Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajross | Hacker News Reader

> I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself.

Then clearly you need to get a car with better proximity detection systems. That's easily the simplest collision to detect and avoid for any automated system.

I know that sounds glib, but you need to recognize that if your ability to drive safely is so dependent on the "expected" behavior of other drivers, that maybe driving the way you are (which is to say, in the state of being a human) is the wrong way to solve the problem.

> I do believe that they likely increase the risk of minor collisions.

Pretty sure to the extent that this has been studied, exactly the opposite is true. For every "annoyance glitch" you posit, these things are saving 6-7 "loss of attention" fender benders.

View on HN

You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems". The product should fit as seamlessly into the world as possible, without forcing less wealthy people to deal with a higher chance of collisions.

> You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems".

Then it's a good thing I didn't.

I was replying (with a bit of humor) to the upthread posters notion that because these cars behave in a way that s/he personally finds confusing they are more dangerous (they aren't) and by extension shouldn't be on the road. And that's ridiculous. And the proof to the contrary is that exactly the kind of unsafe situation the poster was complaining about is something that automated systems can almost completely eliminate.

Abnormal behavior on the road increases risk by creating unknowns. I don't think we should ban autonomous cars from new behavior, but I think it's just as odd to say that unpredictable but legal behavior is somehow just as safe as predictable legal behavior.

Legal != Safe.

But in this case we know that there are cases where a reasonable driver will be forced to do the behavior he is calling unexpected. Thus even though it is unexpected it is something that should be accounted for. If you cannot react in time then you need to adjust your behavior. I'm always amazed at how few people follow the 2 second following distance experts tell me is the minimum humans need for reaction time. (which works out to .2 seconds to realize there is a problem and 1.5 second to get your foot physically moved to the brake)

Not even just less wealthy people, but anyone who tends to be financially conservative. I don't think there's an economically sensible option to purchase a car like this right now.

https://goo.gl/KYATXX

That's a $22 backup camera.

I haven't seen it yet, but I don't know why somebody couldn't develop a similar kit to put on the front bumper that could warn about traffic ahead, lane drifting, etc.

A <$100 kit that can retrofit my old beater with some modern features would be money very well spent to protect a multi-thousand dollar asset, personal injury, and liability.

I believe that all manufacturers are required to build in backup cameras now. Why not require all registered vehicles to be retrofitted?

Next up, auto-braking.

Damn dynamic pricing... now it's up to $30. :-)

Not if the system has so many bad drivers, and it does. We don't want automated cars driving badly too, just because some people are impatient or are just no good at driving.

I might do that when I can buy a reliable one used for less than $5000. Personally I don't have enough money where financing vehicles is a negligible expense. Did it once...not planning on doing it again.

>> I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself.

>Then clearly you need to get a car with better proximity detection systems.

As it was nearly a rear-end collision but not actually a read-end collision doesn't that mean that sithadmin's current collision detection system (whatever that may be) is adequate and functioning properly?

Yep, I called it. Humans will be the bugs in your code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14652382

Reply on news.ycombinator.com