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

Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 449 posts

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#401

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

refulgentis wrote: post #357
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Fleet response can influence the Waymo Driver's path, whether indirectly through indicating lane closures, explicitly requesting the AV use a particular lane, or, in the most complex scenarios, explicitly proposing a path for the vehicle to consider. The Waymo Driver evaluates the input from fleet response and independently remains in control of driving. This collaboration enhances the rider experience by efficien…

> In my reading this is trying very hard to put a self-driving spin on an interface that allows a human operator to set waypoints for a robot to follow. I can 100% confirm you're reaching way too far to find excuses to indicate Waymo isn't self-driving.

OK what the bloody fuck. What is it with the tone of these discussions? You can 100% confirm I'm reaching... the hell is the matter with you? Can't you disagree like an intelligent adult?

Fucking internets.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#402

Post by tomp »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #308
tomp wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Explain to me what makes them faceless and detached from the situation? The fact that they’re not there. The idea that the same speed is appropriate at 9am when kids are crossing the street going to school and 2am when there’s noone there and no cars parked on the side of the road, is insane beyond belief. Speed limits are generally repressive and mostly just a tax collection scheme (though I strongly support most…

What are you proposing? No speed limits outside cities in the day time? Or speed limits that change based on circumstances? Don't we already have school zones which are 20mph when kids are around and higher otherwise?

as @katbyte already suggested, yes

No speed limits anywhere, or at least no enforcement.

As I said above, speed limits are repressive and a way for the government to bully its citizens and extract money from them. If the government actually wanted to solve the problem (making roads safer), they would simply design the roads differently. Speed bumps are also a very bad solution. Good solutions are "road islands" [1], "curvy roads" [2] or "metal rods" [3].

No limits on the highway either, except to mark more dangerous parts of the road (i.e. it's a suggestion not a limit).

By definition, if you don't crash, your speed was OK. So maybe there should be speeding-related fines only if you do crash.

[1] https://www.google.ch/maps/@46.9519887,8.6213984,3a,75y,174....

[2] https://www.google.ch/maps/@46.0665621,14.4965949,3a,75y,188...

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/14vls...

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#403

Post by konschubert »

benced wrote: post #168

As a cyclist, I trust the Waymos significantly more than human drivers to not hit me (I've been biking in SF since Jan and already had 3 unsafe incidents). The more, the better, I say.

Yep. Once human drivers are banned from streets, cycling will be much safer!

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#404

Post by czl »

huppeldepup wrote: post #222
unshavedyak wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My father said the same for me. To this day, sleeping in the car is the easiest sleep i get. It's so soothing. Which is problematic considering i'm the sole driver for my household hah.

Has anyone ever attempted putting a bed on actuators to emulate a driving vehicle?

Many car seats are removable and have carry handles so it is possible to hang them and have them moving like a pendulum also spinning. For safety use a strong strap (like for a hammock) and hang just an inch or few cm or so above the ground and make sure what it is hanging from can not topple or come crashing down.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#405

Post by level1ten »

dazc wrote: post #278
plaidfuji wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience what causes the slowdown are the people who merged too early who then resentfully close the gap in front of them when people try to merge later than them, simultaneously increasing the likelihood that they’ll rear end the car in front of them and making it harder for the people trying to merge properly to do so.

'...when people try to merge later than them,' You mean the people who must get past every single car and merge at the last possible second?

Just use the lane normally and zipper merge when the lane ends. Don't waste space. Don't block people. You don't get brownie points for being in the "correct" lane as soon as possible, and it doesn't help to police others who are using the existing lane. It really isn't that hard.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#406

Post by czl »

gnicholas wrote: post #392
marssaxman wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were true, I don't know how you could explain the persistence of town car and limousine services.

Really? Aren't town cars nicer inside than regular cabs? Limousines tend more in the direction of conspicuous consumption, though I imagine they are also generally more comfortable/clean than less-expensive options. Limos are also not that expensive for some use cases: we once had to get 8 people from NYC to MD, and it turned out that renting a limo was cheaper than us all taking the train or renting a vehicle.

> generally more comfortable/clean than less-expensive options

Some limos have poor or blocked views of the outside which can trigger motion sickness. I also wonder about their side impact protection and how much testing that gets.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#407

Post by czl »

worik wrote: post #128
quectophoton wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anecdotally they can be 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic I don't know anything about USA, but my understanding of other humans tells me that "Waymo is 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic" actually means "Waymo drives at the legal speed limit for that location, without surpassing it".

> "Waymo is 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic" actually means "Waymo drives at the legal speed limit for that location... Probably 100% safer too Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles

> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles

Speed difference is dangerous. So yes the difference in speed between vehicle and stationary objects it can hit (trees, poles, parker cars). On highways without a divider the danger is from incoming cars as that will double the impact speed. On highways with dividers having speed different from cars around you can be dangerous because it means you are changing lanes often else others are changing lanes to get around you.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#408

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

marssaxman wrote: post #389
tomp wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is approximately 0% chance that the speed limit decreed by faceless bureaucrats is the optimal speed for the current circumstances on a given road.

It has always seemed strange to me that restrictive speed limits persist in a supposedly democratic nation despite the functionally unanimous opinion of the citizenry, expressed through actual driving behavior, that the legally prescribed safety margins are excessive. I doubt you could find any other issue on which Americans of varying political persuasions would demonstrate such a high level of practical agreement.…

One possibility is that speed limits are set so drivers are safe/efficient at the maximum observed traffic density.

If the maximum traffic density doesn't happen often, then people can understandably be annoyed when they can safely drive faster most of the time.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#409

Post by czl »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #316
throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visit Texas where there are 85mph posted limits and people casually do 95.

I live in Texas and I would unironically feel safer driving the normal ~10-15mph above the speed limit that traffic is normally going than go exactly the speed limit, because I don't want everyone else flying around me recklessly because they all know that nobody goes exactly the legal limit here.

Yes! Speed difference is dangerous. So yes the difference in speed between vehicle and stationary objects it can hit (trees, poles, parker cars). On highways without a divider the danger is from incoming cars as that will double the impact speed. On highways with dividers having speed different from cars around you can be dangerous because it means either you are changing lanes to pass often else others are changing lanes often to get around you.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#410

Post by paulryanrogers »

tomp wrote: post #402
paulryanrogers wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you proposing? No speed limits outside cities in the day time? Or speed limits that change based on circumstances? Don't we already have school zones which are 20mph when kids are around and higher otherwise?

as @katbyte already suggested, yes No speed limits anywhere, or at least no enforcement. As I said above, speed limits are repressive and a way for the government to bully its citizens and extract money from them. If the government actually wanted to solve the problem (making roads safer), they would simply design the roads differently. Speed bumps are also a very bad solution. Good solutions are "road islands" [1],…

> By definition, if you don't crash, your speed was OK.

Definition of what? By this logic SBF shouldn't be jailed but rather given an award for making FTX users whole with modest interest.

The law must scale to all of society. There cannot be different rules based on whether you are lucky, "skilled", or not. Most people overestimate the their competence, as evidenced by fatalities involving motor vehicles. (A professional truck driver I knew died, killing his wife, and harming his nephew just driving back home.)

Post reply on HN