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

Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 556 posts

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#331

Post by catalogia »

Steltek wrote: post #268
diffeomorphism wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideally, I would like a pony. Realistically there is no alternative option, so there is no question. > for slightly more comfortable transport In some large metro areas, maybe. Outside of that bubble millions of people depend on a car to even be able to work.

Large metro areas effectively subsidize the rural areas. Those millions of people have enjoyed amazingly subsidized civil engineering to have that car commute. If those commutes built-in the correct costs in land usage, gov budget impact, and environmental impact, those commutes would be untenable.

Without populated rural areas to support them, people in cities would start cannibalizing each other within weeks. You seem to have a lot of disdain for people that make your urban lifestyle possible.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#332

Post by petilon »

jcranmer wrote: post #262
petilon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they just delivered "Smart Summon" feature where the car drives itself to you in a parking lot. The rollout of this feature has been glitchy. But it gives them a lot of data which they will learn from and improve. Once they fix all the bugs in Smart Summon they will have made a major step forward. Self-driving safely in a parking lot is very hard--there may be kids walking about randomly, other cars moving in unp…

That reminds me of the canard I haven't seen in quite some time: "Tesla is going to win the self-driving race because they've got the most data!" Has this died because people have started to finally understand that the logic doesn't actually hold, or is it because Musk/Tesla have stopped promising that full self-driving is actually imminent?

It hasn't died, the logic holds, and Tesla is still promising self-driving is actually imminent.

In addition to the most data, Tesla also has the best self-driving computing hardware you can buy today. (See autonomy day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucp0TTmvqOE ) They also have top software people. I think Tesla may very well release full self-driving in the next couple of years.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#333

Post by lmm »

upstandingdude wrote: post #289
Steltek wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking of full on rental like Enterprise or car sharing like Zipcar? Zipcar is pretty dang easy and it's what car-free people think when you absolutely need a car for a trip.

Thats more or less prohibitively expensive, because your hiking location would be outside of parking zone most likely, thus you're on the clock the whole time. Not my idea of a relaxing experience. Looks like zipcar is even station bound which makes it worse. You have to get yourself and all the stuff to the station somehow and then take it back from there again when you are done.

> Thats more or less prohibitively expensive, because your hiking location would be outside of parking zone most likely, thus you're on the clock the whole time. Not my idea of a relaxing experience.

An extra hour or two doesn't make a lot of difference when you're already booking for a weekend. Of course if you get stuck on a mountain overnight or something then you'd have a penalty charge, but frankly that would be the least of your worries in that case (and it would still be a problem if you had your own car but were worried about e.g. missing a day of work).

Of course hiring a car for a weekend costs a couple of hundred quid, but realistically you're going to do that what, ten times a year at most? You'd end up paying more in fuel, insurance and deprecation on a private car.

> Looks like zipcar is even station bound which makes it worse. You have to get yourself and all the stuff to the station somehow and then take it back from there again when you are done.

The "station" is around the corner at most. Walk 5-10 minutes, collect the zipcar, drive it to your building and load up, and then the same in reverse when you get back.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#334

Post by mkohlmyr »

bpyne wrote: post #227
DickingAround wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of silly. It's nice to imagine a world where people don't need cars. But most/all european cities, many of which we laid out before cars, still have cars. We all have cars because cars are incredibly useful; Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week? You're not going to bicycle them to the store and all that food home again in the mountains. Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 mil…

"Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 miles away?" Yes, you want to use a car in this case. But, in the life I imagine, I would rent a car. I dislike driving intensely, but I can see use-cases in which cars are necessary. However, Americans have been largely forced into car ownership, despite the expense and hassle of owning one. A reduction in car ownership coupled with more pedestrian-friendly community design…

I mean personally I go on day-hikes relatively regularly and I just catch the train to my starting point. I appreciate that isn't always possible though.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#335

Post by the_gastropod »

ryan93 wrote: post #291
Steltek wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you thinking of full on rental like Enterprise or car sharing like Zipcar? Zipcar is pretty dang easy and it's what car-free people think when you absolutely need a car for a trip.

Yeah I was thinking of enterprise. Its just weird some people think you can survive the suburbs without a car.

The parent of this thread explicitly states:

>Note that I'm only asking about city travel, not intercity transportation.

I don't know why these conversations always seem to descend into talking about the suburbs. Urban environments can (and should) reduce car traffic inside them. Talk about leaving the city to go hiking and suburban living (designed specifically around personal car ownership) are not what we're talking about here.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#336

Post by Steltek »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #286
Steltek wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large metro areas effectively subsidize the rural areas. Those millions of people have enjoyed amazingly subsidized civil engineering to have that car commute. If those commutes built-in the correct costs in land usage, gov budget impact, and environmental impact, those commutes would be untenable.

You missed the phrases "flyover states" and insulting people as rednecks and hillbillies.

You're accusing me of a bias that does not exist. If you want to live in the country with a different taste of personal freedom, please be my guest. However, it comes with a cost that has been ignored for too long.

Personally, I view a city that is safe from cars as the greater freedom. It means my children can walk to school/friends/store without the very real danger of being killed. Cars are the number one cause of death for children.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#337

Post by mcv »

bogle wrote: post #133

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…

> "If you don't need to drive why would you buy a driverless car?"

Not everybody lives in a city, and even people who do live in a city want to leave the city sometimes. I use my bike whenever I can, but we still own a car.

That said, the less you drive, the more interesting a driverless car might become: we won't be used to driving, so a self-driving car might be safer for us.

And the main reason I prefer to take the train over a car is that I can read in the train. With a driverless car, maybe I can read in the car (though car sickness is also an issue there).

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#338

Post by criddell »

astrodust wrote: post #324
ghaff wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people don’t live in urban cores. And it’s outside those cores where people can drive significant distances where self-driving has the most value. I actually expect we will eventually see self-driving on limited access highways and other “easy” situations. Self-driving in cities and as taxis may be indefinitely postponed.

> Lots of people don’t live in urban cores. That's what has to change. Both the location of people, and the definition of "urban core".

> That's what has to change.

Good luck with that. People like living in the suburbs.

It's where I live and when self-driving cars are available I'll move further out of the city.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#339

Post by kiba »

ivanhoe wrote: post #311
jdavis703 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Old people can't be expected to walk far or drive scooters and bikes everyday. Yet that's what one sees in Copenhagen.

And Copenhagen is well known for its high hills, right? Not everyone lives in Holland and Copenhagen and other flat places. Also, while it's definitely great that Scandinavians live their healthy and slightly ascetic lifestyle, it's not everyones cup of tea outside of those specific nations/cultures. Maybe it should be, by all means if this is what young people want they should do it one day when they grow old. But i…

That is why you have electric bikes to tackle those high hills.

Anyway, young people biking more means that more older people will actually be able to bike, because exercise helps with increasing mobility as we age.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#340

Post by catalogia »

Recurecur wrote: post #235
KaiserPro wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lidar has no problem with snow, only when its _snowing_. However, if visibility is reduced, a pure visual approach is going to be even worse. Musk made a mistake, and he's spending billions to prove that he never made it. snow makes HD maps somewhat less useful, as the terrain changes shape. But then, you need a map that evolves. Sadly for musky, the only company that can do that using purely visual data is Scape Tec…

>Lidar has no problem with snow, only when its _snowing_. However, if visibility is reduced, a pure visual approach is going to be even worse. Good thing Teslas have radar...which penetrates falling snow. >Musk made a mistake, and he's spending billions to prove that he never made it. People drive fairly well with only visual sensors (eyes). That is proof of concept. Lidar seems like overkill.

That radar is utterly worthless for this sort of application, it has awful angular resolution. It can't tell the difference between a building next to the street and a truck parked in the middle of the street.
Post reply on HN