Hacker News Reader

Comment by manmal | Hacker News Reader

Commoditization of self-driving tech, yes; I don’t think car manufacturers will become (more) redundant, but eventually everybody‘s autonomous driving systems will either be hard to distinguish (like gasoline motor tech), or even completely regulated by legislation. Can legislators really allow that cars drive around with a system that is inferior to a competitor‘s? This will put eg every pedestrian‘s live at risk.

I‘m pretty sure self-driving tech will not be a big differentiator, just like airbags - almost every car has them, they are a given.

View on HN

> Can legislators really allow that cars drive around with a system that is inferior to a competitor‘s? This will put eg every pedestrian‘s live at risk.

They already do this with everything else. Vehicles like Mercedes and Tesla are significantly safer than some competitors. Legislation sets the floor, not the ceiling. Or at least it shouldn't create a ceiling.

And it's also the case that SUVs and other large vehicles pose a greater risk to pedestrians and other motorists than smaller ones, but legislators haven't done anything about that.

> They already do this with everything else. Vehicles like Mercedes and Tesla are significantly safer than some competitors. Legislation sets the floor, not the ceiling. Or at least it shouldn't create a ceiling.

I think the difference is those are, for the most part, internal safety features for the car's driver and passengers, whereas self driving effects mostly people not in that automobile. Sure, there are some features in cars that aren't, but for the most part, a driver knows (should know) their vehicle, and someone driving a 1978 station wagon and someone else driving a 2018 Volvo won't make that much of a difference on the roadways. Driving a car with a bad autonomous mode vs. a car with a good autonomous mode could be a significantly bigger difference for pedestrians and other drivers than older and newer cars.

2018 will be much heavier, bigger, with poorer visibility thanks to huge crash and rollover resistant A, B and C pillars. It will also have passed the pedestrian impact tests and have enormously better brakes and handling. So even though heavier it'll stop a lot quicker, and do less serious damage to a pedestrian at town speeds.

That's quite apart from any safety features like air bags or ABS.

The big A pillars make it harder to see pedestrians though. Wonder if net injuries are actually reduced?

What about safety differences that don't affect pedestrians and other such (nigh-)stationary objects?

For instance, I could easily imagine that some cars might have more powerful kinematic-prediction software+processors and therefore are able to use smaller safety margins, allowing for more aggressive/liberal driving-behaviors than would be possible to safely perform in self-driving systems that aren't so well-endowed.

(Then again, depending on how good the first batch of general-purpose self-driving systems are, it may be possible that traffic safety margins among the self-drivers will be reducible enough that even the base models are "good enough" for anyone who doesn't encounter too many meatbag-drivers on their commute.)

I'm pretty sure the 78 car is way more likely to kill someone

>Sure, there are some features in cars that aren't, but for the most part, a driver knows (should know) their vehicle, and someone driving a 1978 station wagon and someone else driving a 2018 Volvo won't make that much of a difference on the roadways.

Brakes, handling, visibility - better car - better response - safer for others. Also being lighter lowers potential damage impact. Not to mention stuff like sleep at the wheel detection etc.

Except that cars have mostly been getting heavier since the 80s... And electrics even moreso.

Since this touches on the safety of old vs new cars, I'd just like to leave this link to an "old vs new" crash test video here for anyone who might not have seen it before. https://youtu.be/C_r5UJrxcck

Historical vehicular deaths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_...

As an aside, strangely the Great Recession apparently improved safety during, even when adjusting for miles traveled.

The 2000s were a big era for improved safety. The NHSTA began studying and testing a wider variety of different crashes events and used ATDs (crash test dummies) designed to simulate women and children. Side-impact airbags became mandatory equipment in the USA in 2007 and electronic stability control in 2008.

It's not something people realize because they think car safety improvements slowed/stopped once airbags became widespread. But really, the mid 2000s are when cars began to get very safe. By 2011, the NHSTA had to make their star rating system much more strict because nearly every car had a achieved a five star rating.

That's also when Euro tests changed significantly. The difference between cars this century and earlier is night and day.

A Volvo 940 from about 1993 head on at 80mph with a 2004 Renault Modus - the first small car to get 5 stars in the new Euro tests.

I would have bet on the Volvo. No. Dramatically no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

Just from a metrics geek POV: why didn't they add more stars instead of renorming the scale? Progress in car safety would have been more apparent had the scale gone unchanged.

The wanted the current standards to seem normative. This makes it much harder to roll them back.

Couldn’t the floor be a bit higher?

I’m also not sure why everyone hasn’t adopted the Toyota model of including basic safety tech in all trims...

> Couldn’t the floor be a bit higher?

Sure, but that's what actually happens over time. First airbags are introduced, then we get some evidence that they actually work, more manufacturers introduce them and we get even more evidence, then eventually the law requires them.

It's necessary to be deliberative before mandating things because not everything is a good idea, e.g. automatic seatbelts in the 90s.

How long has that been going on? I'm looking at buying a Sienna but needed to buy new because they introduced their Toyota safety sense on all their trims for 2018 only.

It’s a new thing, maybe since 2017? Regardless, I think it’s the right way to do it.

I’ve been wondering how much of a business decision this was, rather than a moral one. A cost-benefit analysis must have been completed that found the sweet spot for a bulk purchase of the safety cameras and how many more additional customers it would attract to purchase their cars.

There seems to be a total lack, from our regulators/politicians about even establishing a floor on self-driving car. That certainly will go well.

The only Tesla safety numbers I have seen have come from Tesla. Do you have any independent numbers?

https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2018/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/4%252...

Look at car safety. You have to pass a benchmark test but after that it’s up to the OEM to go as high as they want.

> Can legislators really allow that cars drive around with a system that is inferior to a competitor‘s? This will put eg every pedestrian‘s live at risk.

As if anyone actually cares about people outside the car.

I know the prevailing view on HN is that drivers don't give a shit about pedestrians and cyclists, and I'm willing to believe it's true that drivers are not often penalized for injuring them, but are most drivers really that bad?

I'm not a terribly conscientious person, but I'm definitely worried and raise my level of caution any time I see pedestrians standing near the street or when I pass a cyclists. I know that they will be seriously injured if I hit them, and I really don't want that to be my fault. even if it isn't my fault (or if it is, but not in a way that a court will find me responsible), I am quite afraid of having to go through the whole legal process that could ensue.

>I'm willing to believe it's true that drivers are not often penalized for injuring them, but are most drivers really that bad?

Most drivers? I'm guessing not. Many drivers, however? I believe so. It doesn't take that large a percentage of the driving population for uncaring/bad drivers to cause havoc, and make it very unsafe for you to be around them. For instance, if you're a bicyclist on a busy highway, many hundreds of cars could pass you on one trip. It only takes one of those who hates cyclists to run you off the road (yes, this actually happens sometimes, in some places).

People really don't care. It's not so much a callous -- "I could see this guy die in front of me without batting an eye." It's more that all the stuff you mentioned: injuries, an incident being your fault, court dates, etc. legitimately never enters their head. They do not picture that someone might be on a bicycle in their blind spot until someone is.

I think it probably changes when people have children, because they can imagine their child being hit, which helps to make that connection. For most drivers without children, yes really, they do not think of that stuff.

i guess it's just my anxiety showing then. probably not a bad thing in this case.

If you, knock on wood, end up accidentally hitting a pedestrian hen you suddently care A LOT.

Additionally it spreads risk/reward. You’re using the ‘standard’ industry system, not some bespoke thing. So you’re negligent because you’re ‘behind’. You can’t be ‘behind’.

You can’t leap way ahead, but what are the chances of any one automaker doing that at this point? Unless you’ve already had a program going for years under very heavy investment it may be too late to catch up let alone lead.

Not just commoditization of self-driving tech. Many people will switch from buying cars to hailing self-driving taxis. And nobody really cares about the brand, styling or horsepower of the taxi they take to work. To that degree each manufacturer faces erosion of their competitive advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com