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

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#101

Post by mgleason_3 »

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…

There’s a simple explanation:

You’re getting older, more conservative and more averse to change. It’s ok, it happens.

As part of this you’re also likely over-estimating the danger and underestimating the benefits.

I’m sure every self-driving car death will (and should be) scrutinized heavily. But remember there’s between 30,000 and 50,000 auto deaths every year. I’m betting self-driveing cars will do better.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#102

Post by iainmerrick »

patejam wrote: post #46
distances wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Their metric is "deaths per billion vehicle miles travelled", so yes, I think it's a fair comparison.

It naturally scales up and down to match the amount of driving that happens in different countries.

I'm only deeply familiar with the US and UK, but the contrast there is pretty stark. I routinely see people on their phones or driving drunk in the US. Those do happen in the UK but they're a lot rarer.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#103

Post by amaranth »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #71
loeg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Most Americans need cars. America is a vast land compared to European countries. Public transportation can only go so far. Some American suburbs stretch more than 80 miles out of major urban centers.

Everyday people commute from all over England to London, via train.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#104

Post by DINKDINK »

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…

>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.

Simple way to avoid that:

Make a law that requires the CEO CTO and all the engineers and their family Who built the driverless cars To all drive around in their driverless cars / bike / walk around those driverless cars For a non negligible amount of time

No reason they should take the upside and public takes the downside.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#105

Post by ghaff »

nsgi wrote: post #52
ghaff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cigarettes are probably the best example, they look a lot more people than cars.

They're an example although I would argue that, in this case, "properly used" equates to not used at all. Also cigarettes were the subject of long drawn-out legal cases and a substantial settlement so they're something of a unique product.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#106

Post by xr4ti »

karmapolic wrote: post #70

how do you convince the midwest to use self driving tech? maybe start with nascar?

It's actually probably an easier sell outside of major population centers, especially if marketed as an advanced form of cruise control, which people already use on long, straight shots down country highways.

I think people would be much more inclined to trust self driving tech in these scenarios than in congested traffic with complex intersections and people unexpectedly darting this way and that with little to no warning.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#107

Post by devwastaken »

mgleason_3 wrote: post #101
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…

There’s a simple explanation: You’re getting older, more conservative and more averse to change. It’s ok, it happens. As part of this you’re also likely over-estimating the danger and underestimating the benefits. I’m sure every self-driving car death will (and should be) scrutinized heavily. But remember there’s between 30,000 and 50,000 auto deaths every year. I’m betting self-driveing cars will do better.

"I’m betting" Thats the problem. How do you know? When you have family, and people you care about, thats not 'conservative'. Thats the reality of being human. If 'change' means that consumers become the testing grounds for unsafe technologies, then yeah, I'll be plenty 'adverse to change'. These technologies do not require people to die to be made.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#108

Post by willis77 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95
thrillgore wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see the numbers you pulled out of thin air for your statement on deaths caused by software. I've met at least one developer who quit the profession because they were writing code that "would probably lead to someone's death."

> they were writing code that "would probably lead to someone's death" Versus cars, where I'd be shocked if there's a single mass-produced model that hasn't killed someone.

As of 2015, there were 9 car models without recorded deaths - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/record-9-models-have-...

I'm not sure how statistically significant the numbers are, but it's something!

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#109

Post by iainmerrick »

jessriedel wrote: post #44
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?

How do you feel about the 30k people who die each year the tech is delayed?

I'd say, let's ban using your phone while driving and drinking before driving like many other countries did 10 and 20 years ago. That could save 15k of those people right away.

Re: Apple scientists disclose self-driving car research

#110

Post by timthelion »

willis77 wrote: post #108
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were writing code that "would probably lead to someone's death" Versus cars, where I'd be shocked if there's a single mass-produced model that hasn't killed someone.

As of 2015, there were 9 car models without recorded deaths - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/record-9-models-have-... I'm not sure how statistically significant the numbers are, but it's something!

If I'm reading this correctly, those cars nave no "driver deaths" that means, that no one has died while driving those cars. This is a bit like a shotgun, which has potentially killed many people, but has not killed its owner.
Post reply on HN