Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmbche | Hacker News Reader

Pretty certain computers weren't created to replace secretaries - it's just one of the ways computers changed the world.

Self driving is not even claiming it would have much of an effect of the world. A few points more efficient, cutting a bit of costs - not changing the human experience at it's core.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure the families of the 38k people who died in car crashes last year (US alone) would disagree with this not changing the human experience at it's core.

Let's not automatically assume that self-driving cars will be safer than the average driver in the foreseeable future.

Right now the best way to reduce car fatalities is reducing the number of cars by eliminating single family zoning mandates, building safe cycling infrastructure, improving public transit frequency, allowing mixed-use buildings and walkable neighborhoods.

Boring stuff, yes, but unlike self-driving cars, it is something we already know how to do.

What about actually making public transit usable? That doesn't require years of R&D and solving several "unknown unknowns".

Instead we get companies doing R&D of unproven technologies on public roads because no one wants to build more rail.

For some eye-popping numbers, check out the automotive deaths/100,000 people for the US (12.9) vs. Denmark (3.4)[1]. Denmark doesn't have some magical AI that makes all their cars safe, just better infrastructure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Public transit isn't usable because we don't build housing dense enough.

For example, Seattle area just spent tens of billions on light rail expansion, then built the outlying stations next to the freeway. Half the walkable distance is wasted. Then they build parking garages and zero amenities. They're surrounded by dangerous parking lot and multi-lane roads. It's not designed to actually be used by enough volume to matter! And even if people did come (which they won't) it can't handle more than a small portion of the existing traffic because it's too slow and can't be expanded and can't have express routes.

This is the best we get, for tens of billions!

The closest house to these stations is ~10 minute walk. There are massive parking garages, but basically no accommodations for bikes (paths upon arrival or parking). All ugly concrete slabs with no covering from the sun or elements (outside the station, for connecting transit).

Luckily it never rains here, so don't worry about getting wet...

Denmark has a much higher bar for obtaining a drivers license, both in terms of the education and demonstrated skill required, and the cost of the license.

If US drivers had to meet the same standards as Danish drivers in order to get a license, our roads would be a lot safer.

Another good solution that requires zero R&D.

It's frustrating to see traffic fatalities trotted out as a "the ends justify the means" justification for self-driving R&D budgets and practices as if there are no other solutions to the problem.

but in the US you have freedom of movement also most of the US is rural and driving is basically a right because if you don't you're a nobody and can't function. Ironically Japan is having an issue right now with lots of rural grandpas aging out of driving competently and having no alternative.

Freedom of movement doesn't mean freedom to operate any kind of machine anywhere you wish however you wish. Denying you a driver's license isn't denying you the ability to go between the states. Sure you can go from CA to NV, go take a bus or the train or fly in a plane or have a friend drive you or bounce over there on a pogo stick or roll in on a unicycle.

> If US drivers had to meet the same standards as Danish drivers in order to get a license, our roads would be a lot safer.

It probably wouldn't. A VERY high proportion of the most risky drivers on US roads are already driving illegally. For example, nearly 1/3 of drivers in Mississippi are driving around without insurance.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-uninsure...

If people are given a choice between driving illegally and going without basic necessities, they choose the former.

A lot of people end up in this situation because they are bad drivers with bad records, and can't afford the insurance, so they drive illegally. Functionally this is no different than if they weren't able to get a drivers license. They are still on the road.

Lax licensing is not the cause of bad drivers in the US. Both the bad drivers and the lax licensing is caused by a lack of transportation availability.

Well the other thing about Denmark and many other European countries is that cars are also much more expensive to buy, to own, to register, etc. so people who are on the verge of not having basic necessities certainly cannot afford a car. So the people who are driving are by and large people who have something to lose by flouting the law, which tends to make them act more responsibly.

One of the current weaknesses in public transit is that it requires a minimum population density before it becomes viable. The entire way we think about public transit today presumes that it makes sense to send a vehicle with many seats along a fixed route.

Self driving vehicles could be the innovation that makes public transit usable in non-dense areas. We could do dynamic routing based on the demand of the riders.

FSD doesn't mean that these deaths wouldn't have happenned.

There are other solutions to the problem - I'm sure you can come up with a few that are more satisfactory than changing all cars to being computer controlled.

Being able to have your car drop you at work, go back home and take your kids to school, then go back home and park could be a huge change to life as we know it.

It would also massively increase traffic compared to taking the school bus or walking, and compared to parking at work.

Traffic is mostly caused by bad drivers. Eliminate those, raise speed limits for robocars, and lanes can be narrowed/removed.

True that if all vehicles were autonomous and coordinated then traffic flows could be increased (though by how much is debatable). However, as with building more lanes, you run into the issue of induced demand, where as you speed things up more people want to do it so you are back to congestion.

Or you could simply not own a car anymore, but order two robotaxis to drive you to work and your kids to school at the same time (with optional carpooling to reduce costs) - that would reduce both traffic and the need for parking space.

the concept can be scaled up to something smaller than a bus (let's say 6 pax) that you hail like uber pool. As the technology becomes commoditized it can be applied by metro transit authorities to run smaller buses with much shorter headways.

It could drastically change so many aspects. The cost of transport could drop 10x or more (accounting for efficiency gains and longevity of EVs).

- Car ownership could end up eliminated except for those who really need dedicated work vehicles. - Goods and delivery costs plummet. - Cross-state/country trips eliminate short/medium haul flights (wake up at your destination). - People get thousands of hours back from commuting (in theory).

So many other knock-on effects similar to how smart phones changed every aspect of our lives.

Why "could" the cost of transport drop 10x? Transport costs, have on average, been trending upwards.

Because labor is expensive and has many practical limitations that cause high transportation costs. A self driving vehicle could do almost 3x the work of a human simply due to the fact that computers can work continuously without rest.

Also, highways with human drivers are highly wasteful of material and space. A smoothly flowing highway requires 80%+ of the space to be empty in order to account for the high latency in human decision making. This is expensive.

Cruise can't do 1x the work of a human. I don't think using imagination-tech statistics makes for a credible argument.

What else do you think research and development investment is?

This thread, and this entire topic, is a discussion about things that currently don't exist and aren't currently possible. We are all aware that self driving vehicles are future technology, not an existing one.

Research and development doesn't include arbitrary statistics. Let's not confuse irresponsible marketing with innovation.

I think you are confusing investment with innovation. The investment, and the marketing to raise those funds comes before any innovation might happen. The "big bet" that the title is referring to is the future innovation that everyone knows doesn't exist yet. The upside potential for innovation is the entire point of investing in R&D.

If you think that this upside potential is not very well defined, entirely hypothetical, and isn't even clear that it will even happen, you're entirely right. Investors call this "risk".

Perhaps listen to almost anything Sebastian Thrun has ever said about self-driving? He's very specific about eliminating human-caused driving fatalities. (He'll talk about other things but they're always framed as secondary benefits.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com