Live data from Hacker News

The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

perspectivezoom.com

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#51
I think what will come first is driverless subway cars. They've already had this in some places (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains), but they're just replacing a regularly-scheduled human-driven train with one without a driver.

But think about what can happen if you have a system designed to not require a driver at each subway car. You can have smaller cars, called on demand. You don't need to wait for the next car to come. This is especially a benefit during late night hours, when you might have a subway come only every 20 or 30 minutes. This is made worse if you need to transfer.

Once you get cars running along existing lines with small cars, you can eliminate subway lines entirely. Just hop in a subway car, tell it where to go, and it gets you there. No transfers, no thinking of the best lines to take, just get in a car and it'll drop you off at your end location. It would eliminate taxis for many people, which would be one of the reasons this plan would create controversy. Also controversial is elimination of conducting jobs.

I see a few reasons replacing subways will work better than trying to replace cars:

* One organization already owns all the infrastructure for a subway: they can just choose to replace it, and get the laws written for themselves.

* Rails mean you don't have to worry as much about steering, or cars next to you turning into you.

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#52
post #51

I think what will come first is driverless subway cars. They've already had this in some places ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains ), but they're just replacing a regularly-scheduled human-driven train with one without a driver. But think about what can happen if you have a system designed to not require a driver at each subway car. You can have smaller cars, called on demand. You don't need to…

Fatal flaw in this plan: unions. New York has already tried to switch to driverless subways, but progress is slow due to constant union interference.

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#53
post #51

I think what will come first is driverless subway cars. They've already had this in some places ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains ), but they're just replacing a regularly-scheduled human-driven train with one without a driver. But think about what can happen if you have a system designed to not require a driver at each subway car. You can have smaller cars, called on demand. You don't need to…

There are already many driverless subways in existence (especially at airports). Many driven subways (BART in SF) are actually driverless, with a driver there just to close the doors and in case of emergencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains#Unatt...

Good luck implementing totally driverless subways on currently driven subways, though. Unions will totally block the necessary incremental steps, so it would have to be an all-or-nothing back room skunkworks project from a public transit authority.

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#54
post #41

Any time I read these utopian pieces about the driverless car nirvana that is around the corner I roll my eyes. If there's anything we should learn from history it's that nothing is as simple as it seems, especially if it's something we want. There will be unforeseen technical issues that are not apparent with a single test car or even small numbers of test cars. There will be accidents, and we'll have lawsuits again…

It's not 50 years away, it's closer to 5 years away. In 15 years they will dominate the roads. Google's cars have already demonstrated that they are safer than human drivers with 99% statistical certainty, they have over 750,000 miles of accident free testing on public roads under their belt. Because Self Driving Cars stand to reduce traffic accidents by 90% or more, it is likely that they will be afforded certain le…

> Google's cars have already demonstrated that they are safer than human drivers with 99% statistical certainty, they have over 750,000 miles of accident free testing on public roads under their belt.

Has Google driven their car in snow storm[1] or with snow/ice on the ground?

1) I'm talking basic heavy snow, not a blizzard

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#55
post #13

A problem with trucks as the leading-edge is that they're already a bit alien to the public and policymakers: resented in traffic, feared out of proportion to actual risks, underappreciated as some narrow corporate/union interest. If they're the test case, enthusiasm will be lower, regulation more costly/cautious, and the public vaguely suspicious, primed to assume the worst when anything goes wrong.

Plus, people drive like idiots around them. It is amazing what normally sane people will do in the presence of a truck.

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 50 years away, it's closer to 5 years away. In 15 years they will dominate the roads. Google's cars have already demonstrated that they are safer than human drivers with 99% statistical certainty, they have over 750,000 miles of accident free testing on public roads under their belt. Because Self Driving Cars stand to reduce traffic accidents by 90% or more, it is likely that they will be afforded certain le…

> Google's cars have already demonstrated that they are safer than human drivers with 99% statistical certainty, they have over 750,000 miles of accident free testing on public roads under their belt. Has Google driven their car in snow storm[1] or with snow/ice on the ground? 1) I'm talking basic heavy snow, not a blizzard

They have not done serious work yet with driving in snow and other inclement weather conditions, this is the phase they're entering into as we speak. They've suggested their cars will be ready for the public in 2017, I guess we'll see if they meet this deadline or not.

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#57
post #43
post #25

The major benefit of self-driving isn't saving the costs of a driver's salary, it's reducing accidents. Commercial truck drivers are skilled and alert, so it's hard to be safer than them. Average commuters are distracted and accident-prone, so you can reduce accidents with near-future technology.

Do you have a source which shows that commercial truck drivers are less accident-prone, and by how much?

Not the OP, but http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/LTCO2010/2010LargeTr... - Figure 2 and 3

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#58
post #13

A problem with trucks as the leading-edge is that they're already a bit alien to the public and policymakers: resented in traffic, feared out of proportion to actual risks, underappreciated as some narrow corporate/union interest. If they're the test case, enthusiasm will be lower, regulation more costly/cautious, and the public vaguely suspicious, primed to assume the worst when anything goes wrong.

Plus, people drive like idiots around them. It is amazing what normally sane people will do in the presence of a truck.

Yep. People who know they're around a self-driving car may act weird, too: gawking at or challenging the software. (The young and reckless might even play chicken with autocars for thrills.)

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not referring to a strike, but to politics.

Because strikes have never been used as political tools by organized labor groups…

All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats.

Re: The Driverless Car Revolution Should Not Begin with Cars

#60
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source which shows that commercial truck drivers are less accident-prone, and by how much?

Not the OP, but http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/LTCO2010/2010LargeTr... - Figure 2 and 3

Thanks!
Post reply on HN