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

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#141

Post by cyrus_ » Tue, May 31, 2011, 1:09 AM UTC

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #82

This is the crux of the matter: > imagine that the cars would save many lives over all, but lead to some bad accidents when a car malfunctions. The evening news might show a “Terminator” car spinning out of control and killing a child. There could be demands to shut down the cars until just about every problem is solved. The lives saved by the cars would not be as visible as the lives lost, and therefore the law migh…

Human psychology operates in a realm only dimly linked to logic, my friend. Consider the response in the US to the "risk" of terrorism, which in quantitative terms is tiny.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#142

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, May 31, 2011, 1:36 AM UTC

v21 wrote: post #139

bugsy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I think Erowid is about as unbiased as it gets. All they do is provide information about drugs, they are neither advocating drug use nor condemning it.

Even their legal articles don't take any position on what drug policy should be, all they do is explain the case law that exists.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#143

Post by johngalt » Tue, May 31, 2011, 5:52 AM UTC

extension wrote: post #115

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…

One problem is that even if there are far fewer road casualties with driverless cars, there will still almost certainly be some casualties, perhaps many. Who do we hold responsible for those? If we blame the car makers, there may not be any car makers because nobody will want to take on the liability. If we don't blame anyone then there is no incentive to improve the situation and no way to hold people accountable fo…

Perhaps a new entity is needed? Think of a zipcar like service which is accountable for the vehicle. Large enough to absorb the occasional accident, and pressure automakers for safety/efficiency improvements.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#144

Post by omouse » Tue, May 31, 2011, 12:16 PM UTC

daniel-cussen wrote: post #12

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…

Unions have a lot to do with this as well.

Unions aren't against technological improvements they're just against how quickly those improvements would be put into place because a LOT of jobs would be lost. If driverless subways for example were phased in as workers retired, I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem. Or if re-training were provided for the workers before they were let go, that might be acceptable as well. It comes down to the fact that humans have to eat and educate their children: machines don't.

Also (as a separate issue) I thought the governments of the world wanted to create more jobs, not fire everyone who is currently working... ;)

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#145

Post by eru » Tue, May 31, 2011, 1:01 PM UTC

westicle wrote: post #122

eru wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;)

We need a deposit on syringes.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#146

Post by eru » Tue, May 31, 2011, 2:01 PM 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?

Actually, this is an interesting question from a sociological point of view.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#147

Post by speleding » Tue, May 31, 2011, 2:44 PM UTC

fr0sty wrote: post #132

speleding wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean not mature? This has been on the market in cars since the sixties. Audi has had it in their top models for over a decade. It's just expensive

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#148

Post by fr0sty » Tue, May 31, 2011, 3:20 PM UTC

speleding wrote: post #147

fr0sty wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What do you mean not mature? This has been on the market in cars since the sixties. Audi has had it in their top models for over a decade. It's just expensive

Since you mentioned Audi:

A quick search for "CVT reliability" produces pages of horror stories related to the Audi (and other) CVTs.

The CVT is only available on the A4 and A6 (not the A3, A5, A7, A8, Q5, Q7, et al). Also, the CVT is only available with the smaller engine options. Finally, the CVT cars are front wheel drive only, no quattro available.

That is what I mean by "not mature".

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#149

Post by eru » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #111

eru wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is probably a small fraction of all speed limits.

Yes, at the moment. But if safety goes away as an issue, we will hit the issue of sound next.

Re: Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

#150

Post by billybob » Wed, Jun 01, 2011, 8:21 PM UTC

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…

Counterpoint: as an airplane passenger, my experience is the same whether there's a human pilot or not; I sit in my seat until the ride is over.

But in my car, if it could drive itself, I could get in the back seat and sleep. I could have a tiny apartment back there and read or play video games.

I think that if people will text while they drive, risking their lives for a tiny message, they will gladly let their car drive for the payoff of getting to do whatever they want during the trip.

Side effect: if people can sleep comfortably in the back seat while their car drives, suddenly a 4-hour commute may sound reasonable. That's going to screw with city planning, pollution, etc.