Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport | Hacker News Reader

Driverless cars promise to reduce accidents, revolutionise transport

economist.com

47 pointstokenadult61 comments

With driverless cars, the largest expense of taxis - the driver - disappears.

The driver of a taxi needs to make enough in a day to cover the periods when there are no fares, or travel from a low fare-density area back to the high fare-density areas (and in some regions with ridiculously constrained supply of taxis via "badges" or other such anti-competitive pro-monopoly legislation, to pay the ridiculous fee to just operate a cab).

With the drivers removed, you now have a fleet of taxis that can run 24 hours a day (minus maintenance etc.), cost zero to just sit and wait for a fare, and can be managed and coordinated easily to migrate across the changing fare-density regions throughout the day.

If the price and convenience goes down enough, various groups of people stop needing cars. They just use the "get me a cab" app on their smartphone (or just use the regular telephone) to get a cab when they need it. If this creates a positive feedback loop of cheaper & more convenient -> more people using it -> more taxis deploted -> cheaper & more convenient etc., then in some high-population areas, owning a car will become an unnecessary extravagance.

Operated automatically gives scope for further savings; heading from point A to point C via B, and someone in B is also going to C? You'll get offered a "share this ride for this discount" option.

All this leads, hopefully, to fewer cars needed to provide the same number of journeys, at lower cost. So, how do I go about shorting the car manufacturers? :p

You forgot to mention another consequence, the return of the Luddites

The majority of Westeners know the following about cars; turn the wheel thing to pick a direction, push one pedal to go faster and one to go slower. Some of them also know how to operate the stick thingy. Removing this tiny scrap of knowledge is hardly returning to Ludditehood.

Not, but removing hundreds of thousands of taxi/truck drivers will do it

The licensing medallion is the largest expense of taxis in many markets

I'm fully convinced self-driving cars will be sold commercially within the next 10 years. However, it is going to be a very long time until they are allowed on the road sans human (even if they are self-driven 99% of the time, I'm positive legislation will require a human behind the wheel at all times and car makers will have to attempt to enforce this technically), which puts a serious dent in your taxi plan.

You're right long term, but self-driving cars that are allowed to drive without any human behind the wheel is more like a 50 years out thing, IMO. Part of this is just cultural and political, and part of it is due to real technical challenges (there are still going to be extraordinary driving situations in which the obvious thing to do would be clear to any reasonable human but not an autonomous car without serious general purpose AI).

"there are still going to be extraordinary driving situations in which the obvious thing to do would be clear to any reasonable human but not an autonomous car without serious general purpose AI"

I believe that any such situation that could not be dealt with by simply coming to a safe halt is currently very badly handled by humans. I believe that they could be better handled with the _current_ state of the art, let alone advances we see over the next few decades.

I'm not arguing that they could be perfectly handled; just that the machines can do better than the average meat-bag.

Even simply coming to a safe halt is problematic. What if some troll traps a self-driving car with a few empty cardboard boxes?

It stays still until someone removes them. If it's a cab it's more than likely to simply call for help.

And while it is still, it is now an obstacle for other empty self driving cars. Soon the troll has blocked an entire intersection or freeway using a combination of empty boxes and other trapped self-driving cars.

You underestimate the effort a good troll would be willing to put into this.

There are lots of simple things that one could do to a roadway to impede or endanger traffic. Consider, for example, the danger of leaving something sharp or slick on a tight turn where people often speed.

I've thought about this for a few years, and as near as I can tell it's either much harder than it seems, or there are fewer vandals than I'd have expected.

the real test of driverless cars comes shortly after they start to become widely used. A driverless car will be forced into a trolley problem situation. That is, it will have to choose between hitting two things without the option to hit neither. Expect extreme scrutiny in the ensuing legal case.

At least we'll be able to reliably determine the reason, and fix it if necessary, rather than relying on human testimony.

>You're right long term, but self-driving cars that are allowed to drive without any human behind the wheel is more like a 50 years out thing, IMO.

Why not just outsource the driver to, say Eastern Europe, Mexico or India? Rent out a room, buy bunch of computers, screens, tables, chairs, and then hire a bunch of "virtual drivers" with enough experience on the road to control those vehicles remotely. Furthermore, program the car to stop on the side of a road in case should it lose the wireless connectivity. I guess the ping could be a problem, but haven't most of the people driving on the roads today got slower reactions to events than 100-150ms? Later on, as the tech progresses, teach the software to direct the driving to that virtual driver on hold only when the "AI" wasn't be able to figure out the current situation.

I think the biggest problem with adoption is going to be integrating them into traffic. A car that obeys the speed limits and follows at a safe distance is going to have issues driving in someplace like Los Angeles. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. For instance, what happens when other more agressive drivers learn that they can just cut off driverless cars and the software will just happily slow down to let them pass? It's a really interesting problem set.

I guess, but the saving grace is that the passengers of such cars are less likely to care, unless they're in some special rush.

I mean, if I had one, I would be reading or working or talking to someone, and might not even notice a few extra minutes transit time. It'd be like riding public transit minus the inconveniences (noise, strangers, waiting).

The shifting in perception of cars is interesting. It's almost like auto-automobiles are giving us hours of lifetime back.

I stopped caring much about extra minutes on the road when cruise control became standard equipment - years ago. When I drive a car without cruise I tend to be competitive and aggressive, but with cruise I set it and chill out. People may pass but I no longer care.

Bring on the Google cars and I'll detach completely.

The other side effect is that the driverless cars behaving like that will help reduce congestion! See the experiments and data at http://trafficwaves.org - note he does talk about "aggressive" drivers taking advantage and how effective it actually is.

And all these self driving cars have cameras and black boxes. It would be simple to prove that someone (or something) has been driving like a dick. That isn't illegal yet ...

This might become a great transition technology. But leaves many problems unsolved: 1. All the issues surrounding fuel-burning engines OR all the issues surrounding huge and expensive batteries. 2. An inherent lack of energy efficiency. The payload/car-weight ratio is typically 1/10 or worse. 3. Cars are very expensive, they take a lot of space and require roads that take even more space. 4. Cars are not safe.

Driverless cars really only solve (4) and have small advantages in terms of fuel efficiency and congestion. A network of Driverless taxis should be much cheaper than owning a car, since these cars will be utilized heavily throughout the day. An even better approach would be an automatically dispatched shared-taxi system that would group passengers that want to go to close destinations.

I wonder why there isn't more effort directed towards Personal-Rapid-Transport system. i.e.small electric carts on dedicated lanes (or lines, or rails), with low weight and no battery. Like a packet-switched version of the train system. Such systems can be highly automatic, very energy-efficient and provide convenient rides relatively cheaply. It looks like we have had all the technology required to do it for at least 30 years. It seems that the only thing stopping this type of technology from being developed is that it requires someone with a lot of capital and guts who's not afraid of dealing with a regulatory nightmare. Unfortunately there aren't that many Elon Musks out there.

Here are some specialized PRT systems in use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit#Existing...

The article outlines some (current) limitations in the car's judgement when evaluating the dangerosity of an object ahead. If/when this becomes mainstream, how long until pranksters and terrorists find ways to leverage limitations and cause accidents?

That's an interesting thought. Driverless cars could also be used for targeted assassinations by provoking deadly accidents. Of course, it can be done with regular cars except that whoever causes the accident has to be willing to put his life on the line.

In theory, accidents provoked by these cars would be standouts in a history of safety.

Is causing accidents in self-driving cars going to be any more a target than causing accidents in human-driven cars? Seems you could already wreak a lot of havoc with rush-hour traffic if you really wanted to. Blinding/distracting drivers, obstacles, maybe little bombs?

Well, since self-driving cars are new and don't have the protection of an earlier history of precedents, then yes, they will be much bigger legal targets. The whole overblown spontaneous acceleration incidents would be a good pointer.

Driverless trucks with no passengers will totally be targets for vandalism and theft.

I'd say no more than 50 years before driving by hand becomes illegal in most places, especially large cities. The benefits will just become too obvious.

The likelihood of the Teamster's union allowing (i.e., not obstructing) driverless cargo hauling to succeed in the US would be close to zero.

I think they would be beaten by the tactic that killed Fleet Street (where newsprinters got rid of all their personnel by moving their business, but leaving outdated personnel such as typesetters behind. See http://www.mediauk.com/article/32718/the-fleet-street-revolu...): secretly buy your driverless trucks, and replace all your drivers overnight. That way, you won't have employees that can strike against the change.

I wouldn't be surprised if the trucking companies are able to offer them a competitive wage for acting as freight minders.

They might even end up with similar pay for less total hours away from home.

What freight would there be to mind that isn't minded already today? The only thing I can think of is the freight on the driverless cars, but I do not see how that would lead to "less total hours away from home"

A trucker is only allowed to drive a certain number of hours a day, mostly because they are supposed to rest. If they aren't driving, they can sleep while the truck is moving.

=> trucks will make more hours a day driving

=> we need need fewer trucks

=> we need fewer drivers minding those fewer trucks

I fail to see what would make truck owners offer 'competitive salaries' given that there will likely be X>1 truck drivers competing for each 'truck minder' job, and that the job requires fewer qualifications (drivers do the minding today, and future minders will not need a drover's license)

I love the idea of driverless cars; it is nevertheless important to note that hacking might replace drunk driving as the #1 cause of deaths on the road.

I wonder how those cars will perform in places like Hanoi or Nanchang. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oetF3UTIwbc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aodbmS_43M

Hopefully there can be more public transport. The problem at the moment with most public transport is that it requires a human driver. That makes it relatively expensive for the transport of one or two people, or even 8 people. Some places have a partial solution (with driver) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi

The main reason for owning transport is because it guarantees availability when you need it, especially where you are and where you want to go. You pay quite a bit extra for that, and it does get inconvenient (having to park away from where you want to be, dealing with traffic, insurance, maintenance etc).

Mobile infrastructure is very good in places like you mention (good coverage, low price) so this is solvable.

They can also cut our balls once and for all and put us out of our misery.

So much is spent pursuing "safety" and squeezing that extra minute of "productivity" that everyone is forgetting to live their lives as human beings.

I don't see the connection between driving and "living my life as a human being", or the connection between riding in an automated vehicle and "having my balls cut".

Human identity has nothing to do with driving. I can't wait until I don't have to do it anymore.

I generally disagree with the GP post, but I think automated cars will almost certainly result in more closely monitored and controlled travel.

No more so than already exists by almost everybody carrying a mobile phone.

At least you can smash it with a rock and continue to go where you want to go, when you want and how you want.

By not knowing how to drive something, you are losing an important ability. Your reach will be 3 or 4 miles at most, and over time this passive "I just want to [_____], do it for me" mentality sets in.

And for what? just not to drive? to have more 20min available to check your Twitter stream?

Remember, you are choosing to be ignorant in a very important aspect of modern live, and i guess only those who at some point were deprived of it realize their importance.

Seriously? Most of the world's population doesn't drive a car. It's not good for very long distances and not good for very dense urban areas where traffic is slow and parking is lacking. It can't drive in rural areas (unless you have a sturdy jeep) and it costs a lot of money. Also, it has a non-negligible probability to kill you along the way.

The modern car is not some one-true solution to transportation, it's great success in the US has a lot to do with the patterns of suburban sprawl and to destruction of the rail system by the car manufacturers.

I suspect the car is going out of fashion as people move more and more into dense cities.

Most of the world's population doesn't drive a car because they can't afford one.

"I suspect the car is going out of fashion as people move more and more into dense cities."

Really? millions and millions of chinese people moved to massive urban areas and the first thing they buy when they earn some money is a car or a motorcycle, making China the biggest auto market in the world around 2010/11. Pretty much the same pattern with the "BRIC"s

Look, everywhere outside the same old cosmopolitan places where the reality distortion field is too strong, people will own a car and they will make roads and bridges so they can happily drive them.

I hate driving and can't wait to get my hands on such a car. I've got far more interesting things to be doing with my time than staring at a road. Don't you?

You are hating a mechanism that allows you to live the life you have now ( which might be pretty good compared to 95% of the population ).

If you hate it so much, why not replacing it with electrons aka the Internet?

Do you even understand the concept of "trade-off" ?

The act of driving does not allow me to live the life I have now. The act of travelling does.

I don't understand your claim that the act of staring at a road and pulling leavers is somehow beneficial to me, or anybody else.

The act of you BEING ABLE to. Thats the point i was making in the first post.

I want the right to be able to walk around a busy city centre swinging a baseball bat randomly at head hight. I know it's dangerous and pointless, but if you don't let me do it, you may as well castrate me. It's all about freedom man!

Sound ridiculous to you? Now you understand why you sound ridiculous to me.

Yes, because driving a car is "dangerous and pointless" so that baseball thing it's a perfect analogy.

Since you are at it, lets talk about pre-crime too.

Driving a car is dangerous and pointless, if it can be done better by a computer...

You seem to think your rights are infringed if you are prevented from staring at a road and pulling some levers. Well, my rights are infringed if you're allowed to choose to risk my life by driving manually on the same road as me. You don't get to make that choice.

This discussion seems to be unimportant anyway. I am happily convinced that things will turn out the way I want them to when the technology matures. You will not be able to risk my life by manually driving your car on the same road as me and my robot car. And if that makes you feel like less of a man, then maybe you need to re-prioritise what's important to you.

Ohh those mean cars with their dangerous levers! Risking my live every single day, tearing apart my hyper self preservation illusions so carefully developed over the years, also bees, their are evil.

Lets restrict and regulate other people's abilities so i can sleep at night knowing that there is not a single chance anything happens to me that i didn't approve before hand and if that super smart computer that drives 100% better that humans 100% of the time ever fails, i can just sue their asses and feel instantly better with my self.

btw, no skating on the side walk, you might touch me.

About 40,000 Americans die in road accidents a year. 90% of those due to human error. If you think that your freedom to mindlessly stare at some tarmac is worth 36,000 dead Americans every year, that's your right. Good luck trying prevent the inevitable. More realistically, good luck whining about your freedoms on the Internet.

Finally! the ad-hoc statistics card was played and it came attached with the "but think of the children" postcard too.

btw, if someday you feel the need to stop pulling out stats of your ass, here it is:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/m...

Are you drunk? Not only did I not mention children, but the documentation at the link you yourself provided, backs up my stats...

What's so special about driving? It's a task that has only been available to humans for a century.

And look where we are now compared to every single century...

We've made large leaps in the last century, but I think deodorant is a bigger factor than motor vehicles. It came to prominence around the same time we started making big progress. Coincidence? I think not.

Sure, especially when all the ingredients composing a deodorant can are extracted, synthesized and produced by magical gnomes that ship their product directly to you using highly efficient automated unicorns receiving 5 bars of 4G pretty much everywhere in the world.

That's horn antenna technology at work.

Industrialization made cars finally feasible, not the other way around. It takes cleverness and tinkering to maintain a car (less so when new), but operating it is not a human-level task; I'm pretty sure a monkey could be trained to do it.

Real men ride horses, everyone knows that!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com