Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#31

Post by mikepurvis » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 5:53 PM UTC

fillskills wrote: post #17

peatmoss wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too

This is enormous— both the massive parking lots often consuming choice real estate and negatively impacting walkability, as well as the street-side parking which could be repurposed as improved infrastructure for cycling.

I'm 29, married with two young kids. We're excited to ditch our vehicle and never look back.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#32

Post by thrownaway2424 » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #22

peatmoss wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them. There is definitely some tunnel vision here. Not everyone lives in densely populated urban areas where owning a car is already almost not worth the cost and hassle. I can't see myself ever owning or time-sharing a self-driving car.

In America, nobody is going to stop you from doing whatever you want. But we'll probably stop subsidizing it pretty soon. Drivers will have to pay their own way, with all the current negative externalities internalized.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#33

Post by tomtang0514 » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

peatmoss wrote: post #13

ClassyHacker wrote: post #11

Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

As someone who came from other country, I'm shocked in how easy it is to get a driver license in US. I know a lot of people getting a driver license with less than 20 hours behind the wheel. FYI, I got a US driver license in Illinois, which is considered relatively hard compare to other states. And some traffic rules are just ridiculous. I can't believe there're still states out there allow hand hold devices when driving, even text and drive.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#34

Post by fillskills » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:21 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

fillskills wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too

You'll still need parking, but you can put it underground in lights out parking facilities.

Yep. The goal being to reduce that 15% to something like 2-3%.

I wouldn't be surprised if car ownership becomes 0% by the time my kids grow up. Cars will essentially become like trains - owned and operated by companies trying to make a profit. You just pay for the ride or get a monthly pass.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#35

Post by t2015_08_25 » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

ClassyHacker wrote: post #11

Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.

This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans. It may be possible to program them that way, but what gives us faith that the profit-seeking entities who control them will allow them to be programmed that way? And that they will be required options?

What about the recent self-parking Volvo that didn't include a pedestrian avoidance system [1] and clobbered a pedestrian? It could have just as easily mauled that kid on his scooter in your apartment complex if the owner didn't pay for the "kid on a scooter avoidance system" and how would there by justice?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#36

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

fillskills wrote: post #34

toomuchtodo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll still need parking, but you can put it underground in lights out parking facilities.

Yep. The goal being to reduce that 15% to something like 2-3%. I wouldn't be surprised if car ownership becomes 0% by the time my kids grow up. Cars will essentially become like trains - owned and operated by companies trying to make a profit. You just pay for the ride or get a monthly pass.

> I wouldn't be surprised if car ownership becomes 0% by the time my kids grow up. Cars will essentially become like trains - owned and operated by companies trying to make a profit. You just pay for the ride or get a monthly pass.

We can only hope so. Think how much people work for a resource that sits idle 95% of the time. New vehicle sales this year are at ~17 million units a year, with the average price being ~$35K/USD/year. That's $595 billion/year being spent on something sitting around most of the time. Just think about how much less work people would have to do if they didn't need to own a car.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#37

Post by dmd » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #22

peatmoss wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them. There is definitely some tunnel vision here. Not everyone lives in densely populated urban areas where owning a car is already almost not worth the cost and hassle. I can't see myself ever owning or time-sharing a self-driving car.

For the United States:

The urban areas of the United States for the 2010 Census contain 249,253,271 people, representing 80.7% of the population, and rural areas contain 59,492,276 people, or 19.3% of the population.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#38

Post by Nicholas_C » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

t2015_08_25 wrote: post #35

ClassyHacker wrote: post #11

Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.

This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans. It may be possible to program them that way, but what gives us faith that the profit-seeking entities who control them will allow them to be programmed that way? And that they will be required options? What about the recent self-parking Volvo that didn't include a pedestrian avoidance system [1] and clobbered a ped…

>This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans.

No, he implied that computers are faster acting and probably wouldn't have hit the kid in the first place.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#39

Post by t2015_08_25 » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 8:04 PM UTC

Nicholas_C wrote: post #38

t2015_08_25 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans. It may be possible to program them that way, but what gives us faith that the profit-seeking entities who control them will allow them to be programmed that way? And that they will be required options? What about the recent self-parking Volvo that didn't include a pedestrian avoidance system [1] and clobbered a ped…

>This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans. No, he implied that computers are faster acting and probably wouldn't have hit the kid in the first place.

And i'm saying they will hit kids, just like the Volvo hit the pedestrian.

Re: Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

#40

Post by pcurve » Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 8:34 PM UTC

peatmoss wrote: post #13

ClassyHacker wrote: post #11

Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.

30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated. Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on…

I agree 30,000+ deaths is a high price.

A NTHSA study states it has direct economic cost of $277 billion / year. Indirect cost of another $600 billion+.

Put it another way, car crashes is also a big business.

It's big business for hospitals, insurance, body shops, and lawyers.

As for the economics of car ownership, if almost everybody had to own a car or two, then people's average salaries would simply rise. If nobody owned a car, then salaries would job. The savings don't go into pockets of employees.