Live data from Hacker News

Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

techcrunch.com

211–220 of 269 posts

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What type of accidents though? Do people get in a number of fender benders over their lives? or head on at 65mph? What sort of accidents will GoogleCar be prone to? Fender benders, or a head on at 65mph every 500K? I'm very hopeful about this. Most people don't want to drive most of the time. As long as I can still drive my V12 Aston martin manually when I want to, this is awesome.

I imagine, once automated cars are safe and popular enough, they will mandate that all new cars must have it and set a date after which only automated cars are allowed on the road. It will become an offence to take over and drive manually unless the circumstance demands it. You'll be fine driving your Aston Martin, but your kids, or their kids might not be.

We're already heading down that route [1]. Although I can't see it ever being an offense to manually drive your car, the car will just automatically take over the driving duties if it doesn't like the way you are driving.

[1] http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120803/carnews/120809942

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the automation would ever be mandatory. It would be more like auto-pilot, where it would do most of the mundane driving, but let you take over when you want.

Do you think once the automated car gets to the point where it causes 1000x less fatalities, that people would still allow the freedom to drive a 3 ton missile around public? I personally think not.

The first software recall on the driving software might be the end of it. Its going to take a while, probably a generation or two of people.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#213
post #63
post #30

Long-haul tractor trailers. We need long stretches of highway where autonomous tractor trailers can carry goods. It'll provide a good business case and limit liability.

We have (one of the) largest freight-train networks in the world. It's great for things like that. Trains are basically semi-autonomous, and out of the way of cars anyway.

Our freight network is great, but trucks are now a vital partner to trains and go more places. If all the trucks in the US stopped and only trains ran, we'd be in a serious world of hurt.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#214

Autonomous cars are the next big tech that changes the world - I put them up there with computer, Internet, and smart phone. When economists think about technology, they look at it as a productivity booster. From that angle, robot cars will have a huge impact - so many commute hours will be transformed to work, or even leisure, which also boosts productivity. So many smart people are about to be given a 10% or better…

Eating food from a tube could also give us a lot more free time but we don't do it because it is not an enjoyable experience. We not only enjoy the flavors and textures that regular food provides, we also enjoy the rituals that accompany eating. In this regard driving cars is somewhat similar. A lot of people enjoy driving and many actually find it therapeutic. Some exceptions do exist, like driving in heavy traffic,…

Some exceptions do exist, like driving in heavy traffic

Which is a large "exception", since by definition lots of driving occurs in heavy traffic.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#215
post #80
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Autonomous cars are the next big tech that changes the world - I put them up there with computer, Internet, and smart phone. I wouldn't be so sure. Yeah, it might prove to be a very good thing for the United States, but for the rest of world there's first Europe's public transport networks (I'm 31, don't have a driver's license, I live in Europe, I'm doing perfectly fine, thank you), and short of us reaching the Si…

It's going to shift a lot of capital that's currently tied up in owning and maintaining cars into other uses. Right now, most cars are only in use for about 5% of their lifetimes. When everybody owns their own private car, those cars spend a lot of time sitting parked. If those cars could drive around and be used by other people who need them on demand, you'd need a lot fewer cars, as well as a lot less parking.

There are so many things I can think of. The taxi/rental/on demand model is far more likely to happen because who needs to own a car 100% of the time. Ride sharing is also easier - I suspect many people would be happy going a few minutes out of their way for halving the cost of their journey. (Computer systems would automatically manage supply and matching demand, as well as pricing.)

Not only do you need less parking for fewer cars, but you could have less parking for the same number of cars. For example there is no need for stores to have huge car parks - customer and employee cars can go and wait somewhere else and only return to the front door just as you come out with your goods. This can lead to far denser human centric areas.

Some roads can actually be decommissioned. Vehicles can load balance across existing alternatives and respond far quicker to developing bottlenecks. Occupied vehicles can be given priority over shorter routes than non-occupied ones.

Deliveries can be done without drivers. For example the delivery vehicle can drive to your home, work or anywhere else and you enter a code to get your items vending machine style.

It will give people greater freedom. For example if your vision isn't acceptable, or you have physical issues then it won't matter. In general the maladies that come with age won't affect mobility anywhere near as much as they do today.

Drives can be over longer distances as there is no driver fatigue. Perhaps there could be sleeper cars for when you want to go somewhere overnight.

Heck they can even do things like deal with you in the vehicle while you are driving to an airport or a border. You could show your passport, answer questions, check luggage etc. And then go straight through the border or walk straight to your gate at airport, or even be driven to a closer access point to the gate.

And I suspect we never get flying cars out of this. When the two dimensional earth surface is used so much more efficiently, why expand into 3 dimensions? And since we can increase the speed the more vehicles are automated, what advantage does flight have?

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think trains/metro rails are just outright much more cost effective, given it's not personal transport.

Actually, not when you factor in the need to serve unpopular routes and non-Busyntimes. That's a lot of trains and buses running nearly empty. Small, on-demand personalised mass transit has the potential to be the most efficient transport system.

That's really just a negative externality of inefficient suburban development. If the 'burbs didn't exist in the first place, there would be no need to subsidize their barely-used mass transit services.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "just stop" approach is also problematic on a busy highway.

Not if all of the cars can do it just as easily.

I love the mental image of a whole highway full of cars slamming on their brakes to let a leaf blow by.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, not when you factor in the need to serve unpopular routes and non-Busyntimes. That's a lot of trains and buses running nearly empty. Small, on-demand personalised mass transit has the potential to be the most efficient transport system.

Especially if you can finally get high-occupancy vehicles right. Something closer to a 6-passenger vehicle with bus-style seating... if we're very lucky, only with people at most one indirect hop away in your social network?

Or smaller vehicles driving inches apart to get into the slip stream, I imagine that has the potential to be quite efficient (and flexible) too

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#219
post #35

What happen if I have a accident in the car? Will Google pay my damages if it's the car's fault? How quickly will we adapt to the car?

I would guess that it's still your responsibility as you're supervising the car while it's been driven by Google's software. The same way you're responsible for your speed even if you're using cruise control.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting case here for carjackers. You're Google car probably won't floor it in the middle of the night through a red light when an armed gang approaches your car. Then again I guess that's what "manual" is for.

Carjacking a car loaded with recording equipment that probably phones home with GPS and other environmental data probably isn't the best idea.

carjackers aren't known for their brilliance
Post reply on HN