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

Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#41

Post by Someone »

jalanco wrote: post #11

The likelihood of the Teamster's union allowing (i.e., not obstructing) driverless cargo hauling to succeed in the US would be close to zero.

I think they would be beaten by the tactic that killed Fleet Street (where newsprinters got rid of all their personnel by moving their business, but leaving outdated personnel such as typesetters behind. See http://www.mediauk.com/article/32718/the-fleet-street-revolu...): secretly buy your driverless trucks, and replace all your drivers overnight. That way, you won't have employees that can strike against the change.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#42

Post by PedroBatista »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #29
waterlesscloud wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally disagree with the GP post, but I think automated cars will almost certainly result in more closely monitored and controlled travel.

No more so than already exists by almost everybody carrying a mobile phone.

At least you can smash it with a rock and continue to go where you want to go, when you want and how you want.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#43

Post by Retric »

georgemcbay wrote: post #37
EliRivers wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"there are still going to be extraordinary driving situations in which the obvious thing to do would be clear to any reasonable human but not an autonomous car without serious general purpose AI" I believe that any such situation that could not be dealt with by simply coming to a safe halt is currently very badly handled by humans. I believe that they could be better handled with the _current_ state of the art, let a…

Even simply coming to a safe halt is problematic. What if some troll traps a self-driving car with a few empty cardboard boxes?

It stays still until someone removes them. If it's a cab it's more than likely to simply call for help.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#44

Post by georgemcbay »

Retric wrote: post #43
georgemcbay wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even simply coming to a safe halt is problematic. What if some troll traps a self-driving car with a few empty cardboard boxes?

It stays still until someone removes them. If it's a cab it's more than likely to simply call for help.

And while it is still, it is now an obstacle for other empty self driving cars. Soon the troll has blocked an entire intersection or freeway using a combination of empty boxes and other trapped self-driving cars.

You underestimate the effort a good troll would be willing to put into this.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#45

Post by nazgulnarsil »

EliRivers wrote: post #35
georgemcbay wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fully convinced self-driving cars will be sold commercially within the next 10 years. However, it is going to be a very long time until they are allowed on the road sans human (even if they are self-driven 99% of the time, I'm positive legislation will require a human behind the wheel at all times and car makers will have to attempt to enforce this technically), which puts a serious dent in your taxi plan. You're…

"there are still going to be extraordinary driving situations in which the obvious thing to do would be clear to any reasonable human but not an autonomous car without serious general purpose AI" I believe that any such situation that could not be dealt with by simply coming to a safe halt is currently very badly handled by humans. I believe that they could be better handled with the _current_ state of the art, let a…

the real test of driverless cars comes shortly after they start to become widely used. A driverless car will be forced into a trolley problem situation. That is, it will have to choose between hitting two things without the option to hit neither. Expect extreme scrutiny in the ensuing legal case.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#46

Post by mike-cardwell »

PedroBatista wrote: post #30
mike-cardwell wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate driving and can't wait to get my hands on such a car. I've got far more interesting things to be doing with my time than staring at a road. Don't you?

You are hating a mechanism that allows you to live the life you have now ( which might be pretty good compared to 95% of the population ). If you hate it so much, why not replacing it with electrons aka the Internet?

Do you even understand the concept of "trade-off" ?

The act of driving does not allow me to live the life I have now. The act of travelling does.

I don't understand your claim that the act of staring at a road and pulling leavers is somehow beneficial to me, or anybody else.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#47

Post by rictic »

georgemcbay wrote: post #44
Retric wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It stays still until someone removes them. If it's a cab it's more than likely to simply call for help.

And while it is still, it is now an obstacle for other empty self driving cars. Soon the troll has blocked an entire intersection or freeway using a combination of empty boxes and other trapped self-driving cars. You underestimate the effort a good troll would be willing to put into this.

There are lots of simple things that one could do to a roadway to impede or endanger traffic. Consider, for example, the danger of leaving something sharp or slick on a tight turn where people often speed.

I've thought about this for a few years, and as near as I can tell it's either much harder than it seems, or there are fewer vandals than I'd have expected.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#48

Post by pdelgallego »

EliRivers wrote: post #24
pdelgallego wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot to mention another consequence, the return of the Luddites

The majority of Westeners know the following about cars; turn the wheel thing to pick a direction, push one pedal to go faster and one to go slower. Some of them also know how to operate the stick thingy. Removing this tiny scrap of knowledge is hardly returning to Ludditehood.

Not, but removing hundreds of thousands of taxi/truck drivers will do it

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#49

Post by AndrusAsumets »

georgemcbay wrote: post #34
EliRivers wrote: post #20

With driverless cars, the largest expense of taxis - the driver - disappears. The driver of a taxi needs to make enough in a day to cover the periods when there are no fares, or travel from a low fare-density area back to the high fare-density areas (and in some regions with ridiculously constrained supply of taxis via "badges" or other such anti-competitive pro-monopoly legislation, to pay the ridiculous fee to just…

I'm fully convinced self-driving cars will be sold commercially within the next 10 years. However, it is going to be a very long time until they are allowed on the road sans human (even if they are self-driven 99% of the time, I'm positive legislation will require a human behind the wheel at all times and car makers will have to attempt to enforce this technically), which puts a serious dent in your taxi plan. You're…

>You're right long term, but self-driving cars that are allowed to drive without any human behind the wheel is more like a 50 years out thing, IMO.

Why not just outsource the driver to, say Eastern Europe, Mexico or India? Rent out a room, buy bunch of computers, screens, tables, chairs, and then hire a bunch of "virtual drivers" with enough experience on the road to control those vehicles remotely. Furthermore, program the car to stop on the side of a road in case should it lose the wireless connectivity. I guess the ping could be a problem, but haven't most of the people driving on the roads today got slower reactions to events than 100-150ms? Later on, as the tech progresses, teach the software to direct the driving to that virtual driver on hold only when the "AI" wasn't be able to figure out the current situation.

Re: Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

#50

Post by PedroBatista »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #46
PedroBatista wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are hating a mechanism that allows you to live the life you have now ( which might be pretty good compared to 95% of the population ). If you hate it so much, why not replacing it with electrons aka the Internet?

Do you even understand the concept of "trade-off" ? The act of driving does not allow me to live the life I have now. The act of travelling does. I don't understand your claim that the act of staring at a road and pulling leavers is somehow beneficial to me, or anybody else.

The act of you BEING ABLE to. Thats the point i was making in the first post.
Post reply on HN