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

The driverless road ahead

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: The driverless road ahead

#41

Post by w1ntermute »

LeafStorm wrote: post #17

While driverless cars do provide advantages over normal cars, there are two counterpoints I would like to make. First, there are people who simply will not trust the driverless cars. I was talking to a friend yesterday who said that he wouldn't ride in a driverless car, and he wouldn't want to drive on the same road as one. Uptake is not going to be as fast as people seem to expect once the cars are practical for mar…

> First, there are people who simply will not trust the driverless cars. I was talking to a friend yesterday who said that he wouldn't ride in a driverless car, and he wouldn't want to drive on the same road as one.

This will change over time (and quite fast). Ever heard of red flag laws?[0]

> In the United Kingdom, the Locomotive Acts (also known as Red Flag Laws) was a policy requiring self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.

> The most infamous of the Red Flag Laws was enacted in Pennsylvania circa 1896, when legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible... disassemble the automobile," and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently pacified.

At least with driverless cars, we're getting support from the government (in NV and CA, so far).

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws

Re: The driverless road ahead

#42

Post by seanmcdirmid »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #32
tobiasu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an old chestnut that buying a salesman's car with lots of miles is a lot better than buying the same vehicle from a housewife that only used it to go shopping and shuttle the kids to school. Besides, who says that the driverless car isn't more like industrial equipment instead of the current consumer crap, made to go on "forever" to justify its high price?

I think that is a very good point. While designing cars to last longer would increase the weight of some components, for example allowing more metal around the cylinders so that they can be re-bored a number of times, this could be at least partially by having a much reduced burden of crash resistance. Some things could be alleviated simply by avoiding the maintenance / cost cutting shortcuts used today. For example…

You are missing the obvious: the cars could just as easily go electric and the severe reduction of moving components will already increase their service life dramatically (sans battery replacements depending on how battery technology evolves).

Re: The driverless road ahead

#43

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rsheridan6 wrote: post #37
paulsutter wrote: post #2

>Just imagine. [Driverless cars] could, for a start, save the motor industry from stagnation...; and since [cars] would be able to drop off their passengers and drive away, the lack of parking spaces in town might not matter so much. Strange that the Economist would catch the diminished need for parking spaces, but miss the real economic impact of driverless cars: many fewer cars would be needed as utilization rates…

The problem is that most people need their cars at the same time - rush hour.

1. Optimized traffic flow that driverless gives you would be able to pack more vehicles on the road.

2. If we are treating all cars are like a fleet of autonomous taxis, it doesn't seem really crazy that you could also optimize carpooling where the car picks up other passengers to optimize the trip with respect to where you and they are going.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#44

Post by ari_elle »

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #40
ari_elle wrote: post #20

One problem that nobody seems to see is: -) As soon as software controls something it's the question about if you control the software, or if the software controls the user One of the big arguments rms always had about free software, but think about it: Let's say i have a self-driving car, how do i know that there isn't a backdoor in there? How about my car being hacked and being remote controlled? How about my car b…

You may trust yourself, but as I ride around on my motorcycle, I don't trust you at all. Give me self-driving cars anyway.

I don't want to start an argument, especially since i myself ride a motorcycle.

But even i witnessed my fair share of motorcyclists, who just played daredevil on the street.

The way many behave on roads is not acceptable and this goes for drivers of cars and drivers of motorcycles.

Counter question: Would you trust a self driving motorcycle?

So why should i - as a in my opinion perfectly good driver - trust a self driving car at all times?

Re: The driverless road ahead

#45

Post by rayiner »

ari_elle wrote: post #26
LeafStorm wrote: post #17

While driverless cars do provide advantages over normal cars, there are two counterpoints I would like to make. First, there are people who simply will not trust the driverless cars. I was talking to a friend yesterday who said that he wouldn't ride in a driverless car, and he wouldn't want to drive on the same road as one. Uptake is not going to be as fast as people seem to expect once the cars are practical for mar…

If driverless cars, why not a driverless buses ?

Because the cost of the bus service has almost nothing to do with the cost of the bus driver.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#47

Post by marshallp »

andreasvc wrote: post #31
marshallp wrote: post #28

Everyone's missing that drones (flying cars) might take off too at roughly the same time. The challenge of making driverless cars completely safe (intelligent sensing and control) is also the challenge for flying cars. Flying cars would beat out road cars and so the reenvisioning of society is greater than what people like Brad Templeton have done. With flying cars, all investments in roads become useless and huge sw…

What is your argument that flying cars would beat out road cars? Flying requires way more energy and energy has always been scarce up till now.

It's not as simple as that. People fly now as well. If everything's about energy efficiency, people wouldn't leave their house. If by flying you can commute from a much cheaper place than it's worth it. Also, you have to factor in the road construction/maintenance costs which flying doesn't have. Especially in the third world where roads aren't built yet. Also, the flying can be in the form of airships which are energy efficient.

Re: The driverless road ahead

#48

Post by EwanG »

gwern wrote: post #35

> When people are no longer in control of their cars they will not need driver insurance—so goodbye to motor insurers and brokers. This is a bit delusional. Someone will have to pay for accidents and injuries.

The presumed model is that the manufacturer will buy fleet insurance since it will now mainly be design flaws causing accidents rather than needing to prepare premiums based on each individual driver.

And yes, that will probably be a smaller market although you can still sell add-ons, etc.

Post reply on HN