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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 269 posts

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

#241

Post by roel_v »

adolfojp wrote: post #64
andrewljohnson wrote: post #25

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,…

"but we don't do it because it is not an enjoyable experience."

Eh, no we don't, we don't do it because it's not available on the market and because there is no way to make such food sit well with our digestive systems, otherwise many many people would 'eat' (or should I say 'drink' or just 'swallow') food like that. I'd pay good money for not having to think about what to cook, actually cooking it, doing dishes etc. 3x7 times a week (if I still had the option to eat recreationally - i.e. no solutions that replace my digestive system with something else allowed).

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

#242

Post by roel_v »

icebraining wrote: post #193
uncoder0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully I'll be wearing my google glass too! So, I guess so. True privacy is very hard. You could set up a camera to read plates at some choice points and know the whereabouts of most of the people in your city. If you want to do something privately you have to act deliberately in this day and age.

Setting up those cameras would be illegal where I live.

Whereabouts is that? I hear many people make those claims, but almost as many turn out to be wrong when investigating more closely.

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

#243

Post by nileshtrivedi »

Paraphrasing Peter Norvig: ".. if you do experiments and you're not failing half of the time, then you aren't getting enough information out of those experiments."

(from http://www.slate.com/blogs/thewrongstuff/2010/08/03/error_me... )

;-)

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

#244

Post by andybak »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #216
andybak wrote: post #173

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.

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.

"That's really just a negative externality of inefficient suburban development." Shouldn't public transit cover rural areas and small towns also? Or is the only way to get an efficient transport system to have the entire world living in huge urban centres? Personal mass transit could allow a much wider range of city sizes to be served with relative efficiency.

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

#245

Post by jeza »

modernshoggoth wrote: post #197
VBprogrammer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Google have simply done a better job of creating a self-driving car than you are willing to let yourself believe. They have done this by attacking the problem from the 'Big Data' mindset which Google are intimately familiar with. Instead of trying to crack hard AI problems (computer vision being the most obvious) they are simply counting on being able to record and use enough information both before and…

Indeed. The whole self-driven car isn't a new idea - various individuals and university disciplines have been trying the idea for the last decade over in Europe - it's legal to test these ideas on the road in some countries over there. If you make the assumption that all cars will be AI, then traffic-handling becomes very, very simple. It's not obstacles or accidents that cause serious problems for traffic, it's the…

That might work if the road system were entirely isolated from the rest of the world, but it's not. There are walkers, cyclists, animals, children and other random obstacles that might exist, none of which will ever be controlled by computers.

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

#246

Post by peteretep »

to3m wrote: post #167
doomslice wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be ok with a computer that augments your own driving (similar to those cars that automatically brake when they sense an accident)? If so, then it's just a matter of continuously improving on this augmentation. Even if it never reaches the level where you can truly step away from the wheel while the computer drives 100 miles in rush hour traffic, attaching an AI to help avoid accidents in many common situati…

We are being promised a self-driving car. Either it drives itself, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's not what it claims. And if it does, what are the driving aids for?! That's like wearing a hat indoors.

http://www.gizmag.com/volvo-s60-pedestrian-safety-system/135...

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

#247

Post by Someone »

UK-AL wrote: post #187
Someone wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think the reverse. Why own a car if you can get a taxi at your door in the size/shape/color of your choice whenever you need one without having to pay for the taxi driver?

A taxi is a car.

You are right, but I am, too :-). In my mind, a taxi also is public transportation. I do not think I am alone in that. Wikipedia disagrees with it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport ("as distinct from modes such as taxicab"), but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab talks of "modes of public transport" for taxicabs. I guess the terminology will become more confused if/when driverless cars become commonplace.

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

#248

Post by lmm »

danweber wrote: post #136
fl3tch wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of those accidents happen in rain and snow, which the Google folks admit are not as well tested. Under clear conditions on open roads, humans probably do better than 300K miles too.

That doesn't seem right to me. A person driving 10K a year will hit 300,000 miles over the course of 30 years. Does the average person really have less than 1 accident every 30 years? Especially when they are younger?

Per mile is a pretty poor measure. My dad drives at least 40K/year (long commute) and has averaged one accident per 20 years - but obviously for a regular driver following a familiar route the chances of an accident are pretty low. I would expect someone who drives less would actually have more accidents/year.

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

#250

Post by icebraining »

roel_v wrote: post #242
icebraining wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting up those cameras would be illegal where I live.

Whereabouts is that? I hear many people make those claims, but almost as many turn out to be wrong when investigating more closely.

Portugal.

To set up such cameras, you'd need permission from our National Data Protection Commission and if you were to store footage with car plates you'd fall under the Personal Data Protection Law which requires you to either get explicit consent or fall under one of the few exceptions in the law (and no, tracking random people isn't one of them).

And even if you qualify, you can only use that data for the specific purpose you said you needed it for and it needs to be well protected (for example, a governmental CCTV installation was suspended because the recording weren't being well encrypted).

Post reply on HN