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

The Human Driving Manifesto

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#11

Post by falcolas »

"Manifesto" talk aside, this is the same discussion about automation styles: Ironman vs. Ultron.

I'm a huge fan of Ironman automation method - augment, not replace the humans - since it takes the boring and error prone parts away, and utilizes humans for the edge cases. There's a lot of potential for huge wins for low costs. And, absolutes aside, that's in line with this article.

The alternative Ultron method - take the humans out entirely - is simply too expensive and error prone. It's absurdly common to watch entire automated assembly lines grind to a halt because of corner cases that have to be fixed by humans. We're seeing the same thing with automated vehicles - when corner cases are hit, they pull over and signal for human intervention.

So, I guess I agree with the author, though in a less stylish way. Please make me a better driver; don't remove me from the seat entirely. Just imagine that fancy VR simulation they showed from the Waymo cars made available as HUD data for a regular driver. How much would that alone help with safety on the road?

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#12

Post by cryptoz »

throwaway1748 wrote: post #7
cryptoz wrote: post #2

This entire article is clickbait, where the author wants you to believe he is being persecuted or something. > Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans. This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody. These cars will hopefull…

This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody. Elon Musk does https://www.inverse.com/article/38049-elon-musk-self-driving...

What? The headline says,

> Elon Musk Says Tesla's Self-Driving Tech Already as Good as a Human Driver

Which is the exact opposite of what I said above. Elon's quote implies he thinks his cars would still kill around 30,000 people per year. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a car that's thousands of times safer than a human. Not "as safe". "As safe" as a human is terrible performance and we should not allow those cars on streets without a driver if that is the case. No way.

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#13

Post by falcolas »

cardmagic wrote: post #6

How do self-driving cars restrict your freedom? You can still tell it where you want to go at any time and it will take you. I'm very confused what freedom I'm losing? Is it to drive over a riverbed if I want to? Never done that. Not sure I'd want to.

Should give it a try - it's a lot of fun.

To generalize: your lack of interest in an activity is not a good reason to remove that activity opportunity from everybody. I'm sure you have a lot of freedoms that you don't take advantage of - should they be removed as well?

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#14

Post by vorpalhex »

anoncoward111 wrote: post #9
cryptoz wrote: post #2

This entire article is clickbait, where the author wants you to believe he is being persecuted or something. > Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans. This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody. These cars will hopefull…

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to stop 30,000 people from dying on the roads every year, don't allow multi-ton vehicles on the road. If everyone was using motorized bikes, you would have almost no road deaths. Furthermore, people die choking on food every year. Please don't mandate us to use self-chewing teeth.

If I choke on food, that's sort of on me. If I die from a drunk driver rear-ending me at 6pm in the evening, well, that's not quite my fault now is it?

The problem is that humans are de facto terrible at driving. Cellphones and other distractions, bad decision making, emotional clouding, etc.

I've literally seen someone have to slam on their brakes and pull in the shoulder to avoid a rear end collision because they were tailgating and speeding... and then repeat the exact same mistake in less than five minutes. People are garbage at driving and when a mistake can cost not only your own life, but the lives of others, you don't have some intrinsic right to endanger me because you can't follow a posted speed limit or maintain a safe distance.

I also notice that folks who think they're the best at driving are some of the worst. "I'm a good driver! I can talk on my cellphone and drive at the same time!"

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#15

Post by cryptoz »

anoncoward111 wrote: post #9
cryptoz wrote: post #2

This entire article is clickbait, where the author wants you to believe he is being persecuted or something. > Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans. This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody. These cars will hopefull…

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to stop 30,000 people from dying on the roads every year, don't allow multi-ton vehicles on the road. If everyone was using motorized bikes, you would have almost no road deaths. Furthermore, people die choking on food every year. Please don't mandate us to use self-chewing teeth.

> If you want to stop 30,000 people from dying on the roads every year, don't allow multi-ton vehicles on the road.

Okay, but the idea here is to drop the deaths without impacting the economy so much that it will tank. Yes we could remove all large vehicles, but then people would starve and die anyway because they wouldn't get food to grocery stores fast enough, etc.

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#16

Post by thisisit »

> From my cold, dead hands.

This makes the whole thing sound like a NRA-style clickbait article and nothing more.

That said, I am not exactly a fan of how autonomous vehicle scene is unfolding with lot of investments being made by ride sharing companies. And these guys have signed a "Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities" [0] which states:

WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS. Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.

[0]: https://www.sharedmobilityprinciples.org/

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#17

Post by maxerickson »

falcolas wrote: post #11

"Manifesto" talk aside, this is the same discussion about automation styles: Ironman vs. Ultron. I'm a huge fan of Ironman automation method - augment, not replace the humans - since it takes the boring and error prone parts away, and utilizes humans for the edge cases. There's a lot of potential for huge wins for low costs. And, absolutes aside, that's in line with this article. The alternative Ultron method - take…

Where does the Vision fit into it all?

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#18

Post by falcolas »

cryptoz wrote: post #2

This entire article is clickbait, where the author wants you to believe he is being persecuted or something. > Despite a storm of clickbait media reports, there is still little evidence that self-driving cars are safer than humans. This is the central thesis, but the author made up the idea that we are supposed to already have these cars that are safer than humans. Nobody thinks this. Nobody. These cars will hopefull…

> You still have to stay on the roads and use a seatbelt and use your turn signals 100% of the time, etc.

No, you don't. If you're not on a road, there's no need for any of those. You don't even need a license. Should those usecases be taken away?

> They would be building self driving cars if they cared about safety.

Imagine, for a moment, a car with all of that data that it collects distilled down into a HUD for the driver. Can you honestly tell me that it wouldn't be better than the status quo? Should we not ask for such a thing, since it doesn't remove the human from the equation?

There will never be a 100% safe automatic pilot - putting off adding safety features to cars today until we get that perfect system is, to me, really quite silly.

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#19

Post by cardmagic »

falcolas wrote: post #13
cardmagic wrote: post #6

How do self-driving cars restrict your freedom? You can still tell it where you want to go at any time and it will take you. I'm very confused what freedom I'm losing? Is it to drive over a riverbed if I want to? Never done that. Not sure I'd want to.

Should give it a try - it's a lot of fun. To generalize: your lack of interest in an activity is not a good reason to remove that activity opportunity from everybody. I'm sure you have a lot of freedoms that you don't take advantage of - should they be removed as well?

If I tried it, I wouldn't try it with the same car I drive to work with every day. I'd use a car built to drive over riverbeds. Most people aren't saying that self-driving cars should take over every kind of vehicle with wheels. I think the main purpose is to give commuters and truck drivers another option, not to remove options from people.

Re: The Human Driving Manifesto

#20

Post by Svip »

Where is the middle ground? In the self-driving car debate, I only see the extremes of the positions. Surely it will end in a compromise.

I own two classic cars (well, one of them will be soon enough). By virtue of their age, they are obviously not self-driving and never will be. But I hope to have them in my possession 30-40 years from now, because I like them very much.

I believe I like driving, because I only do it for fun. I either take the train or bike to work, depending on the weather, so I am not beholding to my cars. Hence why I don't own a modern car.

I recognise that my position is unique, but I would sad to lose my ability to drive my cars on the road (and my collection may grow in the future). I understand people's desire for self-driving cars, and I'm glad if they get them. As long as I can drive my old-timey cars.

Indeed, once there are more electric cars than petrol powered cars on the roads, getting petrol will be harder. But that's OK, as long as it's still possible.

My position is; I may not personally need self-driving cars, but I respect others' desire to want them. But articles like this make me cringe, I hope I don't need to explain why.

Post reply on HN