Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#91

Post by teach » Mon, May 30, 2011, 2:16 AM UTC

bugsy wrote: post #87

Alex3917 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it count underage drinking? I didn't even notice that if it does. Regardless, around 85% of Americans use marijuana alone, so it wouldn't change the statistics by more than one or two percent. So I don't see how that would be misleading.

85% sounds pretty wild. Hm, looking at pg 78 of the linked document, it says among people surveyed who were exactly 50 years old when surveyed, graduating in 1977, those who tried marijuana were 82%. 1977 has got to have been the historical peak of high school usage. I notice they don't mention 51 year olds or 49 year olds, they have specifically pulled out this one exact age for this statistic. It then goes on to sa…

You're incorrect about the methodological flaws.

Only 50-year-olds are mentioned because this is a longitudinal cohort they've been testing since 1977, and this year (2009) it's their turn to be reported.

The "adjusted" number is higher than the measured number because some people answered the survey ten years ago saying they'd tried marijuana in the past year but then in the current survey the same respondent said "no" when asked if they'd ever tried marijuana in their lifetime. So they're publishing both the actual numbers and the "we know you're probably lying" numbers.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#92

Post by Alex3917 » Mon, May 30, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

teach wrote: post #88

Alex3917 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it count underage drinking? I didn't even notice that if it does. Regardless, around 85% of Americans use marijuana alone, so it wouldn't change the statistics by more than one or two percent. So I don't see how that would be misleading.

You're really misreading these statistics. Nowhere do they say anything close to "85% of Americans use marijuana". On page 103, it says that 82% of fifty-year-olds (who attended high school during the heaviest-drug-using period in America's recent history) have used marijuana at least once in their lives. But only 10% of that same group have used it in the last year. Among current 18-year-olds, only 42% have ever tri…

"Nowhere do they say anything close to '85% of Americans use marijuana'."

I said 'have used' in my original comment, which is what I meant. (In my reply I was thinking lifetime prevalence, i.e. around 85% 'use' marijuana at some point during their lives. Poorly phrased, my bad.)

"Among current 18-year-olds, only 42% have ever tried marijuana even once."

The age of first use of marijuana is highly variable. By age 25 around 65% of people have used marijuana, and more people keep trying throughout the next couple decades of their life. The important statistic is what percentage of people use marijuana at least once in their lives, not what percentage use it on any given day.

"On page 103, it says that 82% of fifty-year-olds (who attended high school during the heaviest-drug-using period in America's recent history) have used marijuana at least once in their lives."

The 82% figure doesn't count people who didn't make it to fall of their 12th grade year in high school, so you actually have to adjust it up a couple percentage points. Also, even if less high schoolers were using illegal drugs for a decade or two, that probably won't have much effect on the overall lifetime prevalence. It might eventually decline a few points, but probably not that much.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#93

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 30, 2011, 2:42 AM UTC

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]

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#94

Post by pnathan » Mon, May 30, 2011, 2:44 AM UTC

______ 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…

If firmware is limiting your car's speed, the firmware will get reverse engineered and patched to allow any speed.

Jailbroken cars: mark my words, that will happen the day after automated drivers are released.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#95

Post by blakeweb » Mon, May 30, 2011, 2:45 AM UTC

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #73

fleitz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"pilots are more likely to believe erroneous instruments rather than their own senses and experience." The human brain is not setup for 3D dimensions of orientation, unless you can accurately see the horizon it's more than likely that your perception of the planes orientation and vector is wrong than the instruments. In most turbulent situations the brain is wrong and the instruments are right. This is why pilots are…

it's not just the human brain. certain g-loads at certain vectors can cause a situation where 2 different scenarios are indistinguishable without outside reference. Illustrated most famously in Einstein's elevator thought experiments.

Could you explain what you mean? My understanding was that Attitude indicators solved this problem using a gyroscope a long time ago. Maybe this falls into what you meant by an "outside reference", but it seems to me autopilots would clearly take these measurements into account.

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

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#96

Post by alexqgb » Mon, May 30, 2011, 2:57 AM UTC

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…

This suggests that any effort to introduce driverless cars should be preceded by a multi-year ad campaign that (ahem) drives home the >40k dead/yr. figure.

Presumably, it would be paid for by insurance companies. It could be rolled out as a general public awareness effort (i.e. packaged with generic reminders about wearing seatbelts, maintaining proper tire-pressure, etc.), combined with localized elements that included maps highlighting particularly deadly times and places where drivers should be especially vigilant.

Once the figure is widely accepted, the companies who would be offering the technology would have an established base against which they could run ads that credit themselves with lives saved. Assuming that these claims are backed up by public data assembled by trustworthy parties, even the most vociferous "if it bleeds it leads" news agencies would have a hard time terrorizing people BACK to the days of a 9/11 every month.

Also, while I hate to be cynical, there's an upside to corporate mass media, in that a lot of ad dollars spent by pro robo-car interests WILL make news agencies think twice about scaring the daylights out of people just for a ratings bump. After all, the whole point of ratings is to boost the price of ad sales.

I realize that this may seem like a lot of effort, but no industry takes a longer view than the insurance industry. If there's one group that has the time, money, and motivation to make the push, it's the guys who are paying costs associated with all the current grief and mayhem. Moreover, our not-so-clean political system does mean that legislators can be easily persuaded once insurance companies are comfortable that the technology is truly secure.

My guess is that any push would need Federal backing, and would be focused - initially - on the Interstate highway system, where much less reactive driving takes place.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#97

Post by jeffool » Mon, May 30, 2011, 3:20 AM UTC

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?

The increased unemployment due to automation isn't a new problem, just finally getting attention. As also said in reply to you, farms make the perfect example. An arce produces far more food now than at any point in the past.

The bigger question is: Will we enter a new social contract where all people benefit from automation, our will only the property owners? Currently, we're trending heavily toward the latter. Regardless, that is a political issue, and unavoidable. Whatever we decide, even to my detriment, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't let it guide technological progress. At least not just yet.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#98

Post by nl » Mon, May 30, 2011, 3:23 AM UTC

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?

The typical example is an underage child in an adult seatbelt. Because of the difference in dimensions, a crash causes the seatbelt to impact the neck.

I'm not sure that would be classed as "used properly", though.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#99

Post by nazgulnarsil » Mon, May 30, 2011, 3:58 AM UTC

blakeweb wrote: post #95

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not just the human brain. certain g-loads at certain vectors can cause a situation where 2 different scenarios are indistinguishable without outside reference. Illustrated most famously in Einstein's elevator thought experiments.

Could you explain what you mean? My understanding was that Attitude indicators solved this problem using a gyroscope a long time ago. Maybe this falls into what you meant by an "outside reference", but it seems to me autopilots would clearly take these measurements into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator

it does, they can fail. humans can fail at assessing relevant information as well.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#100

Post by jacques_chester » Mon, May 30, 2011, 4:06 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #79

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't get past the (unclosed parenthese in the second sentence. It's like my inner programmer went into OCD overload...

I couldn't get past the use of "parenthese"[ ] as a singular noun in the first sentence. It's like my inner pedant went into OCD overload. 1:Parenthesis :: >1:Parentheses

... hoist on my own petard.