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

Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 269 posts

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#221

Post by labcomputer »

danweber wrote: post #148
imgabe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to shift a lot of capital that's currently tied up in owning and maintaining cars into other uses. Right now, most cars are only in use for about 5% of their lifetimes. When everybody owns their own private car, those cars spend a lot of time sitting parked. If those cars could drive around and be used by other people who need them on demand, you'd need a lot fewer cars, as well as a lot less parking.

Remember that the "5%" of the time you use your car is probably the same "5%" of the time every one else wants to use their car, i.e. rush hours.

Yes, it seems unlikely that the same car could be re-used for multiple trips. However, you could move the parking lots far away from the places people want to go because the car could drop you off at the door and then valet itself to a remote lot. That would at least free some of the very valuable space currently used by downtown parking lots.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#222

Post by lsc »

Tycho wrote: post #96
ShabbyDoo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Did humans step-in when they noted conditions which they believed the car unable to handle and perhaps prevent the majority of likely accidents?

My suspicion is that the figures quoted around these Google cars and their safety record, if you take them at face value, lead to a ludicrous level of optimism.

really? 300,000 miles without an accident is not particularly amazing for a human. I mean, it's good, but not amazing.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#223

Post by lsc »

hansef wrote: post #206
icebraining wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car that drives itself, or, even better, a car that I can cheaply rent that will drive itself to my doorsteps, then drive me wherever I want to go, and then return itself would be absolutely perfect. We have those, they're called cabs/taxis ;) Well, I suppose they're not exactly cheap, but personally I use them so rarely that it doesn't really matter, even though I'm on a tight budget.

Ubiquity and response time matter. I live in Los Feliz, a popular LA neighborhood full of lots of 20 and 30 somethings with disposable income. It's nigh impossible to hail a cab here. In fact, outside of NY and the downtown business districts of a few other major American cities at certain times of day, "cab on demand" basically doesn't exist. If I want to go out without driving on Friday night, I use an app like Tax…

>Ubiquity and response time matter.

Yes. cabs are useless where I am, too. They say they will be there in 30 minutes, but that's best case.

But there are plenty of unemployed folks with cars. How much of the cab shortage is due to regulatory capture?

Imagine, for instance, an app where I could give my location, a timeframe and, say, an amount I was willing to pay. "Hey, $50 if you pick me up from the office and drive me home... if you get here within 10 minutes"

Such an app is technically easy, and I imagine there are enough people with cars either going where I'm going or simply idle to make it work. But there are... legal barriers in place.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#224

Post by alwaysinshade »

w1ntermute wrote: post #184
paganel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autonomous cars are the next big tech that changes the world - I put them up there with computer, Internet, and smart phone. I wouldn't be so sure. Yeah, it might prove to be a very good thing for the United States, but for the rest of world there's first Europe's public transport networks (I'm 31, don't have a driver's license, I live in Europe, I'm doing perfectly fine, thank you), and short of us reaching the Si…

> I honestly don't see any of these cars driving in the crazy traffic of Cairo, Istanbul, or any other metropolis from the rest of Asia or Africa. You're wrong. Japan is also planning on introducing self-driving cars shortly.

I think the parent poster meant cities where the road rules amount to a functioning car horn. The roads of Japan are nothing like Cairo/Istanbul etc. There are a lot of cars - but they drive in an orderly, predictable manner.

On a related note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurikamome

In Tokyo they already have an automated transit system that is basically a truck on rails. See this image to get a better picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Model_7000-Fourth_of_Yurik...

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#225

Post by alwaysinshade »

adamsmith wrote: post #70
paganel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autonomous cars are the next big tech that changes the world - I put them up there with computer, Internet, and smart phone. I wouldn't be so sure. Yeah, it might prove to be a very good thing for the United States, but for the rest of world there's first Europe's public transport networks (I'm 31, don't have a driver's license, I live in Europe, I'm doing perfectly fine, thank you), and short of us reaching the Si…

Cars will become more appealing than public transportation over time. As the downsides of cars fall away, their packet switched functionality will ultimately win out, particularly for wealthier people.

If driverless cars eliminated the need for public transport (in the contemporary sense) you could open up rail corridors to create highways for cyclists, joggers, and walkers - it would open up alternatives to motorised travel.

Or you could turn the theory on its head - use the rail corridors as motorised transport arteries and open up the roads to the bipeds.

(From Sydney where the rail network is extensive - I'd imagine places with less ubiquitous rail wouldn't benefit as much)

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#226

Post by alwaysinshade »

adolfojp wrote: post #64
andrewljohnson wrote: post #25

Autonomous cars are the next big tech that changes the world - I put them up there with computer, Internet, and smart phone. When economists think about technology, they look at it as a productivity booster. From that angle, robot cars will have a huge impact - so many commute hours will be transformed to work, or even leisure, which also boosts productivity. So many smart people are about to be given a 10% or better…

Eating food from a tube could also give us a lot more free time but we don't do it because it is not an enjoyable experience. We not only enjoy the flavors and textures that regular food provides, we also enjoy the rituals that accompany eating. In this regard driving cars is somewhat similar. A lot of people enjoy driving and many actually find it therapeutic. Some exceptions do exist, like driving in heavy traffic,…

> Eating food from a tube could also give us a lot more free time but we don't do it because it is not an enjoyable experience.

Even if you thoroughly enjoy driving, a driverless car would afford other emotional highs from:

- Allowing you to get an extra [insert unit of time] of sleep - A bit of hanky-panky (even the one-man party variety) - Eating a meal (preferably not from a tube) - Playing games (a driving simulator if so inclined) - Reading HN

I love driving as well but I can see the benefits that'll come from automated cars will easily outweigh the negatives. One of those positives might be a more energised, happier workforce.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#227

Post by spullara »

hansef wrote: post #206
icebraining wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car that drives itself, or, even better, a car that I can cheaply rent that will drive itself to my doorsteps, then drive me wherever I want to go, and then return itself would be absolutely perfect. We have those, they're called cabs/taxis ;) Well, I suppose they're not exactly cheap, but personally I use them so rarely that it doesn't really matter, even though I'm on a tight budget.

Ubiquity and response time matter. I live in Los Feliz, a popular LA neighborhood full of lots of 20 and 30 somethings with disposable income. It's nigh impossible to hail a cab here. In fact, outside of NY and the downtown business districts of a few other major American cities at certain times of day, "cab on demand" basically doesn't exist. If I want to go out without driving on Friday night, I use an app like Tax…

Isn't Über in LA?

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#228

Post by justin66 »

rogerbinns wrote: post #207
pavel_lishin wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "just stop" approach is also problematic on a busy highway.

I don't know where you live, but where I live the highways have lots of stopping during busy times. And of course drivers always have to be aware of stopped cars as they do happen. I suspect highways are where the automated cars have the easiest time, and it is far more likely side roads and suburban areas that are more confusing. Abrupt stops are more likely there (eg kids/pets running across the road). In the US I…

Where I live a panic stop in heavy traffic on anything called a "highway" could get you killed. I imagine a lot of the stops we see on the highway that do not result in accidents are made safer by the network effects of lots of cars doing the same thing over time and communicating visually. It's different in nature than somebody (or some machine) getting confused and stopping suddenly in the middle of the road.

Don't get me wrong: things aren't so grim for the "just stop" approach of dealing with a problem. There's no reason an automated vehicle won't be able to communicate with other cars, warn everyone of an emergency stop (at a minimum), even find the best path off the road, depending on how serious the problem is.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#229

Post by justin66 »

oillio wrote: post #205
StavrosK wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these things will not be possible merely because they give you an unfair advantage. What you call "racing" I call "being at my destination much sooner", and, yes please, I would like every other car to step aside so I can get home faster. Which, of course, only means that everybody will try to abuse this.

Make "race mode" cost money then. Cheap enough that an occasional race is not ridiculous, but expensive enough that it is not practical for a commute. It probably wouldn't be an incredible advantage anyway. Your car could drive much faster if it knew exactly what every car around it was planning on doing.

At least in urban areas, you're eventually going to end up having vehicle performance arbitrated via radio by a computer network outside the vehicles. (I'm pretty sure it's much easier than trying to do everything "peer to peer," if you will) This gets you intersections where nobody has to fully stop and vehicles merely coordinate and modulate their speed, which is a pretty powerful efficiency advantage in itself.

With a system like that you could easily design a market where vehicles can choose to pay a toll to get a favorable path through traffic. You might see a few options and incentives given for choosing a more fuel-efficient path, etc.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#230

Post by justin66 »

danweber wrote: post #136
fl3tch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those accidents happen in rain and snow, which the Google folks admit are not as well tested. Under clear conditions on open roads, humans probably do better than 300K miles too.

That doesn't seem right to me. A person driving 10K a year will hit 300,000 miles over the course of 30 years. Does the average person really have less than 1 accident every 30 years? Especially when they are younger?

Mentally reviewing the people I'm close to, the figure seems to be off by at least an order of magnitude.
Post reply on HN