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

131–140 of 150 posts

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#131

Post by kaitnieks »

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).

It's also difficult to drag the car with automatic gearbox (you have to do it very slowly or put it on a trailer) and you can't start the car by pulling it if battery gets flat.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#132

Post by fr0sty »

speleding wrote: post #130
fr0sty wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is technology that looks very promising but is not, from my research, mature.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#133

Post by toddh »

burgerbrain wrote: post #78
toddh wrote: post #25

Perhaps it's because software has an obvious history of being buggy. A web service won't be down for a while if this fails, hundreds of lives being at risk on a 24 hour a day basis. Maybe a little wait-and-see is a reasoned approach for a complex interactive dynamical system like this?

I don't think there is a computer in the world that has a worse uptime than myself. Even old cheap Windows ME boxes did a fair enough job of being able to run without impairment for more than 20 hours or so.

The complexity of the applications will be far greater than Windows ME. Good article on The Long, Dismal History of Software Project Failure - http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/05/the-long-dismal-his.... Before we let everyone's self-driving mashup on the road it might be good to figure out if they work first.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#135

Post by FrojoS »

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…

Very interesting! I never thought about the insurance issue. The current systems rates premiums mostly according to personal driving record, right? [1] Hence, if I never drive myself, my premium should only depend on the crash record of that type of robot car.

This would also imply, that my premium could raise, because that kind of robot, recently crashed a bit too often. At the same time, I might be able to reduce my premium by installing a software or hardware update.

[1] I have a license for years but never owned a car. AFAIK it is not just the drivers record but also the statistical likely hood of a crash, according to gender, age in car. Though, cars today are not rated as 'unsafe' because they are buggy but because they are popular with reckless drivers.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#136

Post by FrojoS »

thevectorist wrote: post #69
nostromo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Recreational refreshment? Another technology revolution that will be driven by the fact, that sex sells?

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#137

Post by FrojoS »

alexqgb wrote: post #96
jsdalton wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inclu…

So why would insurance companies actually want that future. Wouldn't car insurer be out of buisnes if there were no more crashes?

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#138

Post by stretchwithme »

Its possible to prove that driverless cars can be safe. And that's by keeping cars from having accidents. If safety systems can keep human drivers from having accidents by stopping vehicles before they can have an accident, they can do the same for robotic vehicles.

Such systems would place limits on how fast you could accelerate, turn the wheel or apply the brakes. And they would also brake for you when other vehicles, pedestrians and animals appear to be on a collision course.

Such systems will have to be proven in the real world. And we are starting to see them. The newest Mercedes have such features. I predict that full blown systems will dramatically lower accidents for older people, teenagers and those who drive under the influence. Eventually all new cars will have these systems.

And by then it will be a lot easier to trust the machines.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#139

Post by v21 »

bugsy wrote: post #108
Alex3917 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What does that mean adjusted?" It's explained the study. "About this time is where I say a study has too many methodological flaws and should be disregarded." Try actually reading it. It's really not that difficult to understand. The 'maturity recanting effect' section here also gives a brief summary of what they did and why: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar... Don't criticize studies wit…

I feel very comfortable stating with 100% certainty that your claim that the study said 85% of all people report being marijuana users (exact words: "around 85% of Americans use marijuana alone") was completely and outrageously inaccurate. It's humorous but a touch sad that you can't admit you were completely and utterly wrong. Lay off the stuff, clear your head, and re-read the report, dude. It's also charming that…

Where did he call them unbiased? (I would call them reliable, though they certainly have an agenda. But they've always struck me as working hard to present facts, or at least label opinion as such. Certainly I can't think of another site about drugs that I would trust over Erowid. And I would be very interested indeed to hear of deliberately misleading information posted there.)

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#140

Post by v21 »

fr0sty wrote: post #101
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).

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.

Well, these folks at Google have been working on something along those lines...
Post reply on HN