4 ms·

CTRL + F: rain As far as I know, they still don't/won't drive in the rain, and they operate safely and slowly. I want to believe this thing is moving forward,

by scoofy 5y ago

CTRL + F: rain As far as I know, they still don't/won't drive in the rain, and they operate safely and slowly. I want to believe this thing is moving forward, but I'm skeptical about building a marketplace where the service is unavailable exactly when demand is highest. It creates conflicts of interest, that at best, encourage actors to take risks that can undermine the entire industry.

shagie 5y ago
I'm still waiting for a video of a self driving car during snow five miles outside of Fargo, Minneapolis, or Madison when the road hasn't been plowed in the past hour.
- gretch 5y ago
  They probably will never do that and there’s nothing wrong with it. Consider that airlines are a well established and reliable business worth trillions around the globe. And yet they also don’t take off or land in adverse weather conditions. Sometimes there’s a snowstorm and a whole day of flights is canceled. But none of that invalidates the existence of the industry as a whole.
  - shagie 5y ago
    If they don't do that, then: A driverless taxi service in any city where it snows will never exist. It will not be possible to replace my personal car with a driverless car. Relatives who are in the southern states (with driverless cars) will not be able to visit for many winter holidays. --- Self driving cars are very interesting - but can you get to the point where it is possible to replace them in Chicago or Minneapolis with the same availability for personal or services as a human driven one? With airlines, yes, shutting canceling the flights out of O'Hare is certainly inconvenient. Is it reasonable to also make it so that people can't get to work via local commuting because of snow? To get to the point where self driving is default, it needs to be able to handle the conditions that a human driver currently does with the same availability. This goes for taxis, trucks, and the daily commute and errands.
    - gretch 5y ago
      I think you are setting the bar in the wrong place. For self driving cars to succeed, there just has to be a few good use cases where people prefer them to normal cars, and there's sufficient economic value to run a business. They do not have to murder the existing car industry in order to 'succeed'. Look at electric vehicles - they've been around for more than a decade now. Many ppl have one and it adds value to their life. Still you can't do _everything_ a gas car can do like drive 1000 miles in a single day. But that's not important because there are places they do shine. And even though there's still way more ICE cars than EVs on the road, you probably wouldn't argue that EVs "aren't a thing". Also, you're assuming that the world/environment around the innovation is static, when in most cases the world adapts around the innovation. For EVs, we now see charging stations at grocery stores and office buildings to assist people which the battery capacity problem
dclusin 5y ago
Same. My shower thought has been, has this affected the implementation timelines of safety features in traditional cars? The general public seems to think we’re going to have self driving cars any day now, but anyone reasonably well informed can probably think of a dozen edge cases they haven’t even begun solving yet. So I wonder, have regulators stalled or stop pushing for new safety features under the false belief that we’re going to have self driving cars any day now, so what’s the hurry? I feel like it has, although admittedly it’s just a feeling and I’ve done no research. Collision avoidance systems are our generations seat belt. It’s still pretty shocking to me this tech isn’t mandated as a safety feature yet considering the very real potential to save lives from distracted driving. Has the pr shit storm all these companies shamelessly capitalize on affected this technology implementation? We generally think of these sorts of lies as harmless and a result of overly ambitious visionaries. But I think in a real way this is the type of thing that could cost lives, in the sense that if regulators understood they are 20-30 years away from mass market, they might actually push for more safety reforms which could save lives.

by scoofy 5y ago

shagie 5y ago

I'm still waiting for a video of a self driving car during snow five miles outside of Fargo, Minneapolis, or Madison when the road hasn't been plowed in the past hour.

gretch 5y ago
They probably will never do that and there’s nothing wrong with it. Consider that airlines are a well established and reliable business worth trillions around the globe. And yet they also don’t take off or land in adverse weather conditions. Sometimes there’s a snowstorm and a whole day of flights is canceled. But none of that invalidates the existence of the industry as a whole.
- shagie 5y ago
  If they don't do that, then: A driverless taxi service in any city where it snows will never exist. It will not be possible to replace my personal car with a driverless car. Relatives who are in the southern states (with driverless cars) will not be able to visit for many winter holidays. --- Self driving cars are very interesting - but can you get to the point where it is possible to replace them in Chicago or Minneapolis with the same availability for personal or services as a human driven one? With airlines, yes, shutting canceling the flights out of O'Hare is certainly inconvenient. Is it reasonable to also make it so that people can't get to work via local commuting because of snow? To get to the point where self driving is default, it needs to be able to handle the conditions that a human driver currently does with the same availability. This goes for taxis, trucks, and the daily commute and errands.
  - gretch 5y ago
    I think you are setting the bar in the wrong place. For self driving cars to succeed, there just has to be a few good use cases where people prefer them to normal cars, and there's sufficient economic value to run a business. They do not have to murder the existing car industry in order to 'succeed'. Look at electric vehicles - they've been around for more than a decade now. Many ppl have one and it adds value to their life. Still you can't do _everything_ a gas car can do like drive 1000 miles in a single day. But that's not important because there are places they do shine. And even though there's still way more ICE cars than EVs on the road, you probably wouldn't argue that EVs "aren't a thing". Also, you're assuming that the world/environment around the innovation is static, when in most cases the world adapts around the innovation. For EVs, we now see charging stations at grocery stores and office buildings to assist people which the battery capacity problem

dclusin 5y ago

Same. My shower thought has been, has this affected the implementation timelines of safety features in traditional cars? The general public seems to think we’re going to have self driving cars any day now, but anyone reasonably well informed can probably think of a dozen edge cases they haven’t even begun solving yet. So I wonder, have regulators stalled or stop pushing for new safety features under the false belief that we’re going to have self driving cars any day now, so what’s the hurry? I feel like it has, although admittedly it’s just a feeling and I’ve done no research. Collision avoidance systems are our generations seat belt. It’s still pretty shocking to me this tech isn’t mandated as a safety feature yet considering the very real potential to save lives from distracted driving. Has the pr shit storm all these companies shamelessly capitalize on affected this technology implementation? We generally think of these sorts of lies as harmless and a result of overly ambitious visionaries. But I think in a real way this is the type of thing that could cost lives, in the sense that if regulators understood they are 20-30 years away from mass market, they might actually push for more safety reforms which could save lives.