
For $10,000, your car can drive itself – Cruise (YC W14) - ajaymehta
http://theverge.com/2014/6/23/5834604/cruise-trying-to-reinvent-cruise-control-to-steer-brake-and-actually-drive-you
======
hawkharris
This reminds me of a Kickstarter campaign I saw a few months ago. The
campaign's goal was to build low-cost bouncing balls that cleared mine fields.
You could roll the ball into a dangerous, abandoned area and it would cause
dormant mines to explode.

The problem with that campaign is that it instilled a false sense of
confidence. The technology was "an in-between": certainly better than nothing,
but not as effective or safe as traditional mine-clearing methods.

Cruise is in a similar position. They have a chance to improve people's lives
and prevent serious injuries. At the same time, they're toeing a delicate line
between improving drivers' safety and causing them to become complacent.

~~~
kvogt
There is a fatal virus in the US that claims 3,000 people every month. And
it's a nasty one. It's the #1 cause of death for teenagers. That virus is
called a car accident, and the fact we're complacent with that is what scares
me.

We understand the delicate balance you describe and it's our top priority to
make sure our product actually does improve drivers' safety. That's why we're
using independent third party testing by the same companies who test products
for the major automakers, even though there is no law or regulation requiring
us to do so.

~~~
jacquesm
The way to improve drivers safety is by insisting on better schooling.
Compared to the kind of testing I had to go through to get a driving license
in NL the American (and the Canadian, for that matter) license test is way too
simple.

If you lower the bar to entry then you get more accidents, technology alone
will not help with that unless you cut the driver out of the loop completely.

~~~
jonemo
I'd upvote this 10 times if I could. It's amazing how much Americans rely on
driving while being abysmally bad at it. The amount of driving errors, almost
accidents and accidents you can see during half an hour driving on 101 on the
peninsula is more than what you'd see in an entire day on the Autobahn.

~~~
lsh123
It's more like 1.5x (per distance driven) when comparing Germany and United
States:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
re...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate)

Interestingly, average cars age is 8.7 years in Germany and 11.4 years in USA
(in 2013) which is 1.3x:

[http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130703/ANE/307029987/ge...](http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130703/ANE/307029987/germanys-
average-car-age-rises-to-record-8.7-years-old-on-europe)
[http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/average-age-of-cars-in-us-
ju...](http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/average-age-of-cars-in-us-jumps-to-
record-high-of-114-years.html)

~~~
ericd
Given what I've seen here vs. in European countries with good driving test
standards, I'm surprised it's not much higher. Maybe the distances in the US
are larger? Or perhaps our roads are wider and so have more wiggle room, which
compensates for the stunningly bad driver behavior I see every time I drive.

~~~
tomp
Also, lower top speed limits and higher penalties for speeding.

~~~
chockablock
Which seems like a potentially reasonable policy tradeoff: make it easier for
more people to get their licenses, then make it harder for them to kill each
other. (NB I would prefer more stringent licensing standards).

------
netcan
Comments here are fairly negative. Pointing to downsides, insufficient upsides
and such. Gimme fully self driving or go home. Here's my perspective:

I think that self driving cars are coming and that. Even cars that drive on
built-for-human roads are just a bridging technology. Eventually roads will be
built for robocars. I think it's a big important technology. All transport
revolutions are.

To get on that road we need to start getting this tech into consumer land, a
beachhead. I don't know if this specific product is it, but it could be. It's
got a nice gradual path from cruise control plus to auto-drive for 80% of the
ride.

There might be other beachheads. Long haul trucking is often mentioned. This
seems like a very similar problem. They both need to deal with highway driving
only. Maybe robocar friendly road networks will be extended into built up
areas.

I'm happy to see a company take what's working now and put it in a consumer
product. We'll see if people like it. If they do, it seems like a good a place
to start developing this stuff outside of research labs.

edit: clarity

~~~
dxbydt
Exactly! People fail to factor how yc companies evolve - how fast, and how
far. I made this mistake twice in my life. These days I just stfu.

3 years back, I met with the poundpay team. They knew zero about handling
fraud, and they said so. They said they'll figure it out over time. The
cofounder said he was "reading a bunch of machine learning papers over the
weekend" on combating fraud. I found that amateurish & scary.

2 years back, I met with the interviewstreet founder. The founder did not have
any technical chops to speak of, and was actually quite misinformed about
scalability challenges, algorithms & programming languages. I couldn't see how
this guy could take on topcoder.

Today, 3 years hence, Balanced has processed over a half billion in payments,
& Hackerrank has signed up a half million developers & both are well on their
way towards a billion dollar market cap. Both are great companies to work for
- in terms of actual tech & the potential for ipo riches.

What Cruise is right now is a useless datapoint. Think about what it'll be 2
years from now. Use your imagination. There are tons of low hanging features
they could iterate on & completely dominate the space. Enough said.

~~~
stcredzero
The underlying message I'm getting is that HN applicants tend to find the
"actual" problem they can tackle to make their fortunes while initially trying
to solve a different problem.

~~~
GFischer
Well, that's exactly what all the "lean startup" types say :) , the theory
goes:

\- 1) release an MVP \- 2) get actual feedback \- 3) pivot \- 4) repeat 1, 2
and 3 until you find the actual pain point to solve, or run out of cash \- 5)
profit :)

~~~
stcredzero
I was thinking of the "schlepping" thing, which is pg's observation that the
actual pain point is often your own.

------
matthewowen
I understand why this sort of progress is interesting... but I feel like in
this form, this is of minimal value. If I have to pay attention anyway
(because of the risk of failure or situations it can't understand), then it
isn't that helpful. I mean, it isn't like I can just zone out and read a book:
I still have to pay just as much information.

Actually, to be more concrete, I definitely see the utility of this as an
extra line of safety (a fallback if/when the driver does lose focus). But as
something that is "between cruise control and self driving cars"... nope, not
convinced. I wish it were pitched more conservatively.

~~~
netcan
It's useful in the same way cruise control is.

~~~
jonknee
I probably wouldn't drill holes into my brand new car's roof and spend $10k
just to get something like cruise control.

Also FWIW, the Audi in question has adaptive cruise control as an option. That
seems to be a much better bang for your buck.

~~~
namdnay
Lane Assist is also an Audi option (but maybe only in A6+), so I really don't
understand the value of their proposition.

------
mtsmith85
This "frightens" me a lot more than the Google car does. I trust that
automated cars will be safe "enough." I don't think I would necessarily trust
an automated car that can find itself in a situation in which a driver needs
to intervene. I barely trust other drivers on the road (maybe its the NYC
driver in me...). Trusting those drivers' reaction times in a situation where
the car needs to disable automation would require a lot of built up good
will/trust.

That being said, I think this could be a great idea for more closed
environments. Honestly, I'm not really sure where they are. Maybe huge airport
parking lots (as "drop offs" at specific locations), or in large corporate
parks or something of that nature.

~~~
nether
Aside, but can we drop the scare quotes? If something frightens you, just say
it. Or choose a better word.

~~~
mtsmith85
That's probably fair. I, funny enough, used quotes, because I couldn't think
of a less serious word than frightens. Concerns is maybe a better word choice.

~~~
Encosia
Troubles. Bothers. Unnerves.

------
justin
No car on the market offers a driving assist at this level (both lane tracking
and distance keeping). I personally drive hundreds of freeway miles a week and
would pay much more than 10k to avoid doing that.

It has been super impressive to watch the Cruise team of just 4 built a car
that can drive down the freeway in just 7 months.

~~~
henrikschroder
> No car on the market offers a driving assist at this level (both lane
> tracking and distance keeping).

Yes they do. Mercedes, BMW, Audi and Volvo (and probably many others) offer
this technology in their cars, and adding that option is much cheaper than
$10k, comes fully integrated, and appears to offer the same benefits.

Meanwhile, this Cruise thing only works on Audi S4/A4, sits on the top of the
car, costs more than the manufacturer charges for it, and doesn't appear to be
better than that version.

It's really impressive to offer an after-market adaptive cruise-control
system, kudos for that, but who is the customer here? Who would buy this
thing?

If you have an Audi A4/S4 and $10k, why not trade to one that has the option
installed?

~~~
kvogt
While some automakers have lane keep assist on the market, in most cases it
just vibrates your steering wheel or, at best, lets your hand wander away from
the wheel for up to 15s and only on mostly straight roads.

Cruise is meant to operate hands-free for nearly the entire highway segment of
your trip and over a speed range of 0-80 mph. No product on the market does
anything close to this.

------
sheetjs
Related technologies that sit somewhere between cruise control and self-
driving cars in terms of automation (I only have personal experience with
older versions of the BMW and MB systems, and the situation has clearly
improved in the last few years):

\- BMW active cruise control will automatically adjust if you get too close to
the car in front of you

\- Infiniti cars will stop themselves if they detect obstructions in the
direction of motion (rear and forward)

\- Ford cars can perform the motions of parallel parking

\- Mercedes-Benz cars warn you when you drift into the next lane

Other car manufacturers have related technologies.

~~~
marcc
The newer Mercedes-Benz system will actually steer the car to keep it
following the car in front, while in slow enough traffic (< 37 MPH).

~~~
kvogt
Mercedes-Benz has a very nice product, but it's not hands-free. There's a huge
difference.

~~~
marcc
That's the point here. Drivers will be tempted into a false feeling that the
car is driving itself, just because it accelerates, decelerates and steers. MB
has the same functionality, and I actually worry that it would cause even more
distracted driving.

~~~
thenmar
I think people probably said that about cruise control when it was introduced,
and that turned out okay.

~~~
scintill76
Define "okay." Cruise control has gotten "stuck" at 50mph[0], and electronic
throttle control has left the throttle open disregarding user input[1].

So yeah, it's not some apocalyptic, universally-agreed failure that happens
every day, but people have actually been killed[2] because the machine did
something the driver wouldn't have done if they were in full control. (Maybe
it's "compensated" for by deaths that were prevented by having cruise control
-- I suppose we can't know for sure.)

[0] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236020/Horror-
ride-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236020/Horror-ride-driver-
stuck-50mph-cruise-control-30-minutes-slow-traffic.html)

[1] [http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-
shooting...](http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting-
ourselves-in-the-foot-with-stack-overflow/)

[2]
[http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319903](http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1319903)

------
akgerber
When I lived in San Diego, my route for my bike commute to work included
Interstate 5[0], because bikes can legally take the interstate shoulder in
California where there's no practical alternative route. Y'all handling that
edge case?

[0] Here:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@32.886728,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,...](https://www.google.com/maps/@32.886728,-117.225045,3a,25.3y,309.37h,87.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5mXyWboVy6eWKnGq6mWsvw!2e0)
(note the bottom of the Bike Route sign says 'use I-5 shoulder')

~~~
jzwinck
It is illegal to drive on the shoulder, so they need to handle this case for a
lot of reasons (another being that substantial debris from collisions usually
ends up on the shoulder). I do wonder how much space this thing will give
cyclists when it passes them if they are near the white line, or if it
understands to stay behind sometimes.

Making the computer react to a cyclist ahead who is indicating a lane change
or turn with his arm will be extra tricky.

~~~
tempestn
This video shows how the Google self-driving cars react to cyclists, as well
as obstacles on the road and such:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3oc1Hr62g)

No idea how Cruise deals with this, but it does appear to be possible anyway.

------
iandanforth
Mad props to the Cruise guys for taking this on. This kind of life and death
programming is not something I'm willing to do. Just too freakin scary.

------
aidenn0
Self-driving cars will not be able to catch on without legislation limiting
damages to manufacturers.

Proponents of self-driving cars predict ~90% reduction in fatalities. What
this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-driving
cars. This is way better than what we have now, but in fatal car crashes,
often the driver at fault is killed, and juries tend to assess much lower
damages against dead people than against large corporations.

Combine that with the fact that there typically aren't any damages at all
awarded for single-occupant single-car collisions where the driver is at
fault, and it seems entirely possible that the total damages awarded for
traffic fatalities could stay at the current level, or even go up, leaving the
manufacturers of self-driving cars to foot the bill.

Now, I generally think that laws to cap damages are not good policy, as it
does make it harder to discourage negligence or even malfeasance.

~~~
danielweber
_What this means is that over 3000 people per year will be killed by self-
driving cars_

I appreciate this point, but there are two big assumptions hidden in there.

1\. That number turns 30,000 accidents into 3,000 accidents, but that's
assuming all cars are self-driving.

2\. It assumes that in those 3,000 accidents, the self-driving cars are "at
fault." But those last 10% of accidents are things in which driver error is
not a factor. If a cinderblock falls off a bridge onto my self-driving car, it
would take an incredibly aggressive jury[1] to blame that on the car.

What is the cause of those last 10% of accidents? Is it things like
manufacturing faults, in which case the manufacturer is already absorbing the
risk? (And a computer-driven car could handle a blowout better than a human
could.)

Oh, I found an NHTSA paper[2] that gives that "90% due to human error" figure,
and puts 4 to 13% on "vehicle factors (brake failure, tire problems, etc.)."
So I think my point in the preceding paragraph holds: a big company is already
on the line, the automatic car could do better health checks to prevent them,
and it could have a better way of dealing with mechanical failure.

[1] Not that such a thing is impossible.

[2]
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0B5GzBW...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0B5GzBWLCrcJ:www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/UDAshortrpt/UDAsummtechrept.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

~~~
scott_s
I think you missed the poster's overall point: how people _perceive_ accidents
matters. This is independent of what the actual causes are, and if there are
less of them. When automation is involved, people may perceive that someone
did something wrong, even though that automatic thing outperformed what a
human could achieve.

~~~
danielweber
I think manufacturers are _already_ facing damages for those remaining 3000
fatalities. I assert "deep pockets" is the overriding factor.

I'd really like to get a sampling of those 3000 non-driver-error fatalities.

I think the term of art is "vehicle factors." Using that I found
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916886](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916886)
which suggests that manufacturers could address "the majority" of them, and I
don't think I'm being crazy by suggesting self-driving vehicles already
include a lot of them, since they aren't exactly Geo Metros.

~~~
aidenn0
Self driving cars will get into accidents that are not currently "vehicle
factors" since they will be superior drivers, not perfect drivers. Just
imagine the headline: "A computer killed my son."

I've long said that people would rather a human kill 1000 people than a
computer kill one.

------
ah-
I wonder what the long term goal is? Getting acquired by some auto
manufacturer?

I don't see many people that own modern enough cars (having the required
electronics/mechanics already installed so all that's needed is a sensor and
some data processing to send out control signals) investing into a retrofit
device instead of just buying the next model which comes with the same thing
out of the box.

But I have to say that I'm impressed that they have made it this far, and
almost certainly without any support from Audi.

~~~
kvogt
We use our own actuators to control your steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake
pedal. It's designed to work on any car, regardless of whether it has any
drive-by-wire capabilities.

~~~
ah-
Very interesting, how do you control the steering wheel? Most solutions I've
seen for that were either really clunky (and unsafe, as they obstructed the
airbag etc.) or used/replaced the power steering. I just assumed you would
have used the existing interfaces, I know for a fact that at least the current
A6 has all the necessary hardware on board, and am pretty certain that the A4
has the same for park assist.

Have you thought about selling your system directly to manufacturers for
integration? I'm certain that there are chances if you're able to deliver a
working component that can simply be integrated into existing models. Most of
the current assistance systems aren't developed in-house but come from one of
the big third party suppliers.

~~~
kvogt
We 3d scan the cavities in the driver's side footwell, design brackets in CAD,
then manufacture them mostly out of 3d printed polycarbonate and aluminum.
They bolt directly onto the existing components and are tucked away behind the
trim. It's one of our design requirements that the actuators are completely
hidden and imperceivable when not in use.

We don't touch any of the existing drive-by-wire controls, even if they're
present. It's too dangerous to send signals down a CAN bus without a full
understanding of the safety implications, and that kind of proprietary
information isn't available to us.

------
CamperBob2
I don't want my car to _steer_ itself, at least not just yet, but I do want to
add a radar-based aftermarket active cruise control system to it that can
maintain a preset following distance to the car ahead by controlling the
accelerator and brakes.

This was actually available as a factory option in my car, but I didn't order
it because I thought (incorrectly) that it didn't work in stop-and-go traffic.
I've been kicking myself for that ever since.

Perhaps Cruise could consider developing an ACC system for the benefit of
customers who would welcome some automation but who aren't quite ready to
surrender the steering wheel yet.

~~~
ah-
These systems have been available for several years now, so I don't really see
how many people would buy a retrofit option. People don't even upgrade their
car stereo systems anymore.

~~~
caw
That's because the manufacturers tie so much stuff into them. It's been 3
years since I looked into it, but it was my understanding that if I upgraded
my stereo I'd lose the nice display just below the windshield line. I think
I'd also lose either the steering wheel music controls, or the bluetooth
controls for my phone.

------
danielweber
FYI: [http://reserve.getcruise.com/join-the-driverless-
revolution](http://reserve.getcruise.com/join-the-driverless-revolution)

The font here is illegible. Some weird anti-aliases very-thin white-on-black.
Highlighting doesn't help.

~~~
clarkdave
I have this too in Chrome 35 on Windows 7.

Here's how it looks: [http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6](http://imgur.com/SSMV8j6)

------
Nitramp
Or, you could just buy the already existing product. Is there anything they
want to add beyond these?

[http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-
drive.com/com/en/1_driv...](http://www.mercedes-benz-intelligent-
drive.com/com/en/1_driver-assistance-and-safety/2_distronic-plus-with-
steering-assist)

For Mercedes:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSXUApikcOk)

For Audi:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8sJwuZyVAY)

Similarly from other high-end car producers.

~~~
callmeed
Cruise goes on an Audi A4, which is roughly half the cost of an A7 ... so you
could get an A4+Cruise and still have money left over

~~~
bri3d
The A4 absolutely offers "active lane assist" (steering) as well as "adaptive
cruise control with stop and go" (automatic throttle and braking, all the way
down to stopping in traffic).

[http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2747](http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?id=2747)

I don't think it's quite as autonomous as Cruise - as noted by others in the
thread, Cruise seems to be trying to reach a somewhat scary "good enough that
you could read a book but please pay attention because it doesn't work just
right yet" plateau, while the Audi system is simply supposed to be a gentle
helper of sorts.

But the Audi system also works on any highway rather than just pre-mapped
areas, and is (for better or for worse) integrated with OEM brake and steering
actuators and the car's throttle-by-wire system rather than relying on
retrofitted physical systems.

------
Marcus10110
This is exactly the sort of thing I want to do next. Good luck guys!

It's perfect. A real world problem with world changing impact. It's hard. Its
orders of magnitude harder than anything else startups are doing around here!
The opportunity is almost infinite, and there are potentially billions of
dollars to be made. I wish I was working on it!

I really hope these guys go all the way – although I'm sure there will be a
ton of offers along the road. I wouldn't be surprised if Google X hadn't
already made an offer, but if it comes down to it, I hope they go with Tesla
over Google X. I got an inside look at their autopilot project a few months
ago, and I'm really excited about it!

Honestly though, there are probably a lot of other big players who could be
interested – Amazon especially. Again though, I really hope they take this all
the way to a mass market consumer product, preferably with multiple
iterations, while expanding the capabilities toward what Elon described as the
99% Autonomous autopilot.

------
semerda
This feels like an addition to the future self driving cars more than anything
else. Sort of like a adaptive cruise control (ACC) or Active Lane Keeping
Assist in Mercedes? I see trust & cost being a major hurdle here. Like
trusting a self driving car to take you home.

I believe we need to totally remove the driver to really stop the number of
deaths on the roads. As indicated below by others, there are plenty of bad
drives in the day.

When I came to the valley few years ago I was shocked to see the number of
drivers failing to use indicators (blinkers). As a pedestrian this was
alarming. How do you cross the road not knowing intent of so many cars on the
road. As a driver it was tough to gauge the intent of drivers around you. The
human behind the steering wheel is the problem and that is where most of the
disruption should be focused on.

Once we replace the human driver from the machine we will see less deaths on
the road, faster commutes and more efficient use of resources.

------
ameister14
I've been thinking about the applications of auto-driving cars a lot over the
last year or so, and I think this kind of consumer use is not likely to be
that successful.

It seems more likely to me that this kind of highway driving system would be
installed and work on tractor-trailers. It's a good compromise; drivers keep
their jobs but get less stress, and when these are legalized with less issues,
the next stage where driverless trucks are introduced can come into play
easier legislatively.

Legislation will likely be the biggest issue with these things in the United
States. Taxi drivers already oppose Uber and Lyft; what do you think they'd do
with an invention that removes their profession entirely? And their
legislative pull pales in comparison to the teamsters'.

So, this kind of staging is a good idea for introduction to driverless
vehicles. It just won't work for an Audi.

------
fallingmeat
I'm very curious about the procedures and paradigms followed to develop the
safety critical software inside the system, as well as the engineering
pedigree of the developers. I don't mean this in a rude, finger pointing way,
just proposing that some background and a slightly deeper technical
description of the precautions would make a huge difference in confidence
level.

For example, are the redundancy systems space and time separated? What kind of
methods were used to ensure that? Are there any overall hardware, software,
communications development standards used and audited? Does anyone on the team
have demonstrated experience in these areas?

If this system were to be audited, what organization would be responsible?

Thanks guys, great work so far and excellent vision!

------
prawn
What about exterior cameras combined with interior projection to provide an AR
experience? Show optimum trailing distance, highlight hazards, display useful
information in the field of view. Is that illegal to do, perhaps?

------
userbinator
Reading through all the safety concerns reminds me of this:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-
dea...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death)

------
tempestn
The problem I see is, if you still have to be fully attentive, supervising the
computer and ready to take over, but not actually _do_ anything... driving
will be mind-numbingly boring. (That's assuming people are even capable of
maintaining that attention, which many other comments address.) I mean,
driving is usually already kind of boring, but at least the task keeps some
part of your mind occupied. If the computer can take over completely - Google
style - then you can do something else entirely. But this sounds like some
kind of intermediate purgatory.

~~~
saraid216
It's also worth noting that Google hires test drivers specifically for ability
to maintain full attention during mind-numbing boredom.

------
drKarl
Mmmm according to the article Cruise is not a driver replacement. It can
steer, brake, and avoid objects. I'm sure it can be quite safe on a highway,
but what are its limits? Can can and cannot do?

~~~
danielweber
It's clearly an intermediate product for people who want to get closer to
driverless vehicles. I doubt this will make strict business sense for anyone
right now.

~~~
jonknee
It seems more like an acquisition play as all the major car makers are going
to end up in this space in the near future.

------
dave_sullivan
There's going to be a big business in self driving car retrofits -- convert
non-self driving to self driving. But it's going to need to be fully automated
for people to bother.

~~~
pdenya
Has there ever been big business in retrofitting cars? More likely a small
number of hobbyists will retrofit and for the rest it'll gradually roll out
from manufacturers. Cruise might be hoping for a partnership with Audi or
something.

------
theklub
What happens if a leaf or some other obstruction blocks the cameras?

~~~
jedberg
The human takes over until it can be cleared I assume.

This system is not a self driving system -- it's basically a smarter cruise
control. You still have to pay attention and be at the wheel. At least for
now.

~~~
Dewie
That just sounds dangerous. A system that takes care of a lot for you, until
it doesn't. And then you have to step in at a moments notice, even though you
might not be paying enough attention to react fast enough. I think there has
been cases of airline pilots' senses being dulled by all the automation, and
then them stumbling to fix things when they have to step in and do its job
manually.

It seems to me that self-driving cars has to be a all-or-nothing deal.

~~~
dangrossman
This set of technology is already on the road today, from nearly every major
carmaker. Just look at the luxury car in each line, and find "electronic power
steering", "adaptive cruise control" and "active lane keeping". The 2013
Lincoln MKZ is one example, and there were tons of writeups calling it "self-
driving, sometimes" when it was announced.

That's the combination that lets the car drive itself on well-marked roads
like highways: EPS/ALK allows it to turn the wheel to keep you from crossing
divider lines, and ACC maintains a minimum distance from any cars in front of
you. Many of them also have automatic crash avoidance that will stop the car
if the car in front of you suddenly slows and you don't hit the brakes
yourself.

As for ensuring the driver can react fast enough if any of the systems become
unavailable, AFAIK all the cars that have this set of features also have
systems that will beep at you annoyingly if you take your hands off the wheel.
It's one of the unwritten purposes of those "driver drowsiness detection"
systems these same luxury cars now come with.

~~~
Dewie
> As for ensuring the driver can react fast enough if any of the systems
> become unavailable, AFAIK all the cars that have this set of features also
> have systems that will beep at you annoyingly if you take your hands off the
> wheel. It's one of the unwritten purposes of those "driver drowsiness
> detection" systems these same luxury cars now come with.

That's great, 'cause that's one of my concerns with this kind of thing. Still,
I wonder if it just might be better to leave everything to be handled
manually, since then you have more things to keep you busy and thus awake. I
imagine that I could end up like I sometimes do when watching a boring movie
late at night - it's very hard to stay awake because I'm not invested in what
I'm watching and I am not doing anything but watching it. Of course, it might
just be best to pull over and sleep for 15 minutes at that point.

------
things
Can this be removed easily? It looks like it would be a beacon for vandalism
unless you spent your time in secure parking.

------
dutchbrit
Shame that thong looks ugly on the roof if that car. Who's liable if an
accident happens when Cruise is turned on?

~~~
jisaacks
Being that this is marketed as a sort of cruise control++, I would suspect the
same party who is liable when an accident happens while cruise control is
engaged.

~~~
kylebrown
Legal costs would be very high, in any case. Look at Toyota's gas-pedal
settlement.

------
msane
Please go public soon so I can buy shares.

------
laurentoget
so what do they expect will happen the first time someone gets in a serious
accident while using one of those?

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
This is an issue for _all_ self-driving car tech.

A little Googling uncovers the fact that airbags killed some 158 people in a
recent year -- in low-speed accidents where the occupants would have been
unharmed without the airbags. But airbags continued to grow in popularity
(though now they're mandatory in the US, IIRC); automobile manufacturers just
consider a certain amount of money paid out in liability a cost of doing
business.

To help protect the manufacturers, they should make sure to have a good black-
box recording of all the sensor data in the case of an accident. If there was
a bug, they need to pay out the damages and fix the bug. If the accident was
caused by someone else behaving dangerously, though, they should be protected
from liability.

Bad press, however, is likely no matter what. The recent "Teslas can catch on
fire!" media storm shows that; as I'm sure most HN readers know, a smaller
percentage of Teslas caught fire than gasoline cars, and no Tesla owners were
harmed, making the Tesla fires a non-story. Or it _should_ have been a non-
story, anyway.

~~~
djokkataja
Not 158 in one year, 158 "to date" as of the year 2000 (source below):
[http://www.airbag-law.com/index.html](http://www.airbag-law.com/index.html)
"As of April 1, 2000, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration's Special Crash Investigation (SCI) has confirmed a total of
158 fatalities induced by airbag deployment. Of that total, 92 were children,
60 were drivers, and 6 were adult passengers."

Wikipedia puts it at 175 fatalities between 1990 and 2000 (source:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20080226234316/http://www.nsc.org...](http://web.archive.org/web/20080226234316/http://www.nsc.org/partners/status3.htm)).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Airbag_fatality_statist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Airbag_fatality_statistics)

Also, most of the fatalities occurred from being sitting too close to the
airbag or not wearing a safety belt. From the wikipedia source again: "These
fatalities have predominantly occurred when the children and adults were
positioned precariously close to the compartment where the air bag was housed.
Most of the children killed were not secured by safety belts and were thrown
forward during pre-crash breaking, placing their heads just inches from the
air bag when it deployed. Therefore, the best defense during an air bag
deployment is to be wearing a safety belt."

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
Thanks for the correction. It's too late for me to edit my comment, or I'd
change it.

Regardless, my point isn't that airbags are a problem. They clearly _save_
lives on balance.

The point is that car manufacturers are happy to add features to cars that
buyers want even when those features might kill people. On the other end,
manufacturers have removed critical safety features to save a dollar or less
on production costs, and those decisions also have killed people. [1]

In this case, though, it's more like airbags, where, on balance, more lives
are saved than lost as a result of the feature. At least in theory.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect)

------
debt
I thought this was going to be some sort of one-time monthly fee for an actual
human driver.

~~~
jisaacks
> monthly fee for an actual human driver.

I can find someone to drive me around for a month for way less than 10K

------
agumonkey
Self driving cars have to deal with a human centric analog world. Why not add
a layer of information to help them ? smart paint to help align, smart
milestones and road signs broadcasting local driving constraints. Your car
will read these and plan accordingly, instead of relying on heavy computer
vision to be interpreted ?

~~~
danielweber
Chicken-and-egg. It's expensive to add a bunch of stuff to the road for
computer cars to read, and if there are no computer cars to read them, what's
the point?

Computer cars will lower the bar on what's valuable to put into the road. I
can see the point in 30 years where computer driven cars are even simpler than
today, because it made so much sense to add the automatic road markers, which
made automating cars easier, which make all cars automatic, which led to roads
being updated _only_ electronically, which is now a simpler problem than today
(driving on roads with only other computer-driven cars actively broadcasting
beacons of their location and position, and road markers/signs/lights being
trivial for computers to read).

------
Datsundere
For $10k I'd get either e46 m3, s2k, rx8, or mx5 or a cobra.

~~~
tim333
My mx5's worth about $2000 so for $12k you could have a self driving one.
Though there's not much roof space to bolt the thing on in an mx5.

------
mellisarob
seems like a fairly good bargain, life is far more precious than money.
Spending on it will be worthwhile if it ensures safety

------
mangeletti
tl;dr

Q.A.

The homepage video play button doesn't work in Firefox (latest stable
release)...

[imagining RP-1 driving me off a cliff the moment I venture onto an
unsupported road]

~~~
danielkan
Unfortunately a slight oversight. I thought mp4 was supported. Fixing now.
Thanks!

------
jqm
And....for $1.50 you can put a brick on the gas pedal.

Now, this is missing many of the features of autonomous cars like the ones
Google is developing and the driver will need to remain at the wheel and ready
to take over in case of emergency...

(ok, let the down votes commence. I couldn't resist. It's great people are
working on things, and I hope something comes of it but this seems like a case
of all or nothing to me).

~~~
abruzzi
I think its the other way. Taking the plunge to 100% self driving is going to
take a very long time. Google's systems seems to require elaborate 3d mapping
of the entire road. In the poor states like where I live and where many people
live on dirt roads that streetview has never seen (and some that don't even
show up on Google maps), it is going to be a long time before fully automated
driving is a proper 50 state solution.

This on the other hand is something that could show up in cars in 5 years, and
provide meaningful benefits far before Google is ready.

~~~
jqm
I suppose maybe incremental progress is the way autonomous driving will
happen, so maybe you are right. And, all progress is progress and it is good.

At the same time, I simply don't see much benefit and substantial risk in the
system as presented. It works on one kind of car in one state. It only works
under certain conditions. And it doesn't really do that much. Oh... and it
seems a bit risky. I do understand the need to raise capital though, so if
they sell some of these and it funds future development, great! I won't be
buying one but hopefully someone does.

Incidentally, I saw a device similar to the "brick" for sale in a truck-stop
once. It was an adjustable pole that pushed down on the gas pedal and locked
into place so the truck driver didn't have to use his foot (big trucks don't
have cruise control I guess?). It seemed a little iffy to me to and I can't
believe it would be legal.

