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

Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 855 posts

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#821

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

whatevaa wrote: post #818
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The majority of drivers are good, but some drivers are really bad." I take issue with this. The majority of drivers are "mostly fine as long as circumstances are favorable", not "good". People for the most part do not even know about the concept of defensive driving let alone practice it. Even the best people are fundamentally complacent in basically everything they do. They zone out sometimes, they get too close,…

Autocars also currently only work in favorable conditions. Maybe driving in unfavorable conditions is just actually hard.

I said favorable circumstance, not favorable conditions. I mean the person in front of you doesn't stop quickly or veer into your lane very often regardless of whether there is e.g. fog or some confusing signage. Knowing what to do in a confusing situation is a hard problem, but avoiding a crash when someone stops abruptly with full visibility requires mostly safe management of speed, distance, and lane exit options, which people are terrible at.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#822

Post by rpdillon »

tredre3 wrote: post #292
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Better driver education and higher test standards would save lives too. So would banning alcohol. None of these solutions, including automated cars, will be mandated any time soon. It's not enough to have data You can't subsidise "better driver education" (to a meaningful sense, to my knowledge) or "banning alcohol." You literally can't do the latter. We tried, and I'll torch a supporter's house for fun with some h…

I took banning alcohol to mean lowering driving BAC to 0%, not banning alcohol society-wide. It would be a lot easier for drivers to have the following thought process: "I drank tonight, I can't drive home" rather than "I drank two beers over the period of 3 hours, am I good? Yeah, probably, let's gooo." > I'll torch a supporter's house for fun with some high-proof something or other for fun if someone tries it again…

> If you react that strongly and violently to the idea of alcohol being banned, you might want to look into your relationship with alcohol.

There are two reasons for a violent reaction like this, only one of which relates to your relationship with alcohol.

Alcohol is indisputably an addictive poison and for many people a giant net-negative. It can be hard to admit this because everybody does it and it feels good at the time. For example, I've recently concluded that I shouldn't have alcohol.

But that's a decision that I am making for myself. It's a very different thing to make that decision for everybody in a society, and I think it's the imposition of someone else's values on your your personal choices that can provoke a reaction like this.

All that to say, I wouldn't assume that it's the person's relationship to alcohol that makes them feel like we shouldn't make laws like prohibition.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#823

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

Retric wrote: post #816
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I fail to include driving with untreated narcolepsy in my definition? > as a set of behaviors I think you're thinking about "set" and "behaviors" incorrectly here. The definition wouldn't need to state "and doesn't fall asleep", because abstractions like "being attentive" and "anticipating things that might go wrong" already cover that.

> Why would I fail to include driving with untreated narcolepsy in my definition? It’s an illiterate example not a literal one. The point is trying to state the full set of behaviors that represent safe driving will fail. > The definition wouldn't need to state "and doesn't fall asleep", because abstractions like "being attentive" and "anticipating things that might go wrong" already cover that. And here you failed,…

> "Information saturation also results in accidents, ..."

Information saturation is another way of saying attention incapacity.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#824

Post by xnx »

tsimionescu wrote: post #335
PorciiVorbesc wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You could always invest in actual public transport & sane infrastructure, rather than relying on clogging the streets up with more cars, autonomous or otherwise So what should the disabled people do until that amazing public transport infrastructure materializes, if it ever even does for them at all? Sit at home and wait? I dislike this type of patronizing superficial handweaving advice that is disconnected from the…

> So what should the disabled people do until that amazing public transport infrastructure materializes, if it ever even does for them at all? Sit at home and wait? No, the point was that instead of cities waiting until self-driving cars become an option to help get rid of terrible drivers, the cities could invest in public transportation today, and get better road safety that way.

> instead of cities waiting

Waiting? NYC, DC, and Chicago are blocking/delaying self-driving cars.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#825

Post by xnx »

llbeansandrice wrote: post #786
binary0010 wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans do not care about biklanes or modifying their cities in that way, they want driverless cars and more large multilane highways/roads so that's what we will get. Americans don't like walking/biking and love cars. It's not really learned helplessness it's just what the vast majority of our country wants. Remember the majority voters voted someone in who specifically campaigned on getting out of any climate cha…

Then why is Amtrak breaking ridership records?

Losing $1.8B/year ($55/ride) isn't anything to be proud of.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#826

Post by maerF0x0 »

stkdump wrote: post #797
maerF0x0 wrote: post #782

My hypothesis of why autocars will make life so much better than we're imagining, which I think a lot of negative/hater folks miss includes: (All of this is very USA centric because that's my context) - Very old people who lose their license will get mobility back, as will blind or otherwise unlicenseable people - Autocars can break phantom traffic jams - They should massively reduce DUIs - They will serve as a form…

Arguments I heard that make no sense to me: - Autonomous cars will improve traffic because stopped cars can start going at the same time at an intersection -> Then you have no safety distance. And while theoretical improved reaction times mean you might need a bit less distance, the quadratic term comes from the needed breaking deceleration, not the reaction time. - Autonomous cars will reduce congestion: they can't…

> - Autonomous cars will improve traffic because stopped cars can start going at the same time at an intersection -> Then you have no safety distance. And while theoretical improved reaction times mean you might need a bit less distance, the quadratic term comes from the needed breaking deceleration, not the reaction time.

This is more about it deleting the human not paying attention + reaction time to next bumper.

Currently it looks like

1. Light goes red

2. Car1 reaction time and then moves

3. Car2 swipes off TikTok app + reaction time off car1's brake lights

4. Car3 swipes off Instagram + reaction time off car2's brake lights

5. Car4 Yelling at kids in back seat until they hear Car5's horn + reaction time

Versus autocars

1. Light goes green

2. Cars 1-N all release their brake faster than human reaction time and begin moving ever so slowly. Their acceleration rates are respectively less for the reasons you said. More cars make it through the light meaning less likely to accumulate and create multilight jams.

Autonomous cars driving around empty is a good argument for them being on a public rideshare network. They are more likely to pickup a passenger along the way to their actual destination. Even if the route is non-direct, any trip that gets them closer to home is not wasted travel because that person(s) wanted to travel regardless. Similarly when they go to pick you up.

IMO The bigger culprit here is the artificial need for people to work in an office, and for them to start at the same time. Work from home and higher agency over time would mean people do novel things like 1) Not commute at all or, like I do, 2) Take a couple meetings from home and commute when it's quiet.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#827

Post by demo4567 »

alephnerd wrote: post #775
demo4567 wrote: post #773

PHASING OUT HUMAN DRIVING IS ADDING A MIDDLE MAN TO GO FROM POINT A TO POINT B AND HAVING TO PAY THEM AND BE TRACKED ALL THE TIME. HOW IS ANYONE OKAY WITH THIS?

CAPS LOCK DOES NOTHING TO HELP YOUR ARGUMENT. IT IS THE FORUM EQUIVALENT OF YELLING

I know, it doesn't. It feels helpless sometimes. It is either a super moderated forum where people willingly ignoring reality it seems.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#828

Post by xnx »

tossandthrow wrote: post #596
TulliusCicero wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this, but a) even countries known for good transit like Japan still have a ton of cars for various things, and b) there's no getting around that the money going into self-driving cars vs public transit isn't something that can really be swapped. It's coming from a different place for a different reason. We absolutely could invest into more trains even with the SDC money flowing anyway, it's not like…

A better idea would just be to let drivers pay the real price for the infrastructure they occupy and their negative externalities. Then people would likely not have a issue with public transit.

An even better idea would be to let transit users pay the real price for the infrastructure they occupy and their negative externalities.

Not many people would want to ride the subway if they had to pay the full price.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#829

Post by Retric »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #823
Retric wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would I fail to include driving with untreated narcolepsy in my definition? It’s an illiterate example not a literal one. The point is trying to state the full set of behaviors that represent safe driving will fail. > The definition wouldn't need to state "and doesn't fall asleep", because abstractions like "being attentive" and "anticipating things that might go wrong" already cover that. And here you failed,…

> "Information saturation also results in accidents, ..." Information saturation is another way of saying attention incapacity.

The issue is it’s also “Being attentive.”

We don’t have NTSB reports for every car accident, so trying to draw the line on which behaviors are actually desirable is just a tautology with things that minimize accidents not some actual list. There’s many behaviors listed on NTSB reports that where assumed the be good ideas that turned out to be dangerous in practice.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#830

Post by tencentshill »

madamelic wrote: post #518
keeda wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I wasn't so lazy I'd find and post the one where my Tesla slowed down to a stop at a red light, lulling me into a sense of security, and then without warning lurched forward and broke the red light. And this is not an isolated incident because that is one of the things Tesla is being investigated for: https://autos.yahoo.com/policy-and-environment/articles/tesl... That is not even a perception issue (I've already…

That is either an old story or you are on v12 because mine used to do it often and I haven't seen it in at least a year from my recollection. The newest versions are really good. Waymos aren't without fault either, they smash the front off cars, run into static poles, block emergency vehicles, etc; just the nature of AV development.

Every tesla owners excuse is "oh you're not on v64.438185b, thats why you ran over that dog". The youtube recommendations these guys are completely mental when you look at it from outside.
Post reply on HN