4 ms·

Without a nationwide Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Infrastructure to Vehicle (I2V) communication system the answer is probably "No" and that's the elephant in th

by oblib 5y ago

Without a nationwide Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Infrastructure to Vehicle (I2V) communication system the answer is probably "No" and that's the elephant in the room no one is really talking about yet. That's because the I2V would be hugely expensive to implement and maintain. Car companies are not going to pay for it, and it'd be a tough sell to taxpayers. More expensive cars and roads are not a great move right now. When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs.

de6u99er 5y ago
I agree about V2V and I2V. But I don't agree about costs being the biggest issue atm. A lack of V2V/I2V standards is currently the largest issue.
nemothekid 5y ago
>When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs. I bet human drivers are already mostly safe - I think most accidents are broadly in 3 categories, (1) impairment (drinking, age, sleep) or (2) distraction (cell phone, makeup) or (3) weather. The first two wont be solved by better training programs and the last would be really hard to make a requirement (how do you train people to drive in the snow in Los Angeles)?. If you want safer roads, it would be more wise to spend that money on public transportation. On a per capita basis it would be cheaper and safer. That said I don't think the rush to autonomous driving is as altruistic as the developers claim. For $250B you could massively overhaul the transportation systems for major cities. However there is little upside to capture by doing do; while autonomous driving has the potential to create a last-mile autonomous transportation system that would massively reduce the costs of transporting goods and people (by removing labor costs). Capturing that upside is far more lucrative. I think the question is less "we will only see AV commonplace when it's unilaterally safer than humans", and more "we will see AV commonplace when the value generated exceeds the potential costs of fatal accidents". It's after AV is commonplace will the value captured from human drivers be used to reduce costs in the failures of AV. For example, if UPS were to convert their 50% fleet to AV, then they would use the money saved to then invest in V2V or I2V infrastructure in order to accelerate the transition of the rest of their fleet.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  Human death rate is 1 in 100 mil. miles driven (all conditions) iirc, AD rate is 1 in 1mil (ideal conditions).
- kmonsen 5y ago
  What we “need” is hard to say, but what we will get is what will sell more cars. Maybe those two align, but there might not beer a strong connection between them. For example ambient lighting inside the car is largely a gimmick, but a fun one. Clearly not something benefiting society, but it seems to sell cars.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  I see you're looking at this mostly from a business value perspective and I guess in the end that's what it all comes down to, but I feel there is so much more value added than just "less drivers needed." The cost of I2V for example can be offset by less waste in both space used to park cars, drive cars and maintain cars. You can utilize roads much better by having a lot of tiny single passenger vehicles that park themselves outside of the city when traffic is low. Also, travel time with public transportation is always longer than point-to-point, so people save time over that. There's too much for a HN comment that I can think of as benefits of AV.
- bzzzt 5y ago
  Since you're allowed to drive in the snow when you have a driver's license it should be part of the training. You can get skid training courses where a slippery road is 'simulated' on a wet plate which should be possible in LA ;) Also, aren't steep fines a good "training program" for distractions like holding your phone and messaging when driving?
  - kristiandupont 5y ago
    >You can get skid training courses where a slippery road is 'simulated' on a wet plate This is mandatory in Denmark. Most fun part of getting the license!
    - 5y ago
AlotOfReading 5y ago
Do you think it's (near-)impossible for computers to at least equal an awake human driver without that? If SDCs can "simply" achieve near-human capabilities, then they've already exceeded human safety simply by virtue of not being subject to the same distractions and impairments as humans. Mind you, this is a hypothetical argument. If any of the major players thought they could make a strong statistical safety case, they'd already be publishing press releases and scaling.
an_opabinia 5y ago
> More expensive cars and roads are not a great move right now. When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs. You’re making a good faith argument. Would increasing minimums for car insurance make us more or less safe? I believe it would make us more safe, intuitively, and the effect would be reinforced by taking people off the road who can’t really afford to drive.
rhizome 5y ago
The elephant in the room is public transportation motivating bad drivers to stay away from the car. "Oh but they won't," and maybe, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who would like to have someone else drive, not to mention bypassing the tickets and accidents (and repairs) that bad drivers experience.
mikejb 5y ago
I have my doubts about V2V and I2V communications. They'd simplify the task for automated systems, but come with a rat tail of problems. I2V is incredibly hard to scale, and is a duplicated implementation of a pre-existing system (road markings & signs). Any system with duplicated implementations will grow inconsistencies. In those situations, the automated driver will be driving based on a differently perceived environment than the human driver - and it'll be hard to know. The automated system would also need to read lane markings & signs to recognize these inconsistencies and act accordingly, at which point the I2V communication is just a crutch to help the automated vehicle, reducing it's utility and hence the cost-value ratio (which is already insanely high). V2V communication is unreliable by the fact that older vehicles won't support it, so automated vehicles won't be able to communicate with some (initially: most) cars. They'll need to be able to drive safely without communicating with nearby vehicles, so V2V is again just a "bonus" system a vehicle must not rely on. Automated drivers will be safer than human drivers with time. It's an incredibly hard problem to solve, but it will be solved. Technology is improving continuously, and different companies are trying different approaches to solve the problem - which makes me optimistic in terms of automated drivers. Becoming safer than human drivers is mostly a matter of being able to drive with an automated system based on infrastructure optimized for humans. Sources of accidents will shift: From driver impairment, distraction and ignorance of rules, to misinterpretation of the environment. Additionally, and I think this is the key: If an accident happens, at best the involved human drivers improve their reaction to the specific situation. Automated drivers can share this new knowledge across the entire fleet.

by oblib 5y ago

de6u99er 5y ago

I agree about V2V and I2V. But I don't agree about costs being the biggest issue atm. A lack of V2V/I2V standards is currently the largest issue.

nemothekid 5y ago

>When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs. I bet human drivers are already mostly safe - I think most accidents are broadly in 3 categories, (1) impairment (drinking, age, sleep) or (2) distraction (cell phone, makeup) or (3) weather. The first two wont be solved by better training programs and the last would be really hard to make a requirement (how do you train people to drive in the snow in Los Angeles)?. If you want safer roads, it would be more wise to spend that money on public transportation. On a per capita basis it would be cheaper and safer. That said I don't think the rush to autonomous driving is as altruistic as the developers claim. For $250B you could massively overhaul the transportation systems for major cities. However there is little upside to capture by doing do; while autonomous driving has the potential to create a last-mile autonomous transportation system that would massively reduce the costs of transporting goods and people (by removing labor costs). Capturing that upside is far more lucrative. I think the question is less "we will only see AV commonplace when it's unilaterally safer than humans", and more "we will see AV commonplace when the value generated exceeds the potential costs of fatal accidents". It's after AV is commonplace will the value captured from human drivers be used to reduce costs in the failures of AV. For example, if UPS were to convert their 50% fleet to AV, then they would use the money saved to then invest in V2V or I2V infrastructure in order to accelerate the transition of the rest of their fleet.

mjburgess 5y ago
Human death rate is 1 in 100 mil. miles driven (all conditions) iirc, AD rate is 1 in 1mil (ideal conditions).
kmonsen 5y ago
What we “need” is hard to say, but what we will get is what will sell more cars. Maybe those two align, but there might not beer a strong connection between them. For example ambient lighting inside the car is largely a gimmick, but a fun one. Clearly not something benefiting society, but it seems to sell cars.
donkeyd 5y ago
I see you're looking at this mostly from a business value perspective and I guess in the end that's what it all comes down to, but I feel there is so much more value added than just "less drivers needed." The cost of I2V for example can be offset by less waste in both space used to park cars, drive cars and maintain cars. You can utilize roads much better by having a lot of tiny single passenger vehicles that park themselves outside of the city when traffic is low. Also, travel time with public transportation is always longer than point-to-point, so people save time over that. There's too much for a HN comment that I can think of as benefits of AV.
bzzzt 5y ago
Since you're allowed to drive in the snow when you have a driver's license it should be part of the training. You can get skid training courses where a slippery road is 'simulated' on a wet plate which should be possible in LA ;) Also, aren't steep fines a good "training program" for distractions like holding your phone and messaging when driving?
- kristiandupont 5y ago
  >You can get skid training courses where a slippery road is 'simulated' on a wet plate This is mandatory in Denmark. Most fun part of getting the license!
  - 5y ago

AlotOfReading 5y ago

Do you think it's (near-)impossible for computers to at least equal an awake human driver without that? If SDCs can "simply" achieve near-human capabilities, then they've already exceeded human safety simply by virtue of not being subject to the same distractions and impairments as humans. Mind you, this is a hypothetical argument. If any of the major players thought they could make a strong statistical safety case, they'd already be publishing press releases and scaling.

an_opabinia 5y ago

> More expensive cars and roads are not a great move right now. When we need is more efficient and less expensive cars and better driver training programs. You’re making a good faith argument. Would increasing minimums for car insurance make us more or less safe? I believe it would make us more safe, intuitively, and the effect would be reinforced by taking people off the road who can’t really afford to drive.

rhizome 5y ago

The elephant in the room is public transportation motivating bad drivers to stay away from the car. "Oh but they won't," and maybe, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who would like to have someone else drive, not to mention bypassing the tickets and accidents (and repairs) that bad drivers experience.

mikejb 5y ago

I have my doubts about V2V and I2V communications. They'd simplify the task for automated systems, but come with a rat tail of problems. I2V is incredibly hard to scale, and is a duplicated implementation of a pre-existing system (road markings & signs). Any system with duplicated implementations will grow inconsistencies. In those situations, the automated driver will be driving based on a differently perceived environment than the human driver - and it'll be hard to know. The automated system would also need to read lane markings & signs to recognize these inconsistencies and act accordingly, at which point the I2V communication is just a crutch to help the automated vehicle, reducing it's utility and hence the cost-value ratio (which is already insanely high). V2V communication is unreliable by the fact that older vehicles won't support it, so automated vehicles won't be able to communicate with some (initially: most) cars. They'll need to be able to drive safely without communicating with nearby vehicles, so V2V is again just a "bonus" system a vehicle must not rely on. Automated drivers will be safer than human drivers with time. It's an incredibly hard problem to solve, but it will be solved. Technology is improving continuously, and different companies are trying different approaches to solve the problem - which makes me optimistic in terms of automated drivers. Becoming safer than human drivers is mostly a matter of being able to drive with an automated system based on infrastructure optimized for humans. Sources of accidents will shift: From driver impairment, distraction and ignorance of rules, to misinterpretation of the environment. Additionally, and I think this is the key: If an accident happens, at best the involved human drivers improve their reaction to the specific situation. Automated drivers can share this new knowledge across the entire fleet.