undefined | Better HN

0 pointsghaff10y ago0 comments

Based both on what I've read and discussions with people who have some personal familiarity with the space, the issue is that, to date, Google is apparently not interested in anything incremental. (Which is also the reason that they haven't been able to work with the auto makers.) However,that means that Google won't have anything commercial for a long time--like decades--if their criterion remains robo-taxi levels of autonomy.

0 comments

Animats10y ago

Almost-automatic driving is dangerous. There's a "deadly valley" which begins at the point where the driver starts to no longer pay attention. It ends when the automation is good enough that the driver doesn't need to pay attention. Between those two limits lies trouble.

The major vehicle manufacturers which have shipped driver assistant systems have put in controls that insist the driver pay attention. Mercedes, BMW, Tesla, and Ford check for hands-on-wheel.[1] They're desperately trying to stay out of the deadly valley.

Here's the problem with that.[2]

Volvo, and maybe BMW, have a second problem - too many modes and too many options. There are lots of semi-auto options available, and they may or may not be installed on any given vehicle. Here's what happened with someone who ordered self-parking without buying the "pedestrian detection" option.[3] Bad idea selling that option combination. It's been a learning experience for Volvo.

[1] http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/07/20150713-eclass.html [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903692/Warning-reck... [3] http://fusion.net/story/139703/self-parking-car-accident-no-...

greglindahl10y ago

What's the problem with [2]? The driver knows he's bypassing safety interlocks. There many dumb things you can intentionally do in a car; adding one more is not necessarily a significant problem.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse