Ask HN: Would you want to own a self-driving car with remote driver(s)?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39652863

by amichail • 2 years ago

5 18 2 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

The remote driver(s) (whom you don't see or talk to) would be able to intervene at any time and take full responsibility for any accidents.

emedchill• 2 years ago

No. Driving requires a fast reaction time and with remote having an inherent lag in the feed -- count me out.

HenryBemis2• 2 years ago

+lack of sensors or sensory overload.

One behaves differently when driving, and be mindful of 360 degrees, checking the mirrors every 5-10 seconds, etc. But if one has a wall of screens, perhaps in the long run they may be able to convert the 2d (wall of monitors) to the 3d (360/surroundings) and sense it accordingly.

Lag/downtime/tunnels/etc. would kill, and should be flawless.

dave44202• 2 years ago

How would this work in tunnels?

amichail• 2 years ago

Doesn't Waymo use a similar approach except that you don't own the car?

dave44202• 2 years ago

I dunno. Do they? How does it cope when there’s no reception?

haltcatchfire• 2 years ago

You just have to get the wired version if you expect to go through tunnels.

HenryBemis2• 2 years ago

That will be a looooooooooooooong cable :)

EDIT: (or a tether, kinda like the one skydivers have for when jumping off a plane with the rope being tied to them chutes, and deploys them as they exit from the back)

hnthrowaway0328• 2 years ago

Hell no. They need to pay me for that to happen.

nusl• 2 years ago

Absolutely not. Trusting my life to some random probably earning a bad wage in a call center for remote drivers? No.

Also such a company would have massive liabilities. You can’t just wave away killing someone with a contract clause

ipaddr• 2 years ago

You've never been in a cab or taken an uber?

wara23arish• 2 years ago

The huge difference is that the cab driver has skin in the game aka his life is on the line while driving too. So he has every interest in avoiding accidents

endisneigh• 2 years ago

Seems impractical other than very specific situations - the latency is just cannot be overcome other than those specific scenarios.

aynyc• 2 years ago

100% I would. Basically taking a bus or Uber.

bhag2066• 2 years ago

Never. Either I drive, someone else in the car drives (aligned incentive), partially autonomous (with me taking over) or fully autonomous.

I'd take all four of those options but never, ever remote drivers.

mikewarot• 2 years ago

No...pay attention or die is not a spectator game.

There is absolutely no way someone not at the risk of their life could pay attention well enough to drive for more than a few minutes.

I don't want to be an NPC in someone's game of American Taxi Simulator.

Not to mention, latency, communications failures, etc.

meristohm• 2 years ago

Nope. It's okay to drive oneself (or walk, bike, take public transportation, or tax-funded transport for people with disabilities, etc), and it's important not to make burning fuel too easy. For too long we treat cars like an extension of our bodies, but it costs a lot more calories, and is far more polluting, to drive these heavy vehicles.

nashashmi• 2 years ago

Own? No. But I would be ok with a taxi and a remote person operating the vehicle.

If i own it, it should have better options.

farseer• 2 years ago

Would the remote driver be in India to save labor costs? That would raise your "ping" and make it unsafe.

Ask HN: Would you want to own a self-driving car with remote driver(s)?

Related Stories