Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

physorg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#41

Post by robryan »

wallawe wrote: post #26
huherto wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that we will have a very efficient Taxi system. Using a Smart Phone you will be able to request a Taxi where ever you are; it will already know your favorite locations; your favorite music; it will automatically charge you; we will not need so much parking space.

Sounds like a YC company in the making! In all seriousness, there will be some great business opportunities here. It will open up an entirely new market.

It is probably a bit hard for a startup at this point, unless they just develop and license tech. The major cost and barrier to market is probably still in getting regulations through, once these are through though I think there will be lots of startup opportunities.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#42

Post by [deleted] »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #13
vasco wrote: post #4

This opens lots of cool possibilities such as eliminating the need for two cars in the family for example. You go to work, the car then comes back and drives the wife and then later in the afternoon when both parents are working it goes to school and picks up the kids!

The downside is that cars could be driving a lot more. Now, instead of a roundtrips each for me and my wife, it is two for me and two for my wife (assuming worst case). Individually, the costs go down (one car, woot!). Societally, (assuming anthromorphic global warming ;) the cost is much higher. Of course, with one car, I can afford a far more green car, so maybe it balances out again.

[deleted]

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#43

Post by figglesonrails »

angersock wrote: post #39
cobrausn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the accident involves a bus, does that make it a SIGBUS?

If something goes wonky and it hits a lamppost, SIGPOLL?

How do I send SIGSTOP to this horrible line of UNIX jokes?

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#44

Post by jfoutz »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24
draggnar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe the opposite is true. i can get around the city very fast without having to worry about parking.

I think this is more likely. Living in cities is desirable because you have a vibrant and 'close' community, it is undesirable because its hard to drive and if you do own a car its under utilized. One of the interesting effects on this might be 'non-bus' cars. Which is to say public transit as a fleet of say 'four person' self driving cars where you walk to a bus top and touch your transit car and one shows up and pi…

No way it's public. I can imagine apartment buildings having a car or two for use like a gym or laundry.

Or, perhaps a subscription service, superzipcar or something like that.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#46

Post by robryan »

joering2 wrote: post #23
xp84 wrote: post #15

Having just read Robopocalypse, I'm very concerned with this development. These automated cars did a lot of damage in that book.

just the legal question; if I drive with a family and autocar will smash into me, killing my children and wounding me so I cannot walk or work, who is going to be liable? car manufacturer, producer of the tires, software engineers house, or GPS system? Could see 20 years of litigation between all parties involved before I get a dime for recovery, or probably die first.

Automated hospital equipment might be a place to look for precedent in regulations, not sure what they are but it is a similar situation in that a machine malfunctioning could cause injury or death.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#47

Post by Selvik »

wtvanhest wrote: post #2

Is it possible that this will turn cities in to less desirable places to live? Imagine if you could take your car in to the city for drinks, have it drive around for a while and pick you up when your done. That is just one possibility, I'm sure there are so many applications I can't even think of them.

But why did people leave cities to begin with? Street crime was an important factor.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#49

Post by JeffL »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #13
vasco wrote: post #4

This opens lots of cool possibilities such as eliminating the need for two cars in the family for example. You go to work, the car then comes back and drives the wife and then later in the afternoon when both parents are working it goes to school and picks up the kids!

The downside is that cars could be driving a lot more. Now, instead of a roundtrips each for me and my wife, it is two for me and two for my wife (assuming worst case). Individually, the costs go down (one car, woot!). Societally, (assuming anthromorphic global warming ;) the cost is much higher. Of course, with one car, I can afford a far more green car, so maybe it balances out again.

Or if everyone moves towards self-driving taxi's, then the car takes you to work, then takes someone from near there somewhere else, etc, so you're really talking not much more extra driving, but saving tons on building fewer cars, fewer parking lots, and economies of scales for buying gas and maintaining the cars.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#50

Post by joering2 »

nitrogen wrote: post #29
joering2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just the legal question; if I drive with a family and autocar will smash into me, killing my children and wounding me so I cannot walk or work, who is going to be liable? car manufacturer, producer of the tires, software engineers house, or GPS system? Could see 20 years of litigation between all parties involved before I get a dime for recovery, or probably die first.

I've yet to read Nevada's regulations, but having it be the same as for regular cars would make the most sense. In an isolated accident, the operator's insurance company is liable. If there's a fundamental flaw with the cars, the manufacturer issues a recall. It's far more likely that an inattentive human driver will smash into a driverless car than the reverse, though.

I guess what I was trying to say is that cars were designed to be driven by humans, and although there are situations where machine's fault is hard to prove [1], in reality adding additional layer of decision-making piece of hardware will make it even harder to determine who's fault was when my children, hypothetically, died in a car accident smashed by a second car.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300880/Toyota-defen...

Post reply on HN