Waymo: Google's self-driving car company • Hacker News Board

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#761

Post by WillPostForFood » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 7:39 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #737

WillPostForFood wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are over estimating car seat weights. A large, one piece, high end seat for kids up to 70 pounds like a Britax Marathon only weighs 19.5 pounds. No pixie dust needed, just plastic and styrofoam. https://us.britax.com/car-seats/marathon-70/ (see specifications) Those detachable seats you see mom's carrying in the supermarket weigh about 10 pounds, and the base will be about the same.

The one you link to is a) not ISOFIX, thus not high end, and b) discontinued from the manufacturer. We have this one, which is what I'd consider the gold standard. It's ISOFIX, and only rearward-facing since kids under 4 should not be facing front, and it's won basically every test there is: http://www.besafe.com/product-int/izi-kid-x2-i-size/ It weighs 40.6 lbs. Quite a bit of structural steel in there, including a…

ISOFIX doesn't define high end it is just the name of the European standard. The US decided to go with a different standard called LATCH. Britax is high end, and the Marathon is their largest safest seat, and it weighs 19.5 pounds.

https://us.britax.com/car-seats/marathon/https://us.britax.c...

So maybe in Europe you are going to have a harder time with self driving cars because you need heavier car seats, but you'll probably find a workable compromise. Yu can just build your base into the center seat or something.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#762

Post by laurentoget » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #753

laurentoget wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk may decrease but liability may increase, as this is a risk you are taking deliberately if you decide to drive your car instead of getting a safe self driving car like everybody else.

Insurance doesn't work that way. Liability isn't an ephemeral concept, it's the chance of a claim X the amount of a claim, pooled in a group of buyers with differing risks. The relative cost of insurance compared to an autonomous vehicle should increase, but not the dollar amount.

Car accidents kill people. The amount of those claims is not fixed and will increase when every fatality can lead to a wrongful death civil case.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#763

Post by LinuxBender » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 11:33 PM UTC

brazzledazzle wrote: post #519

andrewljohnson wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd consider autonomous cars to be more safe than a car I drive when statistically I'm less likely to get hurt or die. If there was some chance my car could get hacked, or other weird vulnerabilities that robocars had that traditional cars did not, I would still want to be in a robocar if my chance of dying was cut in half.

This is going to be one of those things where a lot of people have trouble quantifying the actual risk because the fear when things are out of your control is so powerful. Like flying.

Not to mention, the live hacks of moving vehicles have already occurred multiple times. Thankfully, there are not yet enough skiddie tools and the bar to entry is just high enough that mass casualties have not yet occurred. Give it a few more months or maybe even another year before your car is just another IoT that can be controlled remotely. I do not believe it would be irrational to consider the risk of 100k cars driving into oncoming traffic at the same time. That is a lot more damage and chaos than a few little 747's could do. Am I incorrect?

My only questions are

1) will the skiddie tools be on github first, or will someone have to buy/leak them and repost on github?

2) If a minor executes the scripts and lives are taken; and assuming you can determine who ran them, will they be tried as adults and will the verdict or punitive actions make up for the damages?

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#764

Post by karthikb » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 6:44 AM UTC

kulu2002 wrote: post #722

nojvek wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about making your existing car self driving? Your stuff is always there in the trunk, but when you're not using it, it joins the fleet and earns you some money. I really want to see a day, where I drive my car to work. It then drives other people around and picks me when I am finished.

Retrofitting self driving system -- Nice idea!!!

The initial idea of Cruise

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#765

Post by shanwang » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 10:33 AM UTC

j2bax wrote: post #391

shanwang wrote: post #267

Looking at it, I'm thinking google hasn't learnt anything about the failure of google glass, who wants to buy a car like that? A car is more than a commuting tool, it really matters how it looks.

Thats the thing though... They are trying to make it "just a commuting tool". Do people care too much what the outside of their subway looks like?

If their target is to sell tickets for a self driving fleet, I guess that makes sense.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#766

Post by shanwang » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 10:38 AM UTC

jiggliemon wrote: post #273

shanwang wrote: post #267

Looking at it, I'm thinking google hasn't learnt anything about the failure of google glass, who wants to buy a car like that? A car is more than a commuting tool, it really matters how it looks.

They're not selling a car. They're selling a driver. They're presumably going to partner with auto manufacturers.

On their website they have pictures of both the prototype and other manufacturers' cars. it makes a lot of sense to just sell the driving system, like the android model. But I assume they designed the prototype to capture the public's attention. I just don't know why they can't spend a bit more effort to make it look desirable.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#767

Post by nec4b » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #551

amelius wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet somehow self-driving vehicles are supposed to completely change the mix of transit use when it's not really adding any capability changes. Self-driving vehicles could be at your door within a 1 minute timeframe (say). That's a huge change, and will nullify the benefits of owning a car. Of course, this will be possible because driverless taxi companies will have the logistics in place to make this happen (they k…

> will nullify the benefits of owning a car Except I like owning my car. I can take it where I want. When I need it, I have it. I can leave my stuff in it if I want to (e.g. if I decide to go to the park for the day I can leave my coat in the car if it is warm). If it's pouring rain I don't have to wait, I can just get in it and go.

I can't wait to have a self driving car it would be even more convenient than a regular car. I gues some people just don't see the utility in cars other than getting from point A to point B. I also love to own a car for same reasons as you do and also for a bunch other personal preferences which are not possible when i have to take a ride in somebody else's car. Just as i prefer sleeping in my own bed, watching my TV in my own living room on my own couch, using my own toilet rather than using a public toilet, i prefer driving/being driven in my own car where i have my things available.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#768

Post by moxious » Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

criley2 wrote: post #411

moxious wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between "trying to deal with" and "product on sale next month". These cars are overhyped. They've been just around the corner for the last 10 years. They are the Duke Nukem Forever of Silicon Valley.

>These cars are overhyped Not really, they're correctly hyped. The concept is revolutionary. > They've been just around the corner for the last 10 year B-S. Holy revisionism BS!! We were NOT talking about self-driving cars in 2006! There was no company seriously designing fully autonomous cars in 2006! It was fully in the realm of science fiction, no investment, no major players, nothing. And you make it sound like i…

Here's an article that talks about Volkswagen's self driving car project dating back to 2006: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2370598,00.asp

> In 2006, Volkswagen showed off a self-driving version of its Gold car, named "53 plus 1" in honor of the original #53, Herbie. Autoblog.com posted a video of the car in action.

Should I go further back in history? Because we can.

Yes, the concept is revolutionary. But so is matter teleportation, and that's not going on sale next month either.

What do we call technologies that have been hyped for 10+ years? This is not just a knee-jerk contrarian point of view. Vaporware is actually the correct term we use for these products, not a slur.

It's not bullshit revisionism. People really have been talking about these things forever but not delivering them.

> Why do you feel the need to lie about recent history? Shouldn't you observe that if you have to make a nasty lie to support your argument, maybe your argument is wrong?

Settle down, nobody's doing any nasty lying, see the link above, this discussion has been going on longer than 10 years.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#769

Post by cvigoe » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 9:51 AM UTC

rubicon33 wrote: post #292

rorykoehler wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is exactly what Musk announced Tesla will be doing.

Hadn't heard that! This is why I'm not an entrepreneur apparently... Every time I have an idea, it's been done already by at least one person. Anyways, you wouldn't happen to have that announcement handy would you?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux