10 ms·

What are you concerns? What should engineers in this space be considering?

pif 10y ago
Copying form an old comment of mine: - Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on. - Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). - Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on. - Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.
- tyingq 10y ago
  One I thought of when I encountered it the other day... Driving through a red light when it's obvious something's gone wrong with the traffic signal, and it's stuck on red. Harder than it seems at first, because other drivers at the intersection seem to make up the rules interactively, with you, via facial expressions and hand waving. There's also a fair amount of variables, like looking sideways to see if the cross traffic is also stuck on red or not.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    A broken traffic light seems no different than a 4 way stop once you've realised it's broken, and I'm pretty sure Waymo can handle those already.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      In my experience it's not the same, unless it's stuck red all four directions, and all the drivers understand that.
    - sbov 10y ago
      In California most lights have sensors, and the sensors themselves can break/not be properly calibrated. When you happen across this that means is certain lights will always be green, and others will always be red. It's mostly a problem with motorcycles, and I've had to go through my fair share of red lights late at night when no one was around, but I've also (rarely) had a problem with a car.
- 3chelon 10y ago
  - Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). Surely you're missing the point? With V2V comms there will never be a need to go backwards. All vehicle trajectories become 100% predictable (mechanical failure aside). The problem of massive trucks on narrow country roads (which we have a lot of in the UK) is solved by simple forward planning. Hell, the trucks could get even bigger, so long as there are passing places.
  - greedo 10y ago
    Autonomous vehicles can't rely upon V2V comms. There are far too many ways for such comms to degrade.
    - 3chelon 10y ago
      This kind of problem has long been solved in the mobile comms world by strong ECC codes and robust modems and channel coding algorithms. We routinely send autonomous vehicles into interplanetary space so I can't see that linking vehicles on a road is going to be a major blocker. Especially if they're on a redundant mesh network, or a smart highway.
      - brokenmachine 10y ago
        Not a lot of cross traffic in interplanetary space though... Maybe the odd supernova.
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        Except the cases where you're likely to meet a large vehicle on a one-way road are most likely to be in extreme rural situations, where cell-phone coverage is far from guaranteed. And if you expect you can force non-connected cars to not exist on rural roads sometime this century, you are delusional.
        3chelon 10y ago
- subpixel 10y ago
  I'd add: - disincentivizing investment and innovation in public transit
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Shared SDVs is the ultimate public transit system.
losteverything 10y ago
It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no substitute for this machine that affords is freedom control. Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.
- nickez 10y ago
  > Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.
  - losteverything 10y ago
    True. You can not understand the American family if you do not understand the car of the american family.
  - 3chelon 10y ago
    I agree fully. I have a car, but I commute on the train because I value being able to multitask. I spent half a lifetime stuck in traffic and hated every minute of it. The future cannot come soon enough for me.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      I have a car but commute to work by bicycle. On wet days I drive, but I find sitting in traffic worse than pulling teeth, so avoid it as much as I can. I enjoy driving (not in traffic), but autonomous cars would hopefully make my bicycle commute safer.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified? One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make. In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping. Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system). We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice. One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up... So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more. I'm obviously missing something... /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).

pif 10y ago

Copying form an old comment of mine: - Yielding to an emergency vehicle with sirens on. - Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). - Upon instructions from authority, recognize that the highway is closed due to an accident and, no matter what the driving code says, you actually have to make a U-turn on the highway and follow the crowd. Alternatively, just take that route (yes, the one with the large no-entry sign at the beginning) or that narrow path in the wood (yes, it exists, even if Google Maps isn't aware of it). At the bare minimum, park yourself off the road and let the others move on. - Verify whether a queue is forming behind you. Listen to the honkers, they may be right. When you are an obstacle to the most part of traffic, moving to the side and letting others pass from time to time is sincerely appreciated.

tyingq 10y ago
One I thought of when I encountered it the other day... Driving through a red light when it's obvious something's gone wrong with the traffic signal, and it's stuck on red. Harder than it seems at first, because other drivers at the intersection seem to make up the rules interactively, with you, via facial expressions and hand waving. There's also a fair amount of variables, like looking sideways to see if the cross traffic is also stuck on red or not.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  A broken traffic light seems no different than a 4 way stop once you've realised it's broken, and I'm pretty sure Waymo can handle those already.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    In my experience it's not the same, unless it's stuck red all four directions, and all the drivers understand that.
  - sbov 10y ago
    In California most lights have sensors, and the sensors themselves can break/not be properly calibrated. When you happen across this that means is certain lights will always be green, and others will always be red. It's mostly a problem with motorcycles, and I've had to go through my fair share of red lights late at night when no one was around, but I've also (rarely) had a problem with a car.
3chelon 10y ago
- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). Surely you're missing the point? With V2V comms there will never be a need to go backwards. All vehicle trajectories become 100% predictable (mechanical failure aside). The problem of massive trucks on narrow country roads (which we have a lot of in the UK) is solved by simple forward planning. Hell, the trucks could get even bigger, so long as there are passing places.
- greedo 10y ago
  Autonomous vehicles can't rely upon V2V comms. There are far too many ways for such comms to degrade.
  - 3chelon 10y ago
    This kind of problem has long been solved in the mobile comms world by strong ECC codes and robust modems and channel coding algorithms. We routinely send autonomous vehicles into interplanetary space so I can't see that linking vehicles on a road is going to be a major blocker. Especially if they're on a redundant mesh network, or a smart highway.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      Not a lot of cross traffic in interplanetary space though... Maybe the odd supernova.
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      Except the cases where you're likely to meet a large vehicle on a one-way road are most likely to be in extreme rural situations, where cell-phone coverage is far from guaranteed. And if you expect you can force non-connected cars to not exist on rural roads sometime this century, you are delusional.
      - 3chelon 10y ago
subpixel 10y ago
I'd add: - disincentivizing investment and innovation in public transit
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Shared SDVs is the ultimate public transit system.

losteverything 10y ago

It is all gut. No data. No logic. Cars == freedom. Freedom == control Freedom as in own Geographic control. When. Where and how we get places with that freedom. We control our freedom. Before furnaces we burned wood. Furnaces helped. We accepted them. But cars are different. An extension and expression of our freedom. Out health. Cars have been our best (& worst sometimes) friend as we used our freedoms. There is no substitute for this machine that affords is freedom control. Risking the loss Is where my gut says people will fight this.

nickez 10y ago
> Cars == freedom That is a very American statement. For me it is freedom not to have a car.
- losteverything 10y ago
  True. You can not understand the American family if you do not understand the car of the american family.
- 3chelon 10y ago
  I agree fully. I have a car, but I commute on the train because I value being able to multitask. I spent half a lifetime stuck in traffic and hated every minute of it. The future cannot come soon enough for me.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    I have a car but commute to work by bicycle. On wet days I drive, but I find sitting in traffic worse than pulling teeth, so avoid it as much as I can. I enjoy driving (not in traffic), but autonomous cars would hopefully make my bicycle commute safer.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified? One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make. In America, part of the reason we feel this way is because of our vast travel distances compared to other areas of the world; it isn't unknown for people to commute to work over 50 miles (80 km) one way. Or to travel that far to go shopping. Travelling to another state could easily be hundreds of miles and hours of travel. It would comparable to driving between countries in Europe (assuming a similar "interstate" freeway system). We want that freedom so that we can live where we want to live, shop where we want to shop, play where we want to play, and work where we want to work - and not have that dictated to us based on economic situation, geographic location, etc. If we want to live in the slums, and commute to the "rich part of town" to work (or vice-versa!) - even if the distance is fairly large - we want that kind of choice. One could argue about other forms of transportation - but those come with costs, and in the US we don't have great public transportation - and ultimately, you are chained to the decisions and whims of the transportation and other people using it; you can't decide where and when to go, and when to stop, or when to be picked up... So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? I can understand economic freedom (it's expensive to own a car - and even more so if you have to pay to store or park it), and I can understand the licensing argument - but in general, being limited to the alternative options seems to me to be less freedom, not more. I'm obviously missing something... /also - I like to go off-road - 4-wheelin' in the dirt and mud - can't do that without a vehicle (and currently, you can't do it with anything not IC powered that is available to consumers at a decent price - and I don't know if an autonomous ORV would be fun or not - but I can't wait for 4wd electrics that can be lifted and modded with big 44" mudders).