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

Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 582 posts

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#561

Post by blinding-streak »

small_model wrote: post #172
galangalalgol wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning is cynical but sound. If the system uses only the sensing modes people have, it will make the mistakes people do. If a jury thinks "well I could have done that either!" You win. It doesn't matter if your system has fewer accidents if some of the failure modes are different than human ones, because the jury will think "how could it not figure that out?"

Very recent issue with Waymo https://dmnews.co.uk/waymo-robotaxi-spotted-unable-to-cross-... . This is 17 years after they bet the farm on LIDAR, with no signs its ever going to be cost effective or that it's better than multiple cameras, with millisecond reaction 360 degrees, that never gets tired, drunk, distracted, and also has other cheaper sensors and NN trained on Billions or real world data.

You're not even supposed to take Teslas in a car wash. Countless photos and videos online of flooding Tesla interiors when it's raining or in a car wash.

I don't think water is the platform you want to boast about for Teslas.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#562

Post by throw10920 »

kube-system wrote: post #553
throw10920 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are many human failures which are distinctly a vision issue and not attention related Which are a tiny minority. The largest causes of crashes in the US are attention/cognition problems, not vision problems. Most traffic systems in western countries (probably in others, too, but I don't have personal experience), and in particular the US, are designed to limit visibility problems and do so very effectively.

That sounds more like a personal opinion, because I don’t think that data is particularly easy to objectively collect. Regardless it is irrelevant to the point. Whatever the number may be, lapses in human visual perception are responsible for some crashes

> That sounds more like a personal opinion, because I don’t think that data is particularly easy to objectively collect.

That sounds like a personal opinion?

Maybe do the bare minimum of research before spouting yours.

DOT says that only 5% of crashes are caused by low visibility during weather events.[1]

In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused 67% of highway deaths. [2]

I was able to find these in 30 seconds. You did zero research to confirm whether your belief was correct before asserting that my claim was opinion. That's pathetic.

> Regardless it is irrelevant to the point.

And your point is therefore irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because the person you were replying to did not claim that vision had no safety impact, but that it had little safety impact:

> the issue is clearly attention not vision when it comes to humans. if we could actually process 100% of the visual information in our field of view, then accidents would probably go down a shit load.

...and, as we can clearly see, the issue is attention (and some bad decision making), not vision.

[1] https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/roadimpact.htm

[2] https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/columns/sa...

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#563

Post by kube-system »

throw10920 wrote: post #562
kube-system wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds more like a personal opinion, because I don’t think that data is particularly easy to objectively collect. Regardless it is irrelevant to the point. Whatever the number may be, lapses in human visual perception are responsible for some crashes

> That sounds more like a personal opinion, because I don’t think that data is particularly easy to objectively collect. That sounds like a personal opinion? Maybe do the bare minimum of research before spouting yours. DOT says that only 5% of crashes are caused by low visibility during weather events.[1] In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused…

None of those things you cited is “human vision or perception”

“Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this.

A ridiculously common example of the limitations of human vision is when people hit curbs parallel parking because of the inherent limitations of relying on depth perception to estimate the exact location of the vehicle when it cannot otherwise be directly seen. Go look in a parking lot and see how common curbed wheels are.

Also, NHTSA estimates that they don’t have any information for 60% of incidents, because they go unreported.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#564

Post by throw10920 »

kube-system wrote: post #563
throw10920 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That sounds more like a personal opinion, because I don’t think that data is particularly easy to objectively collect. That sounds like a personal opinion? Maybe do the bare minimum of research before spouting yours. DOT says that only 5% of crashes are caused by low visibility during weather events.[1] In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused…

None of those things you cited is “human vision or perception” “Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this. A ridiculously common example of the limitations of human vision is when people hit curbs parallel parking because of the inherent limitations of relying on depth perception to estimate the exact location of the vehicle when it cannot otherwise be directly seen. Go look in a parking lot and…

> None of those things you cited is “human vision or perception”

> “Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this.

You're still refusing to do the most basic research or even read my comment:

> In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused 67% of highway deaths.

Do the math. 100% - 67% is 33%. Even literally not opening Google, you can already deduce that the maximum fraction of fatalities caused by vision is 33%.

Given that you aren't interested in reading or researching and instead just want to push your opinion as fact, I think your claims can be safely discarded.

Edit: Because you're editing your comment because you realize that you're making an absolute fool of yourself:

> A ridiculously common example of the limitations of human vision is when people hit curbs parallel parking

A completely irrelevant distraction - this causes virtually zero accidents and even fewer fatalities, and you know it.

> Also, NHTSA estimates that they don’t have any information for 60% of incidents, because they go unreported.

Aha, so now you actually did research, and found that all of the available data supports my claims, so you're attempting to undermine it. Nice try. "Estimates" vs. actual numbers isn't really a contest.

Come back when you have actual data - until then, you're just continuing to undermine your own point with your ridiculous fallacies and misdirections - because if you actually had a defensible claim, you'd be able to instantly pull out supporting evidence.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#565

Post by throw10920 »

arijun wrote: post #504
kube-system wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have both issues. There are many human failures which are distinctly a vision issue and not attention related, e.g. misestimation of depth/speed, obscured or obstructed vision, optical focus issues, insufficient contrast or exposure, etc.

But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving? I mean, yes, we can’t see as well in fog, but that’s why you should slow down

> But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving?

Most of them.

We can lump together "inattention" and "idiocy" for the purposes of this conversation, because both could be massively alleviated by a good self-driving car without lidar.

If you look at the parallel comments, you'll see that the majority of accidents and fatalities indeed come from these two factors combined (two-thirds coming from distraction, speeding, and impaired driving), and that kube-system is having to resort to ridiculous fallacies to try to dispute the empirical data that is available.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#566

Post by kube-system »

throw10920 wrote: post #564
kube-system wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things you cited is “human vision or perception” “Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this. A ridiculously common example of the limitations of human vision is when people hit curbs parallel parking because of the inherent limitations of relying on depth perception to estimate the exact location of the vehicle when it cannot otherwise be directly seen. Go look in a parking lot and…

> None of those things you cited is “human vision or perception” > “Low visibility during weather events” is a small subset of this. You're still refusing to do the most basic research or even read my comment: > In 2023, the combined causes of alcohol, speeding, and distracted driving (all cognitive/attention issues) caused 67% of highway deaths. Do the math. 100% - 67% is 33%. Even literally not opening Google, you…

Dude, you're arguing with a straw man.

I'm not arguing about fatalities or relative percentages of contributing factors, nor am I arguing that alcohol/speeding/attention are not all also issues. They are, you're right.

The only thing I argued is that "lapses in human visual perception are responsible for some crashes", which is a fact.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#567

Post by [deleted] »

throw10920 wrote: post #565
arijun wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving? I mean, yes, we can’t see as well in fog, but that’s why you should slow down

> But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving? Most of them. We can lump together "inattention" and "idiocy" for the purposes of this conversation, because both could be massively alleviated by a good self-driving car without lidar. If you look at the parallel comments, you'll see that the majority of accidents and fatalities indeed come…

[deleted]

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#568

Post by venusenvy47 »

aylons wrote: post #560
venusenvy47 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It gives us depth perception. And moving the eyes and/or head gives the depth perception over a wide field of view.

What I mean is that binocular vision just give us depth perception for a meter or so - about around where our hands can touch. Moving the head/body goes a little further, but that was not my point.

Is this true? I'm looking at a tree outside and I get parallax when I close one eye and then the other. I thought the parallax is the basis for depth perception.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#569

Post by kube-system »

throw10920 wrote: post #565
arijun wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving? I mean, yes, we can’t see as well in fog, but that’s why you should slow down

> But how many of those crashes not caused by inattention could have been avoided with less idiocy and more defensive driving? Most of them. We can lump together "inattention" and "idiocy" for the purposes of this conversation, because both could be massively alleviated by a good self-driving car without lidar. If you look at the parallel comments, you'll see that the majority of accidents and fatalities indeed come…

I didn’t claim vision was responsible for the majority of accidents anywhere in this thread.

Re: Sub-$200 Lidar could reshuffle auto sensor economics

#570

Post by 1970-01-01 »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #397
1970-01-01 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't LIDAR a high powered laser? How could they just go selling it to consumers like you?

It is a Class 1 laser. I can buy a Class 4 laser online that I can start fires with. Laser danger is not the reason.

They can constructively interfere in the FSD application though. https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/mqzbx8/com...
Post reply on HN