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

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

#121

Post by rubinelli » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 11:11 AM UTC

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…

The attitude I see from younger generations is that the freedom to drive your car is like the freedom to wash your dishes or balance your checkbook by hand. Driving, specially in overcrowded cities, is increasingly seen as a chore and a hassle. Getting rid of it means freeing up from one to four hours a day to study, play, or talk to their friends.

If you want to keep driving as a hobby, I'm sure there will be some accommodations made. But just as you can't tote a rifle in a downtown mall, there will be some restrictions to make sure you don't endanger anyone.

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

#122

Post by exodust » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 11:38 AM UTC

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…

>> "It's going to be pretty impossible to take away the peoples right to drive cars"

No, they will simply phase out manual cars. No big deal, it just means it will be almost impossible to crash, and that's a good thing.

It doesn't mean you won't be able to drive, but you'll be driving with a computer keeping watch over the road ahead and obstacles around you.

Put the car in auto mode and sit back... Most people will choose that. Those who prefer to drive themselves can do, but within limits. You couldn't for example deliberately crash into the back of someone. There won't be a setting to turn off to achieve an outcome whereby the car touches any other object. It just won't happen while you're driving on public roads. For example the computer will not let you cross over double lines at certain speeds, or accelerate too fast at busy intersections, and so on. But it may let you accelerate fast if it determines that doing so won't put anyone else at risk, and conditions are suitable etc. The algorithms controlling when the computer takes over will be clever enough to almost be invisible, and that's what will win people over.

Regulations will prevent car manufactures from making fully manual operated vehicles. Every car will be required to have automatic safety overrides for any action deemed to put the car at risk of impact with another object.

Everyone thought it would be people who override the computer, but it will be the computer who has the final say in the direction and speed of travel in a hazardous situation. I think car manufacturers and the public will LOVE the fact that driving is safer.

Any driverless car accidents will be statistically unlikely, and everyone will see this. Even when just one car crashes, it will be headline news each time, like commercial airline crashes are now. People continue to fly because accidents are rare.

So, the "right to drive" won't actually be taken away. Your right to put yourself and others in danger on public roads WILL be taken away. Have a cry, but then you'll need to get over it because 450 billion is significant.

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

#123

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 11:57 AM UTC

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…

What a horrible attitude in your last paragraph.

Anyway, your right to drive a car probably won't be taken away. Your ability to afford the insurance necessary to operate on public roads is probably a different matter.

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

#124

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 12:00 PM UTC

JonSkeptic wrote: post #120

bolder88 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, right now, when you get in your car, you are trusting your life to each driver of an oncoming vehicle (and side traffic, and...).

So the better question is whether you trust the median driver more than you trust the process used to approve the self driving system. This is a much different test than your disgruntled engineer.

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

#125

Post by JonSkeptic » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 12:27 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #124

JonSkeptic wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, right now, when you get in your car, you are trusting your life to each driver of an oncoming vehicle (and side traffic, and...). So the better question is whether you trust the median driver more than you trust the process used to approve the self driving system. This is a much different test than your disgruntled engineer.

If I get in a self driving car, I am still trusting my life to each driver on the road, but now I am also trusting the software of the car.

In an ideal world I would not mind self driving vehicles nearly so much if everyone had one. Advocates of self driving too often forget that there is an adoption period for technology and that for a vehicle it will span a decade. During that time, why I should I trust the firmware/software to react appropriately to other people's insane/suicidal driving maneuvers? For that matter, when those people are a minority on the road, I'm not sure that they wouldn't become worse, engaging in ever more stupid maneuvers because they can assume the other car is 'smart enough' to move out of the way.

It's a great idea to remove the human element from driving completely in 99.99% of scenarios. The problem is that its the 00.01% of scenarios that kill you. The other problem is that adoption doesn't happen overnight and during that stage I see no logical reason to put myself in more danger by removing my ability to react to my surroundings and instead trusting that the software of my car can handle the suicidal driving of angry high-way drivers.

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

#126

Post by datalus » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:23 PM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #121

bolder88 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The attitude I see from younger generations is that the freedom to drive your car is like the freedom to wash your dishes or balance your checkbook by hand. Driving, specially in overcrowded cities, is increasingly seen as a chore and a hassle. Getting rid of it means freeing up from one to four hours a day to study, play, or talk to their friends. If you want to keep driving as a hobby, I'm sure there will be some a…

Pretty much this. I love driving, but its my largest hassle and expense I'd like to replace with a good commuter bike.

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

#127

Post by jmccree » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:45 PM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #121

bolder88 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The attitude I see from younger generations is that the freedom to drive your car is like the freedom to wash your dishes or balance your checkbook by hand. Driving, specially in overcrowded cities, is increasingly seen as a chore and a hassle. Getting rid of it means freeing up from one to four hours a day to study, play, or talk to their friends. If you want to keep driving as a hobby, I'm sure there will be some a…

In many states, it'd be perfectly legal to tote a rifle in a downtown mall.

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

#128

Post by bolder88 » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:51 PM UTC

JonSkeptic wrote: post #120

bolder88 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They can react quicker, but can they react correctly. What if a cow starts ramming the side of the car? Did the programmers account for that eventuality?

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

#129

Post by bolder88 » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:54 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #124

JonSkeptic wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course, right now, when you get in your car, you are trusting your life to each driver of an oncoming vehicle (and side traffic, and...). So the better question is whether you trust the median driver more than you trust the process used to approve the self driving system. This is a much different test than your disgruntled engineer.

Not really. The first rule of driving a car, is assume that everyone else driving a car is trying to kill you, is blind and is absolutely rubbish at driving.

If you keep that rule in mind at all times, you'll be pretty safe.

I would absolutely trust a random driver far more than a self driving car.

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

#130

Post by bolder88 » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 1:57 PM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #121

bolder88 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The attitude I see from younger generations is that the freedom to drive your car is like the freedom to wash your dishes or balance your checkbook by hand. Driving, specially in overcrowded cities, is increasingly seen as a chore and a hassle. Getting rid of it means freeing up from one to four hours a day to study, play, or talk to their friends. If you want to keep driving as a hobby, I'm sure there will be some a…

If you're a "city" person, that may be the case. But it's a terribly big generalization to make about all younger generations.

The younger generations I know can't wait to drive, and have the freedom to travel where they want to.