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

Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 146 posts

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#111

Post by mattlutze »

cabalamat wrote: post #108
chaz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will still want and demand car insurance. Stuff still happens, and I want my car and injuries paid for. So they'll still be around. It may be a smaller industry, but it won't kill them.

> People will still want car insurance. I wasn't aware they wanted it now. People buy it because they are legally obliged to.

I don't keep enough cash to go out and replace my daily driver, in kind, today. Even if it was someone else's fault and they're eventually required to remunerate me for the loss, that can take months.

People don't like the cost, but they like the benefits when they need it.

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#112

Post by [deleted] »

bolder88 wrote: post #110
thesash wrote: post #88

I can't wait to explain to my grandkids someday that back when I was young we used to let humans drive big hunks of plastic and steel at breakneck speeds, with nothing more than our laughably slow reflexes standing between life and death. They'll rightfully think it was barbaric and tragic that we let thousands of people died each year in accidents caused by distraction, drunkenness, exhaustion, and plain old human e…

Just to give a counterpoint (I know this opinion will be extremely unpopular on HN) I'd explain how there was a time when we were free to drive our own cars, and make our own decisions. And simply hop in a car and drive. Not like now where you get in the car and it asks you to download the latest software update, then it monitors your every move, sending back data to the car makers/NSA and showing you ads as you driv…

[deleted]

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#113

Post by PeterisP »

jl6 wrote: post #87

It's important to note that that $450bn isn't just ploughed into the ground each year. That's the wages of taxi drivers, truck drivers, mechanics, engineers, and all their associated support. While losing all that will be a net win for the economy, we're talking about millions of people becoming unemployed. This is not a new problem. Automation has already rendered a very large part of the world's population economic…

As far as I understand from the article, they are talking about the estimated benefit from crashes. If in the end we need less ER surgeons and less cars go to junkyards then that is still clearly a good thing, as per classic 'broken window' economic thesis.

Anyway, truck driving is exactly the kind of job (e.g., http://io9.com/5933246/why-truck-driving-is-one-of-the-most-... ) that we should make sure that no homo sapiens should be forced to do in the future.

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#114

Post by DannoHung »

cylinder wrote: post #55
jrs99 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would never be a need for a car in the suburbs. If i had an app that would just bring me a car and be ready at an exact time right in front of my house, bring me to a store and leave, and when twenty minutes before I'm done shopping I order another taxi to be ready for me outside the store, not need to go to the DMV or any auto shop, that would be a huge win for the suburbs.

Being driverless doesn't mean this kind of thing is necessarily going to be economically viable. You need density to optimize taxi operation and keep it affordable. There would need to be a lot of taxis driving themselves around for them to be so readily available in this kind of setting, and for that you need widespread adoption.

Almost every non-rural area is going to be able to support the density required. I mean, drive through any suburb and count the number of unoccupied cars.

Honestly, the biggest issue (assuming the technology is flawless) is going to be keeping them clean and maintained because of the very high usage rates.

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#115

Post by mattlutze »

theblackswan wrote: post #72
Osiris wrote: post #30

It'll probably take at least 40-50 years before autonomous vehicles become the norm. The interesting thing will be what happens in the meantime, when there's a mix of autonomous and human driven vehicles. Will the laws change to have 'autonomous only' lanes? Will they replace HOV lanes? Will autonomous vehicles be allowed to make maneuvers that human driven cars cannot in order to improve traffic flow, such as drivin…

The tech can make it possible in just 5-7 years what matters is how much time govt will take to formalize a law.. which probably you rightly said 40/50 years.

Also, getting people to buy them. There are still many, many cars from the mid 80's on the road, chugging along. The used car market is nothing to shake a stick at.

I'm really, really hoping the manual drive cars abandoned for autonomous cars are maximally recycled and not just left to rot in myriad junk yards.

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#116

Post by PeterisP »

zaroth wrote: post #27
TIJ wrote: post #5

I am closely following the development of self driving cars specially at google and i can assure everyone of its sophistication that it's the best driver you can get for your car. I know you all would be aware of the fact but i want to take this opportunity to state that is has covered thousands of miles without a single accident isn't that an extraordinary achievement for a car without a driver(but a computer instea…

Google self-driving cars have caused accidents, although Google claims the self-driving feature was off at the time. I'm more concerned of what these cars will do to highway capacity and therefore traffic congestion due to the excessive lag/follow distance their algorithms impose. While they should be following at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRIOE1IZrq4 ) is sub-human follow times and it's apparently the only car…

"Google self-driving cars have caused accidents" - can you elaborate on that? I have only seen news reports a single minor (rear-end) accident, not plural.

But that was some time ago - were there other accidents, they've probably driven much more miles now?

And regarding speed-limits - I think that it's a great thing; speed limits need to be set to an honest number where I cannot get ticketed, ever, for simply driving at the appropriate speed, but apparantly the only thing that can force the bureaucrats to update those limits will be an army of robots that actually try to obey the law.

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#118

Post by intoxnet »

just imagine a world where you can't drive your (super)car anymore on the common roads. because once that takes off, we know where is going to go: safe and controlled traffic, special highways, no human touch of the wheel, etc. therefore the question is, is that really what we want?

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#119

Post by chaz »

cabalamat wrote: post #108
chaz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will still want and demand car insurance. Stuff still happens, and I want my car and injuries paid for. So they'll still be around. It may be a smaller industry, but it won't kill them.

> People will still want car insurance. I wasn't aware they wanted it now. People buy it because they are legally obliged to.

AppleCare still sells well without a legal obligation. People tend to be risk averse, and prefer to pay a little bit now to avoid paying a lot later.

Re: Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

#120

Post by JonSkeptic »

bolder88 wrote: post #110
thesash wrote: post #88

I can't wait to explain to my grandkids someday that back when I was young we used to let humans drive big hunks of plastic and steel at breakneck speeds, with nothing more than our laughably slow reflexes standing between life and death. They'll rightfully think it was barbaric and tragic that we let thousands of people died each year in accidents caused by distraction, drunkenness, exhaustion, and plain old human e…

Just to give a counterpoint (I know this opinion will be extremely unpopular on HN) I'd explain how there was a time when we were free to drive our own cars, and make our own decisions. And simply hop in a car and drive. Not like now where you get in the car and it asks you to download the latest software update, then it monitors your every move, sending back data to the car makers/NSA and showing you ads as you driv…

I agree. The first large accident involving a self driving car will pose a real challenge to its adoption.

I also agree with you about trusting my life to a disgruntled software/firmware engineer: I'd rather not. I know people like self driving cars because 'ZOMG! Computers react so much quicker!' but I'm not convinced that they will react better, or at least, that they will react better in critical circumstances. I don't want a software bug, a flaw in an algorithm, or a dust covered sensor to kill me.

Post reply on HN