G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by sciencesage on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @03:15PM (#15810429)

You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems". The product should fit as seamlessly into the world as possible, without forcing less wealthy people to deal with a higher chance of collisions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by ajross on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @03:44PM (#15810652)

> You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems".

Then it's a good thing I didn't.

I was replying (with a bit of humor) to the upthread posters notion that because these cars behave in a way that s/he personally finds confusing they are more dangerous (they aren't) and by extension shouldn't be on the road. And that's ridiculous. And the proof to the contrary is that exactly the kind of unsafe situation the poster was complaining about is something that automated systems can almost completely eliminate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by kemitche on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:42PM (#15811595)

Abnormal behavior on the road increases risk by creating unknowns. I don't think we should ban autonomous cars from new behavior, but I think it's just as odd to say that unpredictable but legal behavior is somehow just as safe as predictable legal behavior.

Legal != Safe.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by bluGill on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @06:31PM (#15811906)

But in this case we know that there are cases where a reasonable driver will be forced to do the behavior he is calling unexpected. Thus even though it is unexpected it is something that should be accounted for. If you cannot react in time then you need to adjust your behavior. I'm always amazed at how few people follow the 2 second following distance experts tell me is the minimum humans need for reaction time. (which works out to .2 seconds to realize there is a problem and 1.5 second to get your foot physically moved to the brake)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by jrs95 on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @03:18PM (#15810466)

Not even just less wealthy people, but anyone who tends to be financially conservative. I don't think there's an economically sensible option to purchase a car like this right now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by overhang on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @04:46PM (#15811157)

https://goo.gl/KYATXX

That's a $22 backup camera.

I haven't seen it yet, but I don't know why somebody couldn't develop a similar kit to put on the front bumper that could warn about traffic ahead, lane drifting, etc.

A <$100 kit that can retrofit my old beater with some modern features would be money very well spent to protect a multi-thousand dollar asset, personal injury, and liability.

I believe that all manufacturers are required to build in backup cameras now. Why not require all registered vehicles to be retrofitted?

Next up, auto-braking.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by Tempest1981 on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:15PM (#15811402)

Damn dynamic pricing... now it's up to $30. :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:G.M. Unveils Its Driverless Cars, Aiming to Lead the Pack by megy on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @05:41PM (#15811590)

Not if the system has so many bad drivers, and it does. We don't want automated cars driving badly too, just because some people are impatient or are just no good at driving.

[ Parent | on HN ]