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

Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 556 posts

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#411

Post by lazerpants »

rustybelt wrote: post #377
mikestew wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep forgetting that since the dawn of time, humans have been so sensitive to environmental conditions that it is a wonder we survived as a species. I get what you're saying, but in the end it boils down to "it must be 72F and dry anywhere I go". A little rain isn't going to kill you, leave the car at home today. Don't want to ride in the rain? Then don't ride in the rain, I certainly won't judge. But it is not som…

So you're admitting that your solution involves a reduced quality of life?

Trench foot builds character.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#412

Post by vkou »

fredophile wrote: post #403
vkou wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 16-year-old doesn't get to inherit the experience of the 70-year-old they're replacing. A new self-driving car does inherit the experience of older self-driving cars. They also learn from each other in a way humans can't. > Human drivers also improve at a rate of O(1). Self-driving cars can share their experience perfectly, so they improve at a rate of O(n). I get a day of driving experience per day. Each one of…

> why are self-driving cars still unable to drive in snow Have you seen people driving on the first snowfall of the year? > or navigate a parking lot without nearly getting t-boned? Driving in a parking lot is tough. Lots of pedestrians, lots of other cars, and way more people driving in reverse than you'd see in most scenarios.

> Have you seen people driving on the first snowfall of the year?

Most of those people don't have winter tires.

> Driving in a parking lot is tough.

So when is the O(N) rate of growth going to get SDVs to the point of an attentive 16 year old?

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#413

Post by [deleted] »

rustybelt wrote: post #377
mikestew wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep forgetting that since the dawn of time, humans have been so sensitive to environmental conditions that it is a wonder we survived as a species. I get what you're saying, but in the end it boils down to "it must be 72F and dry anywhere I go". A little rain isn't going to kill you, leave the car at home today. Don't want to ride in the rain? Then don't ride in the rain, I certainly won't judge. But it is not som…

So you're admitting that your solution involves a reduced quality of life?

[deleted]

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#414

Post by nikanj »

evo_9 wrote: post #248

I don't understand why there is so much focus on automobiles instead of just about everything else. In every other instance - airplanes, boats, long-haul trucking - the problem in significantly less complex to solve. The only tangible reason I see for such disproportionate focus is some sense of false futurism; aka, driver-less cars have become the 'flying cars' of our times.

In the US, most people experience car commutes and being stuck in traffic all the time.

Fixing that in a way that requires no lifestyle changes is an instant ticket to the Forbes 500, so it’s easy to get cofounders, investors, and media visibility.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#415

Post by vkou »

acd wrote: post #409

The solution is pretty simple. We need to design electric highways that have a self driving lane. In the self driving lane there is guidance in the road that assist self driving cars. Since the cars are self driving they can coast in 80km/h sharing the lane with trucks. Add electric supply and rails to lessen the tire friction and we are a long way to reduce carbon emissions from transportation. For city centers cars…

> The solution is pretty simple. We need to design electric highways that have a self driving lane.

So, build train lines.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#416

Post by _xnmw »

lkbm wrote: post #359
_xnmw wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, even 99.99999% reliability is not good enough, and that's already incredibly hard to achieve. Five 9s of reliability still means 5 minutes of unreliable behaviour per year, which is unacceptable in the context of driving.

> Furthermore, even 99.99999% reliability is not good enough, and that's already incredibly hard to achieve. Five 9s of reliability still means 5 minutes of unreliable behaviour per year, which is unacceptable in the context of driving. 40,000 traffic accident deaths per year in the US. So more than 1 fatality per year per 10,000 drivers. There's a 99.99% change that you won't kill someone while driving in a given ye…

Ok, point taken, I take my previous comment back. I guess we just have to wait until the risk posed by autonomous driving systems becomes socially acceptable. Right now it just seems like a scary unpredictable risk.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#417

Post by vkou »

DickingAround wrote: post #216
bogle wrote: post #133

If we expect driverless cars to be further delayed and we continue building our cities to encourage micromobility (bikes, electric scooters, segregated lanes, car free streets, etc.) then at which point does the value of the driverless car become moot because we no longer drive? Does this sound unlikely? Consider European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam which have encouraged cycling over the last two decades and…

This is kind of silly. It's nice to imagine a world where people don't need cars. But most/all european cities, many of which we laid out before cars, still have cars. We all have cars because cars are incredibly useful; Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week? You're not going to bicycle them to the store and all that food home again in the mountains. Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 mil…

> Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week?

Most people living today don't, and never will have 4 young kids. We don't need to optimize the world for the most extreme outliers, at the expense of everyone else.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#418

Post by UncleOxidant »

bpyne wrote: post #227
DickingAround wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of silly. It's nice to imagine a world where people don't need cars. But most/all european cities, many of which we laid out before cars, still have cars. We all have cars because cars are incredibly useful; Got 4 young kids and you need to get groceries for the week? You're not going to bicycle them to the store and all that food home again in the mountains. Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 mil…

"Live in the city and want to go hiking 20 miles away?" Yes, you want to use a car in this case. But, in the life I imagine, I would rent a car. I dislike driving intensely, but I can see use-cases in which cars are necessary. However, Americans have been largely forced into car ownership, despite the expense and hassle of owning one. A reduction in car ownership coupled with more pedestrian-friendly community design…

> However, Americans have been largely forced into car ownership, despite the expense and hassle of owning one.

Indeed, car ownership is a big part of most household budgets in the US. There's the initial cost (in the $25K to $35K range now), insurance, repairs & maintenance - cars are huge money sinks. So much capital tied up in cars. A few years back I estimated that there were 3000 cars in our tech company parking lot which represents $75Million in capital (at $25K each) that's sitting idle about 95% of the time. The combination of public transit, on-demand self-driving cars, better city design, telecommuting could allow us to redirect that capital more productively.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#419

Post by Robotbeat »

steadicat wrote: post #396
Sargos wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are a LOT further away from cars no longer being needed than we are full self-driving cars.

This is an odd comment considering how humans have lived hundreds of thousands of years without cars, and only a few decades with them. You’re saying that a solution that’s as old as time - and used by billions of people today - is not as realistic as a technology that hasn’t been developed yet?

We've had wheeled chariots and carts powered by animals for almost as long as we've had civilization (about 5000 years). Cars and trucks are simply more efficient (a defensible statement... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102965/ particularly with electrification), self-propelled versions of these.

So absolutely we will have cars and trucks well after we're able to develop driverless versions of them.

Re: Driverless cars are stuck in a jam

#420

Post by lmm »

lazerpants wrote: post #394
lmm wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thats more or less prohibitively expensive, because your hiking location would be outside of parking zone most likely, thus you're on the clock the whole time. Not my idea of a relaxing experience. An extra hour or two doesn't make a lot of difference when you're already booking for a weekend. Of course if you get stuck on a mountain overnight or something then you'd have a penalty charge, but frankly that would be…

Anecdotal experience from NYC here: Owning a cheap car is way less expensive than renting a ZipCar. My car's only cost beyond gas was insurance. And my insurance was cheaper than renting a ZipCar for one weekend. Obviously it depends on the car you own, but ZipCar's here can certainly be more expensive and more inconvenient than owning.

When I looked at it in London, the monthly charge for a parking space in my building alone would've cost about 6 weekends' ZipCar rental. I could've rented a cheap garage further out and bought a cheap beater, but at the point where I'm walking further and driving a less reliable car (and likely less safe in a collision) the ZipCar ends up more convenient.
Post reply on HN