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

Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 340 posts

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#201

Post by imtringued »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #26
kxrm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trolley problem is a tough one.

It has nothing to do with the trolley problem. The trolley problem is a headline-grabbing non-problem in the actual design of driverless cars.

The real trolley problem:

[ ] Let self driving cars kill people during development but try to make it up by saving thousands of lives after they are perfected. (Uber)

[ ] Make self driving cars extremely safe from the start but more people end up dying from manual driving because development takes longer. (Waymo)

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#202

Post by w_t_payne »

This is one of the times where I am glad to be working in maritime autonomy and not (any longer) in automotive -- we have the considerable benefit of being able to modify the operating procedures for our autonomous vessels to restrict operations or modify operating procedures in environmental conditions where normal operation is no longer safe.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#203

Post by DoctorOetker »

mediaman wrote: post #120
jefft255 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they do. Airborne lidar usually works in the near infrared spectrum which is not absorbed by wood. It is however more absorbed by leaves which have a higher water content. My main point is: airborne lidar (which is what OP is referring to when talking about removing forests and keeping the ground) has multiple returns for one laser beam. Laser beams can have a radius of 1-2 meters or more when they hit the…

What would prevent using the same technique of only retaining the maximum Z direction return to tell the difference between a refracted rain drop and car bumper? Perhaps it is that the rain drop refracts the beam to all sorts of other objects which can make it difficult to tell which actually has the longest Z-distance return?

If I understand correctly the airborne LIDAR works in the timedomain and is much more expensive, while the LIDAR on automobiles is much more affordable but works in the frequency domain...

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#204

Post by tiagoafpereira »

I still cannot comprehend the current push for automated driving.

We, collectively, not just the US, have a problem with too many cars and instead of reducing said number of cars we want to make them self crashing?

Instead of investing heavily on public transit systems we keep feeding this fable that somehow, in the near future, cars driven by computers will do at least as good a job of driving as sentient, sober people.

I can't get my smartphone to understand my language and do simple things by voice commands and yet we seem to think that there's (nearly) available technology to make a car drive by itself...

These companies must not exist in the real world, that's the only possible explanation.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#205

Post by Piskvorrr »

taeric wrote: post #147
bootlooped wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like that existed now or in the near future. There are APIs for speed limit, it would make sense to have them for other traffic rules as well.

My naive view is that a simple RFID standardization would solve that. Together with some regulations, of course. Though, this already has to be regulated. Not just anyone can put up a "only park during certain times" sign. (Right?)

Sure, put up a sign "do not park if moon full, no red cars at any time", on your own property. This only differs from the regulated road parking by attributes that are not visible on the ground (ownership).

But worse: RFID makes for duplicate signage. What if the visible and data signage differ?

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#206

Post by krapp »

tiagoafpereira wrote: post #204

I still cannot comprehend the current push for automated driving. We, collectively, not just the US, have a problem with too many cars and instead of reducing said number of cars we want to make them self crashing? Instead of investing heavily on public transit systems we keep feeding this fable that somehow, in the near future, cars driven by computers will do at least as good a job of driving as sentient, sober peo…

> I still cannot comprehend the current push for automated driving.

Google and Uber believe they can make an insane amount of money with the transition to automated driving. This is being sold to the public as the solution to a public safety crisis with the narrative that human controlled cars are death machines which need to be taken off the roads as soon as possible.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#207

Post by maxerickson »

Moru wrote: post #198
maxerickson wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern cars can drive at their traction limit already, it's a solved problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traction_control_system It's been a safety boon to have a computer limiting power to the wheels when they slip, humans are really bad at estimating how slippery the road is. Estimating for the road ahead is a different problem, but there is data to feed into that estimate.

If you read the manual for the traction control it is full of big warnings on every page,'Does not cancel out physical laws'. It is not a solved problem, it can only do as best it can uphill until car does not have enough traction to continue upwards. At which point the car will slowly glide down or into the ditch.

So what's your point? Are you saying human drivers can safely navigate those same hills or something?

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#208

Post by Piskvorrr »

rootusrootus wrote: post #84
kxrm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trolley problem is a tough one.

I've never understood why. I can't imagine any programmer or self-driving car company having any interest whatsoever in going down that particular rabbit hole. The answer is simple -- we don't expect humans to do realtime analysis of who is worth killing when an accident is happening, so we will not expect that of computers either. It's an unsolvable problem. So we just tell the computer that in the event that an acc…

It's a thought experiment; do not expect a literal trolley (or even literal corpses!) any more than Schrödinger's cat deals with actual felines.

Here's a restatement without all those corpses: In the event that an accident appears unavoidable, the computer should do everything within it's power to stop the car immediately. (This is already a given: safety first.)

"If there are multiple ways of doing the above, what variables should the computer optimize for - stopping distance alone, or stopping so that it doesn't immediately get rammed from behind?" There's your trolley problem again, just restated so it doesn't appear so offensive: in both cases, the occupants of the vehicle are in danger, as are the occupants of nearby vehicles. Now is the interest in the rabbit-hole clearer? The problem doesn't go away just because it's inconvenient to solve...

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#209

Post by tiagoafpereira »

krapp wrote: post #206
tiagoafpereira wrote: post #204

I still cannot comprehend the current push for automated driving. We, collectively, not just the US, have a problem with too many cars and instead of reducing said number of cars we want to make them self crashing? Instead of investing heavily on public transit systems we keep feeding this fable that somehow, in the near future, cars driven by computers will do at least as good a job of driving as sentient, sober peo…

> I still cannot comprehend the current push for automated driving. Google and Uber believe they can make an insane amount of money with the transition to automated driving. This is being sold to the public as the solution to a public safety crisis with the narrative that human controlled cars are death machines which need to be taken off the roads as soon as possible.

I wonder how long will it take them to realize that it won't happen before someone cracks the artificial general intelligence problem...

I don't know what ticks me off the most, people believing that these companies can easily solve the automated driving problem or these companies stubbornly pushing for it.

Re: Self-Driving Cars Can Handle Neither Rain nor Sleet nor Snow

#210

Post by blattimwind »

toast0 wrote: post #139
hef19898 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can that be that in US cities there is not trmendous amount of left turns? At least that was the rwason I heard why the Amazon Logistocs routes in Europe were planned without any left turns driving everybody crazy and adding a lot of wasted time.

US cities have plenty of left turns, except for in new jersey where they're frowned upon. However, there can be a long wait to turn left, depending on conditions, so it might not be more time to drive a bit farther but turn right more often. The waymo cars have trouble with getting hit while making unprotected left turns because they drive very cautiously. Except for the time they hit a bus, because they somehow thou…

> All in all, I would rather the waymo style of overcaution and immobility

From what I've read here and in the linked article, a Waymo car would be unable to pass a driving test here in Germany. Consequentially, they shouldn't/couldn't be allowed unsupervised on German roads, just like a learner driver. (In Germany driving schools are mandatory for a license and their cars are fitted with dual controls for the instructor).

Post reply on HN