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

61–70 of 150 posts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#61

Post by noblethrasher »

jsdalton wrote: post #26
izend wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. I will wage anyone that if all the cars on the road were computer driven there would be no where near 42,636 people k…

I too can imagine the number dropping down far lower than that, even under a thousand, let's say. I can then imagine the newspaper headlines the few times per year that computers do end up, for whatever reason, being responsible for a small handful of deaths: "COMPUTER GLITCH KILLS FOUR PASSENGERS IN HORRIFIC CAR ACCIDENT!" Never mind that human "glitches" are responsible for dozens of such accidents every day at pre…

And I worry about the case when it will become more blameworthy for a human rather than a computer to operate a vehicle.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#62

Post by archangel_one »

gst wrote: post #47
jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

"Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing." Does not surprise me. Most Europeans have not even adapted to automatic transmission in cars, and still believe that a human can switch gears better with manual transmission (which has not been true for decades now). Makes me wonder if they ever adapt to fully automated driving. (And yes, I'm saying this as a European).

A lot of automatic transmissions plain aren't that smart; I can think of several I've driven that were too conservative about changing down on a hill which made the cars much less responsive than they should have been. Also there's the old chestnut about autos being less fuel efficient / less powerful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Benefits

Either way, I don't think the prevalence of manuals in Europe is entirely (maybe not even mostly) about not giving up control to the machine.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#64

Post by johnny22 »

fleitz wrote: post #56
camtarn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

except when we have to pay for their surgery or whatever via their emergency room visit.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#66

Post by weavejester »

gst wrote: post #47
jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

"Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing." Does not surprise me. Most Europeans have not even adapted to automatic transmission in cars, and still believe that a human can switch gears better with manual transmission (which has not been true for decades now). Makes me wonder if they ever adapt to fully automated driving. (And yes, I'm saying this as a European).

Clearly that's not universally true, otherwise racing drivers would use automatic gearboxes. It may be true for everyday driving, but I'd need to see some citations for this claim.

Frankly, I'm a little dubious of automatic transmission. Perhaps I've just been driving the wrong cars, but I haven't found an automatic gearbox that can match a human being. For instance, if I'm descending a steep hill, I'll stick the car in a lower gear, but an automatic always chooses the higher gear.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#67

Post by arethuza »

gst wrote: post #47
jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

"Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing." Does not surprise me. Most Europeans have not even adapted to automatic transmission in cars, and still believe that a human can switch gears better with manual transmission (which has not been true for decades now). Makes me wonder if they ever adapt to fully automated driving. (And yes, I'm saying this as a European).

Don't you think automatic gearboxes have just a bit of an image problem - they certainly used to in the UK.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#68

Post by thecabinet »

Alex3917 wrote: post #40
fizx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument (while good) won't apply to cars for simple economic reasons. Having a human pilot or subway driver costs 1 marginal person for hundreds of people. Having an extra driver per car costs 1 person per person. I will strongly bet that the two orders of magnitude difference in cost will overcome the bureaucracy. Additionally, once cars become sufficiently advanced, it will be much cheaper to insure a self-dr…

"Social stigmas are hard to sustain towards a large portion of the population." Over 90% of Americans have used illegal drugs, and yet there is still a strong stigma there. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009... (C.f. page 101, as well as the methodology.)

Your phrasing of that statistic is misleading. What you mean is, "90% of Americans have used illegal drugs or used legal-drugs illegally." When you say "illegal drugs" people think of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc. Casually lumping in underage use of alcohol and tobacco is purposefully misleading.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#69

Post by thevectorist »

nostromo wrote: post #49
fizx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument (while good) won't apply to cars for simple economic reasons. Having a human pilot or subway driver costs 1 marginal person for hundreds of people. Having an extra driver per car costs 1 person per person. I will strongly bet that the two orders of magnitude difference in cost will overcome the bureaucracy. Additionally, once cars become sufficiently advanced, it will be much cheaper to insure a self-dr…

> Having an extra driver per car costs 1 person per person. If the car has some sort of payload (like a Semi or UPS truck), then this makes total sense. If the human is the payload, then there is no benefit at all. (Well, other than being able to multi-task -- but if you're working from your car, why not just work from home and skip the commute?)

You can multi-task in areas other than work. You could be reading a book, playing a musical instrument, making phone calls, or even enjoying some recreational refreshments that impair your ability to operate a motor vehicle.

Much like taking public transportation to work, it turns commute time into time that can be spent doing something other than paying attention to the commute.

Post reply on HN