Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#51

Post by thetrendycyborg » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:45 PM UTC

pdx wrote: post #28

unexpected wrote: post #25

This is a beautiful example of a state, in desperate need of revenue, supporting legislation that encourages businesses to start up without increasing/decreasing taxes. Now if only the US could do the same thing with stem cells.

Is the Nevads government subsidizing research into self driving cars with tax money? If not, than I see no parallel to stem cells. For the last 10 years or more, you're welcome to do anything you want with stem cells. Go crazy. You just haven't been able to get tax money to fund it, if the stem cells happened to be embryonic.

There's not really an advantage to embryonic stem cells anyways.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#52

Post by finnw » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:53 PM UTC

JeffL wrote: post #49

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That won't help. Everyone in the area will likely be travelling to work around the same time.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#53

Post by xp84 » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:54 PM UTC

karamazov wrote: post #30

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.

one possibility is today's system - whoever owns the car (whether it's a private individual, a cab company, or the city) will pay for insurance, and that insurance will pay out to cover any damages. Now, what happens if there's a bug in the software, causing a lot of damage at once? Can the insurance sue the programmers to recover losses? Probably; but at the least, the victims should be paid promptly by the insuranc…

Yeah, but if insurers have to assume that liability until they can maybe recover damages (just think, the car manufacturer or software firm might not even exist anymore and the car still on the road), insurance is going to be very expensive for these things. Insurance companies aren't a charity, they're going to have to pass on those losses into the premiums.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#54

Post by xp84 » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:58 PM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #44

ChuckMcM wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why "no way"? I don't have any problem with your suggested models either, but see no reason why public car services couldn't coexist.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#55

Post by cobrausn » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:59 PM UTC

jfoutz wrote: post #40

cobrausn wrote: post #34

If a driverless car cuts me off, to whom do I direct my middle finger? Seriously, though, good on them - I'd love to see this kind of thing during my lifetime. Hopefully it goes well - I'd hate to see this cause a rash of accidents no matter whose fault it ends up being.

With all of the sensors required, there will be a fantastically detailed record of every crash. My money is on the humans screwing up so badly the driverless car can't recover.

I would not be surprised if the first couple accidents were the result of nearby drivers 'ooh'-ing and 'ahh'-ing at the driverless car.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#56

Post by geogra4 » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:59 PM UTC

finnw wrote: post #52

JeffL wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That won't help. Everyone in the area will likely be travelling to work around the same time.

Cars can be programmed to avoid traffic jams.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#57

Post by ori_b » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 10:59 PM UTC

thetrendycyborg wrote: post #51

pdx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the Nevads government subsidizing research into self driving cars with tax money? If not, than I see no parallel to stem cells. For the last 10 years or more, you're welcome to do anything you want with stem cells. Go crazy. You just haven't been able to get tax money to fund it, if the stem cells happened to be embryonic.

There's not really an advantage to embryonic stem cells anyways.

Are you sure? How was this determined without doing experimentation with embryonic stem cells?

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#58

Post by geogra4 » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:00 PM UTC

Selvik wrote: post #47

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.

It's a complex question, but I think the main reason was just for child-rearing space. Crime wasn't an issue when the first suburbs exploded in the 50s.

With fewer people having children I think that's less of an issue.

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#59

Post by jfeldstein2 » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:04 PM UTC

natesm wrote: post #31

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.

Regardless of whether or not it drives itself (although it's an improvement), I still find the idea of owning a car very unappealing, and it still doesn't give the suburbs a soul.

You wouldn't buy a car, you'd just order a ride when you needed it, and the car would come pick you up. Think Zipcar

Re: Nevada approves regulations for self-driving cars

#60

Post by learc83 » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 11:05 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #50

nitrogen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-130088…

Almost all auto fatalities are caused by human error. I think saving 1 million+ lives per year is worth the legal wrangling to determine fault for the remaining few accidents.