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

Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 201 posts

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#171

Post by sitkack »

kuboa wrote: post #159
iandanforth wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plastic bags actually. A plastic bag looks pretty solid to most sensors and cars have been known stop suddenly when one flies in front of the car.

And they should stop, and err on the side of caution. An anecdotal digression, if you'll allow me: I'll never forget the time when a plastic bag was gently flitting across the highway a friend and I was traveling on, in that nonchalant manner plastic bags usually do, and how we, not giving it even a second thought, drove right through it... Except we couldn't, since it turned out there was actually a small picnic-typ…

This is why you never run over anything in a car. Ever.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#172

Post by millstone »

aetherson wrote: post #158
millstone wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting? Anyways, it makes no sense that everyone on my block owns their own lawnmower, and yet here we are.

Renting a property or object that you are the sole user of is typically more expensive than owning. Renting a property or object that you are one of many users of is typically less expensive than owning. For instance, you don't imagine that renting one of those steam-carpet cleaners from the grocery store once every year or two is more expensive than owning one, right? (Renting is more expensive than purely your shar…

This doesn't seem quite right - if I own a car and use only 1/3rd of its capacity, I generally expect it to last 3x as long, so the unused capacity costs me nothing. Even your annual steam cleaner example will favor the purchaser over the renter, given enough time.

So the difference between renting and owning must come down to the cost of unused capacity, which means the fixed costs. Where those fixed costs are high, like a parking space in SF, you want to amortize them by maximizing utilization, which means sharing cars. But where those fixed costs are low, like parking in my driveway, unused capacity may be so cheap that owning costs less than renting, even if the car sits idle most of the time.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#173

Post by eru »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #166
rtpg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only better for rich people. Rent seeking does not follow free market principles (due to fixed supply), and so loses any form of moral highground in my opinion.

Surge pricing is not rent-seeking. If the surge pricing was not warranted by the situation, then it creates a trivial way for competitors to eat the business's lunch by offering the same service at a slightly lower price. "Uber is surge pricing right now but Lyft is not, so I'll get my ride with Lyft" Surge pricing is a legitimate function of a properly functioning market. When demand has skyrocketed, or supply is co…

Thanks for the explanation!

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#174

Post by aetherson »

millstone wrote: post #172
aetherson wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renting a property or object that you are the sole user of is typically more expensive than owning. Renting a property or object that you are one of many users of is typically less expensive than owning. For instance, you don't imagine that renting one of those steam-carpet cleaners from the grocery store once every year or two is more expensive than owning one, right? (Renting is more expensive than purely your shar…

This doesn't seem quite right - if I own a car and use only 1/3rd of its capacity, I generally expect it to last 3x as long, so the unused capacity costs me nothing. Even your annual steam cleaner example will favor the purchaser over the renter, given enough time. So the difference between renting and owning must come down to the cost of unused capacity, which means the fixed costs. Where those fixed costs are high,…

Cars degrade in value pretty strongly based on age, not just mileage. For example, a 2009 Toyota Camry with 5,000 miles on it, base 4-Door sedan, in excellent condition, shows a Kelley Blue Book price of about $13k (in my zip). It would've been about $18k new.

But your point is taken, a great deal of the equity burn on a car is mileage-related.

(Especially when you consider that if there are three users of a rented driverless car, it drives more than 3x the distance than would three separate owned vehicles for the users -- it must, after all, shuttle itself between users.)

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#175

Post by Chronic30 »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #162
randyrand wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No way. In the city, yes. But in the somewhat wealthier suburbs many people will spring for the "self-driving" package. It might only be a ~$10k add on or less by my estimates. Most people will want to be able get in the car without having to request and wait for a ride (most people already have this luxury).

Sure, at first. But then your daughter has the SUV and your husband has the sedan and you want to get groceries and your sons want to go to two different friends houses, so you end up using sepf-driving cars all the time anyway, and you realize it's actually quite nice not to have to worry about maintenance and cleaning and charging. And you realize you could save $300 a month. And oh, you can just order a 4-wheel-dr…

Many rich families own (at least) one car per family member. We are talking about luxurious add-ons which is why I bring this up.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#176

Post by cgriswald »

kuboa wrote: post #159
iandanforth wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plastic bags actually. A plastic bag looks pretty solid to most sensors and cars have been known stop suddenly when one flies in front of the car.

And they should stop, and err on the side of caution. An anecdotal digression, if you'll allow me: I'll never forget the time when a plastic bag was gently flitting across the highway a friend and I was traveling on, in that nonchalant manner plastic bags usually do, and how we, not giving it even a second thought, drove right through it... Except we couldn't, since it turned out there was actually a small picnic-typ…

No, they shouldn't. I'm glad you weren't hurt, but your freak accident aside, most plastic bags are just plastic bags and human drivers are not expecting vehicles to yield to them. (There is also a difference between a plastic bag moving on the ground and one flying around.) If we are erring on the side of caution we shouldn't be creating a more probable hazard to avoid a less probable one.

And if we remove humans entirely from the equation what we get is traffic that comes to a stop because none of the vehicles can avoid or get past the plastic bag which floats around more-or-less randomly.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#177

Post by bsdetector »

eru wrote: post #136
ghaff wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a technology perspective as well, autonomous operations on designated sections of highways seems much more practical and nearer-term than visions of robo-Uber. I suspect a lot of the enthusiasm comes from urbanites who only marginally need a car today. And the capability gap between today's assistive technologies or even truly autonomous highway operations and being able to just virtually hail a robotic cab in a…

I think a robo-Uber is more likely. Mostly because the designated highway sections would require concerted public actions and overcoming a lot of NIMBYs. Robo-Uber requires to solve technical problems (and some regulation). Designated lanes are more of a social problem. (We could have had automatic driving on designated roads for decades; just make the cars run on rails, too.)

On the other hand highways are much simpler and could be completely self-driven with today's technology, probably much more safely than a human driver. This takes people out of high-stakes boring driving where the vast majority of fatalities take place and give them an easier, safer commute.

I can't react to debris in the road, a pothole, or a deer crossing the road in 1 ms like an automated driver can and at 80 MPH that's where it really matters. A 25 MPH collision is basically just a matter of money, as with today's cars there's almost no mortal danger. Hitting a deer at highway speeds is a life-threatening problem.

You can make a flatbed-type powered sled that people drive their cars onto and it drives you from exit A to exit B. It can enclose and lock the wheels of your car for safety. This can even be electric or hybrid to reduce costs with a long, flat Tesla-like battery under the flatbed. If I could drive my car onto a system like this and take a nap for 5 hours on the highway I would do this in a heartbeat because I have confidence that today's technology can drive a restricted access road better than I can in good conditions.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#178

Post by davidw »

I wonder if these things could be used in potentially 'easier' niches like long-haul trucking: you'd create a loading/unloading port near the freeway, and send the truck to another port across the country.

Naturally, I don't know anything about trucking, and you'd want to be really sure something so big and bulky is safe, but the idea would be, rather than "do everything a car does all at once" to do something relatively simple.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#179

Post by tonylemesmer »

graycat wrote: post #128
amckenna wrote: post #25

A lot of people are bashing the car's appearance, but I think people forget that putting the first driverless cars on the road is as much a PR challenge as it is a technological challenge. Truly autonomous driverless cars is a huge shift in the way we have operated for almost 100 years. There will be a lot of caution and resistance from political groups, concerned citizens, entrenched interests, etc. The car that the…

Do they really have driverless cars or just cars that run on essentially electronic tracks very carefully determined? If someone moves the location of a traffic light, can a Google car still find the traffic light? Wbat if a bulb in the traffic light is burned out; is the car smart enough to negotiate the intersection with the failed light? What if a bucket of white paint fell on the road yesterday; is the Google car…

or if someone parks a flatbed with a ramp in the road with lines painted up. Will the Google car just drive onto the back of the truck? Would this be how you kidnap the cars and occupants?

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#180

Post by cgriswald »

zanny wrote: post #65
Toenex wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber have the right idea here; own the platform, not the infrastructure. Lets face it, a cars spends most of its life stationary, waiting for you to drive it. Not so the autonomous vehicle. Autonomous vehicles are freed from the shackles of parking so why not lease your car to Uber and have it earn money as a cab? The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.

You won't lease or own self driving cars. That makes no sense. You will just subscribe to a drive service if you drive a lot or just pay per ride and have one pick you up. I easily see you scheduling regular events (leave for work at 8, for example) and your car will be out front waiting each day.

In the short term, self-driving is going to be an optional activity, not an always-on activity. So for most drivers who have it, it will simply be a luxury. Certainly there will be services, but it may or may not be cost effective. We already have the option to schedule a car service every day at 8 am, yet most of us drive. Some of us have the option of busses and trains, which is more or less the same thing, but again, we opt to drive.

In the long term, your car isn't going to sit outside your office for 8 hours. It's going to pick up the kids, your take-out order from the Chinese place across town, and deliver your laundry to a laundry service. People aren't going to travel around in taxis that don't even have the benefit of a driver who tries to keep it clean. They're going to want their own space.

There are some caveats and exceptions, certainly. And self-driving vehicles and services may prompt more people to eschew car ownership, but the idea that people won't own or lease these things _in general_ is ridiculous.

Post reply on HN