Californians OK with Google self-driving cars and ban non-self-driving cars(wearobo.com)
wearobo.com
Californians OK with Google self-driving cars and ban non-self-driving cars
http://www.wearobo.com/2015/05/californians-are-ok-with-google-self.html
12 comments
ISTM that a fleet of self-driving cars will serve everyone it can. Every car will try to stay occupied as much as possible. Perhaps this means that service will cost a lot during Friday rush hour and very little at 4 AM on Wednesday. In that case the poor may just decide to travel at nontraditional times.
[EDIT:] to clarify, the phrase "just decide" is more of a medium-term phenomenon than a short-term one, and elides a great deal of noteworthy human experience. Of course, being disadvantaged often means one can't make sudden changes to one's routine. The poor are not stupid, however. When using short-term self-driving cars is cheaper than owning "clunkers", they'll sell the clunkers and figure out how best to integrate self-driving cars into their lives.
[EDIT:] to clarify, the phrase "just decide" is more of a medium-term phenomenon than a short-term one, and elides a great deal of noteworthy human experience. Of course, being disadvantaged often means one can't make sudden changes to one's routine. The poor are not stupid, however. When using short-term self-driving cars is cheaper than owning "clunkers", they'll sell the clunkers and figure out how best to integrate self-driving cars into their lives.
> In that case the poor may just decide to travel at nontraditional times.
I don't mean to single out your comment (the core idea of which I agree with), but I see similar comments on HN a lot. Completely logical, technical observations that are also quite tone deaf. To those in poverty, there's often very little they can "just decide" to do. The ability to commute at nontraditional times is very much a luxury to most.
I don't mean to single out your comment (the core idea of which I agree with), but I see similar comments on HN a lot. Completely logical, technical observations that are also quite tone deaf. To those in poverty, there's often very little they can "just decide" to do. The ability to commute at nontraditional times is very much a luxury to most.
Unless the poor have 9-5 jobs too - then they're screwed.
Well, they are, anyway. However, there are usually compromises to be made, and self-driving cars will be another option. Besides, commuting to work is not the only reason people in USA drive.
Distributed auto-routing smaller busses should cut costs drastically, so this should be very feasible either if implemented commercially or as a commercial service.
I have to imagine that paying the bus driver is generally the largest cost for a single bus in any given public transportation system, and being able to route directly during periods of lower traffic (or high traffic even) should be much more efficient in terms of time.
Hell I bet Uber could implement scheduled ride sharing and be competitive with public transport on cost now in many cities. 4 people get grouped with the most similar commute and split a $15 fare? That gets you pretty close.
I have to imagine that paying the bus driver is generally the largest cost for a single bus in any given public transportation system, and being able to route directly during periods of lower traffic (or high traffic even) should be much more efficient in terms of time.
Hell I bet Uber could implement scheduled ride sharing and be competitive with public transport on cost now in many cities. 4 people get grouped with the most similar commute and split a $15 fare? That gets you pretty close.
I think it's worth noting that this is not a poll, and has nothing to do with a government action. It is entirely the opinion of one person about other people's opinions, from the perspective of Mountain View, CA.
It also doesn't really speak to the banning part at all.
I'm very optimistic about the technology and the social change required to enable its spread, but the claim made by the title of this link is not supported by the evidence presented. Nice read, at least.
It also doesn't really speak to the banning part at all.
I'm very optimistic about the technology and the social change required to enable its spread, but the claim made by the title of this link is not supported by the evidence presented. Nice read, at least.
I am a car nut, love driving, drive a powerful car, and can't wait for more of the autonomous cars to hit the streets. Like the article says, they operate predictably and safely. Sometimes it feels like everyone around me is acting like they are a teenager on their first day of being licensed.
I live in the USA, and feel that I am a more skilled driver and more mindful than most people who I share the road with. I do not want to be banned from driving. I operate the vehicle safely, strive to obey traffic regulations, give my full attention to driving, and despite having a powerful car almost always drive in a manner that minimizes fuel consumption.
Maybe rather than banning human drivers, the standard for obtaining a driving license should be raised. When I have driven in countries with higher standards, like Germany, it's seemed to me that there's much less chaos on the road and drivers are more responsible. There are definitely less of the metro California style shenanigans the author is talking about.
I live in the USA, and feel that I am a more skilled driver and more mindful than most people who I share the road with. I do not want to be banned from driving. I operate the vehicle safely, strive to obey traffic regulations, give my full attention to driving, and despite having a powerful car almost always drive in a manner that minimizes fuel consumption.
Maybe rather than banning human drivers, the standard for obtaining a driving license should be raised. When I have driven in countries with higher standards, like Germany, it's seemed to me that there's much less chaos on the road and drivers are more responsible. There are definitely less of the metro California style shenanigans the author is talking about.
"Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in [...] the United States, asking them to compare their driving skills and safety to other people. For driving skills, 93% of the U.S. sample [...] put themselves in the top 50%; for safety, 88% of the U.S. [...] put themselves in the top 50%."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ab...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority#Driving_ab...
I remember a conversation with a co-worker who was arguing for two classes of driver's licenses. One, for people like him of course, would allow the holder to ignore certain road restrictions, go over the speed limit, etc. The other would be for "normal" people who were less talented behind the wheel. He was serious. What a tool...
"Welcome to your Advanced Driving Test. Please get into the driving simulator. Fasten your safety harness. Beginning Phase 1, Ventura Freeway at rush hour... Phase 2, Lower Manhattan... Phase 3, Appalachian highway during blizzard... Phase 4, Orlando, FL during thunderstorm... Phase 5, rural Texas road at night..."
"Test complete. Phase 1: sideswiped car at on-ramp. Phase 2: Hit bike messenger. Phase 3: Ran off cliff. Phase 4: Rear-ended car. Phase 5: Hit deer. Test failed. Please unfasten your harness and exit the simulator".
"Test complete. Phase 1: sideswiped car at on-ramp. Phase 2: Hit bike messenger. Phase 3: Ran off cliff. Phase 4: Rear-ended car. Phase 5: Hit deer. Test failed. Please unfasten your harness and exit the simulator".
It should be self-evident that some driver training programs (e.g. Finland) are much more rigorous than others (e.g. "ABC Driving" in middle of nowhere USA). Places with unlimited speed roads tend to have much stricter vehicle safety inspections as well.
So why not try to bring the more stringent driver training and vehicle inspection requirements to the US, sold initially to those who care about driving?
Your coworker would then have to prove he's a better driver.
Aside: I think it's offensive to call someone who strives for excellence in some activity a "tool". Would you say the same thing about a med student who thought she should be able to perform additional procedures after going through additional certification?
So why not try to bring the more stringent driver training and vehicle inspection requirements to the US, sold initially to those who care about driving?
Your coworker would then have to prove he's a better driver.
Aside: I think it's offensive to call someone who strives for excellence in some activity a "tool". Would you say the same thing about a med student who thought she should be able to perform additional procedures after going through additional certification?
I was once a student in the United States, back then I was young, cocky and arrogant. I wrongly thought that I was great at driving so long ago.
The citation that follows your quote doesn't offer any implications as to age or experience.
But the results of the citation following _that_ are ridiculous. I have heard people say that they are better drunk drivers than most people, too.
Survey results like these probably shed some light on why people here are such bad drivers. They simply don't realize that they are bad.
I'm a lot older now and have a lot more experience. At least, the insurance companies and police agree with my self-assessment now :)
The citation that follows your quote doesn't offer any implications as to age or experience.
But the results of the citation following _that_ are ridiculous. I have heard people say that they are better drunk drivers than most people, too.
Survey results like these probably shed some light on why people here are such bad drivers. They simply don't realize that they are bad.
I'm a lot older now and have a lot more experience. At least, the insurance companies and police agree with my self-assessment now :)
My driver's license (I'm German) cost me about 2000€ ($2181.75). As a teenager unless you live in a city like Berlin, one of your primary financial concerns is getting enough money together to pay for your driver's license and a car (keep in mind Germany has more regulations there as well).
From my impression of US politics and culture I don't see anyone seriously pushing for that.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the process of getting a driver's license also usually takes several weeks at least.
From my impression of US politics and culture I don't see anyone seriously pushing for that.
EDIT: Forgot to mention that the process of getting a driver's license also usually takes several weeks at least.
I think the regime that you're under would be quite an improvement to here, which is chaos. Crashes were not common, the situation on the road was orderly, almost everyone followed the rules perfectly.
Are your insurance costs high?
Are your insurance costs high?
Well, but are you human? Then you are not qualified to operate a car safely.
It's obvious that humans can't drive, and while the majority of car accidents are perfectly avoidable if humans would at least not be reckless, that doesn't mean we can raise the bar to a point where it will be safe.
It's obvious that humans can't drive, and while the majority of car accidents are perfectly avoidable if humans would at least not be reckless, that doesn't mean we can raise the bar to a point where it will be safe.
> the majority of car accidents are perfectly avoidable if humans would at least not be reckless
I agree with this statement, and wish that people would behave, but I think _accident_ is a bad word, they are crashes.
I tried to think about unavoidable crashes, and maybe some weather situations approach this. What does the Google car do when it encounters a sudden lack of visibility on a highway?
I agree with this statement, and wish that people would behave, but I think _accident_ is a bad word, they are crashes.
I tried to think about unavoidable crashes, and maybe some weather situations approach this. What does the Google car do when it encounters a sudden lack of visibility on a highway?
What we should all do: slow the fuck down! Seriously, there is no visibility level so low that there is no safe possible speed. However, humans are incapable of driving 3mph. I'm sure robocars could do that.
Imagine that you're driving in the San Joaquin valley in the winter, it's a clear night, that stars are visible because a recent storm washed all the crap in the air that floated down from the Bay Area. You're doing 70 or so, with scattered traffic, and a car in your lane about 10-15 car lengths ahead. Suddenly his lights disappear, and 1 second later your roll into a fog bank with 15-20 feet of visibility.
The driver ahead, followed your advice and slammed on his brakes. But because the fog is so thick, you can't see his brake lights, but that's ok right? You're already applying pressure to the brake pedal when you slam into the back of him. Then you're slammed into by the car behind you. Then a semi rolls in, and kills the lot of you.
It happens every freaking year.
The driver ahead, followed your advice and slammed on his brakes. But because the fog is so thick, you can't see his brake lights, but that's ok right? You're already applying pressure to the brake pedal when you slam into the back of him. Then you're slammed into by the car behind you. Then a semi rolls in, and kills the lot of you.
It happens every freaking year.
I don't see that scenario happening with driveless cars, where each and every one of them are programmed to react to the same stimulus in the same fashion, and are perfectly aware of how the other cars would react.
I wonder if, with time, some kind of secondary radar system for cars will arise. If everyone was forced to have one in the car (as happens with planes), the mixing of driveless cars with regular ones would be greatly eased.
I wonder if, with time, some kind of secondary radar system for cars will arise. If everyone was forced to have one in the car (as happens with planes), the mixing of driveless cars with regular ones would be greatly eased.
70 mph is clearly too fast in that situation. You're missing the point, however. The conversation was about how robocars will be safer than human drivers, because they're not stupid. It isn't a contradiction, to point out another scenario in which many human drivers are stupid.
Google needs to make the cars overly cautious though, because everyone is watching them. One accident, and the whole idea of a self-driving car will be called into question by many people.
Google SD cars have actually already been in a number of accidents and other hazardous situations. While we do, should, and will continue to hold these cars up to higher-than-human standard, the future looks bright for their record.
https://medium.com/backchannel/the-view-from-the-front-seat-...
Self-driving cars will be the future, as long as they're all rock-solid on cooperation. Imagine normal intersections, with inefficient stop lights where half the cycle is idle (all the cars on the green side went through already) due to a change in traffic patterns from when they were programmed. Instead, cars that all cooperate can move through the intersection pretty well by taking turns.
About thirty percent of traffic in SF is due to people cruising around the block, looking for parking. [1]. Imagine if you could just tell your car, "go park somewhere, I don't care where", and have it come back when you need it. Heck, someone else could use it to get from A to B instead of letting it idle parked.
There's a lot of potential awesome here, but it all springs from rock-solid cooperation routines. If people manage to write aggressive / betraying self-driving algorithms, a lot of those traffic light scenarios could easily get a lot worse. Trust issues are a thing: should the car's driving routines be black-boxed? If there were FOSS car brains, would we trust people to not mod their cars to do illegal stuff? I guess traditional traffic cops could handle a lot of the same things they do now, we'd just need the standard autodrive package to account for and expect other cars to be driven in poor, uncooperative fashions.
[1]: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf
About thirty percent of traffic in SF is due to people cruising around the block, looking for parking. [1]. Imagine if you could just tell your car, "go park somewhere, I don't care where", and have it come back when you need it. Heck, someone else could use it to get from A to B instead of letting it idle parked.
There's a lot of potential awesome here, but it all springs from rock-solid cooperation routines. If people manage to write aggressive / betraying self-driving algorithms, a lot of those traffic light scenarios could easily get a lot worse. Trust issues are a thing: should the car's driving routines be black-boxed? If there were FOSS car brains, would we trust people to not mod their cars to do illegal stuff? I guess traditional traffic cops could handle a lot of the same things they do now, we'd just need the standard autodrive package to account for and expect other cars to be driven in poor, uncooperative fashions.
[1]: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf
Yet another reason to replace stop light controlled intersections with roundabouts. The roundabout is designed for cooperating drivers, stoplights just implement a worst case algorithm.
Roundabouts with unbalanced peak flow traffic can be impossible to enter if a previous entrance has a near-constant peak traffic flow. At rush hour they basically break under this condition. You could mildly gate them with lights to fix that, though.
If I am entering a roundabout from a dominant direction I try to leave enough of a gap for an attentive driver on the other entrances to get in. It seems fair, since sometimes I'm that driver who is waiting.
Roundabouts are for humans. You can have a four way intersection without traffic control if all vehicles are fully automated; they each know when they can proceed and when to yield, with no need to wait on other vehicles except when a conflict occurs.
https://i.imgur.com/uIAW6G5.gif
https://i.imgur.com/uIAW6G5.gif
There are actually several startups solving "go park somewhere, I don't care where" problem using our underemployed labor pool instead of robots. Luxe and Zirx are two of them.
Google self-driving cars are better than Californian drivers.They don't accelerate quickly, they don't speed, they leave plenty of space and are very polite to pedestrians.
Difference between driving a car and using Google owned self-driving car is like difference between kings carriage service and owning a horse.
Did you accidentally flip the second part of your analogy? It doesn't really make sense to me as stated..
Indeed, but as I was comparing differences (difference remains the same regardless of the order of the compared), I thought that it actually does not matter and it is understandable from the context.
There is no data here -- it's just some guy's observations of some interactions with self-driving cars in Mountain View. There's nothing to indicate that "Californians are OK with self-driving cars" (although I would guess they are), and nothing to indicate they're OK with banning manually-operated vehicles (no way, no how). The link behind "I think that, inevitably, non-self driving cars will eventually be banned" just goes to a short blog post on the same site from a couple of weeks ago about a newer version of the Google self-driving car. There's not even a word in there about anything being banned.
There is an awful lot of California outside of Mountain View (surprising, I know). I'm pretty sure California has the highest number of active vehicle registrations of any state (13 million in 2014, vs. 10 million in 2013 for New York, the most recent data I could find) -- and along with that comes an awful lot of car clubs and driving enthusiasts who would raise an unholy ruckus over the merest whisper of banning their beloved vehicles.
So the title's misleading.
There is an awful lot of California outside of Mountain View (surprising, I know). I'm pretty sure California has the highest number of active vehicle registrations of any state (13 million in 2014, vs. 10 million in 2013 for New York, the most recent data I could find) -- and along with that comes an awful lot of car clubs and driving enthusiasts who would raise an unholy ruckus over the merest whisper of banning their beloved vehicles.
So the title's misleading.
As more SD cars hit the road, there is less need for a car license. Think about what this can do for tourism in california and other industries that need drivers. For example, Someone who doesn't know driving can comfortably rent a car from SFO and go to Yosemite. UPS/Fedex can do 24 hr deliveries. Overall this is really good.
Would commuter buses (public transit) be a good target to make self-driven? They go on the same route multiple times a day, and since the technology relies on mapping out the route in great detail, wouldn't buses be a good target?
The fascinating thing about SD cars is that actually, they don't need to pre-map routes in excruciating detail. They carry enough sensing equipment (the primary being LIDARs) to build high detail maps on the fly, along with recording the location of other road users.
Low-detail, pre-mapped, road maps are mainly used for routefinding rather than second-to-second navigation.
My other opinion about SD cars is that their analysis of the road can be used to assess the state of the infrastructures, imagine a SD car refusing to enter your street to pick you up until the pot holes are fixed
I, for one, would like to be the first to welcome our new robot overlords!
Flagged for misleading title.
However - Something needs to be done about thet fact that generally people who are poorer have to commute further with less [0] and that if they can afford to move to a neighborhood that fixes their commute problem, they are more likely to come out of poverty [1].
We need this to not be the next tesla, but the next bus.
[0]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-emer...
[1]: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/nbhds_exec_sum...