5 ms·

> A fully loaded truck moving at highway speed needs a lot of space to stop, at least 150 to 200 meters, and the long-range lidars now available can’t sense thi

> A fully loaded truck moving at highway speed needs a lot of space to stop, at least 150 to 200 meters, and the long-range lidars now available can’t sense things in sufficient detail that far ahead. ... > Reliability is also limited. I mentioned that we use components that are automotive grade, that we’re certain will work over the lifetime of our vehicles, in all the various conditions we require. Lidar isn’t there yet. That makes me think how inefficient it is for every vehicle to carry its own lidar, radar, etc. Why not pay once for high-quality sensors built into the highway infrastructure, and have them feed data to passing vehicles. It would solve the lidar range problem, among other things. One obvious challenge would be that smaller roads would not be outfitted with the sensors. Perhaps automated driving would be disabled in that case.

wahern 8y ago
> Why not pay once for high-quality sensors built into the highway infrastructure, and have them feed data to passing vehicles. Collective action problem.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean. We collectively built the roads, for example, and the guard rails and road signs; it's hardly impossible.
  - wahern 8y ago
    There's far less contention regarding the scope and design of those things. It's not impossible to do what you say. But do you live in the United States? This isn't a country does compromise and cooperation very well, especially not now. A more recent example is cellphone technology. Europe forced standardization of cell technology early on and so cell service (especially 2G and 3G) spread much more quickly and consistently than in the U.S. But there was much more innovation in the U.S.[1] because companies had more degrees of freedom. CDMA lost the standardization wars but won the technology wars, and arguably that's because companies could build out CDMA in the U.S. and Asia. I don't think there's an objective answer to which model is preferable, not for cellphones nor for autonomous driving. But relative to Europe the United States clearly prefers market-driven solutions. The mantra is that the government isn't supposed to "pick winners and losers" in a competitive market place. It may seem obvious that it's better to cooperate on building a shared infrastructure, but unless and until there's a consensus that such shared infrastructure offers not only the most social utility but that its the "best" approach (imagine all the details!), it's not likely to happen here. And that's without considering who will pay for such infrastructure. [1] At least, that's the common wisdom. Which is all that matters when discussing political viability.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      I think you make good points, but I wouldn't assume that the current U.S. political situation will persist. The right wing in the U.S. didn't assume that and acted to change the formerly more centrist situation to a more polarized one, and from a more active government to a now radically inactive one. > There's far less contention regarding the scope and design of those things. There is less contention now, when they are mature solutions deployed decades ago. I expect that the situation was much different at the time they were proposed.

wahern 8y ago

> Why not pay once for high-quality sensors built into the highway infrastructure, and have them feed data to passing vehicles. Collective action problem.

forapurpose 8y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. We collectively built the roads, for example, and the guard rails and road signs; it's hardly impossible.
- wahern 8y ago
  There's far less contention regarding the scope and design of those things. It's not impossible to do what you say. But do you live in the United States? This isn't a country does compromise and cooperation very well, especially not now. A more recent example is cellphone technology. Europe forced standardization of cell technology early on and so cell service (especially 2G and 3G) spread much more quickly and consistently than in the U.S. But there was much more innovation in the U.S.[1] because companies had more degrees of freedom. CDMA lost the standardization wars but won the technology wars, and arguably that's because companies could build out CDMA in the U.S. and Asia. I don't think there's an objective answer to which model is preferable, not for cellphones nor for autonomous driving. But relative to Europe the United States clearly prefers market-driven solutions. The mantra is that the government isn't supposed to "pick winners and losers" in a competitive market place. It may seem obvious that it's better to cooperate on building a shared infrastructure, but unless and until there's a consensus that such shared infrastructure offers not only the most social utility but that its the "best" approach (imagine all the details!), it's not likely to happen here. And that's without considering who will pay for such infrastructure. [1] At least, that's the common wisdom. Which is all that matters when discussing political viability.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    I think you make good points, but I wouldn't assume that the current U.S. political situation will persist. The right wing in the U.S. didn't assume that and acted to change the formerly more centrist situation to a more polarized one, and from a more active government to a now radically inactive one. > There's far less contention regarding the scope and design of those things. There is less contention now, when they are mature solutions deployed decades ago. I expect that the situation was much different at the time they were proposed.