The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving • Hacker News Board

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#181

Post by stephengillie » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #178

gfodor wrote: post #161

Question for self-driving car aficionados. When I'm driving and encounter a strange or dangerous situation these days I often try to think if a robocar will be able to handle it properly. One situation came up the other day that made me nervous. I was driving on a relatively empty highway at high speed (70mph) and there was a piece of debris in one of the lanes. I spotted the debris far ahead and safely changed lanes…

Most human drivers tend to over-estimate the consequence of a collision — it’s common that swerving to avoid a wild animal poses a greater danger than hitting, for instance. However, what a robocar can do that most humans can’t is organise the clean-up, and that’s hundred times more important, because presently, hundreds of cars will pass that debris. Let’s say you have a radar under the chassis (not unlikely given T…

Could we have the cars drive in such a way that the effect on air pressure as they pass would push some debris off the roadway?

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#182

Post by mikeash » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:13 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #161

Question for self-driving car aficionados. When I'm driving and encounter a strange or dangerous situation these days I often try to think if a robocar will be able to handle it properly. One situation came up the other day that made me nervous. I was driving on a relatively empty highway at high speed (70mph) and there was a piece of debris in one of the lanes. I spotted the debris far ahead and safely changed lanes…

What do you think the odds are that a human will be able to handle it properly?

90% of the time, a human will either 1) not notice the debris at all, and plow into it 2) brake to a sudden stop, causing a massive hazard for all around or 3) swerve dangerously into another lane.

Just this morning I watched a car come within inches of plowing into a gigantic orange traffic barrel. He was going 30MPH on a quiet residential road but he simply was not paying attention, and braked just barely in time to stop before hitting it. And this is not some unusual thing, this is how people drive. I've nearly been run down in a crosswalk at a four-way stop sign by drivers who simply decided that they did not need to look forward while going through the intersection. And you think that humans are going to have a good record at spotting and handling small debris when cruising at 70MPH? Good luck with that.

One thing I will say about humans: when they're about to run over you at low speeds, you can usually get them to stop by shouting at them. I doubt computers can manage that yet.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#183

Post by bertil » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:14 PM UTC

pinaceae wrote: post #130

gbog wrote: post #120

In this discussion I very rarely see mentioned how heavy are cars. Since when do we need multi tons machine to move a being that is usually below 100kg from a to b? Here in northern China, many people have very small egg-cars, which are nothing more than an electric bike with a thin shell for the cold, and this is much less likely to kill someone by accident. I think we have been under a very strong brain washing so…

because it is a multi-purpose vehicle. i drive a car to work, single passenger. i drive the car to buy stuff, with my wife, 2 passengers, plus hauling stuff in the trunk. i drive the car to various places on the weekend, wife plus kid plus shit in the trunk. i bought it to cover multiple transportation scenarios I encounter on a weekly basis. it also has a certain size to protect me in an accident. bumping into somet…

Actually, with self-driving cars, it’s likely that those four activity could be handled by different vehicles that you would only rent for the time you need them. If the law allows them to drive empty, they could go to the next user on their own, and reduce both waste parking, and inefficiencies like the ones you describe.

Such plans are however more likely to happen in areas where those issues are more dire (concentrated living) and where non-ownership is already commonly accepted: bike-sharing already exists in NY. Not sure where you are, but I’m assuming you don’t have city-car-sharing there. This discrepancy can come off as a result of lobbying: car companies typically appear hostile to selling a lot less cars to sharing platform operators. I know for a fact there was a lot of lobbying involved in some cases, but I doubt that was the key issues in most places where ‘transportation alternatives’ isn’t used.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#184

Post by bzbarsky » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:17 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #113

DougWebb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's quite that... If a human driver makes a mistake, the driver is liable. If the car makes a mistake, the car manufacturer is liable. This is true today; if you're driving along and you swerve into someone/something, that's your fault. But if your wheel falls off because of a manufacturing defect the car company is going to get sued. The car company faces a much higher liability risk, because they're…

There's two points about insurance: If you own the car, and assuming cars are still stolen / dented etc, then you'll want insurance the same way you insure your house and other possessions. However the bigger point is I doubt you'll own a car. More likely there will be lots of driverless taxi companies, and it'll just be very convenient to use your phone to call a taxi to take you where you want. In this case, the in…

Taxis are an incredible pain when you have kids, because of the carseat issue. For example, they're required by law in CA for kids under 8 (with a height exception that doesn't apply to most kids).

For bigger kids there are some sorta options like RideSafer vests, but with a baby you're just screwed.

Zipcar has the same issue; our use of it dropped hugely once kids appeared, because it's just too painful.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#185

Post by thrownaway2424 » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:18 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #161

Question for self-driving car aficionados. When I'm driving and encounter a strange or dangerous situation these days I often try to think if a robocar will be able to handle it properly. One situation came up the other day that made me nervous. I was driving on a relatively empty highway at high speed (70mph) and there was a piece of debris in one of the lanes. I spotted the debris far ahead and safely changed lanes…

Humans have a tendency to focus on the bizarre while dismissing the average. Perhaps a self-driving car will not see this debris, although I would be surprised if that was true. The robot car has far superior sensors, compared to yours, and it never looks at anything else. Probably the consequences of hitting the debris would have been minor anyway.

On the other hand, meat-drivers are constantly murdering hundreds of people every day. A robot-driven car won't do that. It would even be acceptable if the robot car stuck the debris in the roadway at full speed, every single time, as long as it wasn't mowing down little kids at the local farmers' market every Sunday.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#186

Post by ZeroGravitas » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:18 PM UTC

iron_ball wrote: post #122

josefresco wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll back that as soon as a system to force bicyclists to abide by traffic laws is required.

As a sometime cyclist, I agree that cyclists should abide by traffic laws. I assume this was downvoted for tone. The premise is undeniable. Bicycles should obey the laws. Greater rule adherence means a more predictable, and thus safer, street.

He's being downvoted for content, not tone. Opposing failsafe systems that can prevent tragedy until millions of people start behaving in a way that common sense shows people (whatever their mode of transport) are not likely to is:

a) monumentally callous, b) completely idiotic and c) a sadly all too common, stereotypical response.

Can you imagine someone saying "I'll support seatbelts when everyone stops drinking and driving". No, because it would be a stupid thing to think or say, just as it is to wish death and injury on large number of perfectly blameless cyclists because of the behavior of some.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#187

Post by batbomb » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #161

Question for self-driving car aficionados. When I'm driving and encounter a strange or dangerous situation these days I often try to think if a robocar will be able to handle it properly. One situation came up the other day that made me nervous. I was driving on a relatively empty highway at high speed (70mph) and there was a piece of debris in one of the lanes. I spotted the debris far ahead and safely changed lanes…

Do your eyes have zoom and both active and passive (near or far)-infrared detectors? Because you could easily put those on robotic (or even non-robotic) cars. You could even put several on a robotic car.

Take this, for example: http://news.discovery.com/tech/infrared-car-system-detects-w...

But, I think you are overestimating your own ability to see debris far away, and underestimating other bigger problems.

A much bigger problem, for example, is a two-lane highway with many blind spots in the form of hills, other vehicles, and blind curves, especially those filled with slow-moving bicyclists and animals. Think the 1 in California, or the switchback-heavy roads of ski resorts in the western United States.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#188

Post by bertil » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:22 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #181

bertil wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most human drivers tend to over-estimate the consequence of a collision — it’s common that swerving to avoid a wild animal poses a greater danger than hitting, for instance. However, what a robocar can do that most humans can’t is organise the clean-up, and that’s hundred times more important, because presently, hundreds of cars will pass that debris. Let’s say you have a radar under the chassis (not unlikely given T…

Could we have the cars drive in such a way that the effect on air pressure as they pass would push some debris off the roadway?

I can’t tell if that’s a fantastic idea, or you've watching too many Fast-and-Furious action movie. Let’s agree it’s both.

Serious answer: probably not. What you describe involves turbulence control — an area that has driven the most spectacular effort in computing for half a century, and as far as I can tell, still a very dark box.

Having self-driving space flight to Jupiter trigger philosophical debate by quasi-human AI, that’s pretty much a given by now; using a fan in a controlled manner… no way. Who would have though in 1968 that 2001 was the realistic one, and Iron Finger 2 non-sensical?

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#189

Post by mattzito » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:26 PM UTC

eigenvector wrote: post #174

rpedela wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and I think a larger problem is deer or other animals running into the road especially at night. I don't know if the Google car can handle that situation yet, but the sensors should be able to see animals way before humans can.

Many (most?) car/deer/moose collisions are unavoidable even for a human driver. In particular, because a human driver focuses on monitoring the road ahead, they cannot determine instantaneously whether it is optimal to continue straight and hit the animal or to swerve into oncoming traffic or the adjacent lane. The reflex reaction is to swerve which can often cause an even worse accident. Humans also can't process th…

I would guess, too, that there are mitigation actions that can be taken by computers that humans don't have the reflexes to handle.

For example, I was always told in driving school as a kid that if you're about to hit a deer, you should let up on your brakes right before you hit them. This is so the bumper of the car comes back up and hits the deer center, as opposed to the bumper hitting the deer's bottom half, possibly bringing the deer up on to the hood/windshield where it could injure passengers.

I have no idea whether that's actually true or not, but a self-driving car could easily handle something like that, or automatically turn a car to take the impact of the deer on the side of the car without passengers, whatever the best course of action is.

Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving

#190

Post by DanBC » Mon, Apr 28, 2014, 5:26 PM UTC

deanclatworthy wrote: post #29

melling wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are over 30,0000 deaths in the US alone every year, which is actually near historical lows. I believe there are several million accidents and hundreds of thousands of injuries. Now the computer might not be perfect but if it's 10x better, wouldn't that be acceptable?

Getting to that point is the challenge. I'm just throwing out questions and raising the point that there are some very very hard challenges to solve, where humans are probably much better.

There is a type of trolling - the concern troll - where a person just asks questions.

There's a risk that you look like a concern troll or like someone with a superficial understanding of the topic or someone with vested interests in competing technology.

Concern trolling has a long history in, for example, big tobacco campaigns.

I don't believe you are trolling and I didn't downvote you. I am giving a possible explanation for downvotes.