Live data from Hacker News

Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

economist.com

121–130 of 556 posts

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#121
post #8

The article misses an important point. It’s not only a problem of technology, it’s also a problem of risk acceptance. While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same, even if the failure rate is on average /better/. This is the fundamental issue Elon Musk has. The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or eve…

> The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or even rocket science. I agree. This isn't about beating the national safety average, which includes drunk driving accidents, inclement weather, motorcycles, old cars and unwieldy trucks. It's about providing a safer alternative in scenarios where you have no other. And, it probably needs to be affordable too. There is a lot of other lo…

> it's too bad investors are climbing over each other to throw money down the long, narrow corridor that is self driving

I don't consider that bad. Anyone is free to make bad investments. I do consider it bad that they haven't yet had to book that many losses, due to the hype still going strong and them finding enough other idiots to join the party. I'm longing for the day on which bad investment decisions (such as in autonomous vehicles, at least if you expect them to be just around the corner to save your business model) seriously wipe out huge investments again - as it should be.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>even if the failure rate is on average /better/ Which has not been true thus far. That's the problem. > The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or even rocket science. Why shouldn't it be higher? Why shouldn't it be on the level of airline travel?

> Why shouldn't it be higher? Why shouldn't it be on the level of airline travel? Who said it shouldn't?

OP. He was bemoaning the fact that we hold driverless cars to a higher standard than average drivers.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#123
post #8

The article misses an important point. It’s not only a problem of technology, it’s also a problem of risk acceptance. While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same, even if the failure rate is on average /better/. This is the fundamental issue Elon Musk has. The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or eve…

it seems the bar should be that high as that is what the hype has told us we would be getting. I'm OK with it being as good as the hype ...and when it isn't the companies that write the software and build the cars can pay for the damage

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#124
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why shouldn't it be on the level of airline travel? In all fairness, commercial airlines operate in an environment that's mostly highly regulated with respect to maintenance, training, traffic management, etc. But I agree with your general point. After all--except arguably with respect to some drug side effects--there isn't really any consumer-facing product that regularly kills people and we shrug out shoulders and…

Tons: alcohol being just one example.

Substances used to excess and technology like electricity used improperly are in a different category than consumer-facing products that can kill you randomly through no fault of your own.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's an implicit bargain made when you get in a car that a person is driving: you're both risking your lives on this journey. A self-driving car is risking possibly millions of dollars and bad publicity, but not a life. It's hard to trust a computer like that.

Ultimately, you dont have to trust a computer. You have to trust the corporation that built that computer. That is quite different IMO. How am I supposed to entrust my life to a machine built by a corporation that just recently dropped the slogan "we wont do evil"? How am I going to entrust my life to a machine that has been built by a company that, like all the others, is maily interested in maximising profit margin…

You trust corporations all the time to make products, construct buildings, etc. to not kill you when used more or less correctly in accordance with what most people would consider common sense because said companies know they will be sued, fined, etc. if they don’t make safe things. It’s actually unclear what this means in the context of autonomous vehicles that will presumably have some non zero accident rate even if safe enough at some level.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same Ideally we should not be accepting either. It is outrageous how many people we allow to be killed regularly for slightly more comfortable transport.

> slightly more comfortable transport. Slightly more comfortable than what? Horses? Bicycles? Walking? There were 158,493 registered deaths in Australia in 2018, [1] of which 1137 were due to motor vehicle accidents [1]. Motor vehicle related deaths don't even rate in the top 20 causes of death. [also 1] The rate of motor vehicle related deaths in Australia peaked in 1970 at 30.4 per 100,000 population per year, and…

> Motor vehicle related deaths don't even rate in the top 20 causes of death.

According to [1] in the US road traffic accidents are the 17th-most-common cause of death across all age ranges.

But among 15-24 year olds? Number 1 cause of death. In fact you have to reach age 45 before road traffic accidents are even outside the top five.

If you really want to ramp up the rhetoric, compare road deaths to mass shootings and September 11th. Where's the trillion-dollar invasion of Detroit to overthrow the Drivetrain Of Evil?

[1] https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-ag...

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fundamental issue Musk has is that his cars can’t drive safer than even a below average driver. Oh wow, it can stay in a lane and match speed! So can every car manufacturer. They’ve got a level 2+ system and cars won’t be safer until level 4.

Do you have data that supports what you think?

The OP is simply stating the base case: cars without drivers shouldn't be safer than cars with drivers. The industry claims that their cars are safer without drivers because AI. The industry must provide the evidence for its very strong claim.

The fact that a majority of the public think it's the opposite way around, that skeptical opinions about self-driving cars must provide evidence, is the industry's succes- the triumph of marketing over reason.

Of course the industry has no such data. Research has shown that this data would take many decades to obtain:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html

Personally the only justification I've heard for self-driving cars being safer is "computers are faster than people". Yes- but at what?

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#129
post #8

The article misses an important point. It’s not only a problem of technology, it’s also a problem of risk acceptance. While we accept to be killed by our own mistakes at the wheel, society (we) will not accept that a machine makes the same, even if the failure rate is on average /better/. This is the fundamental issue Elon Musk has. The driverless bar for safety is way higher than very clever driver assistance or eve…

I see a lot of talk about how society will not accept machines that might make mistakes, but I don't think society has actually had a chance to make its opinions known yet. Society isn't the noisy voices and the click bait headlines, it is people who mostly quickly adapted to elevators and lifts and planes and trains, all of which are vehicles that have killed people while operating autonomously. I expect you will find the same worries about them too if you trawl the newspaper archives.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#130
I'm interpreting this paywalled article title literally, so I'm assuming driverless still can't solve the traffic jam?

A solution to this could be far less complex than using AI or sensors (installed per car) to steer the user automatically. Consider curing congestion by connecting most car's existing cruise control to a city-wide traffic light network:

Metal strip sensors are embedded into the first couple dozen feet of road at the beginning of an intersection, and this length is determined by the local DoT according to expected throughput (sometimes there are 3 or more sensors to count how many cars are queued up). This is because over the past several decades, classical traffic control created the enforceable expectation that vehicles come to a complete halt at the color red.

There is generally a pattern constant throughout all cities: primary arteries take priority until the left turn sensor is activated on the street parallel to the oncoming street, but the perpendicular street sensor activation takes priority before this. These are usually lower speed neighborhood or shopping outlet access capillaries emptying out into the higher speed artery stream.

Think about the feeling of seeing a dozen cars and heavy trucks going 40 mph and suddenly having to stop for a yellow light because only one car has activated the perpendicular sensor. That's a lot of wasted kinetic energy for just one car to cross, but timers and sensors guarantee static waiting times for the single car - something that a 2 way stop cannot guarantee.

Noticing that a car has activated the sensor is how I manage to catch most lights green - knowledge of the programmed sequence and line of sight of each of the 8 sensor sections means letting gravity slow me down at just the right time.

When a red light has been modified to interface with the approaching vehicles smart phone GPS and cruise control - "herds" of traveling cars can have their speed set in order to accommodate cars from lower speed capillaries without ever coming to a complete stop.

Here in Reno, a walk up one of the hills surrounding the city at night can lend a birds eye insight into the "herding" concept (large sections of the city can be seen without obstruction, headlights make crowd dynamics clearly visible). Speed limits and fear of enforcement generally means vehicles will cluster up. This pack traveling at their known speed (especially when giving consensual control to what we can call "Herd Cruising") can get through green lights while reducing wait times for perpendicular traffic utilizing the original sensor system. This same traffic could bypass the light similarly if the system already knows about an approaching bulk of participating "Herd Cruising" vehicles, although capillaries would mean cars entering the road and less likely to have time to herd together.

This could increase fuel economy, decrease waiting/idling time, save brake pads, and reduce emissions.

Post reply on HN