Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgv | Hacker News Reader

Self-driving cars can wait. Nothing of importance depends on it. But if it's regulated properly, and liability is where it should be, then introduction can come, in due time. Biotech is indeed a whole different can of worms.

> not honest mistakes in the code

It's not mistakes in the code, but oversight in the design that worries me.

View on HN

"Nothing of importance"

I would argue that the total amount of time spent driving is huge and that as humans, with limited lifespans, we could mostly use that time for better purpose. (Not necessarily for work. Even Netflix would be better.)

I personally live in a country where being carless is feasible, and given that I hate driving, I am indeed carless. But I feel sorry for anyone in my situation who really does not have much choice and must spend X hours weekly behind the wheel.

Oh you mean a thing you could solve by public transport and proper street planning?

Or reducing commute due to remote working in non physical labour?

I feel that there are a lot of simpler ways to address the issues at hand.

Yeah transformations like that litterally take decades and require public approval. And there absolutly no reason to believe the US is moving in that direction.

So sure, if you want to sit around and think 'I wish I lived in Netherlands'thats fine, but people actually have to live where they do.

And even if you started the most massive program of public and bike infrastructure, it would still be worthwil to develop this technology.

Transformations like self-driving cars have been taking over a hundred years.

> 'I wish I lived in Netherlands'

Don't have to.

Is rebuilding the U.S. of 2021 to a totally different modal split really simpler than self driving cars?

Even California's high speed rail seems to be languishing in limbo.

Simpler in concept maybe. In practice, I am not so sure.

Just one example: In SV we voted for a tax increase in 2000 for a Bart Extension to San Jose. If we're (really) lucky, we might get it in 2030 after spending ~$10B. The total distance is ~20mi with less than 10 stations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_BART_extension

> Self-driving cars can wait.

Absolutely not!

> Nothing of importance depends on it.

Lives of 35000 people a year does.

A question for you, and all self-driving safety proponents. If Tesla's FSD cars are so safe, why are they not taking the liability of the cars. Why have only a regular car insurance punted on to the owners? When the manufacturers of self-driving cars roll out liability of all owners, or taxi services with a monitoring driver with no liability, is the time when self-driving is actually available. Till then it is vaporware.

> why are they not taking the liability of the cars.

Because that's still incredibly costly. We as a society care greatly about a decrease in net risk, but that doesn't mean that net risk is small enough for one party to bear.

That makes so sense. When they say "it's safer than a human", that should definitely translate to a smaller insurance cost than a human driven car.

And it does. It just doesn't mean that one company can suddenly afford to be an insurer of tens of thousands of drivers.

If they make driving safer, they could insure cheaper and make more profit than existing insurance companies. Or they could collaborate with insurers to reduce the insurance cost for Tesla drivers, e.g. by underwriting the costs of deadly accidents, and splitting the profit. 35000 deaths, that's a lot of dough. A money making machine like Tesla must surely have thought of that, if it is remotely true.

Tesla still don't have a public FSD. All they have is traffic aware cruise control with lane assist + stop signs. And some other bits and pieces.

They may not have public FSD, but they do have public FSD capable cars! Hopefully that’s clear to all the consumers involved.

all our cars' hardware support some unspecified version of self driving software that doesn't exist; to use our version of self driving software you have to add this 10k piece, and while using this version of self driving software you'll have to be in control of the vehicle all the time.

So we should do absolutely nothing to improve the safety of cars (both for people inside and outside the vehicles) until magic self-driving cars provide the solution for all our problems?

There's plenty that can be done to make driving safer. Traffic calming measures. Stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Redesigning dangerous intersections. There's no need to wait for self-driving cars, and I suspect that you'll save far more lives by actually doing that stuff instead of hoping self-driving cars might solve the problem for you someday in the future.

Yep, and on another level of importance but still important within that level, untold hours of human idleness and boredom sitting behind the wheel. I think drudgery is not too strong a word.

Radar and AI does not fix the problem of cars being a dangerous way to travel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com