a way for cash-strapped police departments to raise money (or justify their ROI to whomever controls the budget).

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#44

Post by jessriedel »

menacingly wrote: post #13

There was a time when I thought of regulations as progress killers, but I find myself shifting on that and getting nervous every time I hear about self-driving tech. It's great stuff, but I really do not want my family to be the brave eggs we had to crack to get to the omelet of a driverless future. I now _like_ that someone somewhere has a book listing chemicals that aren't allowed to be shipped on an airplane, and…

How so you feel about the 30k people who die each year the tech is delayed? Or do you really think the litigation system (where currently car manufactures almost are never liable) is properly tuned to minimize the time until that is achieved?

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#45

Post by leadingthenet »

criddell wrote: post #34
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is so much low-hanging fruit in automated driving! People are really pretty bad at responding to road hazards, anomalies (dog runs into road) etc. Also people are terrible at attending to repetitive tasks. And people fall asleep. Its arguable (measurable) that automated drivers would be safer than human drivers. Resisting this is simple FUD?

> Resisting this is simple FUD? There's some psychology at work as well. Say self-driving cars cut the road accident and fatality rate in half but in the remaining incidents, half of those are driver error but the rest are all due to hardware and software problems. I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think…

> I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable.

Why is it not unreasonable?

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#46

Post by patejam »

distances wrote: post #33
rockinghigh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US alone, 35000 people die and more than 2 million are injured every year in car crashes. Technology is our best hope to reduce these numbers. Airbags, blind spot detection, lane keeping, emergency braking can all contribute. Self-driving level 5 will not suddenly appear and work everywhere in every situation. It’s a gradual process. Another thing to keep in mind is that insurers will not insure these cars for…

There are also other ways to successfully lower the death count, but as the recent NY Times column [0] says the American culture is working hard against any improvements based on restrictions. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/opinion/america-is-now-an...

Is it fair to compare the US to Europe?

US has an extremely different driving culture than Europe. ~13500miles/year for the US; ~8000miles/year for Europe. ~800 cars per 1000 people in the US; ~550-600 per 1000 in Europe.

Also, a larger number of people in the US simply couldn't live life without a car. I'm sitting in my hometown, a mere hour drive away from the largest city in the US, and I'd have to walk 45min to the nearest food. Work would be a 10 mile bike ride each way. This is New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the US.

The seatbelt thing is just us being dumb though.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#47

Post by sumeno »

smokeyj wrote: post #41
akgerber wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why consumer/enterprise software is so lightly regulated is that very few people die when mistakes are made. (Embedded, especially medical, is a different story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 ) Meanwhile, cars (and roadways designed for high speeds without proper pedestrian accommodations) have been the #1 cause of injury deaths for kids for generations: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/Leading…

> The reason why consumer/enterprise software is so lightly regulated is that very few people die when mistakes are made So few people die because computers are nearly unregulated and mass manufactured. Computers are cheap and safe because we allow the market to function.

Based on what? What deaths is the lack of regulation preventing? How would they be more dangerous if they were regulated?

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#48

Post by loeg »

mononcqc wrote: post #29
johngalt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the reluctance to trust new technology. If we are talking about the risk/cost of new developments, we should not forget the baseline costs we pay today. Self driving car tech will be the only method that can provide a hundred fold decrease in driving fatalities. Slowing down progress has a cost too.

You could also just reduce driving deaths by having better public transportation and reducing driving overall. Sounds like it would even be better in the long run.

> just

It's not as easy as you make it sound. Americans still want cars.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#49

Post by nsgi »

lorenzhs wrote: post #39
TehCorwiz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving public transportation could provide the benefits of both.

Driverless trains have been here for a while. They're great. With platform-edge doors, nobody can fall or jump onto the track, not to mention that they increase brake cooling efficiency and decrease air resistance (less air to push). But of course you weren't talking about trains. I see this sentiment a lot on HN that self driving cars are going to fix everyone's transportation woes, but I'm not convinced that they w…

Not sure what rail services are like where you live, but in the UK it's about 50/50 whether it is faster to travel between major cities by car or by train. Trains can go faster but this is often counterbalanced by needing to slow down to come to a stop, etc. There will always be places that can't be reached with public transport and even in cities like Paris renowned for their public transport it is often necessary to change several times as part of a journey.

Many light rail services e.g. BART and the London Underground are completely crazy at rush hour and there are many obstacles to increasing frequency. A big challenge of self driving trains is ensuring they are able to stop in time if an obstacle is present, and this relies on fairly similar technology to that of driverless cars. Self driving cars would reduce traffic because they would reduce accidents and allow cars to sort themselves into slots automatically rather than waiting at traffic lights.

You have a good point about rush hour traffic being increased by cars driving outside the city to park, although cars could park more efficiently in city centres if multi-storey car parks didn't need to allocate space for humans.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#50

Post by MBCook »

leadingthenet wrote: post #45
criddell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Resisting this is simple FUD? There's some psychology at work as well. Say self-driving cars cut the road accident and fatality rate in half but in the remaining incidents, half of those are driver error but the rest are all due to hardware and software problems. I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think…

> I think a lot of people would have a problem if half of all fatalities are due to system glitches even if the net result is fewer deaths and I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. Why is it not unreasonable?

Because you’re preventing 30k deaths that would have happened but causing 8k that wouldn’t... it seems fair for people to be mad about that 8k.

Maybe we shouldn’t have rushed into things until that number was way smaller.

‘Diverless cars cause 30% of road fatalities’ is not a good headline.

Post reply on HN