Hacker News Reader

Comment by dovdovdov | Hacker News Reader

I remember when we did lane image recognition in Matlab on uni, I felt like a master hacker. This was like 10 years ago.

Sure this is more advanced tech, but seriously, we should be far far further in the development of these.

I still have my tinfoil-hat hope that all these technologies are ready made and resting in a drawer, and companies are just milking the fossil fuel era as long as they can, and teasing us with this crappy progression meanwhile.

View on HN

There is no connection between electric engines and self-driving.

Except it's easier to control an all-electric vehicle with constant torque, no transmission, etc.

How would self-driving detract from fossil fuels? It should increase total demand for fuel.

Self-driving tech would make vehicle sharing much easier, which would in turn allow people to use vehicles properly sized for their current need.

In other words, people wouldn't need a big honkin' SUV or truck most of the time, and could ride around in something smaller with just the fuel range they need for that trip.

Also, traffic might get better. If everything became automated it might even be possible to eliminate traffic lights.

There would likely be vehicle sharing benefits, but self driving cars are apt to make traffic worse. Your average 8 lane freeway will still only be able to carry 11k cars an hour assuming everyone has minimal stopping distance & is driving at 40mph for ideal throughput.

Traffic lights are also unlikely to disappear, as self driving cars do not magically get perfect traction or stopping abilities, and they will have to share the road with the other humans that exist on our streets, whether they be pedestrians, bikers, joggers, skateboarders, etc.

In contrast, a light rail alignment can move 20k people an hour. It also won't reduce traffic, but it'll slow traffic growth by reducing latent transport demand and allow cities to remain economically viable as traffic increases.

The notion of traffic will probably shift if energy becomes cheap and navigation doesn't require human attention. You don't need shortest path, and can redirect flow freely in smaller places. Unless you're in a hurry.

Unlikely, at peak times most alternate routes are already at or above capacity, energy & navigation dropping in cost will not make more road capacity suddenly appear, and the point of diminishing returns with road capacity is very low. When you try to ignore that you end up like Atlanta, which is no joy.

Even with a light, the self-driving vehicles could use precise knowledge of the signal's timing to coast towards the intersection at just the right speed so that they don't have to fully stop and waste momentum.

The OP has it wrong. It wouldn't decrease fossil fuel use. But what it WOULD do is massively decrease the amount of cars that the world needs.

The average car spend 98% of the time unused, sitting in a garage or a parking lot. That is a lot of money that the car companies will lose when this technology hits mainstream.

Yes. And it would also massively decrease the number of parking spots that the world needs.

That is a lot of money that cities lose when this technology hits mainstream :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com