Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars(medium.com)
medium.com
Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
https://medium.com/swlh/lets-talk-about-self-driving-cars-387cd5adb834
340 comments
The big change is between levels 2 and 3. That changes who's responsible. At level 2, the driver is responsible for accidents; at level 3, the manufacturer is. California and Michigan have already enacted that into law, that's what NHTSA recommends, Volvo's CEO publicly endorses that, and the big US automakers accept it. Tesla finally accepts it. Uber is still whining, but that's Uber.
Volvo's is starting a 100 vehicle test in one city in Sweden. Automation is only available on some major roads. The driver is not required to pay attention in automatic mode. There's a progress bar - minutes until the end of automatic driving. There are previously located points at the end of automatic driving regions where the vehicle can pull over and stop, should the driver not take over when requested. So that's what entry level full autonomy looks like. That's a good level 3. Those go on the road any day now; the vehicles have been built and tested, and the first of the 100 drivers, who are car purchasers, not Volvo employees, have already been chosen.[1]
And yes, they work in snow. The test is in Gothenburg, Sweden; they have to work in snow.
[1] http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-innovation-brands/in...
Volvo's is starting a 100 vehicle test in one city in Sweden. Automation is only available on some major roads. The driver is not required to pay attention in automatic mode. There's a progress bar - minutes until the end of automatic driving. There are previously located points at the end of automatic driving regions where the vehicle can pull over and stop, should the driver not take over when requested. So that's what entry level full autonomy looks like. That's a good level 3. Those go on the road any day now; the vehicles have been built and tested, and the first of the 100 drivers, who are car purchasers, not Volvo employees, have already been chosen.[1]
And yes, they work in snow. The test is in Gothenburg, Sweden; they have to work in snow.
[1] http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-innovation-brands/in...
You have hit the nail on the head here. The 2/3 liability transition is a big one. My guess is that companies will actually delay deploying level 3 systems until they are nearly perfect. This will result in systems that seem really really good at driving (especially in sunny southern california), yet still insist that the driver wiggle the wheel or show some other sign of attentiveness to prevent liability transfer.
My guess is soon after the first company releases this they will show statistics on how much safer their cars are and governments stop sales on new cars that are not level 3 in whatever situations their car handles. (this to repeat again as we move up the levels)
Even if you are right because of the above all manufactures would be stupid to not have a significant investment: the day when they have no choice might be out of their control and if they are not ready they go out of business (or confine their business to poor countries with loser laws - but these countries tend not to sell many high profit new cars).
Even if you are right because of the above all manufactures would be stupid to not have a significant investment: the day when they have no choice might be out of their control and if they are not ready they go out of business (or confine their business to poor countries with loser laws - but these countries tend not to sell many high profit new cars).
I can't wait for the Show HN hacks to get around these requirements.
That was already done 2 years ago. Some idiot just tied a bottle to the steering wheel of his Mercedes to trick it into sensing that he was still driving.
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=ALqiEkdD36Q
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=ALqiEkdD36Q
They won't delay deploying the systems. They'll delay calling them Level 3 or the consumer-speak equivalent. Though absent really obtrusive monitoring (like checking for eyes being on the road), are people who text while driving today really going to stop doing so when "assistive driving" systems can safely get down the highway almost always?
That said, I agree that the liability transfer is a big issue. Although, at some point, expect to see some case that breaks through "It's assistive driving only. Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink."
That said, I agree that the liability transfer is a big issue. Although, at some point, expect to see some case that breaks through "It's assistive driving only. Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink."
Imagine some drunk guy hops into his car in bad weather. He taps the auto-cruise button and then passes out. Snow, rain, construction, - something - hinders the ride somewhere along the way home. Car cannot process the issue correctly, and slows to a stop, alerting the driver. Driver, being sound asleep, cannot hear the annoying alert tone. Alert continues, and possibly after some time, alerts authorities of it's disabled status.
I'll bet that in the near future (next decade or so), there will be rising incidents of traffic being blocked due to a stopped automated car who's driver is not responsive, but the computer couldn't handle some construction or weather, and went into fail-safe mode, simply slowing down and stopping (but not pulling over due to lack of space).
Heck, we're halfway there with people checking FB on their phones at stoplights, so anticipating this seems reasonable. We haven't solved that problem, and I don't think we'll solve the one you raise (not for a much longer time, at least). Valid problem, but a solution is likely far off.
I'll bet that in the near future (next decade or so), there will be rising incidents of traffic being blocked due to a stopped automated car who's driver is not responsive, but the computer couldn't handle some construction or weather, and went into fail-safe mode, simply slowing down and stopping (but not pulling over due to lack of space).
Heck, we're halfway there with people checking FB on their phones at stoplights, so anticipating this seems reasonable. We haven't solved that problem, and I don't think we'll solve the one you raise (not for a much longer time, at least). Valid problem, but a solution is likely far off.
Imagine a world where theres no self-driving cars and that same drunk guy on that some night hops in to the car and tries to drive home.
Edit: I would gladly accept more failure in uncommon edge cases if it means reduced failure in normal operation (ie: drunk guy slams in to a house at 1 AM on a clear calm night)
Edit: I would gladly accept more failure in uncommon edge cases if it means reduced failure in normal operation (ie: drunk guy slams in to a house at 1 AM on a clear calm night)
Imagine a world where the breathalyzer tech we have had for a couple of decades now was installed into cars and simply prevented drunk people from driving.
This is coming; I've seen mentions of a system with passive alcohol detection (just from the air inside the car) plus active "blow in tube" test if the passive test triggers that will start rolling out to cars soon.
But it seems if stopping drunk drivers was really a major concern, we would have done this years ago.
This is coming; I've seen mentions of a system with passive alcohol detection (just from the air inside the car) plus active "blow in tube" test if the passive test triggers that will start rolling out to cars soon.
But it seems if stopping drunk drivers was really a major concern, we would have done this years ago.
That will just spurn a small industry with hobos camping near bars, ready to blow for ten bucks (no pun intended).
Cars already have sensors that can tell if you're sitting in your seat or not. So avoiding this is just a matter of putting the tube you blow into in such a position that it's almost impossible for someone not sitting in the driver's seat to blow into it; also you could require that the passenger seat is empty and both front doors are closed.
Remember, the breathalyzer is only a backup in the situation where the car has detected alcohol vapors in the air, and is wanting to confirm that the driver is not the one who has been drinking. So it's not something you do every day, ergo it can be a bit of a hassle.
Remember, the breathalyzer is only a backup in the situation where the car has detected alcohol vapors in the air, and is wanting to confirm that the driver is not the one who has been drinking. So it's not something you do every day, ergo it can be a bit of a hassle.
Hobos aren't generally someone you'd want to rely on for their sobriety.
They wait for a couple of ten buck payoffs before retiring for the day. Or the union has a designated blower for the day.
I wonder how unique the chemical makeup of an individual's breath is
Until cars are reliably at the highest level of replacing humans along the entire way of any drive (I.e cars don't have drivers seats) then obviously it must be a criminal offense to be the "driver" while drunk, even if the driver was hoping to sleep all the way home. What has happened here is really better: the drunk guy is asleep in a stopped car, rather than asleep in a car that just hit another car.
Interestingly, he can still be arrested for DWI. This would be an interesting case, though, because the mens rea is clearly not present; the human intended to be conveyed by a capable transportation system, and didn't intend or attempt to control a vehicle while in motion. I look forward to the result of this case for legal precedent reasons.
You can get arrested for sleeping in a car while drunk, even if you clearly intended to sleep it off overnight instead of driving home drunk. No mens rea needed.
In some states, it makes a difference if your keys are in ignition or not. Which makes me wonder how they treat push-button start cars?
Otherwise, what happens if someone (sober) is giving a ride to a passed out friend, can't wake that friend up, and ends up leaving the car (with the drunk friend still in it)? In that case, everyone involved was being responsible (no drunk driving was involved at all, actual or potential).
Otherwise, what happens if someone (sober) is giving a ride to a passed out friend, can't wake that friend up, and ends up leaving the car (with the drunk friend still in it)? In that case, everyone involved was being responsible (no drunk driving was involved at all, actual or potential).
Simple answer from a lawyer friend of mine: don't sleep in the driver's seat.
For what it's worth DWI and its variations are usually strict liability statutes.
Simpler than that; Nissan's been working on it, and it's finally been announced:
http://www.autoblog.com/2017/01/10/nissan-self-driving-cars-...
> For example, Sierhuis described a situation where a temporary construction site, something like a crew repairing a traffic light, would confuse the car. Not only would the traffic signal be missing for the AI to process, but we would also have a worker waving cars through the intersection. It's a prime, real-world example of a challenge that is basically impossible to program into software. With SAM, when a self-driving Nissan approaches a situation like this, it stops and sends a signal to a human operator. This operator, called a Mobility Manager, checks the camera feeds from the car, high-definition maps, and whatever else he can, and then plots a new route for the car to take. This information is then sent to all the other Nissan AI machines in the area so that they don't have a problem when they approach the same intersection.
http://www.autoblog.com/2017/01/10/nissan-self-driving-cars-...
> For example, Sierhuis described a situation where a temporary construction site, something like a crew repairing a traffic light, would confuse the car. Not only would the traffic signal be missing for the AI to process, but we would also have a worker waving cars through the intersection. It's a prime, real-world example of a challenge that is basically impossible to program into software. With SAM, when a self-driving Nissan approaches a situation like this, it stops and sends a signal to a human operator. This operator, called a Mobility Manager, checks the camera feeds from the car, high-definition maps, and whatever else he can, and then plots a new route for the car to take. This information is then sent to all the other Nissan AI machines in the area so that they don't have a problem when they approach the same intersection.
Except that Google was able to handle construction sites, traffic cones, and people directing traffic last year. Watch Urmson's video from SXSW.[1] Google has put a lot of effort into handling unusual situations. Those cars driving on residential streets in Mountain View and Austin have accumulated data on the hard cases.
The California DMV continues to publish autonomous vehicle crash reports. The last one was in October.[2] A Google vehicle was rear-ended at 3mph when it was entering an intersection with poor visibility, detected cross-traffic, and stopped.
I'm looking forward to the 2016 self-driving disengagement reports appearing on on the California DMV site.[3] Those were due January 1, covering the year ending 1 December 2016. Then we'll have comparative info on how all the players are doing.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [3] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...
The California DMV continues to publish autonomous vehicle crash reports. The last one was in October.[2] A Google vehicle was rear-ended at 3mph when it was entering an intersection with poor visibility, detected cross-traffic, and stopped.
I'm looking forward to the 2016 self-driving disengagement reports appearing on on the California DMV site.[3] Those were due January 1, covering the year ending 1 December 2016. Then we'll have comparative info on how all the players are doing.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj-rK8V-rik [2] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/auton... [3] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/disen...
I'm curious: when do you think a stage 3, 4, and 5 vehicle will be readily available on the market (specifically the United States)?
Level 3 on major freeways in about two years. (Like Tesla claimed to have, but without the "slams into cars parked at the left edge of the road" bug.) Level 4, in the form of self-driving low-speed vans in campus-type areas, has already been deployed in a few locations.
Volvo loaned a family a Level 3 car yesterday.[1]
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/09/volvo-tests-self-driving...
Volvo loaned a family a Level 3 car yesterday.[1]
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/09/volvo-tests-self-driving...
My personal expectation is that Level 3 could be relatively soon given that companies like Volvo are doing legitimate pilots. Maybe 10 years? But the question would be how many places they would (legally) be allowed to drive without an attentive driver and under what conditions.
It's not clear to me how much L4 buys you as a consumer product. "No driver during defined use case." If you can't go door to door in a wide range of weather conditions, what's the difference between having a non-attentive driver and no driver?
ADDED: Yes, as was written elsewhere, low-speed campus use cases make sense. But that's not what most people consider self-driving.
Level 5. Many decades.
It's not clear to me how much L4 buys you as a consumer product. "No driver during defined use case." If you can't go door to door in a wide range of weather conditions, what's the difference between having a non-attentive driver and no driver?
ADDED: Yes, as was written elsewhere, low-speed campus use cases make sense. But that's not what most people consider self-driving.
Level 5. Many decades.
Drone cars! Why isn't remote control driving progressing apace with self-driving cars?
Outsource Uber driving to lowest-wage drivers in India, Bangladesh, or Nigeria.
Outsource Uber driving to lowest-wage drivers in India, Bangladesh, or Nigeria.
Latency
12 hours latency doesn't stop outsourcing the software projects, so it should be fine too.
Today, more and more, cars are slowed down and delayed in traffic due to their owner's inattention to traffic and to focus on their phones. It is as these drivers are passed out drunk and relying on all other drivers to take care of traffic.
>I'll bet that in the near future (next decade or so), there will be rising incidents of traffic being blocked due to a stopped automated car who's driver is not responsive, but the computer couldn't handle some construction or weather, and went into fail-safe mode, simply slowing down and stopping (but not pulling over due to lack of space).
Obviously "do not stop in the middle on the road" will be high on the priorities of self driving algorithms...
Obviously "do not stop in the middle on the road" will be high on the priorities of self driving algorithms...
Why would that be? Self-driving cars should want to stay on the road in all cases.
The edge of the road is soft, not well marked, contains rocks and nails and housepets. The road proper is hard, well-marked, and vehicles should want to stay there always.
Of course this will occasionally result in inconvenience for other drivers as vehicle 1 has been stationary for 25 minutes now as it applies a mandatory software service pack. But, oh well. That is THEIR problem. It's obviously maximal for MY vehicle to stay on the road at all times.
The edge of the road is soft, not well marked, contains rocks and nails and housepets. The road proper is hard, well-marked, and vehicles should want to stay there always.
Of course this will occasionally result in inconvenience for other drivers as vehicle 1 has been stationary for 25 minutes now as it applies a mandatory software service pack. But, oh well. That is THEIR problem. It's obviously maximal for MY vehicle to stay on the road at all times.
>Why would that be? Self-driving cars should want to stay on the road in all cases.
Self driving cars already know how to park and get out of the road.
The rest of the argument goes into bizarro land. Can't tell if trolling...
First, a stop vehicle in the middle on the road is a surefire way to a multi-car collision at worse, and traffic fines at best. Both of which would be avoided by any self driving algorithm not written (or approved if it's something like a neural network) by Harpo Marx.
Second, "It's obviously maximal for MY vehicle to stay on the road at all times" is not an argument, since self driving algorithms are not written and optimized for the car owners sole convenience but also for overall traffic, traffic regulations, and several other considerations besides...
Self driving cars already know how to park and get out of the road.
The rest of the argument goes into bizarro land. Can't tell if trolling...
First, a stop vehicle in the middle on the road is a surefire way to a multi-car collision at worse, and traffic fines at best. Both of which would be avoided by any self driving algorithm not written (or approved if it's something like a neural network) by Harpo Marx.
Second, "It's obviously maximal for MY vehicle to stay on the road at all times" is not an argument, since self driving algorithms are not written and optimized for the car owners sole convenience but also for overall traffic, traffic regulations, and several other considerations besides...
yeah, just tell the autonomous 4000 pound missile that stopping is a low priority.
i fear much of the enthusiasm behind self-driving cars is from people who understand neither driving, nor computer software, very well.
i fear much of the enthusiasm behind self-driving cars is from people who understand neither driving, nor computer software, very well.
That feels like you're intentionally misinterpreting the suggestion. The implied solution is that a car would preferentially stop off to the side of the road, rather than the middle.
If there _is_ a valid and safe "side of the road"
There are places where it takes some skill just to comply with an officer's request for you to pull over. Not everywhere is a bunch of standardized interstates.
There are places where it takes some skill just to comply with an officer's request for you to pull over. Not everywhere is a bunch of standardized interstates.
That's what we are saying.
Have the car GO and find a suitable area. Driving for a few more km perhaps slower and with the alarm lights flashing to find a spot to stop, will surely be safer than stopping right then and there just because you can't find a convenient place to pull out.
Have the car GO and find a suitable area. Driving for a few more km perhaps slower and with the alarm lights flashing to find a spot to stop, will surely be safer than stopping right then and there just because you can't find a convenient place to pull out.
[deleted]
>yeah, just tell the autonomous 4000 pound missile that stopping is a low priority.
Lower priority than stopping then and there in the middle of the road/interstate (as suggested by parent) as opposed to a service/rest-area/shoulder/side of the road/etc...
Lower priority than stopping then and there in the middle of the road/interstate (as suggested by parent) as opposed to a service/rest-area/shoulder/side of the road/etc...
It would be interesting to allow tele operations in this kind of scenario so the drunk, sleeping, underage, and disabled can benefit from self driving cars.
Our wireless communications infrastructure lacks the reliability and latency guarantees that would be necessary for remote operation.
The idea is that when there is an unexpected situation that car stops and the teleoperator would indicate the best path forward. The human would not drive like an RC car but more like a rally car navigator. This is for example mentioned in http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/self-driving/after-m... "Eventually, nuTonomy will transition to full autonomy with the option for teleoperation."
This puts a positive spin on the culture in busier urban areas of expecting drivers in front to start very quickly at a green or else get a friendly reminder honk.
If you're going to look at your phone at a red, know the light timings or look at the transverse pedestrian crossing signal or transverse yellow light so you know how long you have.
If you're going to look at your phone at a red, know the light timings or look at the transverse pedestrian crossing signal or transverse yellow light so you know how long you have.
Let's save everybody lots of risk and just all agree not to look at our phones while we drive, even at red lights.
>This puts a positive spin on the culture in busier urban areas of expecting drivers in front to start very quickly at a green or else get a friendly reminder honk
I think it puts a positive spin on itself. Traffic lights work best when the green duration is utilized to the fullest extent.
I think it puts a positive spin on itself. Traffic lights work best when the green duration is utilized to the fullest extent.
In my experience, the best use of the first second of green is to allow cross traffic to clear so that I don't get hit by someone running the red.
NVIDIA actually talks about this in their last series of talks. The car when planning the drive makes a determination of whether or not it expects driver assist and how much. Of course a drunk person could just check off the sure, I can drive for those sections and then pass out anyway.
Without a steering wheel where all user actions are made on a touch screen or by voice, would it matter that you were drunk?
If the car came to a situation that it needed human input then that human could be drunkenly slurring advice.
But I am failing to see a situation that the car wouldn't be able to figure out, but the human inside could figure out... I've been in situations where I didn't know what to do and had to wait for the emergency services to come and help.
When self driving cars are that smart the emergency services AI will just fire 30 or 40 drones towards the emergency and those will coordinate with the cars below to fix the situation.
If the car came to a situation that it needed human input then that human could be drunkenly slurring advice.
But I am failing to see a situation that the car wouldn't be able to figure out, but the human inside could figure out... I've been in situations where I didn't know what to do and had to wait for the emergency services to come and help.
When self driving cars are that smart the emergency services AI will just fire 30 or 40 drones towards the emergency and those will coordinate with the cars below to fix the situation.
You wouldn't even need drones, the aggregate of all the cars' sensors would be enough.
If a car has trouble, it pull over to the shoulder or right lane. This is what people (should) do, and what cars will do. Yes, it can be annoying, the question is, is it orders of magnitude MORE or LESS likely to happen in an automated car.
"It's a fixture of complex adaptive systems analysis that one encounters scenarios where having anything short of perfection is just as good as useless."
Great point. It's one that not enough people are emphasizing.
I need to be physically engaged in the driving experience or I won't be attentive in the least. It's been a trait since childhood that my mental state is tied to physical activity. A car that keeps me physically uninvolved until it decides that it needs me would be a death trap for me and anyone around me.
Great point. It's one that not enough people are emphasizing.
I need to be physically engaged in the driving experience or I won't be attentive in the least. It's been a trait since childhood that my mental state is tied to physical activity. A car that keeps me physically uninvolved until it decides that it needs me would be a death trap for me and anyone around me.
It's not just you. It's a well-researched phenomenon.
I do think there's the potential to enable full autonomy in well-defined use cases while requiring manual control elsewhere. (Still problematic--how do you enforce?)
But the idea that a driver can take control on short notice from an automated system is a non-starter. Maybe you can assume there's an adult with supervisory control in the vehicle but you certainly can't assume they're prepared to deal with urgent emergencies.
I do think there's the potential to enable full autonomy in well-defined use cases while requiring manual control elsewhere. (Still problematic--how do you enforce?)
But the idea that a driver can take control on short notice from an automated system is a non-starter. Maybe you can assume there's an adult with supervisory control in the vehicle but you certainly can't assume they're prepared to deal with urgent emergencies.
GM, Ford, Waymo, Uber, Toyota, Apple, Volvo and Zoox have all opted to skip SEO levels 2 and 3, due to overtrust and the handoff problem respectively. These are most of the biggest players. The Germans appear to be largely in a state of clusterfuck, Mobileye is making serious amendments to their strategy, and that pretty much leaves Tesla, who are already in too deep with the incremental approach to back out now.
I think we will soon be in a situation where self driving cars are better than humans for 10% of driving scenarios(highway, gridlock commute, some parking, ...) but nearly useless in others.
I think the acceptance for half decent AI will be much lower than it is for poor human drivers, and the hardest parts of autonomous driving is still a very long way out.
That's probably fine though, if the automation can reliably discover when the environment changes. Especially since perhaps a majority of the time spent driving is in the very few "easy" scenarios.
Human drivers are probably happy to drive 10% of the commute time for the next 2-4 decades.
What this means however is that the dream of completely autonomous Ubers and transport trucks is probably much further out than some might hope.
That's probably fine though, if the automation can reliably discover when the environment changes. Especially since perhaps a majority of the time spent driving is in the very few "easy" scenarios.
Human drivers are probably happy to drive 10% of the commute time for the next 2-4 decades.
What this means however is that the dream of completely autonomous Ubers and transport trucks is probably much further out than some might hope.
>if the automation can reliably discover when the environment changes.
That sounds about right. The ability to read/write/etc. while driving on the highway would actually be a huge win for a lot of people. And, equally important, it seems achievable in, perhaps, a single digit number of years.
But there would need to be an unambiguous mode change from "you can do Facebook now" to "you're driving" with plenty of time to make that shift.
This isn't as sexy as roboUber, shared cars, etc. but I'm inclined to agree that getting the last 10% of the way to unsupervised self-driving in essentially all situations is going to take a very long time.
That sounds about right. The ability to read/write/etc. while driving on the highway would actually be a huge win for a lot of people. And, equally important, it seems achievable in, perhaps, a single digit number of years.
But there would need to be an unambiguous mode change from "you can do Facebook now" to "you're driving" with plenty of time to make that shift.
This isn't as sexy as roboUber, shared cars, etc. but I'm inclined to agree that getting the last 10% of the way to unsupervised self-driving in essentially all situations is going to take a very long time.
On the highway on-ramp you engage auto pilot. When you are 5,2, and 1/4 mile away from the off ramp you get a warning that auto pilot is preparing to disengage.
If you do not accept and manually turn off auto-pilot, it slows down safely to a stop in the break-down lane.
If you do not accept and manually turn off auto-pilot, it slows down safely to a stop in the break-down lane.
That's exactly how Volvo's Drive Me project is supposed to work.
http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-innovation-brands/in...
http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-innovation-brands/in...
Ubers and transport trucks can do fixed routes, so that should be relatively easy to automate.
Driving a known "autonomous safe" route, or map region, and simply not driving if the conditions aren't ok (it's snowing, there is construction in the area so maps or lanes are poor etc) works. But that's basically taking the "mostly autonomous"-level driving, and just adapting either the environment and/or the restrictions/schedule/routes to that.
Uber could probably also just have defensive systems that simply park the car and wait for a human driver to arrive, if there is a problem. It's good business for them to have 3 cars per driver. It still doesn't approach the interesting problem though, which is autonomous driving on a human level (Autonomous Uber without backup drivers, in an entire city). That I think is far away.
Uber could probably also just have defensive systems that simply park the car and wait for a human driver to arrive, if there is a problem. It's good business for them to have 3 cars per driver. It still doesn't approach the interesting problem though, which is autonomous driving on a human level (Autonomous Uber without backup drivers, in an entire city). That I think is far away.
Rather than a fallback driver having to physically enter the car, maybe they could take the drone pilot approach and control it remotely. There would be the latency to overcome, but the built in crash avoidance might be good enough for a relatively short/slow distance to exit the exceptional situation.
That's actually a really interesting idea - hand off driving to a remote person when the conditions are bad.
But would a car's connectivity and latency allow for that to be safe?
Edit: If not there would still be some form control needed for the passenger.
But would a car's connectivity and latency allow for that to be safe?
Edit: If not there would still be some form control needed for the passenger.
Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.
Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience?
Serious question.
Serious question.
No, I would not.
We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone.
We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.
We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone.
We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.
We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.
A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making.
For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
A pretty big chunk of automobile collisions are directly attributable to poor human decision making.
For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher.
That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault. ed: And if using the NTSB numbers sober drivers with drunk passengers.
PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.
PS: Drunk driving is stupid and dangerous, but poor statistics bother me. Drunk drivers are more often night time drivers adjusting for that closer to ~1/4.
I used the numbers that Google Search stuck in an infobox.
(According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher.
From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...
So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC.
(again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).
(According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher.
From https://responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics...
So unless they are gravely misrepresenting the numbers, it's 29% of fatalities involving a driver with an illegal BAC.
(again not trying to argue, I'm sure there are fatalities involving alcohol that are not attributable to the impairment, just adding clarification about where my statement came from).
First, I love that HN is a place where we get that kind of clarification so Thank You.
Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing.
However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>
Anyway, to be pedantic 29.0% is closer to 25.0% -4% than 33.3% + 4.3%. But, it's also 'close to' 1/4, so I don't have an issue with your phrasing.
However, as you note this is 'involving' a drunk driver. So, that 29% is inflated by cases where the sober driver struck a drunk one. </ done beating a decaying equine.>
"Not at fault" is also not equivalent to "could not have prevented the accident".
For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether.
Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf.
For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
For example - I was nearly rear ended by another driver, but I noticed they were failing to brake and pulled into an oncoming traffic lane (after checking there was no oncoming traffic of course). I would not have been at fault but also managed to avoid the accident altogether.
Also just because you aren't "legally" at fault doesn't necessarily mean the accident wasn't a result of poor judgement on your behalf.
For example, slamming on one's brakes noticing you're about to miss a turn you need to take and you get rear ended. You won't be legally found "at fault" but the accident is largely "your fault" for unpredictable driving, slamming on your brakes, and having been so inattentive to have nearly missed your turn.
This is true, but keep in mind when you look at the safety measures of driverless cars that they're likely being judged via these same, flawed metrics. Google's driverless cars have been in a lot of accidents! Yes, most of them have been "not the fault of the software," but the same caveats you just described apply to the software as well.
So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.
So I think we're at least comparing apples to apples.
So only 1/4 of traffic fatalities are attributable to a single category of poor decisions. Oh boy.
Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)
Do you have a good source that tracks fault in alcohol involved collisions? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm curious to look at it)
I don't want to defend driving while impaired in any way. Sadly, it's still really common to drive while impaired.
121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year
Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.
121 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year
Just remember, even if you are sober, driving home from a party at 3AM is still significantly more dangerous than average.
So 1/4 is just a seat of the pants estimate?
I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.
I sloppily implied causation above, but I didn't actually say 1/3 of crashes are attributable to alcohol, I said that a "big chunk" are attributable to poor decisions and separately pointed out the large percentage of fatal crashes involving alcohol.
Sure, this is a spin heavy subject which is why the term is related. People want to fix a major problem and IMO go overboard when the underlying problem needs no exaggeration.
Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions.
Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.
Anyway, 1/4 is from someone with access to raw data who spent some time trying to get less biased numbers. So, wider error bars than NTSB estimates, but less biased assumptions.
Drunk driving is still a major issue, but there is a reason people are still spouting 20 year old data. When trying to make a point there is a tendency to cherry pick to the point of distortion.
That statistic includes drunk drivers who where not at fault.
Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly?
Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.
Would you elaborate on this? I read this as meaning that the statistic includes drunk drivers who were involved in a fatal accident but weren't determined to be at fault for causing the accident. Am I understanding your intent correctly?
Assuming this to be the case, I agree that there should be some additional nuance here. That said, it would also need to take into account whether or not their inebriation prevented them from acting defensively to avoid the accident. I'm not sure how this would be done.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: "NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or non-motorist (such as a pedestrian or pedal cyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01% or greater." "NHTSA specifically notes that alcohol-related does not necessarily mean a driver or non-occupant was tested for alcohol and that the term does not indicate a collision or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St...
Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_St...
Also of note: "On average, about 60% of the BAC values are missing or unknown. To analyze what they believe is the complete data, statisticians simulate BAC information.[7] Drivers with a BAC of 0.10% are 6 to 12 times more likely to get into a fatal crash or injury than drivers with no alcohol."
"For example, nearly 1/3 of fatal collisions in the US involve a driver with a BAC of 0.08 or higher."
This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars.
Non-driving-operation decisions like that are applicable to both regular and self-driving cars.
This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars.
Non-driving-operation decisions like that are applicable to both regular and self-driving cars.
>This is a flawed comparison because failing to update your software or keep your tires inflated or clean off your sensors would also be human decisions that could lead to adverse outcomes with self-driving cars.
It's incredibly simple to remove humans from those decisions. Just have the self-driving code refuse to engage until the issue is resolved.
It's incredibly simple to remove humans from those decisions. Just have the self-driving code refuse to engage until the issue is resolved.
And then Grandma dies of her heart attack because you can't rush her to the hospital because one tire is 3psi underinflated? Most of these issues aren't binary.
Call 911.
Calling an ambulance is currently the recommended thing to do in severe medical emergencies anyway.
For other concerns about availability, adjust maintenance inspections and routines as necessary. For example, if you live somewhere there is no ambulance service and someone is of uncertain health, maybe inspect the tires every day (this sounds tedious but look at the alternative you are proposing, having a tire blow out while delivering dying Grandma to the ER).
Calling an ambulance is currently the recommended thing to do in severe medical emergencies anyway.
For other concerns about availability, adjust maintenance inspections and routines as necessary. For example, if you live somewhere there is no ambulance service and someone is of uncertain health, maybe inspect the tires every day (this sounds tedious but look at the alternative you are proposing, having a tire blow out while delivering dying Grandma to the ER).
Nothing would be stopping you from driving the car. It just wouldn't drive itself.
CTIS. Not enough air? Pump some air.
Driving while impaired is not a non-driving-operation decision. It's an ongoing driving decision. The driver is poorly assessing their ability to safely complete upcoming operations. Over and over.
I also expect that automatic systems will greatly improve the level of maintenance of vehicles (for example, mandatory tire pressure monitoring already does...).
I also expect that automatic systems will greatly improve the level of maintenance of vehicles (for example, mandatory tire pressure monitoring already does...).
> As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone.
Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.
Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.
Yes, that would be better than I was when sleepy making it a net safety gain when driving home late.
As an added bonus I can turn it on in a traffic jam and relax as that's stressful but not fast enough to be dangerous.
As an added bonus I can turn it on in a traffic jam and relax as that's stressful but not fast enough to be dangerous.
[deleted]
What's the price and safety delta?
Btw, what is the death/accident rates for non-drunk people? Including accudents from drunk drivers crashing into them.
Btw, what is the death/accident rates for non-drunk people? Including accudents from drunk drivers crashing into them.
Yes.
Lets assume
a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0]
b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver
c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver
I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years.
That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo-car. Sober/well-rested that drops to 3.7 seconds of life lost per mile.
So I'd be giving up 3.7 seconds of life to be able to read/work/sleep instead of drive for every mile. For me this is a good deal @ high speeds(trade 3.7 seconds of life for a minute of time), and an absolute steal at lower speeds(usual commute averages 4 minutes/mile.)
[0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0]
b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver
c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver
I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years.
That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo-car. Sober/well-rested that drops to 3.7 seconds of life lost per mile.
So I'd be giving up 3.7 seconds of life to be able to read/work/sleep instead of drive for every mile. For me this is a good deal @ high speeds(trade 3.7 seconds of life for a minute of time), and an absolute steal at lower speeds(usual commute averages 4 minutes/mile.)
[0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Okay, I've designed a new pill. 1 out of 4 people have adverse reactions to its contents and die instantly, but people who don't live long virile lives until, on average, the age of 100!
Your expected gain would be nearly 5 additional years of life! Should I sign you up?
Your expected gain would be nearly 5 additional years of life! Should I sign you up?
This is a pretty attractive proposition. The long, slow decline during your last decade of life is miserable, on both you and on loved ones.
There are certain strategic times in life where you'd want to take this, though. Ideally after the kids are grown up and don't need you anymore (so you either drop dead painlessly & predictably, or get a nice long life in great health so you can see the grandchildren grow up), or if that's cheating, in childhood or right after college so you haven't invested much into your life yet. Same reason they sell life insurance.
There are certain strategic times in life where you'd want to take this, though. Ideally after the kids are grown up and don't need you anymore (so you either drop dead painlessly & predictably, or get a nice long life in great health so you can see the grandchildren grow up), or if that's cheating, in childhood or right after college so you haven't invested much into your life yet. Same reason they sell life insurance.
I'd suggest keep the pill in your pocket until you're about to die, and take it then. That way you have a 1/4 chance of the same result and a 3/4 chance of major improvement.
Not taking the pill already of course risks dying in your sleep.
Not taking the pill already of course risks dying in your sleep.
The pill only works before you're 40 because it's a magic thought experiment.
These years aren't comparable because I'm trading years in the immediate future for years in the distant future. Not many people would trade next year for a year and 2 months when they're 80.
Okay. Suppose that you spend 30 minutes on your commute each day for the rest of your working life, until you're 65. That means you'll waste almost a full year's worth of waking hours driving.
I've invented a teleporter that will reduce your commute to 1 second every day. The only glitch is that your molecular makeup may be incompatible with my device, and there's no way to tell for sure. If it is, you'll disintegrate instantly the first time you try to use it.
Don't worry, only 1% of the population is incompatible. From a probability standpoint, you should expect to gain more than 1% of your life in extra time. Care to give her a whirl?
I've invented a teleporter that will reduce your commute to 1 second every day. The only glitch is that your molecular makeup may be incompatible with my device, and there's no way to tell for sure. If it is, you'll disintegrate instantly the first time you try to use it.
Don't worry, only 1% of the population is incompatible. From a probability standpoint, you should expect to gain more than 1% of your life in extra time. Care to give her a whirl?
No.
Because your proposal is very different for two reasons. One risk vs reward. In the robo-car example the pay off is 20-80x of lost life to gained time. You get a lot of time for very little risk. But your example is 1.03x.
The second is the distribution of risk over the years. With the driving I take a little risk to gain a little time each day for 30 years. In your example I take all of the risk up front and then have small a pay out over the next 30 odd years.
Because your proposal is very different for two reasons. One risk vs reward. In the robo-car example the pay off is 20-80x of lost life to gained time. You get a lot of time for very little risk. But your example is 1.03x.
The second is the distribution of risk over the years. With the driving I take a little risk to gain a little time each day for 30 years. In your example I take all of the risk up front and then have small a pay out over the next 30 odd years.
Right. Point being that expected value of drawing from a probability distribution isn't enough to explain people's preferences. We care a lot about the whole shape. So it's a little reductive to just tally up the expected time cost and call it figured.
This is a well-reasoned answer, but probably not the same trade-off that most people would make. For example, if a car was twice as bad as the average driver (2 fatalities per 100 million miles), then you'd say 29.6 seconds per mile -- maybe something you wouldn't do at freeway speeds, but you would do at city street speeds.
But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as an average human driver (including drunks and so forth). Which suggests that most people have a different approach to this question.
But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as an average human driver (including drunks and so forth). Which suggests that most people have a different approach to this question.
The average movement speed of a car over a trip is ~22 mph anyway.
The gains from coordinated robotic driving could very well be enough to actually reduce speed limits by a significant value, which not only reduces overall fatalities (due to laws of physics), but also makes the equation better for the robotic cars, which might convince more people to switch, leading to a positive feedback loop.
That's an optimistic scenario, though.
The gains from coordinated robotic driving could very well be enough to actually reduce speed limits by a significant value, which not only reduces overall fatalities (due to laws of physics), but also makes the equation better for the robotic cars, which might convince more people to switch, leading to a positive feedback loop.
That's an optimistic scenario, though.
I think lots of people make this decision all the time without realizing it because it's not as intuitively scary to them as robo-driving. I would wager that the majority of people on hacker news have driven on 5-6 hours of sleep at some point and a sizable portion make this a habit.
[0]http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/06/50444863...
[0]http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/12/06/50444863...
> But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as an average human driver
I grew up driving with my grandparents who were over 70, and my friends/random people with a car who were under 20. I think that the decision would realistically be made mostly on how the question is framed.
"Will you get in the car that's twice as likely to crash?"
"Will you get in the car with grandma to go to the zoo?"
I grew up driving with my grandparents who were over 70, and my friends/random people with a car who were under 20. I think that the decision would realistically be made mostly on how the question is framed.
"Will you get in the car that's twice as likely to crash?"
"Will you get in the car with grandma to go to the zoo?"
I would if the drive were limited to city streets, since a crash there has a much lower probability of injury and death compared to a highway.
When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid. A drunk driver, while impaired, retains a level of understanding of the situation but a program has nothing to fall back on. I suspect that accidents with automated driving, while rare, will tend to be more severe. Think train wrecks.
Not really. If something goes wrong, 99.9% of the time, the solution is to slam on the brakes, and maybe swerve a little to avoid an immediate obstacle. If a self driving car only does this, it will be a way better driver than a human.
Talking about weird edge cases misses the point. Edge case = slam on the brakes.
Talking about weird edge cases misses the point. Edge case = slam on the brakes.
If something goes wrong, as we've seen with Tesla, the car tends to barrel full-speed into very solid obstacles.
Because, duh, something went wrong.
Human errors tend to be misjudging something and then getting into a situation that, due to physics, they can't quite get out of. So you can't quite stop the car in time and you hit the car in front of you at 15mph.
Car errors are going to be things like "I thought the tractor trailer was a billboard or a bird so I hit it at 60mph with no braking". Or "I lost all sensor data and got stuck in a loop so I drove off the bridge". It's a fundamentally different sort of error.
Because, duh, something went wrong.
Human errors tend to be misjudging something and then getting into a situation that, due to physics, they can't quite get out of. So you can't quite stop the car in time and you hit the car in front of you at 15mph.
Car errors are going to be things like "I thought the tractor trailer was a billboard or a bird so I hit it at 60mph with no braking". Or "I lost all sensor data and got stuck in a loop so I drove off the bridge". It's a fundamentally different sort of error.
People also fall asleep at the wheel, with cruse control there now driving randomly.
I watched someone driving on a nice sunny day on a low traffic interstate suddenly make a sharp right turn crossing our lane to fly off the highway and start rolling. I have no idea why this happened, but everyone in the car survived so it's not even part of the traffic fatality statistics.
I watched someone driving on a nice sunny day on a low traffic interstate suddenly make a sharp right turn crossing our lane to fly off the highway and start rolling. I have no idea why this happened, but everyone in the car survived so it's not even part of the traffic fatality statistics.
Really? So easy to think of scenarios where there _is_ no safe answer.
For example, what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions and sensors suddenly begin failing so the software no longer trusts is inputs? Based on recent good inputs, accelerating, swerving, or breaking are all dangerous, and based on the loss of "vision" continuing at current speed is dangerous. The safest thing to do might be to begin honking, flashing hazards, and slowing down very slowly, but could still be way riskier than just handing control to a human driver who (in this scenario) can still see.
I can think of tons of similar situations. I have a feeling a lot of folks who think it'll be so easy are people who have mainly experience driving in easy areas and conditions.
EDIT: I could have easily made the scenario way worse: the road is curvy, or random lanes are closing and reopening due to construction. Loss of visibility then means continuing straight has a high chance of causing a serious wreck quickly rather than maybe eventually
For example, what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions and sensors suddenly begin failing so the software no longer trusts is inputs? Based on recent good inputs, accelerating, swerving, or breaking are all dangerous, and based on the loss of "vision" continuing at current speed is dangerous. The safest thing to do might be to begin honking, flashing hazards, and slowing down very slowly, but could still be way riskier than just handing control to a human driver who (in this scenario) can still see.
I can think of tons of similar situations. I have a feeling a lot of folks who think it'll be so easy are people who have mainly experience driving in easy areas and conditions.
EDIT: I could have easily made the scenario way worse: the road is curvy, or random lanes are closing and reopening due to construction. Loss of visibility then means continuing straight has a high chance of causing a serious wreck quickly rather than maybe eventually
In that situation I'd rather trust my life to that computer software than to a human driver (including myself) who simply couldn't be trusted to act safely if their vision was suddenly impaired.
Still, no driverless car should ever let itself be in dense fast traffic to begin with. Only a human driver would ever be dumb enough to do something so stupid and dangerous.
I would expect all high speed roads to be continuously validated by the car network, mapped in detail and kept up to date by the sensors of each car as it drives it. Your car should be streaming a model of the upcoming road from the cloud and be able to fall back onto it in the event of sensor failure.
Handing over control to a human driver only works when one is actually in the car. And paying attention. And competent.
Still, no driverless car should ever let itself be in dense fast traffic to begin with. Only a human driver would ever be dumb enough to do something so stupid and dangerous.
I would expect all high speed roads to be continuously validated by the car network, mapped in detail and kept up to date by the sensors of each car as it drives it. Your car should be streaming a model of the upcoming road from the cloud and be able to fall back onto it in the event of sensor failure.
Handing over control to a human driver only works when one is actually in the car. And paying attention. And competent.
> what if it's dense fast traffic (say, one car space between each car, 50mph) in random black ice conditions
I would assume that a self-driving car would allow more than 1 space between cars when going 50 mph, and probably wouldn't be going 50 mph when there's black ice around.
Hell, most humans wouldn't be.
I would assume that a self-driving car would allow more than 1 space between cars when going 50 mph, and probably wouldn't be going 50 mph when there's black ice around.
Hell, most humans wouldn't be.
> Really? So easy to think of scenarios where there _is_ no safe answer.
Then the human is no better or worse, no?
One of the improvements is that an autonomous car will avoid getting into a situation it can't dig itself out of. And, at times, it will detect those situations long before a human will.
My favorite counterexample for people like you is driving in Southern California in the rain. An autonomous car NOW is probably better than 25-30% of the drivers on the road in that situation.
Then the human is no better or worse, no?
One of the improvements is that an autonomous car will avoid getting into a situation it can't dig itself out of. And, at times, it will detect those situations long before a human will.
My favorite counterexample for people like you is driving in Southern California in the rain. An autonomous car NOW is probably better than 25-30% of the drivers on the road in that situation.
You assume that the program will recognize the edge cases. But will it recognize the edge cases of recognizing the edge cases?
Most of my driving (as in 90% by mileage) is on highways, and most of that is 70-mph rural highways. The first edge case I'd think of, totally not a weird edge case at all, is sudden 0-visibility fog banks at 70mph. If you think it is a good idea to slam on the brakes in such conditions, someone is likely to lose a life.
No driverless car should be wholly reliant on visible light sensors. I imagine that an accurate map of the road ahead and front-facing radar would be all that's needed to respond to the situation as safely as any human driver could.
One hopes the typical self-driving car isn't relying on just one model space in one software process. Surely these systems would have some mechanism for a robust, simple, safety-oriented software process that is continuously running and can take over at any moment, with the singular task of ensuring a safe stop.
It should be continuously preparing and revising a stopping strategy. It should even be able to do this with any half its sensors returning spurious or misleading data. Or even if all sensors are suddenly jammed, it should be able to blindly execute the stopping strategy prepared moments prior.
It should be continuously preparing and revising a stopping strategy. It should even be able to do this with any half its sensors returning spurious or misleading data. Or even if all sensors are suddenly jammed, it should be able to blindly execute the stopping strategy prepared moments prior.
> When a piece of software crashes out of its model space, it becomes infinitely stupid.
Well said.
Well said.
The liability situation at scale will also be "interesting." With the exception of pharmaceutical side-effects (which, in the case of vaccines are even explicitly dealt with through the government), it's hard to think of another consumer product, properly maintained and operated, where faults randomly kill people because "stuff happens" without consequences.
GM didn't get to play the engineering is complicated and there are always tradeoffs card with its ignition switches. (And, yes, I know this was a case of a known problem but product defects still usually trigger liability in any case.)
GM didn't get to play the engineering is complicated and there are always tradeoffs card with its ignition switches. (And, yes, I know this was a case of a known problem but product defects still usually trigger liability in any case.)
Self driving car can avert accidents caused by drunk / sleepy drivers a human wouldn't react to in time. There are videos of Tesla's automatically avoiding many dangerous situations and those cars are the very first of the first self driving cars to come...
I think in that example, i would move the bar to exactly what you cited. I think there's an implicit understanding in the OPs statement that means "better than average competent humans".
Although, another way to look at is: If you fall below the bar for the average human, including drunks/etc, aren't you by definition more safe using this AI system?
If your question/argument is: What about those who are safer than average - then i think the answer is, they shouldn't use self driving, only the "poor" drivers should. Of course the next question is how do you determine that.
Perhaps infractions on your driving record would inhibit you from driving. If you get caught for drunk driving, that's it, no more license, purely automated driving (even if that means no rain driving, etc). If you're above 70, or etc.
Although, another way to look at is: If you fall below the bar for the average human, including drunks/etc, aren't you by definition more safe using this AI system?
If your question/argument is: What about those who are safer than average - then i think the answer is, they shouldn't use self driving, only the "poor" drivers should. Of course the next question is how do you determine that.
Perhaps infractions on your driving record would inhibit you from driving. If you get caught for drunk driving, that's it, no more license, purely automated driving (even if that means no rain driving, etc). If you're above 70, or etc.
Would you get into a car with a driver under 20, above 70, with less than five years of driving experience or who is a little sleepy?
Do you use Taxis? How do you know that they aren't sleepy/inexperienced/a bad driver?
In terms of improving safety, I think most people are looking at it backwards. Instead of having the computer drive and expecting the human to take control in dangerous situations we should have the human drive and allow the computer to take control temporarily when it detects a high probability of an imminent collision. This could prevent most collisions and is technically easier to accomplish.
In fact some vehicles already have front crash prevention systems and stability control systems that automatically brake and cut the throttle (2 control axes).
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/automation-and-crash-avoid...
So manufacturers could build upon that baseline by adding more sensor inputs and control axes for collision avoidance. Instead of just braking when a large obstacle appears in front the vehicle could steer around obstacles, exert force on the steering wheel to prevent running off the road, limit throttle inputs when approaching curves, etc. Some aircraft autopilots already have similar functionality by automatically climbing to avoid terrain.
In fact some vehicles already have front crash prevention systems and stability control systems that automatically brake and cut the throttle (2 control axes).
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/automation-and-crash-avoid...
So manufacturers could build upon that baseline by adding more sensor inputs and control axes for collision avoidance. Instead of just braking when a large obstacle appears in front the vehicle could steer around obstacles, exert force on the steering wheel to prevent running off the road, limit throttle inputs when approaching curves, etc. Some aircraft autopilots already have similar functionality by automatically climbing to avoid terrain.
More like 1 per 100 million miles in the US. And remember that's all cars. I'm sure it would be significantly lower if you consider only late model cars with modern safety features.
Obviously, a lot of people still die in traffic accidents. But the bar is actually still fairly high for automated systems. I also suspect (though I don't have the numbers) that even if automation were just for highway driving that would, by itself, significantly reduce the fatalities.
Obviously, a lot of people still die in traffic accidents. But the bar is actually still fairly high for automated systems. I also suspect (though I don't have the numbers) that even if automation were just for highway driving that would, by itself, significantly reduce the fatalities.
I am being somewhat knit-picky, because your point is: "Self driving cars only have to be better than humans who are already very imperfect"
But...
It isn't just deaths that need to be prevented. It is a combination of total damages, delays, deaths etc. If self driving cars take forever to make a turn or have other AI failures like driving too slow, it won't be acceptable to a large number of people.
In addition, you will see a situation in the future where partially automated cars Level 2 or 3 are safer than current driving modes. That means that in order to go from level 3 to level 4, you need the car to be safer than level 3.
I want a fully automated self driving car so badly, but I suspect I have a long way before I can hop in a car with no steering wheel and sip an IPA while being rushed home from a tough day at the office.
But...
It isn't just deaths that need to be prevented. It is a combination of total damages, delays, deaths etc. If self driving cars take forever to make a turn or have other AI failures like driving too slow, it won't be acceptable to a large number of people.
In addition, you will see a situation in the future where partially automated cars Level 2 or 3 are safer than current driving modes. That means that in order to go from level 3 to level 4, you need the car to be safer than level 3.
I want a fully automated self driving car so badly, but I suspect I have a long way before I can hop in a car with no steering wheel and sip an IPA while being rushed home from a tough day at the office.
I don't think this is true, people are much less forgiving when machines make fatal mistakes. Also people will be hostile towards the perceived loss of autonomy.
When I drive, at least I am in control. I don't give any thoughts to accident statistics. A self driving car may become safer statistically, but I don't see myself in a self driving car that is safer on an average but still has a non-zero chance of getting me in an accident.
There will never be a non-zero chance of getting into accident. But if the car is a safer driver than you then it is a net win.
Factually that may be true, but its a matter of belief. When I drive, I am 100% confident that I will not get into an accident. A self driving car with <100% safety is a net loss in my mind.
If you are 100% confident that you won't have an accident, you're deluding yourself. Unexpected phenomena like an animal crossing the road, a drunk or reckless driver driving against traffic or barging in from an intersection where you have the priority, etc. can get anyone.
If you are 100% confident that you won't have an accident, you're deluding yourself.
So? That's something humans tend to do, and anyone trying to sell self-driving cars will have to account for it.
So? That's something humans tend to do, and anyone trying to sell self-driving cars will have to account for it.
I think that when, at some point, it will be proven that driverless cars are safer then the regulators should come in and simply ban humans from driving vehicles that do not expressly require to do "weird stuff".
Beliefs like this are what get people killed. People think they can drive safely far above the speed limit. People think they can drive safely in adverse conditions at unsafe speeds. They are wrong and get themselves and others maimed and killed every day. Their complete confidence doesn't save them, but is the root of the problem.
Then maybe you should update your belief instead of deluding yourself.
You fly, don't you?
I am reading this as preferring that if you are in an accident it is at least your fault rather than the fault of a self driving system. However, there are far more drivers on the road than you. Turn this around to be other other party.
So now you are in an accident caused by someone else. If that accident would have been prevented had they turned on the automated driving system that is in their vehicle, then do you still prefer this? Is having someone to blame really worth being in an accident that would not have happened if the computer was in control?
So, is it truly reasonable for you to refuse to engage the self-driving system in your car, putting other people on the road at greater risk?
I wonder if there will be increased liability, both financial (insurance) and legal, when someone willingly chooses to take control in a situation that would be well-handled by their self driving vehicle.
So now you are in an accident caused by someone else. If that accident would have been prevented had they turned on the automated driving system that is in their vehicle, then do you still prefer this? Is having someone to blame really worth being in an accident that would not have happened if the computer was in control?
So, is it truly reasonable for you to refuse to engage the self-driving system in your car, putting other people on the road at greater risk?
I wonder if there will be increased liability, both financial (insurance) and legal, when someone willingly chooses to take control in a situation that would be well-handled by their self driving vehicle.
No, you are not. You have an illusion of control over your vehicle, and while you may have a measure of operability, the actual control of your vehicle is depending on the correct functioning of the software and hardware that manages the various controls in your car (gas pedal, steering wheel, brakes, etc), and the efficacy of your operation of the vehicle is entirely dependent on the driving conditions, including other drivers, weather, wildlife, etc.
In fairness, your operation of the vehicle has a substantial impact on the outcome of operating the vehicle, the the decision loop that your brain implements while driving is largely incapable of effectively processing and executing on the volume of information and variables that are in play in the circumstances that lead to high speed collisions.
Anecdotally you might feel in control, but it is probably worth noting that most people, drunk or sober, tired on fully awake, fully alert or texting, felt like they were in control when they were suddenly the cause of, or involved in a collision.
In fairness, your operation of the vehicle has a substantial impact on the outcome of operating the vehicle, the the decision loop that your brain implements while driving is largely incapable of effectively processing and executing on the volume of information and variables that are in play in the circumstances that lead to high speed collisions.
Anecdotally you might feel in control, but it is probably worth noting that most people, drunk or sober, tired on fully awake, fully alert or texting, felt like they were in control when they were suddenly the cause of, or involved in a collision.
Have you ever been in a taxi? You aren't in control there.
If I'm the government, I'm going to make sure they have to be better than humans with self driving co-pilot.
You also can't compare deaths per million miles if the self driving cars don't operate in dangerous conditions. You'd have to compare apple miles to apple miles and orange miles to orange miles. A lot of people die in car wrecks in bad conditions.
A car that only kills .5 people per million miles, but doesn't work in the rain, snow, dark, whatever, likely isn't safer than a person.
You also can't compare deaths per million miles if the self driving cars don't operate in dangerous conditions. You'd have to compare apple miles to apple miles and orange miles to orange miles. A lot of people die in car wrecks in bad conditions.
A car that only kills .5 people per million miles, but doesn't work in the rain, snow, dark, whatever, likely isn't safer than a person.
One edge case I have seen is law enforcement officers using loudspeakers on their cars to give drivers specific instructions such as to pull over in a certain spot or move out of a certain area. How will level 5 autonomous vehicles handle that case? There is no useful visual signal, just the audio. Will they need speech recognition and NLP that works in noisy environments?
In theory you could have an API integration with law enforcement that allow them to switch the car into "pull over" mode.
I think there are some basic physical advantages that might make the computers leap ahead of the humans, at least in terms of safety. Things like cameras pointing in all directions, really fast reaction times, and good steering/braking technique. Those don't necessarily help you navigate complicated intersections, so there might still be plenty of practical problems in the phase transition, but maybe fewer safety problems?
It could even be that the safety improvements are so dramatic that they become the pressure for us to engineer around the other issues. (Like marking lanes electronically and giving traffic cops new equipment and whatever else.)
It could even be that the safety improvements are so dramatic that they become the pressure for us to engineer around the other issues. (Like marking lanes electronically and giving traffic cops new equipment and whatever else.)
There are cultural and legal dimensions here, though. Will some countries prefer partial autonomy/incrementalism in legalizing autonomous cars? Will some people feel more comfortable getting used to autonomous cars while they are still able to drive them when they feel like it?
And that transition has been repeatedly tried, and abandoned, in less-demanding autopilot fields. Trains, planes and ships are all less computationaly difficult yet attempts to remove drivers from the equation have come to nothing. If it isnt 100% than it just isnt acceptable.
Paris metro line 14 has no driver in the trains. Madrid'd airport has a fully automated train shuttle between terminals. I have ridden both of them and they were quite successful removing the drivers on those.
Such trains are on short and closed routes above or below ground, or at least protected behind fences. They arent cargo-hauling trains crossing open country. Those all have crews.
Sure. But you are moving goals now.
No mention of pedestrians, cyclists, or how cars (self driving or otherwise) affect the urban realm. So much of the self driving discussion seems to be wholly about the automobile technology in a bubble, with near zero thought put into the impacts on people, cities and society.
The fact that the idea of signal less intersections, a concept that ignores the existence of pedestrians and cyclists entirely, is even a point of discussion is indicative that the discussion is focused on the wrong points.
The fact that the idea of signal less intersections, a concept that ignores the existence of pedestrians and cyclists entirely, is even a point of discussion is indicative that the discussion is focused on the wrong points.
I agree with your point - though I'd also say that people who actually working in the field generally are considering these sorts of issues and are not blind to them.
The "OMG only cars will exist and everything will be amazing because pedestrians are a fictional concept" crowd overwhelmingly seem to be wide-eyed futurists who don't actually have professional first-hand exposure to the field.
The "OMG only cars will exist and everything will be amazing because pedestrians are a fictional concept" crowd overwhelmingly seem to be wide-eyed futurists who don't actually have professional first-hand exposure to the field.
There are people that are considering these issues, but I'm a bit concerned that I've only read insightful commentary on this issue from urban planners, which aren't going to be the ones creating self driving vehicles and advancing that tech forward. In contrast on the Silicon Valley side, I am disturbed by how many tweets and breezy blog posts I read from people that don't seem to know what Induced Demand is and don't seem to understand how cities work.
I share your concerns, though I'd also add that HN is a very self-selected group of people and not necessarily representative of the people having these conversations.
Also, given the nature of the work and the insane level of competition right now, anyone working on this first-hand would be wise to not speak about these things in public.
So the only commenters are urban planning and infrastructure folks who don't work first-hand on the problem - and fortunately they are writing extensively about it. People who have first-hand expertise on the matter are prevented from speaking extensively about it, which leaves the remainder of the commentary to the peanut gallery.
And the peanut gallery is unfortunately filled with people whose visions of the future resemble more of the Jetsons than anything practical.
Also, given the nature of the work and the insane level of competition right now, anyone working on this first-hand would be wise to not speak about these things in public.
So the only commenters are urban planning and infrastructure folks who don't work first-hand on the problem - and fortunately they are writing extensively about it. People who have first-hand expertise on the matter are prevented from speaking extensively about it, which leaves the remainder of the commentary to the peanut gallery.
And the peanut gallery is unfortunately filled with people whose visions of the future resemble more of the Jetsons than anything practical.
Are there cycling/pedestrian advocacy groups that are against self-driving cars? I'm sure there's some concern about the early stages, but these groups are so acutely aware of the deficiencies of human driving that I find a lot of enthusiasm for automation.
A driving infrastructure that's advanced as far as signal-less intersections is one that will almost certainly have dedicated space for human-powered transport. Automated driving, as a whole, appears to be far more compatible with peds and cyclists. As far as whether resources will be allocated to build the ped/cyclist friendly infrastructure, just ask any realtor what a 'walkable' neighborhood does to property values.
A driving infrastructure that's advanced as far as signal-less intersections is one that will almost certainly have dedicated space for human-powered transport. Automated driving, as a whole, appears to be far more compatible with peds and cyclists. As far as whether resources will be allocated to build the ped/cyclist friendly infrastructure, just ask any realtor what a 'walkable' neighborhood does to property values.
The concern I have read from urban planners is more that autonomous cars are simply an improved variation of a car, and they won't actually fix many of the core problems that cars have created in cities.
Autonomous cars absolutely have the potential to be much safer than human driven cars, but their innovations don't change many other aspects of car oriented transportation. It remains questionable then whether our cities will be all that different if the cars on the road are autonomously driven or not.
In this sort of discussion I feel it must be added that it's fully possible to build walkable, bike friendly, cities right now with current technology. We just choose not to do so. We don't need new technologies to achieve this.
Autonomous cars absolutely have the potential to be much safer than human driven cars, but their innovations don't change many other aspects of car oriented transportation. It remains questionable then whether our cities will be all that different if the cars on the road are autonomously driven or not.
In this sort of discussion I feel it must be added that it's fully possible to build walkable, bike friendly, cities right now with current technology. We just choose not to do so. We don't need new technologies to achieve this.
This article obviously punted on that question but that gets talked about constantly imo.
It's not zero. Lots of SDV talks mentioned impact of society altogether. Less crowded roads since cars could drive outside of rush hours. Different parking spot locations.
Quite possibly no parking spot locations. A self-driving car service would drop off one passenger and then immediately move to pick up the next passenger. I suppose there'd still be parking lots to handle shifts in aggregate demand over the day, but they'd be well outside the city, in some barren desert land or garage.
You're already thinking two steps ahead. This would mean sharing SDV. I don't know if people still want to own cars or not.
ps: a stream of e-SDV, possibly solar recharged would not be a sad thing for humanity.
ps: a stream of e-SDV, possibly solar recharged would not be a sad thing for humanity.
Once people see the cost of ownership vs. sharing, I think the decision will be made for many. Ownership would likely persist at some level, but it's hard to imagine it as much more than a slim minority.
I mostly agree. That said, to some personalities, emotional attachment prevails. I can tell you I'd rather pay more than not "own" some stuff. I had to make room and sell the less useful things and it's gut thing, it's just hard. It's a part of me, of memories ... I think a car often fits this. That's what you took your girlfriend in, your kids to holidays, etc
Wouldn't people still have to get to work during rush hours? I contend that it would be a smoother experience, but would it really be significantly less cars?
Car "could" go pick up kids, groceries at different times.
I am not going to leave the kids at home, hoping they get into the car and off to the daycare centre, so I am assuming you mean before I get to work. So that means I have to wait for the car to get back before I get to work? Wouldn't that just cost me additional fuel? Seems like a bit of a waste to have my car go out twice (or four times if we count both getting to work and home) every weekday.
Isn't this a more likely scenario if the car was leased and/or it was a car pooling thing? But in that case, why are we wasting our times with cars? Why aren't we making buses self-driving? Car pool even more people in one vehicle!
I can imagine a common type of vehicle for self-driving cars that will be popular would be 'small buses', ones that carry 8-12 people, that drive unique routes.
Isn't this a more likely scenario if the car was leased and/or it was a car pooling thing? But in that case, why are we wasting our times with cars? Why aren't we making buses self-driving? Car pool even more people in one vehicle!
I can imagine a common type of vehicle for self-driving cars that will be popular would be 'small buses', ones that carry 8-12 people, that drive unique routes.
Buses are lacking privacy/familiar feel of your own van (considering you want to use one car for a larger amount of people). And it's harder to plan a route the more people in the vehicle.
Now you have a point about kids safety. The car could still pick up and move things while you're busy, this means less time on the road when you are aka rush hours.
Now you have a point about kids safety. The car could still pick up and move things while you're busy, this means less time on the road when you are aka rush hours.
Not even that, but forget America for a second and think china. Overloaded roads, horrible traffic and pollution, chaos, immature driving culture with a much higher accident rate, parking as an extremely scarce commodity, ride sharing/taxis already very common, and, most importantly, an authoritarian government who can change the rules overnight.
Driving actually doesn't suck that bad in the states, even in crowded cities like LA, but self driving cars could be transformative in a city like Beijing.
Driving actually doesn't suck that bad in the states, even in crowded cities like LA, but self driving cars could be transformative in a city like Beijing.
Good point, I admit having a very egocentric POV on the matter, I mostly picture things in Europe and US ... There are a lot of places elsewhere. That said, it's probable that EU and US will be the first markets to take off. Japan, China, India soon after.
Also outside of cities, isolated places, if SD kits are affordable could enjoy regular refill.
Also outside of cities, isolated places, if SD kits are affordable could enjoy regular refill.
I'm not sure, I think Asia could be the first destination since they have the least vested interest in personal cars, and the most pressing problems that self driving cars could solve. The only issue is training the cars to deal with lawless pedestrians and e-bikes.
Possibly, but commpanies need to export/produce there, at an affordable price. I thought they'd plan to go for western markets first.
If an asian company catches up fast then yeah it will move faster there.
If an asian company catches up fast then yeah it will move faster there.
The Chinese are working on self driving cars also. I hope the western company technology is allowed also, though. This is for the betterment of mankind after all.
The competitor Uber couldn't overthrow ? I never see mentions of them, I'll look into it.
Didi, but also Baidu and almost every Chinese car company.
[deleted]
One thing to push for might be the idea that once you get to that far-off land of "all cars are autonomous, there are no traffic lights", pedestrians would have unlimited right of way such that you would be accustomed to just stepping out into a busy street and having all the vehicles stop for you.
If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive."
It is difficult to decide if this statement is idealistic, naive, or written by an algorithm. I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks. This may come as a shock, but minimizing risk isn't the sole goal of everyone's life on earth. By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better.
But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road.
No, what we don't "need" are Autonomous Cars. We need food, water, and shelter. We want autonomous cars the same as any other modern technology. And by the way, marginalizing the interests of millions of people with language like "those people" typically does not go over well. And whom is "we"? Because it sounds like Rick's spaceship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PuqSMB8uU
(There is also a highly relevant Futurama episode that satirizes this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-D_Blacktop.)
It is difficult to decide if this statement is idealistic, naive, or written by an algorithm. I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks. This may come as a shock, but minimizing risk isn't the sole goal of everyone's life on earth. By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better.
But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road.
No, what we don't "need" are Autonomous Cars. We need food, water, and shelter. We want autonomous cars the same as any other modern technology. And by the way, marginalizing the interests of millions of people with language like "those people" typically does not go over well. And whom is "we"? Because it sounds like Rick's spaceship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0PuqSMB8uU
(There is also a highly relevant Futurama episode that satirizes this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-D_Blacktop.)
> By this logic, we shouldn't "let" people play sports because purpose built robots would be statistically better.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. There were about ~35000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015[1]. When we have the opportunity to reduce this number to (nearly) zero, the question becomes: is it worth paying 35000 lives to allow our society to satisfy its recreational driving needs? I think the answer is clearly, no.
It is one thing for a person to risk their own life base jumping or rock climbing, for example. It is a different thing for others to risk my life (or vice versa) on my way home from work each day. There are plenty safe ways to accommodate demand for recreational driving in a world where humans driving cars is otherwise illegal. You can go to a track, or maybe certain roads could be available for human use, or maybe human driving is allowed only on certain days or hours.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
I don't think this is a fair comparison. There were about ~35000 motor vehicle deaths in 2015[1]. When we have the opportunity to reduce this number to (nearly) zero, the question becomes: is it worth paying 35000 lives to allow our society to satisfy its recreational driving needs? I think the answer is clearly, no.
It is one thing for a person to risk their own life base jumping or rock climbing, for example. It is a different thing for others to risk my life (or vice versa) on my way home from work each day. There are plenty safe ways to accommodate demand for recreational driving in a world where humans driving cars is otherwise illegal. You can go to a track, or maybe certain roads could be available for human use, or maybe human driving is allowed only on certain days or hours.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
I was pointing out that the author's logic is hyperbolic and naive, making it seem as if statistically minimizing risk is the only thing that matters to anyone. To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen.
I do agree it is a problem that we share roads, and many people don't take the risks seriously. People's poor judgement, e.g. using apps on their phone while going 70mph in a 3,000+ lb vehicle is disturbing. Motorcyclists experience things like this vividly, and often daily. Maybe fully automated cars are the only answer to that though, because relying on improving everyone's judgement, or policing it, might be the least realistic solution conceived (for anything).
Of course we want to make driving safer, and in that way autonomous capabilities are a ground breaking safety feature. Other cars probably need to be safer too, since we are a very, very long way away from even a simple majority of autonomous cars. Maybe one day we'll see the "end game" of zero-ish road fatalities, but that relatively distant possibility is not a reason to essentially outlaw driving. Keep in mind autonomous cars are also very expensive, and will be for some time. If the "outlaw" part came a bit too early, it could end up looking a lot like "People too poor to buy and maintain a brand-new car are not allowed to drive on public roads".
There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that, e.g. since teenager drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents/injuries, so maybe we don't need high-school kids driving. Or, maybe we need to require extra licensing for a housewife that wants to pilot a 5,500lb Escalade at highway speeds. Maybe people should go to jail instead of paying a tiny fine if they are caught using Social Media while driving.
The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
I do agree it is a problem that we share roads, and many people don't take the risks seriously. People's poor judgement, e.g. using apps on their phone while going 70mph in a 3,000+ lb vehicle is disturbing. Motorcyclists experience things like this vividly, and often daily. Maybe fully automated cars are the only answer to that though, because relying on improving everyone's judgement, or policing it, might be the least realistic solution conceived (for anything).
Of course we want to make driving safer, and in that way autonomous capabilities are a ground breaking safety feature. Other cars probably need to be safer too, since we are a very, very long way away from even a simple majority of autonomous cars. Maybe one day we'll see the "end game" of zero-ish road fatalities, but that relatively distant possibility is not a reason to essentially outlaw driving. Keep in mind autonomous cars are also very expensive, and will be for some time. If the "outlaw" part came a bit too early, it could end up looking a lot like "People too poor to buy and maintain a brand-new car are not allowed to drive on public roads".
There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that, e.g. since teenager drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents/injuries, so maybe we don't need high-school kids driving. Or, maybe we need to require extra licensing for a housewife that wants to pilot a 5,500lb Escalade at highway speeds. Maybe people should go to jail instead of paying a tiny fine if they are caught using Social Media while driving.
The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
> To your point, we also "pay" ~88,000 lives per year to allow our society to satisfy its recreational alcohol consumption needs, but that is what society has chosen.
This is a good contrasting point. I think there is an argument to be had about "winnable" battles, though. It's much easier to police roads than it is to police everyone's home for alcohol, for example. It's easier (I imagine) to smuggle some alcohol from another country than it is to import an illegal vehicle. (Aside: some ~10,000 of those alcohol related deaths involved drunk-driving)
I agree that there needs to be a careful timeline for legislation. We shouldn't use legislation to bring about change too early.
I do think, though, that the transition to autonomous vehicles could occur gradually. First, you make them capable of self-driving. Then, cars start being manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals. Then, all new cars must not have a steering wheel. Then, once a sufficiently high percentage of vehicles are autonomous and without steering wheels, additional legislation could be considered. This would take decades, of course.
> There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that...
I'm aware that in countries other than the US (like Germany, IIRC), it is harder (in terms of additional and stricter testing) and more expensive to obtain your driver's license. That is something I don't disagree with.
On the other hand, the US is a place which is very reliant on cars to get places: the country is larger and more spread out, public transportation is worse, etc. The ideal aspect of self-driving cars in combination with restricting or outlawing human drivers is people can still own them as they always have (prices will come down and used cars will exist) and it should bring down fatalities in a meaningful way. Additional legislation that may prevent people from getting the license they need to drive to their job would not be required.
> The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
None of this rhetoric convinces me that it is not logical to remove human error from the driving equation.
This is a good contrasting point. I think there is an argument to be had about "winnable" battles, though. It's much easier to police roads than it is to police everyone's home for alcohol, for example. It's easier (I imagine) to smuggle some alcohol from another country than it is to import an illegal vehicle. (Aside: some ~10,000 of those alcohol related deaths involved drunk-driving)
I agree that there needs to be a careful timeline for legislation. We shouldn't use legislation to bring about change too early.
I do think, though, that the transition to autonomous vehicles could occur gradually. First, you make them capable of self-driving. Then, cars start being manufactured without a steering wheel or pedals. Then, all new cars must not have a steering wheel. Then, once a sufficiently high percentage of vehicles are autonomous and without steering wheels, additional legislation could be considered. This would take decades, of course.
> There are plenty more reasonable steps to be taken before that...
I'm aware that in countries other than the US (like Germany, IIRC), it is harder (in terms of additional and stricter testing) and more expensive to obtain your driver's license. That is something I don't disagree with.
On the other hand, the US is a place which is very reliant on cars to get places: the country is larger and more spread out, public transportation is worse, etc. The ideal aspect of self-driving cars in combination with restricting or outlawing human drivers is people can still own them as they always have (prices will come down and used cars will exist) and it should bring down fatalities in a meaningful way. Additional legislation that may prevent people from getting the license they need to drive to their job would not be required.
> The list goes on, without copping to the naive, even juvenile, conclusion that outlawing human drivers is logical because autonomous cars are safer.
None of this rhetoric convinces me that it is not logical to remove human error from the driving equation.
> I love motorcycles, as do many millions of other people, despite the obvious safety risks.
Society as a whole could decide that the obvious safety risk has no place on public road, and if you want to drive motorcycles, you could do so on private property, and/or in places specifically designed/reserved for that. Same for manual driving of cars.
That would be a big change, and it'll likely take decades until we get to such a point, or maybe we'll never get there. But I could very well imagine it happening.
Society as a whole could decide that the obvious safety risk has no place on public road, and if you want to drive motorcycles, you could do so on private property, and/or in places specifically designed/reserved for that. Same for manual driving of cars.
That would be a big change, and it'll likely take decades until we get to such a point, or maybe we'll never get there. But I could very well imagine it happening.
Yes that's true, I can certainly imagine it as a possibility in the future.
Specifically for motorcycles, as many experienced riders would say, sport bikes especially can hardly even be used on public roads anyways. My old bike red-lined 1st gear at ~96mph, i.e. there isn't a public road where it is legal to "use" the first of 6 gears. They're made for a track. On the other hand, RE: safety, in the overwhelming majority of cases the safety risk on a motorcycle is to the rider not the other drivers on the road. Motorcycle accidents where the rider was at fault and a vehicle occupant was killed are likely less probable than death via choking on a bagel. So a outlawing human drivers in this case sounds more like taking away an individual's choice rather than controlling any legitimate risk to public safety.
As for cars, I agree that it will probably at some point make sense to separate autonomous cars from human drivers. There is not much way around the fact that you can kill other people easily in a car, and that a great number of people would justifiably want to opt-out of that risk if they had the option. Someone's enjoyment of driving won't be nearly enough to justify otherwise that when the time comes.
Specifically for motorcycles, as many experienced riders would say, sport bikes especially can hardly even be used on public roads anyways. My old bike red-lined 1st gear at ~96mph, i.e. there isn't a public road where it is legal to "use" the first of 6 gears. They're made for a track. On the other hand, RE: safety, in the overwhelming majority of cases the safety risk on a motorcycle is to the rider not the other drivers on the road. Motorcycle accidents where the rider was at fault and a vehicle occupant was killed are likely less probable than death via choking on a bagel. So a outlawing human drivers in this case sounds more like taking away an individual's choice rather than controlling any legitimate risk to public safety.
As for cars, I agree that it will probably at some point make sense to separate autonomous cars from human drivers. There is not much way around the fact that you can kill other people easily in a car, and that a great number of people would justifiably want to opt-out of that risk if they had the option. Someone's enjoyment of driving won't be nearly enough to justify otherwise that when the time comes.
So where is the traction proof for a "Proven market need" for self driving cars?
Whenever we discuss new ventures on HN, the number one thing repeated is the YC mantra "Make something that people want." Yet I don't see the "solves a concrete problem that people are looking for solutions now for."
You can certainly make the case based on long range conjecture that there would be big benefits: lower fatalities, more free time, less congestion etc... but those are all projections assuming very high adoption.
However that whole "We need this now" attitude of making a winning product seems devoid - especially for the 90% of the potential users who would need to adopt them.
I personally think that these types of technologies don't have the same kind of demand that you'd look for in a typical breakthrough startup, but that technologists like us the HN crowd basically push hard enough to make them a reality.
I ask this because as someone who is working on a frontier technology (Augmented Reality) there are always a million questions around traction and user demand. Nobody ever wants to hear "we're going to create the market" yet it seems like that's exactly what we're doing with self driving cars.
edit: It's also possible that "startups" are not the right organizational structure to try and launch moonshot or frontier type technologies to the mainstream. So the same rules don't apply.
Whenever we discuss new ventures on HN, the number one thing repeated is the YC mantra "Make something that people want." Yet I don't see the "solves a concrete problem that people are looking for solutions now for."
You can certainly make the case based on long range conjecture that there would be big benefits: lower fatalities, more free time, less congestion etc... but those are all projections assuming very high adoption.
However that whole "We need this now" attitude of making a winning product seems devoid - especially for the 90% of the potential users who would need to adopt them.
I personally think that these types of technologies don't have the same kind of demand that you'd look for in a typical breakthrough startup, but that technologists like us the HN crowd basically push hard enough to make them a reality.
I ask this because as someone who is working on a frontier technology (Augmented Reality) there are always a million questions around traction and user demand. Nobody ever wants to hear "we're going to create the market" yet it seems like that's exactly what we're doing with self driving cars.
edit: It's also possible that "startups" are not the right organizational structure to try and launch moonshot or frontier type technologies to the mainstream. So the same rules don't apply.
Really? Even if you limit self-driving to "I can kick back and watch TV on my highway commute" that seems as if it's an automobile feature that people would pay a non-trivial premium for. And, perhaps more importantly, would choose Brand X with the feature over Brand Y without it.
There's a big market for convenience features in cars.
(If you're talking the potentially many decades off roboUber, I don't necessarily disagree.)
There's a big market for convenience features in cars.
(If you're talking the potentially many decades off roboUber, I don't necessarily disagree.)
If you're talking the potentially many decades off roboUber, I don't necessarily disagree.
I mean that's the whole selling point...and it would basically take that level 5 ability (as demonstrated in many articles and studies) to give you the "I can kick back and watch TV on my highway commute" ability.
Hell you can install an in-dash DVD player now, but that's not the vision of self driving cars.
I mean that's the whole selling point...and it would basically take that level 5 ability (as demonstrated in many articles and studies) to give you the "I can kick back and watch TV on my highway commute" ability.
Hell you can install an in-dash DVD player now, but that's not the vision of self driving cars.
It may be the main selling point for the urban "no one will own cars" crowd but, yes, they're way optimistic on timeframes anyway. Contra something I read recently, yes, kids being born this year will need to learn to drive.
As I said, there's a huge market for incremental convenience and safety in a relatively short timeframe. But, yes, I'm more inclined to put my money on Volvo and Ford in that game than Google.
ADDED: Level 3 autonomy doesn't require full attention in specific scenarios so it seems as if L3 would allow you to watch a movie on the highway.
As I said, there's a huge market for incremental convenience and safety in a relatively short timeframe. But, yes, I'm more inclined to put my money on Volvo and Ford in that game than Google.
ADDED: Level 3 autonomy doesn't require full attention in specific scenarios so it seems as if L3 would allow you to watch a movie on the highway.
Particularly since you'd presume that the "attention" alert would also stop the entertainment system.
I don't have any proof that a market exists for these cars right now, but I can make up a story that suggests that a real market is indeed at play.
There's a proven market need for that entire field of technology in general, the market of "doing things that were never before humanly possible while making billions of dollars in profit along the way".
A self-driving car is a plausibly viable product, in that a person can imagine that it would provide him or her with personal safety, convenience, relief from effort, and extra leisure/work time. By itself, it could have a significant lifestyle effect both in terms of commuting and travel.
However, even if it were not especially economically viable by itself, it would serve as a highly useful prototype and legislative precedent for the rather more dangerous and less sympathetic self-driving truck.
The self-driving truck has advantages over the operated truck that go far beyond the savings in wages when all the truck drivers lose their jobs. It can operate continually and consistently, with lower maintenance costs; it can be prepositioned or rerouted at a moment's notice; it can integrate efficiently with other aspects of an partially automated logistics chain. It will create new value. In turn, it will serve as a prototype for other motile robotics technologies required by a fully automated logistics chain, all of which - taken together - will be a crucial step towards the full automation of the means of production.
It is plausible that the major automotive manufacturers are more than happy to treat the self-driving car as a loss-leader.
This is just a story I made up, rather than an authoritative or informed opinion, but I believe that it's fairly typical of the "imaginative futurist" version of the case for self-driving cars.
There's a proven market need for that entire field of technology in general, the market of "doing things that were never before humanly possible while making billions of dollars in profit along the way".
A self-driving car is a plausibly viable product, in that a person can imagine that it would provide him or her with personal safety, convenience, relief from effort, and extra leisure/work time. By itself, it could have a significant lifestyle effect both in terms of commuting and travel.
However, even if it were not especially economically viable by itself, it would serve as a highly useful prototype and legislative precedent for the rather more dangerous and less sympathetic self-driving truck.
The self-driving truck has advantages over the operated truck that go far beyond the savings in wages when all the truck drivers lose their jobs. It can operate continually and consistently, with lower maintenance costs; it can be prepositioned or rerouted at a moment's notice; it can integrate efficiently with other aspects of an partially automated logistics chain. It will create new value. In turn, it will serve as a prototype for other motile robotics technologies required by a fully automated logistics chain, all of which - taken together - will be a crucial step towards the full automation of the means of production.
It is plausible that the major automotive manufacturers are more than happy to treat the self-driving car as a loss-leader.
This is just a story I made up, rather than an authoritative or informed opinion, but I believe that it's fairly typical of the "imaginative futurist" version of the case for self-driving cars.
PSA: this is largely a summary of a video, and that's mentioned at the top of the article but the link isn't provided until the end. It's here: http://a16z.com/2017/01/06/selfdriving-cars-frank-chen/
Does the article add anything, or at least provide a compact summary?
Does anyone know where the video can be downloaded?
Does anyone know where the video can be downloaded?
Doesn't add too much, but does summarize compactly.
Looks like it's hosted on Vimeo... so I don't think so, at least without hackery.
Looks like it's hosted on Vimeo... so I don't think so, at least without hackery.
Ahh, I just found out 4k downloader supports Vimeo. No heavy lifting required.
https://www.4kdownload.com/products/product-videodownloader
https://www.4kdownload.com/products/product-videodownloader
youtube-dl supports downloading from Vimeo.
On V2V / V2X Wireless Communications
> The major concern here is a protocol compatibility and efficiency of communication since the decision should happen in milliseconds and there is no time for extra computation related to differences in a communication “language”.
And again, security is NOT ON THE LIST. How destructive do you think it would be if I were to multiply my velocity vector by -1 while traveling on the freeway?
In fact, Ctrl+F Security. NOT IN THE ARTICLE!!
Holy crap people.
> The major concern here is a protocol compatibility and efficiency of communication since the decision should happen in milliseconds and there is no time for extra computation related to differences in a communication “language”.
And again, security is NOT ON THE LIST. How destructive do you think it would be if I were to multiply my velocity vector by -1 while traveling on the freeway?
In fact, Ctrl+F Security. NOT IN THE ARTICLE!!
Holy crap people.
Yeah. No one thinks of security. Remember how responsive jeeps was to the jeep hacks. And then we will send updates via USB drives in the mail. What happens when someone hacks our automated cars and just tells them to keep accelerating. Think of the devastation. You really think any manufacturers are giving much concern to security you are sorely mistaken. They will give us a warm fuzzy that they are, but everywhere I have worked development and new features have trumped security. The NSA will find back doors as usual and will keep them secret to exploit while others will find them and exploit them. Target and home depot can't keep your credit cards safe, what on earth makes you think Volvo or Tesla or Ford will keep you safe
Also what about all the displaced jobs. Mechanics, insurance agents, drivers, after market parts, junk yards, and others. Best argument I hear is they will have opportunities for the new jobs automated cars will provide. But no one can say what those opportunities are.
Just remember your perfect automated car is only as smart as the imperfect programmer who programmed it.
I am cynical about the inability to own a car the loss of freedom, the near constant tracking of my movements by corporations who will sell your soul for money, the targeted advertising and all the other crap. That being said I think the technology itself is awesome.
Also what about all the displaced jobs. Mechanics, insurance agents, drivers, after market parts, junk yards, and others. Best argument I hear is they will have opportunities for the new jobs automated cars will provide. But no one can say what those opportunities are.
Just remember your perfect automated car is only as smart as the imperfect programmer who programmed it.
I am cynical about the inability to own a car the loss of freedom, the near constant tracking of my movements by corporations who will sell your soul for money, the targeted advertising and all the other crap. That being said I think the technology itself is awesome.
Being that cars operate in physical reality, my guess is the machine would ignore your obviously incorrect spike of data and rely instead on its LIDAR and cameras.
Frankly, I see V2X as basically useless outside of coordinating complex maneuvers (high speed, high efficiency car trains on freeways or stopless intersections). But why even have it if the sensors are already aware of what's going on to a reasonable degree of 1-2 seconds of future reality?
Frankly, I see V2X as basically useless outside of coordinating complex maneuvers (high speed, high efficiency car trains on freeways or stopless intersections). But why even have it if the sensors are already aware of what's going on to a reasonable degree of 1-2 seconds of future reality?
When you have mutliple vehicles, each potentially with their own variant of control software, then each could be internally deterministic but "foreign" to the other vehicle. Kind of like a double pendulum.
Edit: But also like that cool double/triple pendulum thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyN-CRNrb3E) you don't necessarily have to be able to predict the future if you are simply monitoring the present state at a high enough sampling rate. Note that this thing is sampling at 1ms. Not sure what kind of sampling would be necessary for cars, certainly a function of velocity and braking power.
Edit: But also like that cool double/triple pendulum thing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyN-CRNrb3E) you don't necessarily have to be able to predict the future if you are simply monitoring the present state at a high enough sampling rate. Note that this thing is sampling at 1ms. Not sure what kind of sampling would be necessary for cars, certainly a function of velocity and braking power.
> Level by level or straight to level five?
This strikes me as a slightly strange question. Maybe it's just an excuse to present the six level system as a framework for thinking about it, but a huge chunk of commodity new cars on the market this year are level 2. A small chunk of higher end cars are level 3. Teslas are arguably level 4, and we all know there are level 4 & 5 cars on the road around the bay and few other test spots. Still, the majority of cars on the road are level 1 (cruise control?) or 0. The time to decide on the question of whether we should skip the intermediate levels has passed, that ship has sailed, vehicles of all six categories are on the road as we speak.
This strikes me as a slightly strange question. Maybe it's just an excuse to present the six level system as a framework for thinking about it, but a huge chunk of commodity new cars on the market this year are level 2. A small chunk of higher end cars are level 3. Teslas are arguably level 4, and we all know there are level 4 & 5 cars on the road around the bay and few other test spots. Still, the majority of cars on the road are level 1 (cruise control?) or 0. The time to decide on the question of whether we should skip the intermediate levels has passed, that ship has sailed, vehicles of all six categories are on the road as we speak.
AFAIK there are no cars yet that are _truly_ levels 4 or 5. Both Google and Tesla's cars strive towards that goal, but SAE level 4 requires that the system perform ["all aspects of the dynamic driving task, _even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene_"][1]. (Emphasis mine.)
So until you can fall asleep at the wheel without endangering yourself or other passengers, neither of those cars are at level 4.
Level 5 has even more stringent requirements, requiring ["the full-time performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver"][1].
So until a car can autonomously drive in snow and other less-than-ideal conditions, it's not level 5.
[1]: https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf
So until you can fall asleep at the wheel without endangering yourself or other passengers, neither of those cars are at level 4.
Level 5 has even more stringent requirements, requiring ["the full-time performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver"][1].
So until a car can autonomously drive in snow and other less-than-ideal conditions, it's not level 5.
[1]: https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf
Add to that the requirement to work without up to date map data, with inputs that require reading and understanding written text on road signs etc. To drive as a human in all situations you basically have to be human. You need to be able to understand the world like a human.
Example: a highway has one side closed for roadwork. It's dark and it's snowing. At the start of the construction work there is a sign that says "wait at this point for escort car". The text might be partially covered in snow. When the escort car arrives it leads the queue of waiting cars past the road construction, in the oncoming lane.
A human driver understands that the right thing to do is wait at the sign. If the sign isn't readable because of snow, the driver just gets out and brushes off the snow.
The human driver understands which car is the escort car because of its markings and behavior.
The human driver understands the reason the escort car is there is because traffic has to take turns in the same lane and there are no traffic lights. Even when a human driver encounters this for the first time, it will realize what's going on (it confused me the first time).
I'm not sure it would even be possible to teach an autonomous agent to adapt to any unknown situation where the information is lacking, incomplete or conflicting.
Example: a highway has one side closed for roadwork. It's dark and it's snowing. At the start of the construction work there is a sign that says "wait at this point for escort car". The text might be partially covered in snow. When the escort car arrives it leads the queue of waiting cars past the road construction, in the oncoming lane.
A human driver understands that the right thing to do is wait at the sign. If the sign isn't readable because of snow, the driver just gets out and brushes off the snow.
The human driver understands which car is the escort car because of its markings and behavior.
The human driver understands the reason the escort car is there is because traffic has to take turns in the same lane and there are no traffic lights. Even when a human driver encounters this for the first time, it will realize what's going on (it confused me the first time).
I'm not sure it would even be possible to teach an autonomous agent to adapt to any unknown situation where the information is lacking, incomplete or conflicting.
The NHTSA originally designated a 0-4 system for classifying Autonomous vehicles. Then the SAE (engineers love adding features) added Level 5. When the NHTSA adopted the SAE system, they reworded the description of Level 5 to what you've quoted. And seriously, it's a meaningless designation. To have a driverless car that perform as well as an expert human driver in all conditions will take decades, it may require something approximating sci-fi grade AGI to pull it off. There are situations when driving that require creativity and generalist knowledge that is completely outside the bounds of what AI can do.
There's no point in discussing L5 realistically, nobody is anywhere close to pulling it off.
There's no point in discussing L5 realistically, nobody is anywhere close to pulling it off.
I agree and, yet, you need something at least very close to that before you can have cars without anybody in them shuttling around to pick up people or deliver a pizza. (Which is why anyone who thinks they're going to be able to hail a roboUber in Manhattan within a decade is... optimistic.)
I suppose you can construct really elaborate corner cases that you might give a car a pass on. And maybe there are ways to make things like construction zones easier for cars to navigate. But, yeah, for the most part, the computer is going to have to handle any driving situation a typical human would be able to.
I suppose you can construct really elaborate corner cases that you might give a car a pass on. And maybe there are ways to make things like construction zones easier for cars to navigate. But, yeah, for the most part, the computer is going to have to handle any driving situation a typical human would be able to.
It'll be a while before the human is completely out of the loop, but Waymo has filed a patent for 'remote assistance in low confidence situations', and many of the companies pursuing robotaxis have signalled similar initiatives.
The handoff speed is an issue as is the fact that the vehicle would have to recognize a problem in order to ask for help. But, yes, some sort of remote assistance system would seem to be one solution to at least certain edge cases.
Well, Waymo's car drove a legally blind man as the only passenger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/bli...
So it seems like they're pretty close to L4.
So it seems like they're pretty close to L4.
Part of the problem is that I'm not sure the defined levels are necessarily a particularly good framework for thinking about the level of automation going forward.
-- What's a sufficient time margin for someone to take control?
-- How commonly might someone need to take control?
-- Can someone take control?
-- How broad is the use case?
It's pretty clear that we're pretty much at the point where a car can tool down at least certain highways in good weather with a (theoretically) attentive driver ready to take over if needed.
What's less clear is what the intermediate stages are between that and "don't need a steering wheel in any weather on a maintained road and can park in an unmarked spot" looks like.
-- What's a sufficient time margin for someone to take control?
-- How commonly might someone need to take control?
-- Can someone take control?
-- How broad is the use case?
It's pretty clear that we're pretty much at the point where a car can tool down at least certain highways in good weather with a (theoretically) attentive driver ready to take over if needed.
What's less clear is what the intermediate stages are between that and "don't need a steering wheel in any weather on a maintained road and can park in an unmarked spot" looks like.
The question is about the development strategy, not marketplace existence. So long as each higher level is more valuable but more difficult than the next, cars will appear on the market at each level progressively in time.
But the point is that, if you want to get to level 5, do you climb the ladder or build level 5 from the ground? In particular, if there is a handful of key tech advances that are necessary for level 5, and that make levels 1-4 trivial, then there's no point in climbing the ladder.
But the point is that, if you want to get to level 5, do you climb the ladder or build level 5 from the ground? In particular, if there is a handful of key tech advances that are necessary for level 5, and that make levels 1-4 trivial, then there's no point in climbing the ladder.
Fair enough, though the biggest hurdles are likely to be regulatory and not technical, right? A self driving car company could conceivably kill itself by solving all the technical problems and going straight to level 5 without regard to what lawmakers allow.
The question has big implications... the post mentioned the follow-up question of whether we need stoplights anymore. We don't need stoplights anymore if all existing cars disappeared all at once, and all car manufacturers go straight to level 5 at the same time. We do need stoplights for the time being if for some reason that doesn't happen.
The question has big implications... the post mentioned the follow-up question of whether we need stoplights anymore. We don't need stoplights anymore if all existing cars disappeared all at once, and all car manufacturers go straight to level 5 at the same time. We do need stoplights for the time being if for some reason that doesn't happen.
<the question of whether we should skip the intermediate levels has passed, ship has sailed,
Do you think It's too late to bring them "back to port?"
I see one endgame where state referrendums put ballot questions to citizens that ban driverless vehicles or require drivers on non-Federally funded roadways.
Yeah, sensors will be added to cars (like seat belts were) and cars will be aware of other vehicles.
Do you think It's too late to bring them "back to port?"
I see one endgame where state referrendums put ballot questions to citizens that ban driverless vehicles or require drivers on non-Federally funded roadways.
Yeah, sensors will be added to cars (like seat belts were) and cars will be aware of other vehicles.
> Do you think It's too late to bring them "back to port?"
Probably, yes.
> Yeah, sensors will be added to cars (like seat belts were) and cars will be aware of other vehicles.
High end cars have had auto steering and auto throttle for at least a couple of years. One of my friends took me in a ride two years ago in a Mercedes that keeps a safe distance between the nearest car, and steers itself on curvy roads. You can set cruise control and go from Sacramento to Reno on I-80 with little intervention.
I drove most of the new compact SUVs on the market over the weekend, and bought a 2017 Honda CRV. All of them have sensors to warn about nearby traffic. Half of them have some form of automated steering, usually called "Lane departure mitigation". The CRV will try to steer itself to stay in the lane. (It's not great, I wouldn't trust it for very long, but it is there.) It has "Active Cruise Control" where it follows the car in front with a preset time gap you can set. I let it drive me through the city yesterday, it comes to stop at a light as long as there's a car in front of me. (Which, incidentally makes it seem dangerous to use this way since it doesn't read stoplights.) The car has anti-collision automation, it will slam on the brakes and possibly steer if a crash is imminent, and it has "Vehicle stability assist" mean anti-roll and anti-slide measures that will take over brakes or steering or both.
The CRV is a mass market car, not something high end or experimental, so yeah I think a high and growing level of automation is on the road already and will not go away.
Fully driverless, I'd agree, that seems unlikely right now, and I wouldn't be surprised either if lawmakers or the public decided to make that illegal for now.
Probably, yes.
> Yeah, sensors will be added to cars (like seat belts were) and cars will be aware of other vehicles.
High end cars have had auto steering and auto throttle for at least a couple of years. One of my friends took me in a ride two years ago in a Mercedes that keeps a safe distance between the nearest car, and steers itself on curvy roads. You can set cruise control and go from Sacramento to Reno on I-80 with little intervention.
I drove most of the new compact SUVs on the market over the weekend, and bought a 2017 Honda CRV. All of them have sensors to warn about nearby traffic. Half of them have some form of automated steering, usually called "Lane departure mitigation". The CRV will try to steer itself to stay in the lane. (It's not great, I wouldn't trust it for very long, but it is there.) It has "Active Cruise Control" where it follows the car in front with a preset time gap you can set. I let it drive me through the city yesterday, it comes to stop at a light as long as there's a car in front of me. (Which, incidentally makes it seem dangerous to use this way since it doesn't read stoplights.) The car has anti-collision automation, it will slam on the brakes and possibly steer if a crash is imminent, and it has "Vehicle stability assist" mean anti-roll and anti-slide measures that will take over brakes or steering or both.
The CRV is a mass market car, not something high end or experimental, so yeah I think a high and growing level of automation is on the road already and will not go away.
Fully driverless, I'd agree, that seems unlikely right now, and I wouldn't be surprised either if lawmakers or the public decided to make that illegal for now.
Let's talk about how we can't make nearly anything "smart" in the world of "IoT" and "smart things". We don't even have a decent robotic lawnmower in 2017 but we want driverless taxis within 10 years? I'm sceptical.
My guess is the people working on driverless cars aren't interested in driverless mower technology -- that is, one industry is cannibalizing the rest.
In your opinion, how many orders of magnitude more difficult is driving than mowing the lawn?
I honestly don't have a strong sense of the scale of ability here.
I honestly don't have a strong sense of the scale of ability here.
level 3-4 driving maybe just a couple of magnitudes harder (e.g in terms of computing power and the amount of code required).
Full autonomous Uber's - so many orders of magnitude that I don't even want to speculate on magnitudes.
I'm pretty sceptic so I put "mostly autonomous vehicles" within reach, but "driverless taxi" several decades away. We could make "autonomous safe regions" on the map where the mostly autonomous cars could work well. But we just can't make them work well in the normal world for humans because of the edge cases.
The last fraction of a percent of scenarios require humans or something very nearly human. You need to be able to improvise, learn, read half-hidden text on road signs and deduce from context what it means etc.
It's not acceptable to just handle 99.9 % of the situations for a driverless car, then you end up with driverless cars stranded everywhere.
I think the last step from "mostly autonomous" to "fully autonomous" is comparable to going from an ai recognizing all the objects in the famous funny Obama-scale photo, to having an au explain why it's funny. We don't even fully understand that problem, much less have any idea of how to solve it.
http://karpathy.github.io/2012/10/22/state-of-computer-visio...
Full autonomous Uber's - so many orders of magnitude that I don't even want to speculate on magnitudes.
I'm pretty sceptic so I put "mostly autonomous vehicles" within reach, but "driverless taxi" several decades away. We could make "autonomous safe regions" on the map where the mostly autonomous cars could work well. But we just can't make them work well in the normal world for humans because of the edge cases.
The last fraction of a percent of scenarios require humans or something very nearly human. You need to be able to improvise, learn, read half-hidden text on road signs and deduce from context what it means etc.
It's not acceptable to just handle 99.9 % of the situations for a driverless car, then you end up with driverless cars stranded everywhere.
I think the last step from "mostly autonomous" to "fully autonomous" is comparable to going from an ai recognizing all the objects in the famous funny Obama-scale photo, to having an au explain why it's funny. We don't even fully understand that problem, much less have any idea of how to solve it.
http://karpathy.github.io/2012/10/22/state-of-computer-visio...
Mowing a lawn is vastly easier (especially if you ignore the various edge trimming etc. that tends to be part of "mowing the lawn.") There are robot lawnmowers today though they mostly (all?) work by just using a perimeter wire like an electric dog fence which works pretty well for the small lawns these are designed for. They're basically Roombas for your lawn.
They're just not very popular.
They're (all?) electric which you sort of want in this application. But that means that they typically only mow up to 1/4 acre or so--which isn't a lot of work to do with just a standard mower. And they're expensive ($1K+).
So you have an expensive and not very good lawnmower that can only cut lawns that are generally easy to do anyway. And, besides, if you're not very price-sensitive and don't want to cut your lawn, there's no absence of people who will do it for you and do other trimming etc. at the same time. So there's just not a lot of market for the product.
They're just not very popular.
They're (all?) electric which you sort of want in this application. But that means that they typically only mow up to 1/4 acre or so--which isn't a lot of work to do with just a standard mower. And they're expensive ($1K+).
So you have an expensive and not very good lawnmower that can only cut lawns that are generally easy to do anyway. And, besides, if you're not very price-sensitive and don't want to cut your lawn, there's no absence of people who will do it for you and do other trimming etc. at the same time. So there's just not a lot of market for the product.
"If it’s true that algorithms are statistically better than drivers then we shouldn’t let people to drive. But there are still a lot of people that love to drive. This can be a fun recreational activity but we just don’t need those people on the road."
I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people who engage in extreme sports - but fortunately, we are not robots, and we allow activities which do not have any utility for the "we" of society.
I don't know who "we" is in that sentence, but thanks for making the decision for everyone. "we" as a society also absolutely don't need smokers, drinkers and people who engage in extreme sports - but fortunately, we are not robots, and we allow activities which do not have any utility for the "we" of society.
And banning self-driving also is a convenient way for totalitarians to control the movement of the population. Of course we never hear about that around here.
And aliens could come from space and take over our planet. What's your point?
You know my point, you just don't like it. It's far from a stretch of the imagination to see a future where the government essentially has a kill-switch for most roads.
It's not about not liking it. It's simply infeasible to think in this day and age a totalitarian regime would ever gain traction in the United States.
Talk to people from Turkey, ask if they would have thought that their country would descent into dictatorship 10 years ago. Talk to my parents, ask if they would have thought that there would be martial law in Poland when they were growing up. Ask people in Iran, if they could even conceive at the time of major modernisation of their country, that they would turn into a religious dictatorship within 20 years of being super progressive.
The major reason why history repeats itself is that people dismiss the possibility of it repeating itself. The reason why Nazi Germany was able to murder millions of people is that no one thought it would happen.
The major reason why history repeats itself is that people dismiss the possibility of it repeating itself. The reason why Nazi Germany was able to murder millions of people is that no one thought it would happen.
One of the reasons it is plausible is that so many people disregard the risk because they see it as implausible.
It already has - as long as police and military still follows orders, they can blockade any road or set of roads at will, very quickly.
Of course, a vehicle can still go around those road blocks, currently — a car _can_ drive across grass or dirt, just not terribly well. That's very different from an area-denial killswitch.
"Smoking, drinking and extreme sports" are not great comparisons because they only put yourself at risk (for the most part). Driving, on the other hand, can endanger other people's life on the road.
Second hand smoking puts others in risk too.
That's why some places have legislation for this. For instance, in Poland it's illegal to smoke in public transit stops, and in restaurants you can only smoke in designated smoking areas, etc.
> Second hand smoking puts others in risk too.
No, no it does not. So-called 'second-hand smoke' (a genius marketing term for smoke) is no more harmful than any other smoke. It is, however, a wonderful excuse for the sort of people who like controlling other people to … control other people.
No, no it does not. So-called 'second-hand smoke' (a genius marketing term for smoke) is no more harmful than any other smoke. It is, however, a wonderful excuse for the sort of people who like controlling other people to … control other people.
>>So-called 'second-hand smoke' (a genius marketing term for smoke) is no more harmful than any other smoke
I've read this sentence literally a dozen times and I still don't understand how it relates to the point we made about second-hand smoke being bad - you are trying to make a point about incorrect naming, to maybe detract from the main point?. Smoke harms other people. If you smoke, you harm other people, who get in the way of your smoke. Here, is that easier to process?
I've read this sentence literally a dozen times and I still don't understand how it relates to the point we made about second-hand smoke being bad - you are trying to make a point about incorrect naming, to maybe detract from the main point?. Smoke harms other people. If you smoke, you harm other people, who get in the way of your smoke. Here, is that easier to process?
> So-called 'second-hand smoke' [...] is no more harmful than any other smoke.
While true (in fact, it's less harmful than first-hand cigarette smoke, which is what the "second hand" is distinguishing it from) that doesn't contradict the fact that it puts others at risk. Smoke (whether cigarette smoke or otherwise) is a fairly significant health hazard that you don't want spend lots of time exposed to.
While true (in fact, it's less harmful than first-hand cigarette smoke, which is what the "second hand" is distinguishing it from) that doesn't contradict the fact that it puts others at risk. Smoke (whether cigarette smoke or otherwise) is a fairly significant health hazard that you don't want spend lots of time exposed to.
Driving 100 mph is also a fun recreational activity that's mostly banned because it's dangerous.
If you want to drive 100mph, you need to either go to a track or go to the Autobahn. In the future, I imagine that manually driving will be similarly constrained.
If you want to drive 100mph, you need to either go to a track or go to the Autobahn. In the future, I imagine that manually driving will be similarly constrained.
Once the technology is good enough, there is no theoretical reason for a speed limit. I'm looking forward to sitting in the auto-lane cutting code at 200mph while the petrol-heads are doing a thrilling 70 in the manual lane beside me!
I know you're joking but there is still a reason for a speed limit.
Tyres/brakes/everything are more likely to fail the faster you go, and unknowns like animals coming onto the road and weather will always be a thing.
Tyres/brakes/everything are more likely to fail the faster you go, and unknowns like animals coming onto the road and weather will always be a thing.
If you want to drive 100mph, you need to either go to a track or go to the Autobahn.
Obviously you don't have to go to those places.
Obviously you don't have to go to those places.
if self-driving cars will be as safe as people say, manual driving should have the same legal status as drunk driving due to the unnecessary danger it creates.
It's a false comparison though.
1) Society tolerates a small amount of alcohol for most drivers.
2) Driving while drunk impairs your physical and mental ability to drive safely and only gets worse as you drink more. Obviously a manual driver has slower reaction times than an autonomous system but they are within a level that society tolerates and far better than someone who is drunk.
There are also risks with autonomous vehicles - the potential for equipment/sensor failure, software being unable to adequately handle bad weather, the potential for exploitation by hackers etc.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new vehicle and have been test driving vehicles with various sensors designed to prevent accidents (specifically the Subaru eyesight system). One of my first thoughts was that it would be easy to become reliant on the technology and have a serious accident when a sensor fails (particularly for blind spot detection). I'm still likely going to buy a vehicle with that functionality but am not sure how much I will trust it.
1) Society tolerates a small amount of alcohol for most drivers.
2) Driving while drunk impairs your physical and mental ability to drive safely and only gets worse as you drink more. Obviously a manual driver has slower reaction times than an autonomous system but they are within a level that society tolerates and far better than someone who is drunk.
There are also risks with autonomous vehicles - the potential for equipment/sensor failure, software being unable to adequately handle bad weather, the potential for exploitation by hackers etc.
I'm currently in the process of buying a new vehicle and have been test driving vehicles with various sensors designed to prevent accidents (specifically the Subaru eyesight system). One of my first thoughts was that it would be easy to become reliant on the technology and have a serious accident when a sensor fails (particularly for blind spot detection). I'm still likely going to buy a vehicle with that functionality but am not sure how much I will trust it.
> easy to become reliant on the technology and have a serious accident when a sensor fails (particularly for blind spot detection)
Recently realized this myself when the blind spot detector light went out in our SUV. It's gotten me thinking about how manufacturers would approach a situation like that without forcing the user to undergo (or more accurately ignore) safety tests like a walk-around prior to driving or something similar. Or perhaps the intended use of these sensors should be stated as supplementary - ie "do not rely on them without verifying it's safe to merge yourself"? People would ignore that too. It's an issue I haven't really seen a solution to anywhere.
Recently realized this myself when the blind spot detector light went out in our SUV. It's gotten me thinking about how manufacturers would approach a situation like that without forcing the user to undergo (or more accurately ignore) safety tests like a walk-around prior to driving or something similar. Or perhaps the intended use of these sensors should be stated as supplementary - ie "do not rely on them without verifying it's safe to merge yourself"? People would ignore that too. It's an issue I haven't really seen a solution to anywhere.
The dealer was very specific that they are supplementary sensors.
The only practical solution is probably sensor redundancy. Of course that doesn't mitigate all of the risks.
The only practical solution is probably sensor redundancy. Of course that doesn't mitigate all of the risks.
> One of my first thoughts was that it would be easy to become reliant on the technology and have a serious accident when a sensor fails (particularly for blind spot detection).
I fear that we are presently in an unfortunate middle ground where driver-assist functionality is good enough to train most people to pay less attention to the road but not good enough to actually let them pay less attention.
I fear that we are presently in an unfortunate middle ground where driver-assist functionality is good enough to train most people to pay less attention to the road but not good enough to actually let them pay less attention.
> they are within a level that society tolerates
For now, because there are no alternatives so we've all gotten used to ~31,000 annual US motor vehicle deaths. If self-driving tech drastically cuts down on that, society's tolerance will change.
For now, because there are no alternatives so we've all gotten used to ~31,000 annual US motor vehicle deaths. If self-driving tech drastically cuts down on that, society's tolerance will change.
How many of those are attributable to factors that could be mitigated through augmented systems (a cap on how fast a vehicle could travel, collision avoidance systems, HUD's etc) though? Those could probably be implemented much more easily and affordably. To me the appeal of truly autonomous vehicles (in additional to some safety improvements) is being able to reclaim my commute time.
Not sure why you're down voted - I'm pretty sure this will happen in the not all that distant future, or certainly that driving manually will come with higher (and potentially prohibitive) insurance premiums.
yes! thanks for making this point in a much clear way than my discussion in another comment thread haha
There are kinds of driving that are fun and already not allowed on the road. For example, racing, or rallying, or just going very very fast. There are private tracks where you can pay to go and do that. Or sometimes they close the public roads and put up crash barriers for a big race. But they don't let you mix up your desire to go 200 MPH with regular commuter traffic.
I never said anything about driving fast. I actually really enjoy my 45-60 minute commute to work, because controlling a car is just cool - and I get to listen to my favourite podcasts/music while I drive. It gives me a sense of satisfaction and of something well done when I reach my destination. Getting the car in the right gear, hearing the engine thrum - you don't need to be doing 100mph to enjoy that. But again, I don't want to be convincing anybody that they should love cars, that's not my point.
Again, I think everyone understands the cool factor here. The point is, fun should not be used to determine what is or isn't allowed on public, shared infrastructure, especially if it causes danger to other people.
But driving on non-closed roads means you are interacting with people around you. Smoking, drinking, extreme-sports don't necessitate putting others at risk.
Second hand smoke harms people. A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol. Then of course we are all affected by cost of treatment of smokers/alcoholics/people harmed in sporting incidents. Don't know how the numbers compare to driving, but the point is that the author of the article maybe shouldn't authoritatively say what "we" need or don't need.
> Second hand smoke harms people.
That's why many places in the world use regulation to ban smoking in areas where people gather (like bus stops, restaurants).
> A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol.
Hence, again, lots of regulation, also lots of social programs aimed at mitigating the harm caused by alcohol.
You may argue whether too much or too little is done in each of those cases, but the problems are recognized and addressed.
That's why many places in the world use regulation to ban smoking in areas where people gather (like bus stops, restaurants).
> A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol.
Hence, again, lots of regulation, also lots of social programs aimed at mitigating the harm caused by alcohol.
You may argue whether too much or too little is done in each of those cases, but the problems are recognized and addressed.
> Second hand smoke harms people.
If you blow smoke in people's faces, you are an ass. I say this as someone who sometimes smokes.
> A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol.
But alcohol isn't the cause of this. I don't care why you are violent at home, but your an ass if you are.
These are situations where people are bringing in others on their activity unnecessarily. It's still apples to oranges IMO
If you blow smoke in people's faces, you are an ass. I say this as someone who sometimes smokes.
> A lot of household violence is fueled by alcohol.
But alcohol isn't the cause of this. I don't care why you are violent at home, but your an ass if you are.
These are situations where people are bringing in others on their activity unnecessarily. It's still apples to oranges IMO
Damn, don't you think "we" as a society should eliminate the negative effects/activities? since aside of not having any utility it may bring negative outcomes..
The problem is, that "negative effect/activity" is not an objective thing.
To me, drinking(alcohol) is a pointless activity, with literally no upside. It costs money, doesn't feel good, I don't see the social aspect of it, and the danger it poses to people is well documented - it's a "negative" for society in my book. But, at the same time, I am fully happy to acknowledge that there are people who enjoy it, who like to party, and I would never say that drinking should be banned.
I know a few people who treat driving like I treat drinking - they see it as boring, without any benefit, with negative consequences well documented and they clearly think that society would be better off without it. They think that the day that manual drivers are banned can't come soon enough.
As mentioned above - we are not robots. Not everyone enjoys the same things. And that's great.
To me, drinking(alcohol) is a pointless activity, with literally no upside. It costs money, doesn't feel good, I don't see the social aspect of it, and the danger it poses to people is well documented - it's a "negative" for society in my book. But, at the same time, I am fully happy to acknowledge that there are people who enjoy it, who like to party, and I would never say that drinking should be banned.
I know a few people who treat driving like I treat drinking - they see it as boring, without any benefit, with negative consequences well documented and they clearly think that society would be better off without it. They think that the day that manual drivers are banned can't come soon enough.
As mentioned above - we are not robots. Not everyone enjoys the same things. And that's great.
I don't think comparing drinking to driving is a good idea,
think of drunk driving, it's illegal. Why? Because it kills people it brings negative experiences such a death on a scale, just drinking at the bar doesn't cause this, right?
The same thing with driving in an autonomous environment, if it causes rapid increase in killings - it should be illegal in the same way as drunk driving. Don't you think so?
No, actually I think that long time before autonomous cars are common, or anyone even thinks about banning manual cars, vast majority of cars on the market will be already equipped with systems preventing accidents. There will be no reason to ban manual cars, because manual cars will be nearly impossible to crash, unless you specifically want to crash(and I bet you will be able to do that in an autonomous cars too since I can't imagine it won't have some sort of manual override).
Also, just to address your last point - why would manual driving cause increase in killings? In the worst possible case, it would stay at the same level as now,no? In fact, it's hard to argue that it won't get better, because autonomous cars will avoid dangerous situations caused by manual drivers better than humans would.
In other words - in increasingly autonomous environment, the risk factor of manual drivers will go down, not up.
Also, just to address your last point - why would manual driving cause increase in killings? In the worst possible case, it would stay at the same level as now,no? In fact, it's hard to argue that it won't get better, because autonomous cars will avoid dangerous situations caused by manual drivers better than humans would.
In other words - in increasingly autonomous environment, the risk factor of manual drivers will go down, not up.
so guns should be banned? large knives? red meat because all the methane?
Please read my comment above, I'm not saying the TOOL or an object should be banned but a COMBINATION of a USE should be banned. And yes, the use large knives in public places where there is a risk of killing people should be banned, is there any objection to this?
Yes, there is objection to that. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to have a large knife in a public place..obviously.
There's only a risk of killing people unless you're ISIS or a psychopath. Do we ban everything because of a few assholes? Yes, we do a lot of the time, and that's pretty sad.
There's only a risk of killing people unless you're ISIS or a psychopath. Do we ban everything because of a few assholes? Yes, we do a lot of the time, and that's pretty sad.
"One argument is that commute times will take longer because we will become indifferent to how long the commute will take. As we approach the state where all cars are fully autonomous, there are no traffic lights and there are no accidents, we should be able to do anything we want during the commute. Heck, we can even sleep during the commute like we do on trains or plains. Commute will definitely transform from something painful to a much nicer activity. But also this will free up so much space (parking spots, auto repair shops) that people will live much closer to the work and won’t have to commute as much as today."
Ahahahah!
At least in SF, those parking lots will not be transformed into apartments. If they are, then the rents will be just as insane.
Also, does the author think that a self-driving car will not need repairs just as much as a regular car? If you add more stuff to a design, generally, you then have more things that can break and need repair. Yes, they may be gas-electric engines or just full batteries, but the sensors and whatnot will have to be repaired too. I think it's safe to say that the part-count on a self-driving car will be higher than the part counts on cars today. In addition to that, since the commute will not matter as much since you are asleep for most of it (the author thinks (also, why not just make you car a Winnebago and forgo the costs of rent?)) then you will be more comfortable living further away from your job. That means your car will spend more time and distance on the road humming along which then leads to more wear and tear, and therefore an increased need for repair (regardless of gas or battery power). If fact, you will need more square feet for auto-repair shops as the cars will wear out more quickly, but maybe not near population centers, as the car can go drive itself to a shop while you are at lunch.
Ahahahah!
At least in SF, those parking lots will not be transformed into apartments. If they are, then the rents will be just as insane.
Also, does the author think that a self-driving car will not need repairs just as much as a regular car? If you add more stuff to a design, generally, you then have more things that can break and need repair. Yes, they may be gas-electric engines or just full batteries, but the sensors and whatnot will have to be repaired too. I think it's safe to say that the part-count on a self-driving car will be higher than the part counts on cars today. In addition to that, since the commute will not matter as much since you are asleep for most of it (the author thinks (also, why not just make you car a Winnebago and forgo the costs of rent?)) then you will be more comfortable living further away from your job. That means your car will spend more time and distance on the road humming along which then leads to more wear and tear, and therefore an increased need for repair (regardless of gas or battery power). If fact, you will need more square feet for auto-repair shops as the cars will wear out more quickly, but maybe not near population centers, as the car can go drive itself to a shop while you are at lunch.
To a large extent, my daily driving consists of going to the same 5-10 places. I'd like my car to watch me drive somewhere and then just do that, with minimal improvization. For example, in order to enter my driveway I have to swing wide into the oncoming lane to make the turn. When I drive to work I avoid the same potholes all the time. Pretty trivial to just record my driving once or twice, and replay that back with minimal improvisation.
> Four-way lights suck and if the cars can talk to each other and are fully autonomous why can’t we get rid of lights. This may sound very chaotic at first but hey, aren’t internet packets moving the same way?
"Sorry, your car has been dropped due to congestion. Please retransmit."
"Sorry, your car has been dropped due to congestion. Please retransmit."
LOL at that line. The answer is no, no they are not. Always lovely to handwave at another "magic" technology when trying to explain a completely different one.
I dislike the idea of transportation as a service. I would much rather own a self driving car and use it as a mobile office. Being able to get work done during my commute would be a major benefit. I imagine having a full size monitor with a nice keyboard and mouse that I would leave in the car. That simply wouldn't be possible with a service like Uber.
I would much rather you didn't place so emphasis on the control premium. The cumulative effect of everybody pursuing their self interest with no regard for the sanctity of our shared spaces has been resoundingly bad. It's the tragedy of the commons in a nutshell.
With personal automobiles we've already completely jumped the shark. People travel from all over the world to visit cities like Paris, but I can't think of an urban environment built post-car that's worth visiting just to hang out. They are undesirable- they're ugly, hostile, wasteful dystopias. It's a trend we want to reverse.
With personal automobiles we've already completely jumped the shark. People travel from all over the world to visit cities like Paris, but I can't think of an urban environment built post-car that's worth visiting just to hang out. They are undesirable- they're ugly, hostile, wasteful dystopias. It's a trend we want to reverse.
Hm, to me the "on demand" economy, which Uber and the like are part of, is the ultimate pursuit of self-interest. The entire model is built on getting exactly what you want when you want it, with no downsides. Once there are robot cars there is no longer a limit to how many cars can be on the road. Imagine one car zipping around for every Amazon delivery, 24 by 7.
There are more and less naïve ways of pursuing self-interest. Or maybe I should use the word greedy, because it's effectively a synonym here. Owning a bunch of cars (or hammers) so that you can use them whenever you need is one strategy; efficiently sharing them with everyone else so that there's always one available when you need it is another.
For fulfilling needs that most people have, sharing can indeed be a more efficient solution than owning - especially if the good itself is expensive to make (with "expensive" including also energy use and environmental impact).
Now, if you absolutely, positively need to own something because you like ownership itself, then that's a need sharing won't address - but that's a need society will always have to fight against in more extreme cases, because no matter how wealthy the world is, one can always invent something to own that's beyond the society's ability to provide sustainably to everyone.
For fulfilling needs that most people have, sharing can indeed be a more efficient solution than owning - especially if the good itself is expensive to make (with "expensive" including also energy use and environmental impact).
Now, if you absolutely, positively need to own something because you like ownership itself, then that's a need sharing won't address - but that's a need society will always have to fight against in more extreme cases, because no matter how wealthy the world is, one can always invent something to own that's beyond the society's ability to provide sustainably to everyone.
> Once there are robot cars there is no longer a limit to how many cars can be on the road
But there are resource costs.
Also your reductio ad absurdum doesn't make sense. No one is saying there should only be one car that everyone shares. However it's reasonable to say the optimal number of cars (where I might define optimal as "One is always available to you in a short amount of time") is somewhere less than the number of people.
But there are resource costs.
Also your reductio ad absurdum doesn't make sense. No one is saying there should only be one car that everyone shares. However it's reasonable to say the optimal number of cars (where I might define optimal as "One is always available to you in a short amount of time") is somewhere less than the number of people.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. While autonomous vehicles can be tremendously valuable tool, if we let narrow self interest and unfettered capitalism determine how they're implemented, they'll cause as many problems as they solve.
But ultimately, it also means you can share perfectly. I don't need to own a hammer if I can get one exactly when I need it.
Right, but the catch is the only real way out of the tragedy of the commons is regulation (or perhaps rewarding cooperative behavior in another way, but then you need to be very careful that you're incentivizing the things you actually mean to).
Why not? Store all your data on the cloud - access it from the computer in the uber. Lots of people who commute to offices will have the same idea as you and uber will account for that.
My wife and I visited Mendocino a couple of weeks ago. The natural beauty of it had us talking about the possibility of living there. The first obvious concern: Employment. It's a 3 hour drive to San Francisco.
My first thought was autonomous electric vehicles and exactly your point. Charge the batteries with sunlight and let the car do the driving to the office in San Francisco and back while I'm pounding out code, design documents, presentations, tax returns, or just hanging out on Hacker News ;-) Not every day, but maybe 3 times a week to spend 4 or 5 hours in the office.
Would that work?
My first thought was autonomous electric vehicles and exactly your point. Charge the batteries with sunlight and let the car do the driving to the office in San Francisco and back while I'm pounding out code, design documents, presentations, tax returns, or just hanging out on Hacker News ;-) Not every day, but maybe 3 times a week to spend 4 or 5 hours in the office.
Would that work?
I think that Mendocino is probably a little far for these purposes, but it seems completely clear to me that if self-driving cars become a genuine thing (not just a safety feature, but an actual "it will drive you to work by itself safely most days" thing), then there will be additional suburban/exurban sprawl.
I expect the option to own a self-driving car instead of taking taxis will exist, and various people it will be worthwhile (e.g. people in more remote areas).
However, I expect this to be quite a bit more expensive overall, and I think a lot of people might not care so much about owning a vehicle once they see that cost difference.
However, I expect this to be quite a bit more expensive overall, and I think a lot of people might not care so much about owning a vehicle once they see that cost difference.
I'd love to see that cost comparison. I lease a Fiat 500e for 100/month and insurance plus electricity costs the same for 1000 miles of monthly driving as one Uber to the airport and back, and I don't live in a remote area. Obviously urban areas with expensive parking are different but are already served by public transit.
But we're talking about hypothetical self-driving taxis, not the existing Uber. Once you no longer need to pay for a driver, you're comparing with mostly the same costs, but with the overheads amortised over many users.
Maybe you could lease your self driving car to self drive others around and pay for it that way...
Perhaps, but in doing so you trade off many of the benefits of ownership (i.e. personal space). Plus you'd need to time-box the rental to ensure availability when you need it, whereas the taxi user can just decide to go somewhere. (So maybe you choose to use a taxi in those cases...)
I think you'd end up blurring the line with taxis so much that the ownership would hardly be worth it.
I think you'd end up blurring the line with taxis so much that the ownership would hardly be worth it.
Self-driving cars will be world changing when they become commonplace. That isn't going to happen as fast as the industry says it will. The average family won't be using self-driving cars for 20-30 years in the best case scenario. I don't see even early adopters/wealthy people owning a completely self-driving car for at least 15 years. Regulators have yet to get their paws on these things beyond licensing them for research purposes.
Excellent overview and opinion of future outcomes.
Is good for people like me whose gut says this is not desireable or workable as it gives simple language lawmakers can read.
Is good for people like me whose gut says this is not desireable or workable as it gives simple language lawmakers can read.
What are you concerns? What should engineers in this space be considering?
Copying form an old comment of mine:
- Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on.
- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine).
- Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on.
- Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.
- Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on.
- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine).
- Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on.
- Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.
One I thought of when I encountered it the other day...
Driving through a red light when it's obvious something's gone wrong with the traffic signal, and it's stuck on red. Harder than it seems at first, because other drivers at the intersection seem to make up the rules interactively, with you, via facial expressions and hand waving.
There's also a fair amount of variables, like looking sideways to see if the cross traffic is also stuck on red or not.
Driving through a red light when it's obvious something's gone wrong with the traffic signal, and it's stuck on red. Harder than it seems at first, because other drivers at the intersection seem to make up the rules interactively, with you, via facial expressions and hand waving.
There's also a fair amount of variables, like looking sideways to see if the cross traffic is also stuck on red or not.
A broken traffic light seems no different than a 4 way stop once you've realised it's broken, and I'm pretty sure Waymo can handle those already.
In my experience it's not the same, unless it's stuck red all four directions, and all the drivers understand that.
In California most lights have sensors, and the sensors themselves can break/not be properly calibrated. When you happen across this that means is certain lights will always be green, and others will always be red.
It's mostly a problem with motorcycles, and I've had to go through my fair share of red lights late at night when no one was around, but I've also (rarely) had a problem with a car.
It's mostly a problem with motorcycles, and I've had to go through my fair share of red lights late at night when no one was around, but I've also (rarely) had a problem with a car.
- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine).
Surely you're missing the point? With V2V comms there will never be a need to go backwards. All vehicle trajectories become 100% predictable (mechanical failure aside). The problem of massive trucks on narrow country roads (which we have a lot of in the UK) is solved by simple forward planning. Hell, the trucks could get even bigger, so long as there are passing places.
Surely you're missing the point? With V2V comms there will never be a need to go backwards. All vehicle trajectories become 100% predictable (mechanical failure aside). The problem of massive trucks on narrow country roads (which we have a lot of in the UK) is solved by simple forward planning. Hell, the trucks could get even bigger, so long as there are passing places.
Autonomous vehicles can't rely upon V2V comms. There are far too many ways for such comms to degrade.
This kind of problem has long been solved in the mobile comms world by strong ECC codes and robust modems and channel coding algorithms. We routinely send autonomous vehicles into interplanetary space so I can't see that linking vehicles on a road is going to be a major blocker. Especially if they're on a redundant mesh network, or a smart highway.
Except the cases where you're likely to meet a large vehicle on a one-way road are most likely to be in extreme rural situations, where cell-phone coverage is far from guaranteed.
And if you expect you can force non-connected cars to not exist on rural roads sometime this century, you are delusional.
And if you expect you can force non-connected cars to not exist on rural roads sometime this century, you are delusional.
Delusional is a strong word.
Exactly 100 years ago they outlawed horse-drawn carriages from the streets of New York City (https://www.nytimes.com/store/horse-cars-last-days-1917-nson...). Based on that, I cannot imagine what the roads will look like at the end of this century, but is it inconceivable that manually-operated cars will look as outdated as horses?
Exactly 100 years ago they outlawed horse-drawn carriages from the streets of New York City (https://www.nytimes.com/store/horse-cars-last-days-1917-nson...). Based on that, I cannot imagine what the roads will look like at the end of this century, but is it inconceivable that manually-operated cars will look as outdated as horses?
Yeah, I think we can ensure that V2V receivers receive what transmitters transmit. What worries me is that the transmitters will lie. How difficult would it be for someone with a high-power transmitter — or many high-power transmitters — to drown out legitimate signals and present a false picture to receivers?
Could an anti-social person cause a bunch of cars to crash for kicks? Could someone with an axe to grind cause a bunch of cars to crash in order to further his goals?
Could an anti-social person cause a bunch of cars to crash for kicks? Could someone with an axe to grind cause a bunch of cars to crash in order to further his goals?
Not a lot of cross traffic in interplanetary space though... Maybe the odd supernova.
It is all gut. No data. No logic.
Cars == freedom.
Freedom == control
Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom.
We control our freedom.
Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them.
But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no substitute for this machine that affords is freedom control.
Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.
Cars == freedom.
Freedom == control
Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom.
We control our freedom.
Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them.
But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no substitute for this machine that affords is freedom control.
Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.
> Cars == freedom
That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.
That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.
Understood; different people/cultures hold different axioms for "freedom". This often confuses people.
As an old-values American, self-sufficiency is paramount: freedom is the ability to do what/when I want, with practically no reliance on others; to rely on others (say, for transportation) requires their ability/consent, and should that be denied for any reason then my freedom is limited without my choice. That includes the ability to travel 1000 miles on a moment's notice (hindered only by energy storage limits).
While I understand the "freedom" of not having to own & maintain things ("just get on the train! not beholden to servicing a vehicle"), it is those things that extend my abilities. Living out of a backpack, renting what I need when I want it, is certainly desirable - but relies heavily on the consent & capability of others to provide on request.
As an old-values American, self-sufficiency is paramount: freedom is the ability to do what/when I want, with practically no reliance on others; to rely on others (say, for transportation) requires their ability/consent, and should that be denied for any reason then my freedom is limited without my choice. That includes the ability to travel 1000 miles on a moment's notice (hindered only by energy storage limits).
While I understand the "freedom" of not having to own & maintain things ("just get on the train! not beholden to servicing a vehicle"), it is those things that extend my abilities. Living out of a backpack, renting what I need when I want it, is certainly desirable - but relies heavily on the consent & capability of others to provide on request.
Curiously, though, travel by car requires one to rely on others just as much as any other form of transportation. It's just that the reliance is hidden away from you.
Take the road that goes past/to your residence. Who built it? Who repairs the potholes? If you live in an area with cold winters, who plows and salts the road when it snows? Then you have to multiply that by every municipality/county/state on your journey. You quickly find that maintaining the road network involves quite a large number of people. It's more of a sunk cost than one that recurs for every journey, yes, but it seems fallacious to say that car travel is independent of the effort of others. That is only an illusion.
You can repeat this exercise for the supply chain needed to get fuel to your car, too. There's an entire hidden network of people enabling car travel in the first place. And that isn't a bad thing; this interconnectedness in the economy is what allows us to specialize and find economies of scale and spend time writing software instead of everyone spending their days growing their own food just to survive.
Take the road that goes past/to your residence. Who built it? Who repairs the potholes? If you live in an area with cold winters, who plows and salts the road when it snows? Then you have to multiply that by every municipality/county/state on your journey. You quickly find that maintaining the road network involves quite a large number of people. It's more of a sunk cost than one that recurs for every journey, yes, but it seems fallacious to say that car travel is independent of the effort of others. That is only an illusion.
You can repeat this exercise for the supply chain needed to get fuel to your car, too. There's an entire hidden network of people enabling car travel in the first place. And that isn't a bad thing; this interconnectedness in the economy is what allows us to specialize and find economies of scale and spend time writing software instead of everyone spending their days growing their own food just to survive.
I agree fully. I have a car, but I commute on the train because I value being able to multitask. I spent half a lifetime stuck in traffic and hated every minute of it.
The future cannot come soon enough for me.
The future cannot come soon enough for me.
I have a car but commute to work by bicycle.
On wet days I drive, but I find sitting in traffic worse than pulling teeth, so avoid it as much as I can.
I enjoy driving (not in traffic), but autonomous cars would hopefully make my bicycle commute safer.
On wet days I drive, but I find sitting in traffic worse than pulling teeth, so avoid it as much as I can.
I enjoy driving (not in traffic), but autonomous cars would hopefully make my bicycle commute safer.
While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified?
One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make.
In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping.
Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system).
We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice.
One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up...
So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more.
I'm obviously missing something...
/also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).
One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make.
In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping.
Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system).
We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice.
One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up...
So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more.
I'm obviously missing something...
/also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).
> In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping.
This is because your country/states/cities are designed that way. I live 15 minute walk from three grocery stores. About 10 minute on bike to work. I do have a car, which I use sometimes for long distance travel if public transport isn't available. But it is a huge cost both in mental capacity and money to keep that thing going. Like keeping it serviced and full on fuel and so on..
If you want to visit a friend and have a beer, do you take the car? How do you get home?
In summary I do use a car maybe once or twice a month to go places, but if Uber made self-driving cars that could do those trips for me super-cheap then I would definitely sell my car. For me that would be freedom and like a sibling commenter said, even if you are using a car you heavily depend on others.
> /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud
I also actually enjoy driving, when I'm _not_ going from A to B. I don't see a reason to inhibit that..
This is because your country/states/cities are designed that way. I live 15 minute walk from three grocery stores. About 10 minute on bike to work. I do have a car, which I use sometimes for long distance travel if public transport isn't available. But it is a huge cost both in mental capacity and money to keep that thing going. Like keeping it serviced and full on fuel and so on..
If you want to visit a friend and have a beer, do you take the car? How do you get home?
In summary I do use a car maybe once or twice a month to go places, but if Uber made self-driving cars that could do those trips for me super-cheap then I would definitely sell my car. For me that would be freedom and like a sibling commenter said, even if you are using a car you heavily depend on others.
> /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud
I also actually enjoy driving, when I'm _not_ going from A to B. I don't see a reason to inhibit that..
>So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"?
It's the freedom to be able to get around without having to babysit a tonne of metal, and then find somewhere to put it when you get near where you're going, and then have to go back for it later.
>How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport?
Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances.
It's the freedom to be able to get around without having to babysit a tonne of metal, and then find somewhere to put it when you get near where you're going, and then have to go back for it later.
>How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport?
Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances.
I guess it just comes down to the infrastructure, then.
In America, there isn't much "babysitting" of a vehicle - every place you want to go generally has decent parking near where you're going. Which ultimately is probably due to our mainly car-centric culture - our cities and "places of interest" are designed around the car, so you have plenty of parking and what-not geared toward cars. Also due to having a lot of land to "spread out" for car stuff...
Which then makes things terrible for public transportation! Everything spread out makes it difficult (and in some cases dangerous - if on foot or bike) to get around without a car, and public transportation has to conform to the cars (in some cases to absurd lengths - for instance, here in Phoenix, AZ we have a small light-rail system at ground level in the median of some streets. On these streets, the line has to respect traffic signals for cars, so in essence light rail becomes "large bus on rails". To me, this is stupid).
There's also the case here in America that using public transportation can be - interesting. In the times I have used it (even with the bad design of our light rail here, I still like taking it when I can), I have encountered crazy and hostile people who get violently aggressive at almost nothing. I've also encountered plain regular folk. It just all depends on the day, but the randomness can be off-putting to many. At times I mainly find it annoying, but many times I find it interesting.
In America, there isn't much "babysitting" of a vehicle - every place you want to go generally has decent parking near where you're going. Which ultimately is probably due to our mainly car-centric culture - our cities and "places of interest" are designed around the car, so you have plenty of parking and what-not geared toward cars. Also due to having a lot of land to "spread out" for car stuff...
Which then makes things terrible for public transportation! Everything spread out makes it difficult (and in some cases dangerous - if on foot or bike) to get around without a car, and public transportation has to conform to the cars (in some cases to absurd lengths - for instance, here in Phoenix, AZ we have a small light-rail system at ground level in the median of some streets. On these streets, the line has to respect traffic signals for cars, so in essence light rail becomes "large bus on rails". To me, this is stupid).
There's also the case here in America that using public transportation can be - interesting. In the times I have used it (even with the bad design of our light rail here, I still like taking it when I can), I have encountered crazy and hostile people who get violently aggressive at almost nothing. I've also encountered plain regular folk. It just all depends on the day, but the randomness can be off-putting to many. At times I mainly find it annoying, but many times I find it interesting.
> Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable over long distances.
Significantly! You can stand up and walk the whole length of a train if you desire without having to stop. There's food and drink brought right to your seat, and hot food if you walk to the buffet car or are in first class. In the UK, if you book a non-Advance ticket, you can get out of the train, leave the station, go wherever you like, and get on any later train. On certain routes, you can even get on the train one evening, have dinner, go to sleep, and wake up the next morning pulling into your destination with breakfast waiting for you. Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment.
Significantly! You can stand up and walk the whole length of a train if you desire without having to stop. There's food and drink brought right to your seat, and hot food if you walk to the buffet car or are in first class. In the UK, if you book a non-Advance ticket, you can get out of the train, leave the station, go wherever you like, and get on any later train. On certain routes, you can even get on the train one evening, have dinner, go to sleep, and wake up the next morning pulling into your destination with breakfast waiting for you. Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment.
> Train travel can be just as flexible as car travel over long distances, so long as the infrastructure exists and gets investment.
That's debatable. It can be comfortable and convenient, though I've never experienced it since we don't have much in the way of a train system for passenger rail here anymore. But I can see the allure.
However, with a car, you can go anywhere you want on a whim. Want to get off the highway and take a random route up through the mountains to visit a random lake? No problem. Want to pop thru a small town via a connector road to a different freeway? Again not a problem.
With public transportation or rail, you are limited to where the system runs, and if you want to get off somewhere along the way that doesn't have a station (for instance - just to randomly take in a scene) - well, you can't.
Then again, one can't walk the length of a car, or get food and drink brought to your seat, or sleep in a comfortable bed overnight, etc.
Also - most people don't travel super-long distances here by car (some do, many don't) - instead, if they can afford it, they take a plane. Airlines have effectively become our train system, for the good and bad it has to offer.
That's debatable. It can be comfortable and convenient, though I've never experienced it since we don't have much in the way of a train system for passenger rail here anymore. But I can see the allure.
However, with a car, you can go anywhere you want on a whim. Want to get off the highway and take a random route up through the mountains to visit a random lake? No problem. Want to pop thru a small town via a connector road to a different freeway? Again not a problem.
With public transportation or rail, you are limited to where the system runs, and if you want to get off somewhere along the way that doesn't have a station (for instance - just to randomly take in a scene) - well, you can't.
Then again, one can't walk the length of a car, or get food and drink brought to your seat, or sleep in a comfortable bed overnight, etc.
Also - most people don't travel super-long distances here by car (some do, many don't) - instead, if they can afford it, they take a plane. Airlines have effectively become our train system, for the good and bad it has to offer.
(American here.)
Agreed on all statements, but I need to add the freedom to not pay an absurd amount of income toward insurance, maintenance, taxes, parking, etc. Automobiles are expensive and getting more so as technology gets added and taxes rise to support the roadway infrastructure for them.
Agreed on all statements, but I need to add the freedom to not pay an absurd amount of income toward insurance, maintenance, taxes, parking, etc. Automobiles are expensive and getting more so as technology gets added and taxes rise to support the roadway infrastructure for them.
My body doesn't take much resources and effort to maintain, and in any case there is no alternative. My car on the other hand, consumes a significant portion of my resources, which constrains my freedom to spend its portion of my income on other things, or to not work for it altogether.
> While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified?
How would you justify views, if not intellectually?
> While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified?
How would you justify views, if not intellectually?
True. You can not understand the American family if you do not understand the car of the american family.
I'm very much of a freedom loving libertarian but this comment comes across as incredibly foolish to me. One should have the freedom to choose self driving car or not. Personally, I can't wait to have one.
It was my opinion on why driverless cars will not be accepted.
> Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.
I imagine there will be a fight, but it will be completed a lot quicker than people anticipate. For seniors and disabled people unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, the benefits of self-driving vehicles are huge. Those people care about their freedom as well, and they're well represented.
I imagine there will be a fight, but it will be completed a lot quicker than people anticipate. For seniors and disabled people unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, the benefits of self-driving vehicles are huge. Those people care about their freedom as well, and they're well represented.
I think insurance premiums will resolve this fight very quickly. Freedom to pay less for a car trumps freedom to drive the car yourself.
[deleted]
> Disclaimer, most the content in the article comes from this video[1], I’m writing it out along with my thoughts and extra information on the topic. Feel free to signup to my newsletter below to get curate content each week.
[1] http://a16z.com/2017/01/06/selfdriving-cars-frank-chen/
How is this anything more than blogspam?
[1] http://a16z.com/2017/01/06/selfdriving-cars-frank-chen/
How is this anything more than blogspam?
Taking a 30 minute video and distilling into a ~5min read is value add.
Agree, but why didn't he link to the video at the beginning of his blogpost. I had to google the video to find it.
Yeah, he should have put near the top, but he did link it at the end of the article.
The best solution would be for cars and roads to get automated together. The article touches on the idea in the V2X section.
Building super detailed world encompassing maps to tell the car about the road kinda works. But it would be vastly superior if the road itself informed the car as you pass through.
Unfortunately governments usually needs 10 years to evolve as much as the tech world does in one. So we'll have to do with workarounds for some time.
Building super detailed world encompassing maps to tell the car about the road kinda works. But it would be vastly superior if the road itself informed the car as you pass through.
Unfortunately governments usually needs 10 years to evolve as much as the tech world does in one. So we'll have to do with workarounds for some time.
In an article that has obviously been well thought out and reasoned, it's disappointing to see the author using the current accident rates as reported by self driving car developers as if they were a representative sample and subsequently used as a lemma for further arguments.
Simply put, the current rates reported aren't a representative sample. In fact they aren't even naively semi-representative. They are deliberately skewed by development patterns, and that happens to give them an optimistic accident rate.
SDCs in testing do not drive the same miles that humans drive. They don't drive in the same conditions, in the same traffic, and not on the same roads...and they have engineers ready to take over at any time, which is a luxury that the baseline does not have. Engineers carefully select the scenarios where they do drive by taking the scenarios that they know the cars can handle well and then slowly pushing the upper bound of that range. In other words, they choose the easy and work up to the hard. It is yet to be demonstrated how well they will perform once they are closer to driving the miles that humans drive.
Simply put, the current rates reported aren't a representative sample. In fact they aren't even naively semi-representative. They are deliberately skewed by development patterns, and that happens to give them an optimistic accident rate.
SDCs in testing do not drive the same miles that humans drive. They don't drive in the same conditions, in the same traffic, and not on the same roads...and they have engineers ready to take over at any time, which is a luxury that the baseline does not have. Engineers carefully select the scenarios where they do drive by taking the scenarios that they know the cars can handle well and then slowly pushing the upper bound of that range. In other words, they choose the easy and work up to the hard. It is yet to be demonstrated how well they will perform once they are closer to driving the miles that humans drive.
Dunno if you live in Silicon Valley, but here in the Mountain View / Sunnyvale area, they absolutely do drive the same miles that humans drive, in the same conditions. There is about the same chance that you'll see a WayMo self-driving car on your trip as that you'll see a VW Bug, perhaps slightly higher. There's a significantly higher chance than seeing a Tesla or McLaren, even though both of those marques are quite popular in Silicon Valley.
They don't do highways yet, but most of the time, I don't either.
They don't do highways yet, but most of the time, I don't either.
By virtue of the typical working hours of engineers alone, they are unlikely to drive in the same conditions, roads, and traffic as normal drivers. Their operating hours skew heavily towards driving in city traffic during non rush hours. They skew heavily away from driving at night, during rush hour, during lunch times, and during extreme weather events.
I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour.
Seeing them on the road commonly is not a guarantee that their driving patterns are representative. Their driving patterns are deliberately designed to not be representative...not because it helps their metrics, but because it is the only feasible path for development. Back when the first DARPA challenge was around, the only objective was to make it from point A to point B in an empty, flat, and mostly obstructionless desert (and everybody failed). By the time of the last challenge, they had to navigate a suburban-ish area devoid of people but populated with demarcated roads and carefully placed obstructions. Now they are on relatively slow city streets with actual people but controlled times/conditions.
So this phenomenon is obviously not new...SDC engineers have known this from the beginning. But now we have a new class of SDC boosters that don't actively involve themselves with development and don't seem to realize that their metrics are representative of the current state of SDCs and not a guarantee that can reliably extrapolate.
I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour.
Seeing them on the road commonly is not a guarantee that their driving patterns are representative. Their driving patterns are deliberately designed to not be representative...not because it helps their metrics, but because it is the only feasible path for development. Back when the first DARPA challenge was around, the only objective was to make it from point A to point B in an empty, flat, and mostly obstructionless desert (and everybody failed). By the time of the last challenge, they had to navigate a suburban-ish area devoid of people but populated with demarcated roads and carefully placed obstructions. Now they are on relatively slow city streets with actual people but controlled times/conditions.
So this phenomenon is obviously not new...SDC engineers have known this from the beginning. But now we have a new class of SDC boosters that don't actively involve themselves with development and don't seem to realize that their metrics are representative of the current state of SDCs and not a guarantee that can reliably extrapolate.
>I would also feel comfortable assuming that even if they put an effort into driving at similar times as other people, they would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour.
If you don't know their actual testing regimes, you should probably avoid assuming they ignore obvious test cases.
If you don't know their actual testing regimes, you should probably avoid assuming they ignore obvious test cases.
I've personally seen them on the road at twilight (which is rush hour, by nature), during lunch time, and in pouring rain. They don't do highways yet, because most of the test vehicles are limited to 25mph for safety reasons (which is infuriating when you're stuck behind them in a 35mph zone). They do get plenty of practice at stop & go though.
> [T]hey would still skew away from scenarios that engineers find boring. Good luck getting them to drive in 2mph stop and go on 880 or 101 during rush hour
I doubt this is because engineers would find it boring. Probably just bad PR to be seen increasing traffic for your experiment.
I doubt this is because engineers would find it boring. Probably just bad PR to be seen increasing traffic for your experiment.
The source for the poor quality and unattributed animation under "Can We Get Rid Of Traffic Lights" is the Automated Intersection Management project from the University of Texas at Austin (I worked on it briefly).
More info (including the simulator software) here: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~aim/
Interesting simulation case videos here: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~aim/?p=video
The simulator lets you test out some pretty interesting ideas, including various intersection management policies and protocols. My work was extending the simulator to support dynamic microtolling, in an effort to determine whether it would be a way to mitigate Braess' Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess'_paradox)
More info (including the simulator software) here: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~aim/
Interesting simulation case videos here: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~aim/?p=video
The simulator lets you test out some pretty interesting ideas, including various intersection management policies and protocols. My work was extending the simulator to support dynamic microtolling, in an effort to determine whether it would be a way to mitigate Braess' Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess'_paradox)
Honest question: where's the self-driving motorcycles? I don't care one jot about cars, self-driven or not, but in a past life (like, around high-school) I was a classic motorcycle nut [1].
Anecdotally, and from my experience, most people who ride motorcycles do it because they like motorcycles, not out of need, or for convenience.
So- what will happen with them? Will they still be able to enjoy their hobby once every car is autonomous, or not?
_________
[1] I owned and renovated one of these:
http://tvk1984.no/?attachment_id=220
Anecdotally, and from my experience, most people who ride motorcycles do it because they like motorcycles, not out of need, or for convenience.
So- what will happen with them? Will they still be able to enjoy their hobby once every car is autonomous, or not?
_________
[1] I owned and renovated one of these:
http://tvk1984.no/?attachment_id=220
"Every city has different driving culture, so how will autonomous cars treat these unique conditions. What’s safe in Bangalore may cause a traffic collapse in Boston, etc."
This will be a really interesting problem to solve. The ability to turn on a red light for example will require a city specific profile and will change over time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red
This will be a really interesting problem to solve. The ability to turn on a red light for example will require a city specific profile and will change over time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red
Honestly, I think these special cases for robust systems like Waymo's will be more a matter of custom configuration than something particularly novel.
Yes, they'll run into scaling to every city immediately, but that happens already with software-only technology.
Yes, they'll run into scaling to every city immediately, but that happens already with software-only technology.
I think it's the combination of mandatory updates and zero tolerance for error that will be interesting.
For example city X decides to change some traffic rule on date Y. Each autonomous vehicle will need to receive an update by date Y. What happens if a vehicle hasn't been updated soon enough?
One solution is a mandatory update scheme. Every day a vehicle checks if it has received its daily update, if not the vehicle is disabled. Another more long term solution could be close co-ordination with cities to determine which upcoming traffic rule changes warrant mandatory (vehicle cannot be enabled without update) updates.
These corner cases may seem trivial, but with zero tolerance for error across hundreds of thousands of cities careful strategies will need to be developed.
For example city X decides to change some traffic rule on date Y. Each autonomous vehicle will need to receive an update by date Y. What happens if a vehicle hasn't been updated soon enough?
One solution is a mandatory update scheme. Every day a vehicle checks if it has received its daily update, if not the vehicle is disabled. Another more long term solution could be close co-ordination with cities to determine which upcoming traffic rule changes warrant mandatory (vehicle cannot be enabled without update) updates.
These corner cases may seem trivial, but with zero tolerance for error across hundreds of thousands of cities careful strategies will need to be developed.
We might also have inter-car communication which could make this easier. [eg you don't have to worry about one car's sensors failing as long as it can still hear from other cars]
I'm curious about what corner cases exist that eg Google hasn't seen in millions of miles driving in a city. [I'm sure there are some, I just don't have a good imagination. Nor can I really fathom what a million miles of city driving is like]
I'm curious about what corner cases exist that eg Google hasn't seen in millions of miles driving in a city. [I'm sure there are some, I just don't have a good imagination. Nor can I really fathom what a million miles of city driving is like]
In my head, it seems like we are complicating the problem a few times over by trying to operate alongside regular traffic. IMO the breakaway / victory path will be along the lines of expanding vertically and having restricted and automated flight lanes + automated personal drones.
Am I missing something? What is the Medium post author's value add- it's just a recap of the original presentation. It says "deep dive" but it's just copied slides.
The original talk by Frank Chen was already excellent.
The original talk by Frank Chen was already excellent.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>should we get rid of traffic lights?
Yes. I foresee nothing going wrong with this. Ever.
Yes. I foresee nothing going wrong with this. Ever.
until the problem of consciousness is solved and we have moved away from behaviourial models for automation, there's no way i'm getting into a driverless car.
In the last two months I've become substantially more credulous that the U.S. might lose the competition to make autonomous vehicle progress fastest. I don't know how exactly to weight the relative likelihood between countries, but there is a non-trivial chance that the Trump administration can be bribed to create regulatory impediments to various actors. For example, it would be very easy in the current environment for, say, Ford to bribe the Trump administration to kneecap some aspect of Tesla's approach. Likewise, it would be very easy (and may already be happening) that foreign governments are bribing the new administration in order to disadvantage American companies in various ways related to trade, regulation etc. I'm not saying we have any means of knowing if this is happening or will happen, but it is worth noting that the lack of a "trustworthy government pursuing American public interest in good faith" should have a non-trivial effect on any predictions related to relative technological progress among countries.
That comes as soon as you have a situation where the automation has to be able to handle all foreseeable scenarios without failing because the human is no longer paying attention.
It's a fixture of complex adaptive systems analysis that one encounters scenarios where having anything short of perfection is just as good as useless. The implicit assumption in this post is that there are linear returns to incremental progress. That's not necessarily true at all.
It's quite possible -- I would argue likely -- that we'll be very tantalizingly close-but-not-good-enough to full automation for a decade or three before we actually change the fundamental nature of transportation.