Live data from Hacker News

Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

spectrum.ieee.org

841–843 of 843 posts

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber exited the autonomous vehicle race several years ago. AFAICT, largely because of this mismatch. Who's still in this area (in a serious way) that behaves like that?

Didn't they just launch autonomous Ubers in London last week?

You can request a ride via Uber. They aren't building the tech. I find it a bit unclear who is operating the fleet (Uber or Wayve), but that seems irrelevant when the question is whether the vehicles' autonomous technology is safe.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#842

I have said for a while now that self driving cars do not need to be perfect. They will have accidents, of a different type than humans have, and sometimes they will be ones that most humans would avoid. What they do need to be is better than humans overall, and then it would make sense for them to be allowed onto the road. When they get far safer than humans, phasing out of human driving will make sense. They reache…

Which people? The bottom 20th percentile? 50th? Where do you draw the line? Wherever you draw it, there is a group of 10-100 million drivers who will be less safe (to themselves and others) in an automated vehicle. There’s reason to believe that automated vehicles exceed bad drivers, and may improve , but it’s no guarantee that they will exceed very good or excellent drivers.

It is the same as speed limits. Very good or excellent drivers can drive much faster than the speed limit and be just as safe as the average driver at the speed limit, or a very poor driver going much slower than the speed limit.

These things are set so that, on average, everyone is safer. If allowing self driving cars raises the safety of everyone on average, it makes sense.

Personally, I would be in favour of everyone having to either use a self driving car or gain an advanced driving certificate so they could drive manually. One that only 10-20% of people could pass, this would include an in depth theoretical section as well as a 2-3 hour driving test.

Re: Growing proof that autonomous cars save lives

#843

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…

You only need reaction time factored in when the driver in front might act unpredictably. If the self driving cars pass information about the road ahead to cars behind, and let the car behind know what they are doing and planning to do the the required 'reaction time' is zero. Congestion is often caused by reaction times stacking up until a car has to completely stop. Then you have a stationary section of road that makes all the other cars that encounter it stop. If reaction time is zero, this removes that congestion, so more cars can drive on a section of road and not clog it. The same applies to intersections, roundabouts, on and off ramps on motorways. Just the simple act of negotiating with the cars around eliminates all of it.

Just think a little about what having a computer control the car would really mean, rather than thinking of them like robot people.

Post reply on HN