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

A more realistic route to autonomous driving

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#31

Post by vonmoltke »

ghaff wrote: post #29
ashraymalhotra wrote: post #4

IMHO this is how self driving applications should start. Driving on the US freeways (say between LA and SF) isn't about your driving skills. It's mostly just about trying not to fall asleep. And machines are way better than humans at this! Even outside the US, there are many areas (like UAE), which have amazing highways, sparse traffic and there isn't rail/air connectivity to some places. Self driving "shuttles" seem…

In general, highways seem like a pretty logical starting point. There are some potential complications like car accidents and debris but they seem far more tractable than random pedestrians, cyclists, and all the complex driving behavior on city streets resulting from traffic lights, trucks stopped to make deliveries, etc. etc. It doesn't enable end-to-end autonomous taxis, so you need a sober, licensed driver in the…

> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership

I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human driver adds right now is cost, but I don't see the cost savings of removing the driver being high enough to move the needle.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#32

Post by vonmoltke »

maxerickson wrote: post #30
ghaff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The min-busses with flexible routes are a common mode of transportation in certain Eastern European countries, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshrutka They are. But that makes me wonder why we don't already see a lot of this type of thing in the US. My instinct would be the cost of a minimum wage-ish driver isn't the difference between this mode of transportation working and it not. Of course, it does exist in…

A similar service is quite common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_responsive_transport#Un... Lower costs there can perhaps lead to a virtuous cycle of increased service and use.

The vast majority of such systems in the US are limited to people with disabilities.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#33

Post by maxerickson »

vonmoltke wrote: post #32
maxerickson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar service is quite common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_responsive_transport#Un... Lower costs there can perhaps lead to a virtuous cycle of increased service and use.

The vast majority of such systems in the US are limited to people with disabilities.

This is not the impression I have.

The one here is open to anyone and even sometimes runs a loop for a local taproom.

I guess you could sample 10 or 100 of them and see how many impose restrictions on rider eligibility.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#34

Post by trocadero »

panarky wrote: post #8

Building a vehicle that can handle a busy street, with cyclists, pedestrians, roadworks and emergency vehicles, is a tall order. You can try to simplify the problem by limiting your routes to major highways and making the vehicle ultra-visible so other drivers give you a wide berth. But at some point there will be construction, or a car wreck, or debris in the roadway. Eventually you'll need to exit the highway and d…

>Even if you manage to reduce the hard stuff to 1 mile out of 200, you still need to deal with it.

I think the minimum required to deal with it is to have the car pull over when it identifies a situation it can't handle. Even an onramp to exit car that pulls over if it sees construction will be extremely valuable to anyone routinely doing highway driving.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#35

Post by irq11 »

vonmoltke wrote: post #31
ghaff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, highways seem like a pretty logical starting point. There are some potential complications like car accidents and debris but they seem far more tractable than random pedestrians, cyclists, and all the complex driving behavior on city streets resulting from traffic lights, trucks stopped to make deliveries, etc. etc. It doesn't enable end-to-end autonomous taxis, so you need a sober, licensed driver in the…

> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…

Self-driving people talk about this because, even if the tech worked, the costs of the hardware involved is currently so prohibitively high (~$100,000s per car) that a taxi model is the only one that makes sense.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#37

Post by vonmoltke »

irq11 wrote: post #35
vonmoltke wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…

Self-driving people talk about this because, even if the tech worked, the costs of the hardware involved is currently so prohibitively high (~$100,000s per car) that a taxi model is the only one that makes sense.

In which case the capital costs of the vehicle will wipe out a good chunk of the cost savings from removing a human. Therefore, there will be no mass shift away from car ownership.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#38

Post by ghaff »

vonmoltke wrote: post #31
ghaff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, highways seem like a pretty logical starting point. There are some potential complications like car accidents and debris but they seem far more tractable than random pedestrians, cyclists, and all the complex driving behavior on city streets resulting from traffic lights, trucks stopped to make deliveries, etc. etc. It doesn't enable end-to-end autonomous taxis, so you need a sober, licensed driver in the…

> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…

There seems to be an implicit assumption that autonomous driving would somehow make the cost of effectively renting cars by the mile (and have them come to your door) almost too cheap to meter. Whereas, especially for transportation options that involve multiple people in a vehicle, the cost of a driver isn't really all that much relative to the overall cost of operating a vehicle.

For any imagined scenario involving autonomous vehicles ushering in new modes of sharing, renting, etc., a useful question to ask is: "Why don't we have this today?" And, if the answer is anything other than "$10/hour for a human driver makes it too costly," then you should probably reconsider.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#39

Post by jimmaswell »

fenwick67 wrote: post #36

> In March a pedestrian was killed in Tempe, Arizona when a self-driving Uber vehicle failed to spot her as she wheeled her bicycle across an empty road at night Wrong, the car did spot her, but the emergency braking systems were turned off.

Of course no mention in the article that the pedestrian was crossing unsafely.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#40

Post by bumholio »

vonmoltke wrote: post #31
ghaff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, highways seem like a pretty logical starting point. There are some potential complications like car accidents and debris but they seem far more tractable than random pedestrians, cyclists, and all the complex driving behavior on city streets resulting from traffic lights, trucks stopped to make deliveries, etc. etc. It doesn't enable end-to-end autonomous taxis, so you need a sober, licensed driver in the…

> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…

If the technology becomes commoditized, the cost reduction would be massive. A $30000 vehicle can drive 200K miles for the price of fuel and occasional cleaning. That's in the 30 - 50 cent/mile area, almost a full order of magnitude. Insurance premiums will depend on how safe they are - so they will be very low if self driving cars are to be allowed in any way on the road.
Post reply on HN