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

Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 150 posts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#51

Post by eru »

jordanb wrote: post #28
nickpinkston wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend at Union Switch and Signal told me that the Chinese subways (which can run full-auto) had to provide work for two people for each train. One guy presses a large "Go" button to leave the station, which is automatically stopped at, and there's also an emergency stop button. The other guy has an "open / close door" control.

In Chicago, there was a case some years ago where a woman was pulled under a train by a door. She was carrying a very expensive violin. She got off the train and the doors closed between her and the violin, with the strap around her shoulder. Because the strap was thin, it didn't activate the door's obstruction detector. Because the violin was so expensive, she didn't want to lose it, so instead of crawling out of th…

> The conductor didn't do his job on the Chicago train and so a woman lost her legs. But a system with no human conductor would be an unsafe system by design.

Perhaps, yes. But in this example, with no human conductor, the woman would have just sacrificed her violin instead of relying on the unreliable human conductor.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#52

Post by eru »

paganel wrote: post #46
melling wrote: post #8

One idea would be to make some long haul roads, or sections of them, completely driverless. Maine to Miami along a section of I95, or NYC to LA. We could start the test with tractor trailers. Let them drive for a few years and tune the system. There would be a huge economic benefit to allowing trucks to run 24x7 without drivers.

> There would be a huge economic benefit to allowing trucks to run 24x7 without drivers. What would happen to the current drivers? Which new jobs should they pick?

Who cares?

There was a time when 80% of the population used to work on farms. Now much less than 10% work on farms in the western world. Do we have 70% unemployment?

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#53

Post by eru »

uvdiv wrote: post #15
______ wrote: post #7

Speed limits are another realm in which regulation can hold back the development of driverless cars, besides merely allowing them on the streets in the first place. With computerized drivers, it will finally be possible to fully enforce speed limits, by introducing some ceiling to the speed attainable by the car. I'm sure some "well-meaning" legislator will make it his or her priority to ensure that speed limits are…

With computerized drivers, it will finally be possible to fully enforce speed limits Why the hell would you want speed limits on a road with computerized cars? That's the whole point of eliminating human error and human limitations from the control loop, that 200 mph+ driving can be extremely safe.

Speed limits, in some areas, also serve to limit noise.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#54

Post by counti8 »

stanmancan wrote: post #37
jordanb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Chicago, there was a case some years ago where a woman was pulled under a train by a door. She was carrying a very expensive violin. She got off the train and the doors closed between her and the violin, with the strap around her shoulder. Because the strap was thin, it didn't activate the door's obstruction detector. Because the violin was so expensive, she didn't want to lose it, so instead of crawling out of th…

The Skytrain system in Vancouver is all automated. I don't recall if it's had any accidents, but I've never heard of any. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)

The system has an automated track safety system. It can get a little annoying at times as a rider — I've heard blowing leaves on the tracks can trigger the system, which is significant given the large majority of stations are elevated and can be exposed to the elements. This article from a few years back has described some of the more unfortunate cases: http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/11/18/SkyTrain/

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#55

Post by jdminhbg »

paganel wrote: post #46
melling wrote: post #8

One idea would be to make some long haul roads, or sections of them, completely driverless. Maine to Miami along a section of I95, or NYC to LA. We could start the test with tractor trailers. Let them drive for a few years and tune the system. There would be a huge economic benefit to allowing trucks to run 24x7 without drivers.

> There would be a huge economic benefit to allowing trucks to run 24x7 without drivers. What would happen to the current drivers? Which new jobs should they pick?

They can become candlemakers: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#56

Post by fleitz »

camtarn wrote: post #38
fleitz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I forsee the current seat belt system, where even in situations when it's advisable not to be wearing a seatbelt and/or the other mandated safety systems it's still illegal. The problem is a systemic one that stems from the belief that the gov't is the omnipresent nanny of its citizenry. Note: Before I get downvoted, I recognize that statistically seat belts save lives, however, there are conditions in which sea…

Given informed consent for seatbelts, what do you think the ratio would be between people who choose not to wear one because they have completely informed themselves from reliable sources and calculated that they're more likely to survive without one than with one, versus people who will just leave their seatbelt off because it's uncomfortable?

I'm not sure but if a person prefers to be more severely injured in the event of an accident rather than uncomfortable all the times they are not in an accident then it's an appropriate choice for them. I don't feel it's my place or any other third party to make these choices for adults.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#57

Post by william42 »

ultrasaurus wrote: post #10

So much of technical progress happens through delivering most of the value of the previous solution at a fraction of the cost (email vs postal mail). Society seems to rule this kind of progress out for a few industries like health care, I assume something similar is happening here.

The problem with healthcare is not that progress is being ruled out but that healthcare is highly labor-driven. So far there's no machinery that can replace a doctor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#58

Post by seanx »

alnayyir wrote: post #44
chrismealy wrote: post #17

We don't need driveless cars, we need carless people: http://www.carfree.com/

This would make riding my motorcycle much safer, I like it.

If driverless cars start reducing the car road toll then motorbikes will start to look really dangerous:(.

I suppose we could get self driving motorbikes but that would be missing the point of riding.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#59

Post by Jd »

The article doesn't make its case very well. The core problem people are presumably worried about is safety, and saying it they have a "good safety record" is hardly enough to reassure the senators, etc. who would presumably be responsible for relaxing restrictions.

For example, what about edge cases? Suppose the Google car does just fine in normal driving conditions, but in a blizzard w/ 26 mile per hour gusts of wind (as I drove in recently), or when a tractor trailer flips over on the road in front of you? Humans have a certain intuition that allows them to do bizarre twitches in extreme situations (even including supernormal strength) that presumably no machine intelligence will be able to approach for a long time (if ever).

Or what about the possibility of someone hacking the car? Could a worm engineered by some hostile government take millions of cars off the road -- or, worse, cause them all to steer into the median and cause mass damage and thousands of instant casualties?

It is, frankly, irresponsible not to consider edge cases like these when drafting legislation, and while I'm all for gradual introduction and more testing, the author of this article has convinced me that senators sitting on their hands not doing anything are probably acting on the interests of the people much more so than those who wish to simply hand over driving and navigation functions to machines as soon as possible.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#60

Post by [deleted] »

rmc wrote: post #48
fleitz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I forsee the current seat belt system, where even in situations when it's advisable not to be wearing a seatbelt and/or the other mandated safety systems it's still illegal. The problem is a systemic one that stems from the belief that the gov't is the omnipresent nanny of its citizenry. Note: Before I get downvoted, I recognize that statistically seat belts save lives, however, there are conditions in which sea…

there are conditions in which seatbelts cause fatalities (even when used properly) Do you have an example?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN