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

The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 156 posts

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#81

Post by mjevans »

kobayashi wrote: post #72
rdtsc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books. To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a poi…

That's already happening. There are also some laws/policies which state that insurance premiums won't be increased for anyone who chooses to abstain from such a tracking program, but we'll see how long that lasts.

My bet is until automated driving reaches a point where it can become cheaper than the insurance premium otherwise. At that point lies the critical mass where so many will buy it to save money that the price plummets towards zero/fully integrated basic requirement.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#83

Post by pzone »

zkhalique wrote: post #17
woofyman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to live in a society where every car becomes a tool of law enforcement.

Unfortunately, that's where things are headed regardless. More cameras, cheaper sensors, big data. Every intersection will eventually give you a red light ticket. Etc etc.

I would hope that my autonomous vehicle comes with a "don't run red lights" option

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#84

Post by pzone »

shkkmo wrote: post #27
woofyman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to live in a society where every car becomes a tool of law enforcement.

I want to live in a world where law enforcement isn't so pre-occupied dealing with traffic violations.

Sounds like autonomous cars are for you!

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#86

Post by lsc »

irln wrote: post #12
nostromo wrote: post #8

One thing I haven't heard much about is how humans and AI drivers will interact. If we all assume that AI cars are going to be very conservative and very competent drivers, will people take advantage of that? Will human drivers become even bigger assholes that cut off AI drivers at every possibility, knowing that an AI will not hit them? Why wait in a big line for an exit, when you know an AI car will always let you…

If AI driven cars achieve a superior safety record there won't be many human drivers...the insurance premiums will price most people out of the market. That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.

>That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.

right now, in california, you are only required to carry on the order of $35,000 in liability insurance.

Now, personally, I think this is completely crazy, that it defeats the whole point of liability laws, etc, etc, but the point is that unless you change that, even if the rates go way up for human drivers, if the insurance companies can continue to sell plans that are limited to only $35K in liability, people who don't fear bankruptcy will still very likely be able to buy that legally-minimal insurance for not all that much money.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#88

Post by Swizec »

TheEzEzz wrote: post #31
larrymcp wrote: post #18

Well if this is a "race" as the headline says, it sure is gonna be a long race, folks. These cars haven't yet been programmed to handle things like snow-covered roads where you can't see the lines, or construction zones that have you driving on the opposite side of the road at the direction of flaggers, etc... there's just a ton of work remaining to be done if your goal is truly to "rid the world of human drivers".

If those high targets are the only things remaining then I'd say the race is pretty close to finishing. I'd be more pessimistic if features on the todo list still included 'identifying stop signs', 'recognizing people', 'not killing people', and 'driving more smoothly than a teenager'.

You do realize there are countries that have a significant chance of snow for 4+ months per year, right?

And that there are many places with stop signs that are almost completely obscured by foliage, or simply by the angle of roads on the crossroads.

Not everything is California. And not every city has a grid.

When autonomous cars can survive in a place like Rome or Paris[1], or even downtown Manhattan. Then we can talk about fully replacing humans.

[1] Rome and Paris are notorious for people having special city cars because they get banged up so much in the course of normal life

Here's an example of traffic in a modern European city: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfJ-VokP3EQ

And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lay8aZlsbB0

How long until autonomous cars can do that? Hell, I'd shit my pants trying to do that.

PS: in the real world there are also many roads that flat out don't have lanes drawn on them.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#89

Post by jacobolus »

rdtsc wrote: post #38
jurassic wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see the problem with this. Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists, and the only reason they don't always do so now is because of some impatient humans at the wheel who prioritize their speed over the safety of other road users. Without road-raging human drivers behind the wheel, is the vehicle occupant going to care that they got to nap a few minutes longer on the way to work? Or got to read a f…

> Cars should yield to pedestrians and cyclists The problem is if they don't and pedestrian gets killed there is not way to resurect the pedestrian, and start over. Therefore, pedestrian's goals is staying alive regardless of what laws are written in the books. To put it another way, most countries out there have laws about "cars yield to pedestrians on crossings" but in a lot of places I wouldn't want to prove a poi…

I would be very happy if all taxis and other commercial vehicles (Uber, Lyft, etc.) would have their speed tracked and automatic citations issued for going more than 15 mph above the speed limit. As it is the taxis and Uber cars speed along my 25mph limit residential street at 50mph+ all night long.

Re: The High-Stakes Race to Rid the World of Human Drivers

#90

Post by gambiting »

lsc wrote: post #86
irln wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AI driven cars achieve a superior safety record there won't be many human drivers...the insurance premiums will price most people out of the market. That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high.

>That is, the cost of insurance for human drivers will be exceedingly high. right now, in california, you are only required to carry on the order of $35,000 in liability insurance. Now, personally, I think this is completely crazy, that it defeats the whole point of liability laws, etc, etc, but the point is that unless you change that, even if the rates go way up for human drivers, if the insurance companies can con…

Yeah, I've heard that before. It's crazy to me. The most basic insurance in EU is required to cover up to 5 million euro against damages to people and 3 million against damage to property. How US can only require $35k liability cover is beyond me. Does that not mean that in pretty much any accident you have to pay extra out of your own pocket?

(that "basic" insurance costs me $150 for the whole year and allows me to drive anywhere within EU for unlimited period of time. I also have full comprehensive cover for which I pay another $500 for a full year that insures me against damages to my own vehicle and provides EU-wide breakdown cover).

Post reply on HN