7 ms·

> Even if self-driving cars are confined to US highways... Self-driving cars "confined" to anywhere are not self-driving cars, because you obviously need a hum

by bambax 10y ago

> Even if self-driving cars are confined to US highways... Self-driving cars "confined" to anywhere are not self-driving cars, because you obviously need a human driver to get to and from that special place.

nordsieck 10y ago
... unless your entire life fits inside that special place, in which case they're good enough.
- Firadeoclus 10y ago
  Indeed. It's easy to imagine urban centres replacing internal traffic with a fleet of self-driving cars. If you're coming from somewhere else, park & ride.
morgante 10y ago
Nice selective quoting. Millions of cars spend their entire existence confined to US highways, cities, and suburbs. In what way is a car not self-driving if it can successfully drive you on you everywhere you go in your daily life? You don't "obviously" need a human driver if the car is used entirely in that "special place" (ie. where most cars spend their entire existence). Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming cell phones aren't truly mobile because you can't use them in Antarctica.
- babyrainbow 10y ago
  > if it can successfully drive you on you everywhere you go in your daily life? Well, simply because I don't know everywhere "I would have to go in my daily life" when I am buying the damn car. >Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming cell phones aren't truly mobile because you can't use them in Antarctica. By that logic, your argument also makes only as much as sense as calling a walkie talkie with 100m range a mobile phone.
  - wrsh07 10y ago
    So many people get by without owning a car that if you have to go somewhere where your existing car doesn't work (for whatever reason) you'll be just fine You can rent or take a cab or an uber. I don't own a car. I get around just fine at home or when traveling.
    - babyrainbow 10y ago
      Which bring us back to the original question. Why the need for self driving cars? If your time for commute is that much valuable, just hire a driver or call a taxi. Like most people who's time is actually valuable, have been doing for years... Quite honestly, it is quite a joke when people on HN brag about how "valuable" their time is....
      - wrsh07 10y ago
        Why? Okay let's make a list * Safety - they'll be safer. Period. * It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough? * It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit) * They damn near already exist.
        babyrainbow 10y ago
        > Safety - they'll be safer. Period. No. I don't think so. Not in the foreseeable future at least.. >* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough? I don't know or care. >It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit) Well, why do you think the providers will reduce the cost? They can always add to their profit, instead of making the service cheaper. >* They damn near already exist. So does cold fusion.
        chaosphere2112 10y ago
        >> Safety - they'll be safer. Period. > No. I don't think so. Not in the foreseeable future at least.. According to the NHTSA[1], they already are. >>* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough? > I don't know or care. The point is that they're dumping money into the tech for their own purposes, regardless of effectiveness as a consumer product >> It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit) > Well, why do you think the providers will reduce the cost? They can always add to their profit, instead of making the service cheaper. I sure hope they do; I'd doubt any of those comapanies make any profit as is. And again, they'll be willing to spend lots of money on the cars, making them a viable product without the consumer market. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/19/nhtsas-full-final-investigation-into-teslas-autopilot-shows-40-crash-rate-reduction/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/19/nhtsas-full-final-investig...
dwd 10y ago
There's a lot of places a normal car can't go as well. You would think a level 5 autonomous car would not try this; unlike some human drivers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzGaGuNDq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzGaGuNDq0
- dagw 10y ago
  How would an autonomous car go about judging water depth?
  - mulletbum 10y ago
    Sensors on the bottom of the car and in the tires? Image mapping. There will also be hazard protection as other cars can talk to your car too.
  - baddox 10y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the advice to humans to never cross a water-covered road? I thought the idea is that it is dangerous to try to judge the depth.
    - dwd 10y ago
      Yes - depth and water speed. There's also the issue that the road may have subsided or completely washed away.

by bambax 10y ago

nordsieck 10y ago

... unless your entire life fits inside that special place, in which case they're good enough.

Firadeoclus 10y ago
Indeed. It's easy to imagine urban centres replacing internal traffic with a fleet of self-driving cars. If you're coming from somewhere else, park & ride.

morgante 10y ago

Nice selective quoting. Millions of cars spend their entire existence confined to US highways, cities, and suburbs. In what way is a car not self-driving if it can successfully drive you on you everywhere you go in your daily life? You don't "obviously" need a human driver if the car is used entirely in that "special place" (ie. where most cars spend their entire existence). Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming cell phones aren't truly mobile because you can't use them in Antarctica.

babyrainbow 10y ago
> if it can successfully drive you on you everywhere you go in your daily life? Well, simply because I don't know everywhere "I would have to go in my daily life" when I am buying the damn car. >Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming cell phones aren't truly mobile because you can't use them in Antarctica. By that logic, your argument also makes only as much as sense as calling a walkie talkie with 100m range a mobile phone.
- wrsh07 10y ago
  So many people get by without owning a car that if you have to go somewhere where your existing car doesn't work (for whatever reason) you'll be just fine You can rent or take a cab or an uber. I don't own a car. I get around just fine at home or when traveling.
  - babyrainbow 10y ago
    Which bring us back to the original question. Why the need for self driving cars? If your time for commute is that much valuable, just hire a driver or call a taxi. Like most people who's time is actually valuable, have been doing for years... Quite honestly, it is quite a joke when people on HN brag about how "valuable" their time is....
    - wrsh07 10y ago
      Why? Okay let's make a list * Safety - they'll be safer. Period. * It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough? * It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit) * They damn near already exist.
      - babyrainbow 10y ago
        > Safety - they'll be safer. Period. No. I don't think so. Not in the foreseeable future at least.. >* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough? I don't know or care. >It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit) Well, why do you think the providers will reduce the cost? They can always add to their profit, instead of making the service cheaper. >* They damn near already exist. So does cold fusion.
        chaosphere2112 10y ago
        >> Safety - they'll be safer. Period. > No. I don't think so. Not in the foreseeable future at least.. According to the NHTSA[1], they already are. >>* It's a natural extension for cos like uber - how else can they bring costs down enough? > I don't know or care. The point is that they're dumping money into the tech for their own purposes, regardless of effectiveness as a consumer product >> It meshes well with other aspects of tech reducing friction - deliveries will be cheaper (think dinner, groceries, taskrabbit) > Well, why do you think the providers will reduce the cost? They can always add to their profit, instead of making the service cheaper. I sure hope they do; I'd doubt any of those comapanies make any profit as is. And again, they'll be willing to spend lots of money on the cars, making them a viable product without the consumer market. [1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/19/nhtsas-full-final-investigation-into-teslas-autopilot-shows-40-crash-rate-reduction/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/19/nhtsas-full-final-investig...

dwd 10y ago

There's a lot of places a normal car can't go as well. You would think a level 5 autonomous car would not try this; unlike some human drivers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzGaGuNDq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgzGaGuNDq0

dagw 10y ago
How would an autonomous car go about judging water depth?
- mulletbum 10y ago
  Sensors on the bottom of the car and in the tires? Image mapping. There will also be hazard protection as other cars can talk to your car too.
- baddox 10y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the advice to humans to never cross a water-covered road? I thought the idea is that it is dangerous to try to judge the depth.
  - dwd 10y ago
    Yes - depth and water speed. There's also the issue that the road may have subsided or completely washed away.