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

#131

Post by bolder88 » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 2:02 PM UTC

exodust wrote: post #122

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…

>> "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…

"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."

Can you not see the idiotic flaw in your plan.

You're driving along. You're coming to a junction. A bike isn't looking and is going full speed and will hit into the front side of your car. You do not have time to brake. Your only option is to swerve into the next lane, which will mean you crash into a fellow car.

You have crashed into a car, but you have saved the cyclists life.

There is absolutely no way in the world you'll be able to get regulations in place to prevent making fully manually operated vehicles. You're high. It's not going to happen.

There's also no evidence to suggest that driverless cars will make roads any safer. You still have to account for cyclists, pedestrians, animals, and the billions of cars driven by people etc etc.

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

#132

Post by fexl » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 2:08 PM 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…

I upvoted you before I read your last paragraph. I am massively in favor of personal freedom, but I am not rooting for massive disasters or scandals with self-driven cars. Nevertheless, it creeps me out in the same way it must creep out Richard Stallman.

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

#133

Post by cylinder » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 4:24 PM UTC

DannoHung wrote: post #114

cylinder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being driverless doesn't mean this kind of thing is necessarily going to be economically viable. You need density to optimize taxi operation and keep it affordable. There would need to be a lot of taxis driving themselves around for them to be so readily available in this kind of setting, and for that you need widespread adoption.

Almost every non-rural area is going to be able to support the density required. I mean, drive through any suburb and count the number of unoccupied cars. Honestly, the biggest issue (assuming the technology is flawless) is going to be keeping them clean and maintained because of the very high usage rates.

I think tech people are overestimating how much people enjoy having their own car, as well as driving it. We see everything as something to be optimized, and rightly see driving as a huge waste of time and energy. But, I'd venture to say the majority won't give up their own cars in favor of driverless taxis. Just think about how many people underutilize mass transit available to them in favor of driving their own car.

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

#134

Post by microcolonel » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 5:04 PM UTC

jmccree wrote: post #127

rubinelli wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good thing, those states have lower rates of murder with firearms I'd imagine.

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

#135

Post by pencilcheck » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 5:09 PM UTC

bolder88 wrote: post #131

exodust wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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…

"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." Can you not see the idiotic flaw in your plan. You're driving along. You're coming to a junction. A bike isn't looking and is going full speed and will hit into the front side of your car. You do not have time to brake. Your only option is to swerve into the…

Are you countering his argument or just grumbling to yourself?

What drive less car can do and the system in the whole can do is to be able to know where and when a car is driving in the vicinity where normal human cannot perceive. So the situation you describe will not happen at all if those systems are in place. Actually, you just describe a scenario where it is preferable to have a system that monitors human error that could prevent accidents like the one you describe to happen.

Also I don't know whether you have been following tech recently, and if you have seen the intro to drive less car, you would probably seen or heard about the infamous laser and radars mounted around the car as shown in the article in the link: http://www.slashgear.com/back-to-basics-how-googles-driverle...

It is virtually impossible for the car to crash into anything because the car can literally "see" everything around it. Also the algorithms is smart enough to anticipate or plan an alternative path to prevent collision with the objects. You sounded like you have never heard or been following tech especially machine learning, so I forgive you, but you should do some research first before posting comments like this...

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

#136

Post by pencilcheck » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 5:15 PM UTC

cylinder wrote: post #133

DannoHung wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every non-rural area is going to be able to support the density required. I mean, drive through any suburb and count the number of unoccupied cars. Honestly, the biggest issue (assuming the technology is flawless) is going to be keeping them clean and maintained because of the very high usage rates.

I think tech people are overestimating how much people enjoy having their own car, as well as driving it. We see everything as something to be optimized, and rightly see driving as a huge waste of time and energy. But, I'd venture to say the majority won't give up their own cars in favor of driverless taxis. Just think about how many people underutilize mass transit available to them in favor of driving their own car…

I think it's just a matter of perspective and whether they are used to the tech, but I can see this technology being deployed in 10-20 years time, by that time older people that don't trust tech will still not drive a car or use a computer, those that wants to own a car would still owns a car, but I bet the majority will hop on this new revenue of personal, car sharing system.

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

#137

Post by bolder88 » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 5:25 PM UTC

pencilcheck wrote: post #135

bolder88 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Can you not see the idiotic flaw in your plan. You're driving along. You're coming to a junction. A bike isn't looking and is going full speed and will hit into the front side of your car. You do not have time to brake. Your only option is to swerve into the…

Are you countering his argument or just grumbling to yourself? What drive less car can do and the system in the whole can do is to be able to know where and when a car is driving in the vicinity where normal human cannot perceive. So the situation you describe will not happen at all if those systems are in place. Actually, you just describe a scenario where it is preferable to have a system that monitors human error…

Next you'll be telling me that speech recognition works. It doesn't.

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

#138

Post by mistercow » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 5:48 PM UTC

tdyo wrote: post #10

mistercow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shhh, if the auto industry, public transit industry, and car rental industry hear you, they might band together and try to stop it from happening.

Someone still has to build them. And buy them.

Yes, but far, far fewer people. Most car hours are currently spent sitting in driveways and parking lots.

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

#139

Post by philwelch » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 6:09 PM 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…

> I'm rooting for some massive disasters/scandals with self driven cars, to put the idea to bed. And you can be pretty sure there will be some big disasters if they ever get anywhere with it.

During the Vietnam War, more Americans were killed in auto accidents on the DC beltway alone than in the actual war. Auto accidents are one of the leading causes of death, and driver error is the leading cause of auto accidents. No, I think you just want to watch people die.

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

#140

Post by bolder88 » Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 7:51 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #139

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'm rooting for some massive disasters/scandals with self driven cars, to put the idea to bed. And you can be pretty sure there will be some big disasters if they ever get anywhere with it. During the Vietnam War, more Americans were killed in auto accidents on the DC beltway alone than in the actual war. Auto accidents are one of the leading causes of death, and driver error is the leading cause of auto accidents.…

I think you should probably update your stats.

Auto deaths are almost half what they were in the 60s in the US, despite more cars and more miles driven. And that figure is coming down by a pretty good percentage each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...

To put in in perspective, every year in the US:

  * People die from heart attacks: 600,000
  * People die from auto accidents: 32,000

Obviously every lost life is a tragedy, and my last comment may seem harsh, but the alternative is that this sort of technology creeps up on us, and we don't understand what we had until it's too late and we've lost it forever.