Poll: Would you "drive" an automated car?

[TheRightToArmBears]

Well when I'm a billionare I'll get a chauffer.

Some day...

 

[BabyRaptor]

No, no, no, no, NO.

One of my favourite parts of owning an automobile is driving it. I don't trust the idea of an automated car, because I don't trust it to be able to cope with changes in weather conditions like a sufficiently-experienced human driver can.

This. I've driven in some hellacious weather, and I've also been in an accident where an 18 wheeler didn't look as he changed lanes, causing me to swerve and spin out across a freeway. I highly doubt an automatic car would have handled those situation better than I did.

 

[Athinira]

First of all, there are a lot of people who would disagree. [http://www.finalgear.com/shows/topgearusa/1/5/]

That doesn't make them right. Alot of people also never thought that computers would beat humans in chess.

Secondly, Jeremy Clarkson certainly isn't the best driver on Top Gear, yet I'd like you to call me back when a computerised car can do something like this:


And hell, let's put an experienced driver into the equation:

Sure. It might be 30 years or so before i call you, so i hope you have alot of patience, but eventually this will be possible.

I, on the other hand, would like you to call me when it is REQUIRED for a computerized car to do something like this.

It's worth remembering that computerized cars are being developed to take over in normal traffic, not races. In races, the adrenaline-kick and the high speeds makes sure that human beings pay attention which keeps them awake. When driving in normal traffic though, which is alot more boring, even the best driver in the world can find himself in a situation where he forgets to pay attention for a moment, which is where accidents happen. This can NEVER happen to a computer. Ever.

 

[Senare]

If the technology is proven to be reliable and there are emergency measures installed (like manual driving) then hell yes. The vast majority of other drivers I encounter in traffic are not good drivers because they show that they do not understand efficient driving. They mostly drive at the wrong velocities, fail to maintain a proper minimum distance and skip a lot of rules regarding signaling - things that are very easy to do but people skip them either because they have not been taught to drive properly or because they think they are boring.

Now a programmer may be hard pressed to create something that would always outperform a human in racing conditions, but we are talking about normal traffic here. In normal traffic you are supposed to be driving safely, both for your own sake and for other drivers, not like some dude from an action movie.
I think that many driving elements should have the option of automation because

- we are not in an action movie
- it can be boring as hell to drive in an optimal and safe way
- we can use our time for other tasks
- the main cause of death in traffic (where I live) are single person accidents where the driver has fallen asleep
- I hate standing still in traffic jams (as opposed to everyone driving slowly)

And if we could just kill off the petrol industry and move on to better suited energy sources everything would be just peachy. Petrol is too precious to be wasted on cars.

 

[chif-ii]

Personally, I'd like a car that can do both. Take care of the boring highway driving on a cross country trip, then let me open up on the gas when the cops aren't around.

Thing is, the logistics of getting a car that can drive itself is a little complicated. Not unsolvable, given ten or twenty years, just complicated. I give it ten - no, make it fifteen, years before an autonomous car goes into production, then another decade before the plebs can get their hands on it.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

No, I would just buy a bus pass. I don't want to have to refill the thing when its less expensive to take a bus or tram. Besides half the fun in driving is actually driving.

I wish I had buses near me...

Seriously, I hate driving. I'm 15, admittedly, but I hate the idea of it. There's no way I'd be able to notice all the different signs and such, it took an hour of tv watching to realize there was a spider on the Tv, and I'm terrified of spiders.

And then there's my terrible depth perception...

So yeah, I'd love automatic cars.

 

[Ham_authority95]

I only like driving for pleasure, not to actually get anywhere.

So could I get a car that's automatic AND drivable?

 

[Athinira]

The difference here is that people were trying to make computers play chess as early as the late 1940s. Take a look at your computer gaming history - computer gaming goes back a long way before Pong. Cars, on the other hand, have been around for over one hundred years, and the nearest thing we've got to mass-production automation is cruise control. Yeah, that's great - in a straight line.

It doesn't matter how long cars have been around at all. What matters is how long we have attempted to make computers control cars, which is currently a very short timespan.

In addition, not all research progresses at the same speed. Research in computer chess progresses rapidly because it doesn't involve any danger and by the fact that software-testing is a very fast process. Testing a computerized car is a different matter, and might take longer, but rest assured, it's coming.

I love the way that you are so confident in a computer's infallibility when computers still crash today. No computer has 100% uptime - which is why computer systems which need to be made reliable are made hugely redundant.

Wrong. They aren't becoming redundant at all. Rather, backup systems are implemented instead in case of a system failure. These backup system have 3 roles:
1) Take over control from the main system and initiate safety-procedures to make sure that the system failure doesn't have any consequences
2) Restart the main system
3) Depending on the case, alert a human being (driver, supervisor, repair personnel, whatever)

Same can be implemented in cars no problem.

Personally, I think we need to stop faffing about with automated cars and deal with an issue potentially far graver than road deaths - we need to replace oil as a fuel source as much as possible, in order to preserve supplies for industrial feedstock, as well as to stave off climate change as much as possible.

...because all scientists and engineers are obviously experts in the same fields, and can all contribute to the same projects, no matter what area of science it deals with, amirite?

I shouldn't need to point out why that sentiment is beyond ridiculous.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

NOPE For the simple reason that I do not trust it. I understand the ease etc arguments but last winter I had a close call when the throttle cable on my motorbike jammed wide, if I hadn't had a clutch then I have no doubt I would have died that day.

Yes it might be safe/reliable etc and I would "drive" one but given the choice I would never chose an auto over a manual.

 

[Uncreation]

Well, i don't know how to drive and i have no intention to learn, because i don't like it (and i would not be good at it). So, it would love that. Just hop in the car and tell it where to go, and it just drives you there. Sounds awesome. And not that far fetched, i believe.

 

[Ertol]

As long as the car can actually drive itself well. I think iRobot had cars that drove themselves, so something along those lines, then yes I would in a heartbeat. I hate driving. People are generally really crazy on the roads, always seem to be in a hurry, and have a lot of close calls. I'd much prefer letting a car take care of all that and sitting back to relax.

 

[GBlair88]

There's already a car that goes where you want without you having to drive it. It's called a taxi.

 

[Sovereignty]

So a bunch of us were watching Demolition Man last night and some how a debate started about the automated car, and I was in a minority of one that said that I would buy such a car in a heart beat, because I freaking hate driving, I can drive, but I just don't like it.

My friends all said they would never allow a car to drive itself while they were on-board, partly because of trust, partly because they preferred to be in control. I can understand the control, but my own confidence in my driving skill isn't exactly sky high even if I've never had an accident while driving (but 5 bloody accidents as a passenger going back to the first at 4 years old, where I saw a screw driver impale itself in my grandmothers scalp, thankfully she was alright because it was didn't enter he brain, but it left an impression).

Then there is the question of comfort, having a car that could drive itself lets me indulge in my laziness, in addition to never having to worry about how many drinks I've had (mmm I've had 3 beers in the last 4 hours, am I under the legal limit or not?), speed limits (after all a computer is better able to judge that then me), and weather conditions.

So my question to you good friends, would you prefer a car that drove itself or would you rather drive?

I'm with you dude. I hate driving. And if it were automated and everyone's car was... We'd have virtually no accidents, no traffic, and be able to go significantly faster.


Whoever isn't for this, simply is too confident in their own skills as a driver, or hasn't considered the many pro's.

 

[Jonluw]

For everyday driving, I would love for the car to be automated. I would still like to have the ability to drive for fun though.

 

[Athinira]

If you were familiar with the engineering meaning of the word, "redundant", you'd understand that this was exactly what I was saying. Redundancy doesn't necessarily mean obsolescence. The difference between backup systems on the likes of a nuclear reactor and those which would be implemented on a car is that you don't have to move the nuclear reactor around, let alone under its own power.

The computer systems, even with Moore's Law coming into play, which would be required to provide the computing power to safely move these vehicles under conditions that aren't perfect would add heavy components to already-growing cars at a time when weight-saving will provide necessary provisions to efficiency. Because carbon-fibre or even aluminium are expensive to provide on cars, perhaps it's time to look at stripping out unnecessary components - a lot of which are electronic.

Snip

Those who are experts in automation of wheeled or tracked machines aren't providing insight into research which is as crucial as sorting out the efficiency of engines. As much as you'd like to believe it, automated cars won't be as appreciably more efficient on energy consumption than human drivers to make up for their costs. Just look at current-generation automatic and CVT gearboxes - and no, I use neither; I use a manual gearbox.

First of all: No, the equipment for automated cars aren't going to be adding unnecessary power or equipment consumption to cars. In 20-30 years time, the necessary processing power and misc. equipment for the process to work can likely be enabled with VERY minimal and small equipment, and the reduction in traffic accidents is also likely going to have a positive effect on this.

Second of all: Yes, computer driven cars actually ARE more efficient. Why? Because unlike human beings, they obey the speed limits at ALL times. Did you know that if you drive 80 kph and increase your speed by 25% to 100 kph, you increase your fuel consumption by 100%? A massive drop in efficiency, and many humans do it.

Third: My point about scientists passed completely over your head. Yes, it's true, scientists who are working on computerized cars aren't providing any advancement in more efficient engines (beyond the improvement mentioned in point 2). You know why? Because they can't. Scientists and engineers have different areas of expertise. You can't just move them from one field of science to another they know squat about and expect them to provide advancements.

 

[tkioz]

I think a lot of people are missing the fact that the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error (stupidity?), removing that would be of the good.

 

[Athinira]

Decided just to reply to this small bit, since we are going to have to agree to disagree on the rest

Then why are companies paying them to conduct research, in that circumstance?

Because companies see a profit in it.

Lets get something straigth: I love Google, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that they live of a profit just like everyone else. I love that they developed Android and made it free, but I'm aware that it's a huge source of income to them. In the same way, research into computerized cars is also something they see a potential profit in for the future.

Also, different kinds of research yields different kinds of profits. Now Google obviously see monetary gains in investing in this research, but lets go back to the issue of other advantages this research has. You weight the worlds fuel source problems very highly in your world. Thats fine, i see it as a problem as well. But research into computerized cars is a step attempting to stop traffic accidents and the loss of human lives that way. I surely hope you can agree with me that research into saving human lives isn't wasted research, right?