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

121–130 of 150 posts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#121

Post by nl »

dagw wrote: post #113
nl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it a legal requirement for underage children to use an adult seatbelt? I know here in Sweden for example it is illegal to have child, under a certain height, in a car without proper child seatbelt/car seat. Form a legal point of view no seatbelt and adult seatbelt are more or less equivalent.

Here (Australia) children have to use a correct child restraint and/or seat up to the age of 7.

I believe the legal point is the same as you've stated - the law is "not correctly restrained" or something.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#122

Post by westicle »

eru wrote: post #50
TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nanny state is what you get when you involve government in issues of health insurance and its kin. The laws and regulations then turn towards cost reduction along with "taxes" to discourage higher health costs. We only have the cigarette laws, seatbelt laws, and other 'endanger self only' actions that are regulated.

As a non-smoker I like smoking bans, since smoking affects me as a by-stander, too. I would also be OK with people injecting heroin instead of smoking---anything that doesn't stink.

Spoken like someone who has never had to pick the used syringes from a public playground before their child could play on it.

But agreed in principle ;)

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#123

Post by JoeCortopassi »

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

touche

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#124

Post by rubinelli »

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.

Let's put aside the "who's paying for the ER" argument. A driver that loses control of the car trying to brace oneself or restrain a passenger that isn't wearing a seat belt can increase the severity of an accident for other people, too. A car crash victim that falls on to the street suddenly becomes a hazard to other vehicles, too.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#125

Post by gbog »

fizx wrote: post #34
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…

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…

"Now, you're crazy not to [wear a helmet skiing]"

We do not leave in the same world. I mean, really, I am in East asia, not the same world. People do not ski much here, and if they do it is without helmet.

I know it is a bit tiring to recall this but it is a good habit to think about the reality of the generalization that one write. What I like on HN is that it is usually not too provincial. Sorry for the nit-thing.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#126

Post by mike-cardwell »

keeperofdakeys wrote: post #89
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 can't help but think that people may not drive well with computer-controlled cars on the road. The decisions that a driver makes sometimes depends what they think the decision of other cars will be. Unless the computer-controlled cars account for this in their decisions, then there may actually be more crashes, as the other cars don't do what human drivers expect. Another interesting result is that computer control…

I imagine they would be designed to drive using under the assumption that other cars are going to make unusual maneuvers, and to compensate for that.

During the period where both human and computer driven cars share the road, I suspect the human driven cars will get a speed advantage because of this.

Personally, I'll be more than happy to add ten minutes to my commute if it means I don't have to drive. I think a lot of people will be with me on that one.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#127

Post by danssig »

weavejester wrote: post #66
gst wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

>Clearly that's not universally true, otherwise racing drivers would use automatic gearboxes.

F1 drivers did until it got banned. In fact, if I'm not mistaken I believe our more advanced automatic transmissions came from F1.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#128

Post by wladimir »

chrismealy wrote: post #17

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

Right. The internet has taken away the need for a large part of the reasons for driving or (non-entertainment) travelling.

Making more use of telecommuting will drive down the number of accidents without the potential risks and liability issues of driverless cars.

Not that driverless cars aren't neat, but I agree it is the solution to the wrong problem.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#129

Post by meric »

joel_ms wrote: post #45

>But it’s clear that in the early part of the 20th century, the original advent of the motor car was not impeded by anything like the current mélange of regulations, laws and lawsuits. They did try in the 19th century though, at least in the UK, with the Locomotive Acts[1]. The way those laws went out of their way to protect the status quo (i.e. horse-powered transport) is an interesting parallell to today's possible…

"The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act):[5] Set speed limits of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns. Stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three: the driver, a stoker and a man with a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle. The man with a red flag or lantern enforced a walking pace, and warned horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self propelled machine."

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#130

Post by speleding »

fr0sty wrote: post #105
fr0sty wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you create a transmission that reads my mind, or can see the road and surrounding traffic it will not shift "better". Faster? yes. More smoothly? yes. Better? No.

I would appreciate counterpoint instead of (or in addition to) the downvotes...

You can't beat this with a manual gearbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmiss...

They're an option on the more expensive Audis and a few other manufacturers have them.

Post reply on HN