[Gys]

I do not understand why the focus on self driving is so much on the whole trip.

90 - 95% of the time I am driving long stretches, I spend on highways. No problem if only that part would be done selfdriving. Those few minutes in busy town centers I do not mind to do myself. No problem of driving short stretches (10 - 15 min) either.

[kalleboo]

Autodriving 90% of the time would be a fantastic feature.

Autodriving 100% of the time is where it gets revolutionary (mass-layoffs of truck drivers, taxi drivers, summon features that park cheaply outside of downtown).

The former is great, but there's a lot of hype going around right now so it's not strange for people to be cynical.

[nullc]

I think anywhere between 80% and 99.999% would cause a lot of accidents... "good enough to not pay attention and be inattentive when it needs your help, not good enough to not need your help."

[IanCal]

It depends on where the 80% is. If it's "80% of the roads in the country" that's one thing, if it's "at random points, at any time and on average for 20% of your journey you'll be taking control" that's another.

It's all about predictability. Even just full motorway / major road driving would be pretty awesome, and the car would know when it's coming up to a section you need to drive and you can have plenty of warning. Not "HELP DRIVER I SAW EITHER A LEAF OR A CHILD QUICK TAKE OVER"

[Spivak]

If I have to pay attention to the road while the car is on autopilot then it's basically useless -- I might as well drive the car just for the stimulation.

If/When it's good enough that I can sleep during a long highway trip (and pull into the last rest stop before my exit if I don't wake up) then I'll be happy.

[rebuilder]

Forget parking, the cars would be driving, ferrying people and goods around, as much as possible when not charging. No need to own one, just hail one when you need a ride.

[kalleboo]

It will be interesting to see how people take to not owning cars. People like customizing their spaces, and I can see people with young children not wanting to deal with all that setup multiple times a day...

[bb611]

That's practical, and for people like you and me who aren't bothered by the idea of not owning our own vehicle, but it's very culturally desirable in the US to own a personal vehicle. Not an unsolvable problem, but it will definitely be a bump in the road.

[zobzu]

i don't think its an issue. live in the city? dont own a car. just like today. uber is way cheaper than owing a car.

live in the gonnies? own a car. hailing one would take forever. having cars near you in the gonnies,that you dont own wouldn't be economical.

basically, there would be less vehicule owners but not that many less.

[rebuilder]

I do wonder how many people living in cities would still choose to own a car if they could just get a self-driving one on demand.

For example, friends of mine recently bought a summer cottage. It's a little over an hour's drive. They don't have a car, so they currently rent one or try to borrow one when they want to go there. Once there, the car will probably sit still for a week.

Currently, there's no really good solution to this. Renting is expensive if you just need to drive a couple of hours a week. Buying a car might make more economic sense in the long term, but it's still pretty expensive for the purpose. Taxi rides like that cost an arm and a leg too. But if the car could drive itself out of the woods...

Of course it's a question of pricing, and I'm guessing we're still some way off from having self-driving cars navigate dirt paths that pass through people's yards as is the case here.

[Matt3o12_]

It shows that the car would have been able to drive the route completely without a driver. This is handy if you want to pickup somebody, want to avoid high parking fees, need to charge your car without actually doing it.

Doing those things right now in a Tesla is probably not safe just now, but it shows that level 5 autonomy is not so far fetched and 2020 is a realistic date.

[inimino]

On that particular day, under favorable conditions. There's a lot of work between 80% and 100%. Showing the 80% doesn't show anything about how long the last 20% will take.

[davewritescode]

There's virtually zero chance we'all have level 5 autonomy within 3 years.

The tech is impressive but it has to be absolutely bulletproof. I like Tesla but I find it annoying that Musk doesn't deliver anything on time and it seems like Tesla delivers way more demos than real products.

[Qworg]

It is so important to do the whole trip because switching costs for the driver from "totally inattentive" to "grasping the wheel and driving" are measured in seconds.

Anything less than 4 is asking for trouble.

[mac01021]

Do you assume that the car, after recognizing that human intervention is required, continues to move forward into the path of danger while it waits for the human to take over?

[Qworg]

I assume that there are a huge number of situations where "quietly pull over and let the human drive" is impossible.

I'm not talking about "oh hey, here's a situation I can't handle" and more "take over now".

[Animats]

Volvo takes the position for their 2017 that they cannot demand that the driver take over. The car can ask, but must be prepared to pull over and stop if the driver doesn't push the "Manual Drive" button.

Here's the first of 100 self-driving cars Volvo will put in customer hands in 2017.[1] This shows close-ups of all the sensors - high radar and camera behind the windscreen, low LIDAR and camera in the nose, and side and down-looking cameras on the door mirrors. No high-mounted LIDAR, though. These vehicles are intended for self-driving in all weather conditions in Gothenburg, Sweden.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwcSeRE-XEY

[Qworg]

Sure. But didn't the Volvo CEO push "Level 4 only"?

They certainly are saying they'll only release a Level 4 vehicle - the Tesla is still expecting a human to take over.

[Animats]

NHTSA levels: [1] Level 3: "Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation."

Tesla's old system was Level 2. Google and Volvo have level 3 in test. Tesla's new system is supposed to be Level 3. There's a bright line between level 2 and 3 - NHTSA says that at Level 3 and above, the manufacturer is responsible for accidents and cannot blame the driver.

[1] http://www.nhtsa.gov/About-NHTSA/Press-Releases/U.S.-Departm...

[em3rgent0rdr]

maybe your driving behavior is different from other people. I live in a city and do about half time on city streets and half time on highways. Anyway, consistent performance on all parts of the trip is needed to convince buyers.

[kalleboo]

> needed to convince buyers

Buyers were convinced by "cruise control", which just (barely) keeps a set speed.

[TeMPOraL]

s/convince buyers/avoid mass accidents caused by drivers becoming even less attentive than they're now/. Cruise control doesn't cause that, but a "90% there" self-driving solution will.

[kalleboo]

Certainly. That's a completely unrelated debate though.

[heisenbit]

You don't mind.

However statistics say that most of the accidents happen at the beginning or towards the end of the trip. There are environmental reasons (city vs. sub-urbs vs. cross-country) and there are human reasons.