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

BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#131

Post by Planar »

angersock wrote: post #76

So, as a cyclist that commutes to work everyday on my bike--are any of these manufacturers making sure that their vehicles don't squish pedestrians, or even worse, people on bikes?

EuroNCAP[1] requires increasing levels of automated pedestrian protection -- i.e. autonomous braking or avoidance -- to get a 5-star safety rating starting in about 2015. Because World Health Organization predicts 3% of fatalities in 2030 will be automotive collisions, and over half of those 3% will be pedestrian deaths[2].

[1] EuroNCAP.com

[2] Could't quickly find the 2030 stat, but pedestrian fraction: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2009/road_safet...

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#132

Post by Planar »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #40
ewoodrich wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the scare quotes on "safer"? If self-driving cars prove objectively to have fewer accidents and resulting injuries and deaths, wouldn't that just make them a superior technology? In that case, why shouldn't insurance charge more for traditional driving if self-driving were available on your car? That's just how insurance works, nothing new there.

A self-driving car system might be statistically safer than a human drivers in overall conditions, and still be prone to failure in an exceptional situation a particular driver wouldn't have been. If you have the potential to be that driver in that situation, I could understand feeling the scare quotes are warranted. Which percentile of the population does an automated system need to outperform to be safer rather tha…

We (automotive active safety engineers) don't look at it as a percentage-of-inept-drivers, but more like the Trolley Problem[1], that is, overall harm vs benefit. To put it another way: seatbelts, airbags, and heart surgery hurt/kill some people, but the benefit outweights that harm.

[1] www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#133

Post by Planar »

darklajid wrote: post #94
ollysb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see any reason why we can't have both; you control the car until it detects a dangerous situation and then takes over. Sounds ideal really, you could go faster than you can now, safe in the knowledge that if things go bad the computer will kick in and take over.

This is already the case today, albeit limited. My Audi - makes the steerwheel vibrate if I veer off my lane, actively works against that (limited 'self-steering', but really, really crappy, useless and stupid in its current incarnation) - has lights in the side mirrors that light up when someone's left or right behind of me. If I set the turning signal to a 'blocked' direction, the lights flash. This system is immen…

The 2014 Mercedes E- and S-klasses that I've tested also do active intervention if you try to change lanes towards a car in your blindspot. Via braking on the opposite side.

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#134

Post by jrockway »

raldi wrote: post #102
jrockway wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering insurance companies already insure airplanes, and you can turn the autopilot off without losing insurance, I somehow doubt this future. Airplanes are both more expensive and cause more damage when you crash them, and yet, you can rent them and insure them all the same.

As I understand it, most car accidents are caused by driver error, and the belief is that self-driving cars will have a better miles-driven-to-accidents ratio. However, I'm not aware of the same being true for airplanes, plane crashes, and autopilot systems.

Indeed, the GA autopilot systems are pretty simple: keep wings level, altitude hold, vertical speed hold, etc. On the other hand; you can take a lot more risks in your plane that will cost the insurance company a lot of money -- tailstrikes, flying into IMC, flying while sleepy, etc. If you total your Piper Cub, that's going to cost the insurance company a lot of money. If you total your Prius, that's cheaper.

On the other hand, it's a lot hard to get a pilot's license compared to a driver's license. (What are the requirements for a driver's license these days? Having a pulse? No, I don't think they check for that...)

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#135

Post by JshWright »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #121
JshWright wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am (in my own estimation) a very good driver. I drive a manual transmission car, and enjoy using the flexibility that provides in my daily driving. I drive emergency vehicles of various sizes, in a lot of less than ideal conditions (I live in upstate New York, so weather is a big factor in driving conditions). I have no problem believing that a computer will be able to do an objectively better job of driving than I…

So you feel that 100% is easily within reach? As a coder, I can't help but think it'll be a while before we iron out all the bugs in the driving AI, and as a result, we'll see self-driving cars on the roads long before they are able to outperform 100% of human drivers in all situations, or even your average sober, attentive driver in all situations. Even if their reaction processing times are orders of magnitude fast…

I never said easily. In fact I said the technology still had a lot of maturing to do. I also never said it would be 100% (though I'd dare you to find me any human who would meet that 100% criteria either).

I absolutely agree there is still a ways to go before this is mainstream technology. I also agree that we will get there eventually, and the world will be a better place for it.

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#136

Post by jotm »

dcc1 wrote: post #16

This is bad news (despite being a BMW owner) In future driving will no longer be fun, if you want to drive "non-automated" car or disable "auto-pilot" your insurance company will automatically jack up your premium, since they would consider self driving cars "safer"

Good news is this future won't be in our lifetime :-)

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#137

Post by hrjet »

delinka wrote: post #65
JshWright wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am (in my own estimation) a very good driver. I drive a manual transmission car, and enjoy using the flexibility that provides in my daily driving. I drive emergency vehicles of various sizes, in a lot of less than ideal conditions (I live in upstate New York, so weather is a big factor in driving conditions). I have no problem believing that a computer will be able to do an objectively better job of driving than I…

Further, once all the cars on the road are automated, they can alert one another to their own changes in routing, mechanical failures, etc, allowing everyone else the chance to reroute and avoid as needed. We could eliminate traffic lights and stop signs and we'll not only get to our destinations safer, but also sooner.

> they can alert one another

Until someone misuses the protocol to gain an advantage or to cause a disruption (assuming it is peer to peer, decentralized).

If it is centralized, then um, there are other worries (privacy, control, etc).

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#138

Post by qbrass »

darklajid wrote: post #123
sukuriant wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am all for this system as well. I don't think you and the grandparent are in disagreement, either. It looks like what they're saying is "give me varying levels of automation, including but not limited to full automation --- as long as I can have as much control as I want at the time." similar to a car with an option to disable traction control.

This sounds a bit like the car in I-Robot (which happens to be Audi built..).

The movie where the hero is blamed for causing an accident because he turned the autopilot off to avoid being killed by two large driver-less trucks sent to kill him.

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#139

Post by darklajid »

Planar wrote: post #133
darklajid wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already the case today, albeit limited. My Audi - makes the steerwheel vibrate if I veer off my lane, actively works against that (limited 'self-steering', but really, really crappy, useless and stupid in its current incarnation) - has lights in the side mirrors that light up when someone's left or right behind of me. If I set the turning signal to a 'blocked' direction, the lights flash. This system is immen…

The 2014 Mercedes E- and S-klasses that I've tested also do active intervention if you try to change lanes towards a car in your blindspot. Via braking on the opposite side.

Interesting. Would love to test that/feel how that works.

Here that's not combined, if there's something in my blind spot I just have those lights (flashing if I set a turning signal). There's an assistant that is supposed to keep me in my lane. In theory it ignored lane changes only if I set the turning signal (-> intended by me) and otherwise steers in the opposite direction (I can still beat it, it just tries to convince me otherwise). Plus, it vibrates the steering wheel.

It doesn't work, though. Audi was obviously so afraid that people start leaning back and drinking a nice cup of coffee that they added a very annoying 'are you still alive' test. That assistant is going to power down on its own as soon as it things you're not steering anymore. Which often happens without reason (just driving straight).

Basically that thing is only working if you hold the steering wheel like a 50's/60's Hollywood star, turning left and right on a dead straight street. Maybe the next incarnation will improve this design..

Re: BMW shows off 'drifting' self-drive cars

#140

Post by sukuriant »

rayiner wrote: post #125
sukuriant wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"by some asshole speeding in the shoulder as traffic was backed up." fun driving and reckless endangerment of the people on the road around you, including aggressive disregard for the rules of the road, especially driving on the shoulder are two very, very, very different things. Raise the speed limits and make fines and enforcement more frequent for not using turn signals, aggressive lane-changing where other people…

> fun driving and reckless endangerment of the people on the road around you, including aggressive disregard for the rules of the road, especially driving on the shoulder are two very, very, very different things. The two are not disjoint things. A lot of people, particularly teenagers, engage in reckless driving behaviors because it's fun.

And that particular style of 'fun driving' should be disallowed. It's not even allowed on race tracks; but there are other kinds of fun driving that I don't think should be stopped.

You're associating the two more closely than I am. Then again, I have a lot of fun driving many of the roads that I drive on and the fun that I have doesn't include the things I mentioned in my negatives list.

Post reply on HN