Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldgregg | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting to me that the cars are legal under California law. It means they could theoretically partner with car makers to sell it as an expensive option -- advanced cruise control. Much less scary sounding than automated vehicles. Once you get enough early adopters on the road it seems like the public opinion would likely shift pretty quickly -- is there anything people resent more than driving?

View on HN

> ...is there anything people resent more than driving?

I for one absolutely love driving; it's the traffic-filled commutes to and from the office every day that I resent. If I could optionally automate the driving for times when I don't want to be driving, ie, in highway traffic jams, on long road trips, or when I'm tired, then I would gladly pay extra for the option.

This is exactly how I feel, and I think it plays right into the "Advanced Cruise Control" perspective. A mode that one might use on highways (whether on a long trip or stuck in stop-and-go traffic), where there are much lower risks of unexpected pedestrians/bicyclists/blind driveways/etc (and thus lower liability risks).

Also, I have to add that this is the kind of research that I love that Google is doing. I might not love everything they do, but I don't think there are more than a handful of corporations actually pushing things forward with far-out, jump-into-the-deep-end projects the way they are.

Surely "when I'm tired" is one of the situations in which this tech should not be used. In Australia, for example, where long-distance driving is common, fatigue is one of the biggest contributors to road accident statistics.

Apart from the risk of someone actually falling asleep while the car is on auto-pilot, anything that reduces one's alertness over the duration of a drive makes this technology more dangerous (which is not to categorise it as dangerous).

The road recognition features would deal with simple cases like drifting out of lane but not so much in built-up areas or around unpredictable drivers. I think a big part of safe driving is adapting to accommodate the behaviour of other road users. Hopefully some tech will be developed in this area such as recognising inappropriate signalling, drifting out of lane, tailgating (ahead) etc.

I really like the "Advanced Cruise Control" branding idea--it makes the concept much more palatable to frame it that way. I hope whoever introduces this runs with that idea.

I would guess car rental companies would be a better first partner, they already put cameras in their car. A lot of the videos you see on youtube, with drivers crashing thanks to behaviour which could get them a Darwin award, are from rental cars.

Then they could partner with FedEx, UPS, or DHL.

Then car manufactures can put in optional parental override, but a better marketing name would be computer assist. Especially for old people, they wouldn't get computer override, they'd have computer assist.

And a few years after that, when the statistic are in and computer driven cars are much, much, much less likely to kill anyone then human driven cars. Even after you discount drivers under the influence. Then we'll see political pressure to have computer "assistance" in every car.

It means they could theoretically partner with car makers to sell it as an expensive option -- advanced cruise control.

The first uses will probably involve traffic between large distribution centers located out in the suburbs/exurbs. To begin with, the trucks could park themselves at a staging area out on the tarmac, and a human driver could go out and bring the truck to the loading dock. The USPS, UPS, and Fedex could be the first big customers along with Walmart.

It's worth noting that they are already starting to do this in very small ways. Many high end cars will now automatically apply the brakes if you get too close to the car in front of you on the highway, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com