4 ms·
I must be missing something, because it seems like Mr. Mindell is saying cars shouldn't be fully driverless because they can't be. He cites numerous examples o
by Zikes 11y ago
I must be missing something, because it seems like Mr. Mindell is saying cars shouldn't be fully driverless because they can't be. He cites numerous examples of other promised automation technologies that seem to have become a pipe dream over the past several decades.
Except, Google's driverless cars have now logged over a million fully automated miles. It is a proven technology. These aren't exploratory machines going where no human has gone before, they're out there on the road doing what we've all been doing for a hundred years already.
I get the impression this article is just a shill for his book.
- sandworm101 11y agoI would suggest that Google cars haven't logged any driverless miles, at least not on public roads. They have humans onboard with backup controls (parking brakes if nothing else). So they are not driverless just yet.
- ekianjo 11y agoa human not touching the wheel in most situations is a human that is NOT in control.
- sandworm101 11y agoHands off the wheel does not mean not in control if you can put those hands back on the wheel instantly. Take the hands off the wheel, get in the back seat, and take a nap. That's what I would call a driverless car. The "hands not on wheel" argument has been made by many a defendant. Courts don't buy it anymore. If you are in the driver seat, inches from the controls, then you are responsible for the motion of the vehicle. Which is why you can be charged for drunk driving even though the car never moved. In the seat or at the controls = in control = not driverless.
- nemothekid 11y agoThis is an incredibly pedantic definition and has nothing to do with what Google is doing. Google's car has logged driverless hours - despite where a human can be sitting. Are you seriously implying that a human sitting in the driver seat is controlling the car without touching it? If its not driverless, how is the car navigating? Through psychic powers?
- sandworm101 11y agoThey are "driverless" from an internal software or technology perspective. The car is making itself move. But they are not driverless from an external/legal view. There is still a person in there that is held responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle. When things go wrong, that person will still be answerable a the driver. I seriously doubt Google is sending out "drivers" without proper licenses. Equally, I cannot imagine any court dismissing a traffic ticket on the basis that the car, the robot, was the one committing the crime.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoIn context of this discussion we're evaluating the technical drivelessness, not legal one, so Google cars and the hours they logged qualify.
- sandworm101 11y agoI'll take that under advisement so long as everyone on HN promises not to use "driverless" in the context of legal, ethical, or moral debates re google cars. The term is ubiquitous from Google no matter the context. It is their stated goal. Other companies fear any suggestion that they will field driveless cars anytime soon. I smell PR.
- snowwrestler 11y agoI disagree; I think sandworm nailed an essential issue. At the top of this subthread, Zikes claimed that Google's cars are a "proven technology." Not even Google claims that now, and legality is indeed part of that. Driverless elevators are an example of an actual proven technology. There's no human operator standing by to jump on the manual brake in case the automation fails. And if a driverless elevator does fail and causes harm, the elevator's manufacturer can be sued for damages. Now, the idea of a "driverless" elevator seems like a silly name for just a regular elevator, but I chose that for a reason. Elevators used to have drivers, and people are already drawing the comparisons to cars: http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-driverless-elevators-drew-skepticism http://www.npr.org/2015/07/31/427990392/remembering-when-dri... Is Google willing to assume the same type of liability for their self-driving cars? Certainly not right now, so it's hard to call their technology fully proven.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- krapp 11y ago> they're out there on the road doing what we've all been doing for a hundred years already. Unless we've been driving in the rain. Or with the sun in our eyes. Or somewhere besides California.
- Anechoic 11y agoGoogle's driverless cars have now logged over a million fully automated miles. It is a proven technology. Not even Google engineers go that far - see this Tech Review article [0] from last years that talks about how Google's driverless cars can't handle snow, heavy rain, or its sensors being blinded by the sun. Driverless cars may be coming, but it's still along way off. [0] http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles...
- Houshalter 11y agoThat's just a matter of improving sensors. The point is that cars already exist that can drive just fine without getting into accidents.