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

U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

detroitnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#71

Post by EliRivers »

maeon3 wrote: post #68
EliRivers wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The robot will be far, far better than humans at driving in such conditions. Modern cars already help out as best they can with monitoring slippage, temperature sensing, running in higher gears, monitoring road gradient and rate of change thereof, running wheels at different settings, and all the rest of it; if the meatbag would just sit in the back and let the robot drive everything would be much safer. The indicato…

Then you'll need the override when the passenger (or driver) is dying and needs to get to the hospital. I guess you would have to read and sign the 85 page EULA and sign: "I understand that if I crash here there will be hell to pay".

Why would there be such an override system? That's crazy. If there is a need to drive less safely for such a purpose, again, the robot will do better. You push the button marked "Emergency - get me to a hospital" and the robot works out the closest hospital and negotiates with other robots on the road to allow it through at greater speed. The last thing I want in such a situation is a panicky human losing blood and going into shock trying to drive a car as fast as they can.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#72

Post by EliRivers »

protomyth wrote: post #47
warfangle wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals: Google driverless car has already been shown to avoid collisions with unexpected animals (like, say, a deer). Snow and Ice: the sensors about wheel rotation and speed used in fancy automatic suspensions are more than able to control for slippage. I'm willing to bet that once prepared, a driverless car could deal with these hazards with much more finesse than a human pushing a pedal with no idea what kind of…

The problem with snow and ice isn't what your already driving on, it is dealing with what is coming. I would really like to see how it deals with the lower visibility and constant motion around it. How does it deal with the ice coming up (and black ice). If Google (or anyone else) starts testing in the northland, I will be convinced, but I don't think it is a very easy problem to solve.

"How does it deal with the ice coming up (and black ice)."

It's been told about it by other robots who have already encountered it, which already gives it a massive head start over the meatbag.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#73

Post by warfangle »

protomyth wrote: post #47
warfangle wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Animals: Google driverless car has already been shown to avoid collisions with unexpected animals (like, say, a deer). Snow and Ice: the sensors about wheel rotation and speed used in fancy automatic suspensions are more than able to control for slippage. I'm willing to bet that once prepared, a driverless car could deal with these hazards with much more finesse than a human pushing a pedal with no idea what kind of…

The problem with snow and ice isn't what your already driving on, it is dealing with what is coming. I would really like to see how it deals with the lower visibility and constant motion around it. How does it deal with the ice coming up (and black ice). If Google (or anyone else) starts testing in the northland, I will be convinced, but I don't think it is a very easy problem to solve.

Snow and ice have different reflective properties than regular old asphalt.

The car uses LADAR.

Pretty sure it'll be able to tell the difference.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#74

Post by rayiner »

akmiller wrote: post #56
steven777400 wrote: post #5

Reading the article, this doesn't strike me as inappropriate. "Self-driving vehicle technology is not yet at the stage of sophistication or demonstrated safety capability that it should be authorized for use by members of the public for general driving purposes" is probably true. The cars are good at what they do, but that doesn't mean they can handle all sorts of bizarre detour, road construction, rural roads, faded…

They also say, "as self-driving cars improve, they will reconsider." Seems fair. It would seem fair if they pointed to any actual data regarding the safety of such vehicles versus the safety of cars driven by humans but I see no such information provided. Or, it might seem fair if there was any company trying to actively sell self-driving cars to the general public right now. I think this is a problem that would like…

The onus is on the people who want to change the status quo to show that self-driving cars are safe, not the other way around. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#75

Post by figbucket »

I'm wondering is anyone researching self driving larger vehicles and would future legislation require someone being present in the vehicle?

According to http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm as of 2010 over 4 million people work in transport and warehousing. A lot of which will be drivers. Self driving vehicles could mean then end for a lot of jobs especially if someone developed a retrofit kit for current vehicles.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#76

Post by 6d0debc071 »

tolmasky wrote: post #49
6d0debc071 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See, for example, the vast swaths of parking lots in much of the United States, and think how utterly unnecessary they'll be in a world of fully autonomous vehicles. I don't know that it would make that much difference. Most people want to drive at the same time to get to work and few people seem likely to want to have their car do an extra commute so that it can park up at home. Couple that with the fact that a ca…

This is basically the way it works in cities anyways. No one really cares in NY that taxis aren't their 'personal' space. In my eyes, autonomous cars would just allow a city-style car culture in suburbia, since it will finally be practical to not own (several) cars. You should really think of self-driving cars as providing scale to a lot of existing car-share economies. For example, consider how many families today h…

What if part of the renters agreement was for access to one of the cars? You have 20 journeys at can be going on at any one time. If more than 20 people go to work, or wherever, in the me period of time then the system stops working. Granted the maths isn't always going to be quite that simple since you're really looking at something being out of service for twice the outgoing journey time, but the limiting factor is going to be peak availability and that is going to stack up around rush hour.

I'm not sure NYC is a good example for the personal space one - do the people there really have the practical option of doing otherwise?

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#77

Post by tolmasky »

6d0debc071 wrote: post #76
tolmasky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically the way it works in cities anyways. No one really cares in NY that taxis aren't their 'personal' space. In my eyes, autonomous cars would just allow a city-style car culture in suburbia, since it will finally be practical to not own (several) cars. You should really think of self-driving cars as providing scale to a lot of existing car-share economies. For example, consider how many families today h…

What if part of the renters agreement was for access to one of the cars? You have 20 journeys at can be going on at any one time. If more than 20 people go to work, or wherever, in the me period of time then the system stops working. Granted the maths isn't always going to be quite that simple since you're really looking at something being out of service for twice the outgoing journey time, but the limiting factor is…

Yes, that is how all things work. If everyone wants to use the swimming pool or gym in an apartment complex at once, then there isn't enough room. Yet you rarely hear about this because the planners make pretty good calculations about peak use of the pool. Similarly, I just snatched the number 20 out of thin air. If you are putting together an apartment complex you would calculate how many you would need such that there are plenty of cars for almost all occasions. You would also probably have a more orderly system of filling out everyone's work time so they can be sure to have enough for that (especially because these time slots would be ideal for self-driving car pooling). May there be some time when someone wants a car but doesn't have one? Of course! But this is not unique to the apartment complex, this happens in families as well. There are plenty of times when a 2 car family needs to go three places at once. And they end up figuring it out, because its not like there's no recourse in that situation. The reality is that this is in not that hard of a problem.

Regarding NYC - I'm not sure what the point is. Most people don't have personal space on an airplane because there is no practical alternative there either (most people can't afford a private jet). So what? Would it be nice if everyone could? I don't know? Maybe. I honestly don't think about it. I value not paying millions of dollars over personal space on an airplane. Similarly, if you really care about personal space, then by all means buy your own car (autonomous or otherwise). I bet a lot of people would value not paying thousands of dollars (often going into debt and paying for gas etc etc) over personal space as well. In suburbia today, that option very much does not exist. For example, in Orange County where I used to live, you need a car to get around. And paying for a taxi to go to work every day is absurd there.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#78

Post by protomyth »

Aloisius wrote: post #64
protomyth wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not unless sensors get a lot better, as starring into white and finding the road is a rather large problem[1]. Nevermind the actual skill of those drivers, it is not an easy job. 1) GPS + Maps is not the answer as it wrong sometimes.

Since roads where it snows are always getting torn up and repaved, if automated cars do become widespread, it seems entirely feasible and realistic to line major roads on each side with radio reflectors or some other cheap system that can keep automated plows from driving off the road. The real problem is the cost of the automated plow itself. A 10-wheel plow with salt feeder isn't exactly cheap to run with or withou…

Since they haven't been real successful at automating a combine (a bit of a simpler problem), I figure the plow and the expertise needed to drive one is a ways off.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#79

Post by 6d0debc071 »

tolmasky wrote: post #77
6d0debc071 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if part of the renters agreement was for access to one of the cars? You have 20 journeys at can be going on at any one time. If more than 20 people go to work, or wherever, in the me period of time then the system stops working. Granted the maths isn't always going to be quite that simple since you're really looking at something being out of service for twice the outgoing journey time, but the limiting factor is…

Yes, that is how all things work. If everyone wants to use the swimming pool or gym in an apartment complex at once, then there isn't enough room. Yet you rarely hear about this because the planners make pretty good calculations about peak use of the pool. Similarly, I just snatched the number 20 out of thin air. If you are putting together an apartment complex you would calculate how many you would need such that th…

NYC doesn't count as evidence for people wanting a car sharing culture/disregarding the car as a personal space if they lack the ability to do otherwise. The world would look the same whatever people wanted in that instance so it's no evidence either way.

#

If 90% of the car owners need a cars in overlapping time slots then carpooling isn't going to make a lot of sense - it's only going to benefit 10% of the people. It'd be like installing an apartment pool that everyone has to pay for for the woman in 3B. This is a case where the numbers matter. If people all tend to commute about the same time, then things aren't going to look much different - you might have people playing on their tablets before they get in to work, or a more efficient taxi service, but most people will still own cars.

#

As for getting your boss to stager your time so that you can car pool more effectively. Well, maybe. But at the moment that seems like grasping at straws to me. These are the same people who can't even manage telecommuting successfully and haven't caught up with management books from 40 years ago. Trying to get people to do things together is difficult and companies are by and large incompetent.

And that's before you start introducing all the cultural things like wanting lots of people in the office at the same time. I don't think most people's bosses are likely to put themselves out for this. You need to assume that this is already in wide circulation before any real advantage for them in terms of not having to have a carpark comes into play.

Re: U.S. urges states not to allow general use of self-driving cars

#80

Post by tokenizer »

3JPLW wrote: post #59
usea wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have ever been a passenger in a car, you have given up that control to an entity which is likely far less safe than the software option. (still need to see the data this was based on)

Yes, you've given up control. But you've traded it for trust . While Google's cars may have a flawless record, trust is an emotional thing. It's a long slow road for self-driving cars to earn our trust, even if they should already deserve it.

Thanks for understanding what I was trying to say.
Post reply on HN