Hacker News Reader

Comment by walrus1066 | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I think you're right. We'd need to update a lot of our infrastructure to make it friendlier for these cars.

I should also add: - very fast mobile data, with no blackspots, so a remote driver can take over a car that's confused by a situation - a replacement for GPS, it's not reliable enough, the signal is far too weak - digital signal beacons embedded in lane markings, and edges of the road, and on traffic cones for roadworks

View on HN

Why should local municipalities foot the bill for adding beacons to stop lights, etc? I get trying to make infrastructure friendly towards self driving cars, but the general public should not be footing the bill for someone's life choice to buy such a vehicle.

Because if we do resolve these issues, our roads will be much, much safer with autonomous cars. 2k people die on the roads each year in the UK, multiples more sustain life long injuries. I was in an accident, which could have been prevented were it not for the 1 second it takes for a human to react to a situation.

This is important traffic infrastructure, just like visual traffic lights and asphalt. That said, it can be paid for my many actors.

> so a remote driver can take over a car

nope. nope.

Right. Just like we paint roads to tell humans (and camera driven cars) where the lanes are, we should have digital markings to tell self driving cars where the road is directly.

The remote takeover seems entirely separate, and both promising and terrifying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com