Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

[persephone]

I think the point, for me, of driverless cars, and why I support and hope for them, isn't to remove the joy from driving, but to let people who have trouble driving or can't drive get themselves around in cities without good public transport. The city I live in doesn't really have any public transport to speak of, and I have damaged wrists; my ability to drive is limited, and sometimes even out of the question. Having a reliable, good autopilot I could turn on would be FANTASTIC.

As for the idea of cars that would transport those who can't take over driving if they need to, I think that's still a good idea; we just need to test the living daylights out of it first, and have about seventeen backups and redundancies in case of emergencies.

Plus I don't like driving, and I'm a really crappy navigator. Being able to just program in "take me to the grocery store" and then having that happen would be GREAT. That said, I get the OP's point about how some people really like driving, and I can see how they wouldn't want a driverless car. I don't see why any car would ever be *exclusively* driverless, though, so they could still drive if they want to.

 

[lunavixen]

I love driving, so this is a lukewarm idea for me. I can see its uses, but I don't want to give up driving just because the machine can do it. If it was a hybridised system or had forced control if the driver, say, was drunk or on their phone, yes, I could get behind that in a heartbeat (or if their driving became unstable due to fatigue), but full automative control also invites high maintenance costs and electrical gremlins. Automotive gremlins are bad enough in current vehicles, but ones in a system that doesn't let you have control are inviting disaster. Another thing that makes my reception to this idea a little tepid are the people who can so much as look at a computer and break it.

Why aren't we getting more behind using liquid hydrogen (or something similar) as a car fuel? Proof of concept cars have been made (it was a Honda Civic than runs on hydrogen if I remember right), they're environmentally friendlier on the emissions scale and the l/km are not much different than current petrol cars.

TLDR: I think it's a generation too early.

 

[Marik2]

Can't it be more prone for hacking?

There are some videos showing that cars these days can be hacked so that you can mess with the brakes and the driver will not have any control.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

If it works well then I'm all for it. Driving is a chore I could do without.

Its likely to be extremely expensive though.

 

[Reed Spacer]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm very happy with driverless cars going on the road. Simply put, I'd trust a machine with an advanced technological brain and highly sophisticated sensing equipment, one that can't be distracted or in a bad mood or utterly shitfaced, to handle a speeding metal death coffin far more than I'd trust other humans.

Fully agree. The sooner, the better IMO. I may be a tad biased though since people drive like shit in my town.

"Oh sure, back straight out into main street (angle parking all along it) without checking behind you at all. It'll be fine!" People doing this shit have already caused me one accident and I see them do it on a daily basis. When I first got here I was always wondering why everyone drove 20-30 km/h under the speed limit. Now I know that it's because everyone is constantly ready to slam on the breaks due to some oblivious old man backing his car through their lives.

So ya, bring on the driverless cars.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I don't trust driverless cars. Well no, that's not exactly true, I believe that the driverless cars will be a hell of a lot safer than real drivers, but what I don't trust is the fact that the driverless cars will be hackable and I don't trust people not to hack them.

Just imagine someone hacking hundreds of thousands of driverless cars just as a prank and then uploading code that makes them drift slightly to the left. Fairly minor, but considering the fact that people won't pay attention to what their car is doing once driverless cars are a normal thing in their life, even something that minor will create a ton of collisions.

So yeah, I don't trust driverless cars because I don't trust people not to fuck with them.

This is my primary concern as well. We can't secure routers from being hacked; we can't secure phones from being hacked; hell, we can't even secure medical implants from being hacked. So long as convenience trumps security and there's any remote way to feed data to the car's computer, this is a risk.

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

 

[Artaneius]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because in most cities where transportation sucks you have no other choice but drive. It's an expensive chore that we are forced to do based on convenience.

 

[loa]

Lazy? That's your main gripe with them?
Those things are terrifying. You sit in a car in a highway at high speeds with no control over it.
What if the system malfunctions? What if someone hacks it?
You just have a giant "press here to kill me" button on your head and I realize you can do something like that (manipulating brakes via computer etc) with most cars already but driverless cars take it to another level.

 

[Olas]

If they're guaranteed to work, and be safer than a regular human driver, then I have no problem with them. Heck, I'd appreciate the extra free time that I don't have to spend driving.

People claiming it's unsafe are missing the point, obviously anything that's dangerous wouldn't be allowed on the road. We have to assume for sake of argument that they would be safe, and by all accounts they are.

I don't trust driverless cars. Well no, that's not exactly true, I believe that the driverless cars will be a hell of a lot safer than real drivers, but what I don't trust is the fact that the driverless cars will be hackable and I don't trust people not to hack them.

Just imagine someone hacking hundreds of thousands of driverless cars just as a prank and then uploading code that makes them drift slightly to the left. Fairly minor, but considering the fact that people won't pay attention to what their car is doing once driverless cars are a normal thing in their life, even something that minor will create a ton of collisions.

So yeah, I don't trust driverless cars because I don't trust people not to fuck with them.

This is my primary concern as well. We can't secure routers from being hacked; we can't secure phones from being hacked; hell, we can't even secure medical implants from being hacked. So long as convenience trumps security and there's any remote way to feed data to the car's computer, this is a risk.

I don't see the incentive. I can see why people would hack routers and phones, they can obtain valuable information this way. But hacking a car to crash seems like only something a deranged murderer would want to do, and if someone wants to cause car accidents there are ALREADY ways you can sabotage a car that are likely to do that. It feels to me like the kind of threat that immediately pops into our mind, but that isn't actually that likely when you come right down to it. You also have to weigh all this stuff with the number of people who die right now from accidents caused by human error.

Sounds boring. I love driving. I guess they are a good thing for people with disabilities and old people that can't drive anymore but until I am unable to drive myself I will continue to think of them as boring. Still at least they are not pointless and for wimps who can't drive properly like automatic gearboxes.

This assumes people are driving for fun in the first place, and that no other activity we could be doing during that same time would be more enjoyable or productive. Obviously some people will still drive manual vehicles for recreation, just like how some people walk or jog for recreation, but the majority of driving is done out of convenience or necessity, and therefore to suggest that we continuing doing it for the secondary purpose of fun seems like putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Dimitriov]

Yeah, no, let's get rid of millions of jobs for no real reason. It sounds great.

 

[spartan231490]

My problem with driverless cars is failure. Sensors are always the firs things in a car to break, and if the car is steering based on those sensors . . . I think you see my complaint.

 

[Fijiman]

If it can be proven to be extremely reliable, react very quickly to anything that may happen such as someone in front of it stopping suddenly, then I might trust one enough to get in it. However, I'd be a bit more concerned about the other people on the road who aren't in a self-driving car than those in one. I'd almost guarantee that a large portion of incidents involving self-driving cars would be caused not by the car itself but by people that aren't in a self-driving car.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

To get to places in a reasonable amount of time.
A bus ride just to my work would turn a 10-15 minute drive into a 40 minute journey.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Yeah, no, let's get rid of millions of jobs for no real reason. It sounds great.

Yeah, it is a pretty significant moment for humanity; the first time in history that advances in technology will render previous jobs obsolete.
Excuse me while I go relax on my hand made bed, tucked up tight in my had sown sheets and read some hand written books, oh wait...

But in all seriousness, i would have to agree with some of the other sentiments here. I'm not sure i trust my safety on them yet, but humans aren't going to get any more reliable, and driving is more or less a mechanical task that could probably be perfected by machines.
I wouldn't trust it above my own rather paltry driving skills, but i trust a machine far more than i trust other humans.

As for the elimination of driving as a task, who cares? I'm sure when horses and carts were becoming obsolete there would have been people complaining that they no longer have to waste the entire day traveling short distances. I'm sure when washing machines rendered manual washing a useless skill, there would have been people saying "oh woe, what ever will i do now that I'm no longer wasting all day on this boring repetitive job?"
As long as they don't outright ban manual driving i don't see why all but those who have a financial interest in the old ways should feel threatened. And if your job does depend on such things, well, tough luck, Luddite. Humanity shouldn't continue to do everything the stupid way just so we can prop up useless jobs. I get that this can be a touchy issue, but holding ourselves back just to create jobs seems like a terrible idea.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

I don't see the incentive. I can see why people would hack routers and phones, they can obtain valuable information this way. But hacking a car to crash seems like only something a deranged murderer would want to do, and if someone wants to cause car accidents there are ALREADY ways you can sabotage a car that are likely to do that. It feels to me like the kind of threat that immediately pops into our mind, but that isn't actually that likely when you come right down to it. You also have to weigh all this stuff with the number of people who die right now from accidents caused by human error.

I mostly agree with this, but I feel obliged to point out that there are not already ways to sabotage millions of cars all at once, especially in a relatively untraceable fashion. It would only take one deranged murderer to cause a very, very large amount of damage.

That said, there are probably ways around this. Perhaps, rather than remotely programmable chips, the cars could use physically removable modules (think USB drives) that could only be programmed using a special setup, presumably available at a licensed dealer. Basically, as long as there's no way to connect these cars' brains to the Internet, we're probably all okay.

Yeah, no, let's get rid of millions of jobs for no real reason. It sounds great.

You realize that the automobile itself got rid of millions (well, maybe not millions, but probably a roughly similar percentage -- both small -- of jobs given the population size) of jobs, too, right? I mean, it's not like farrier is much of a job anymore.

 

[chikusho]

Human error accounts for over 90 percent of all car accidents. Just let the computers take over and everyone will be a lot safer.

Yeah, no, let's get rid of millions of jobs for no real reason. It sounds great.

Oh crap, you're right. What are all those emergency personnel, doctors, nurses and undertakers going to do when they suddenly stop millions of people from being injured and dying in traffic? Cancel the whole thing!

 

[Olas]

I don't see the incentive. I can see why people would hack routers and phones, they can obtain valuable information this way. But hacking a car to crash seems like only something a deranged murderer would want to do, and if someone wants to cause car accidents there are ALREADY ways you can sabotage a car that are likely to do that. It feels to me like the kind of threat that immediately pops into our mind, but that isn't actually that likely when you come right down to it. You also have to weigh all this stuff with the number of people who die right now from accidents caused by human error.

I mostly agree with this, but I feel obliged to point out that there are not already ways to sabotage millions of cars all at once, especially in a relatively untraceable fashion. It would only take one deranged murderer to cause a very, very large amount of damage.

That said, there are probably ways around this. Perhaps, rather than remotely programmable chips, the cars could use physically removable modules (think USB drives) that could only be programmed using a special setup, presumably available at a licensed dealer. Basically, as long as there's no way to connect these cars' brains to the Internet, we're probably all okay.

That's what I was thinking. You could have some devices in the car connect to the internet, just keep the part that drives separate and offline so if anyone wants to hack it they'd need to break into the actual car directly to do so.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I don't trust driverless cars. Well no, that's not exactly true, I believe that the driverless cars will be a hell of a lot safer than real drivers, but what I don't trust is the fact that the driverless cars will be hackable and I don't trust people not to hack them.

Just imagine someone hacking hundreds of thousands of driverless cars just as a prank and then uploading code that makes them drift slightly to the left. Fairly minor, but considering the fact that people won't pay attention to what their car is doing once driverless cars are a normal thing in their life, even something that minor will create a ton of collisions.

So yeah, I don't trust driverless cars because I don't trust people not to fuck with them.

This is my primary concern as well. We can't secure routers from being hacked; we can't secure phones from being hacked; hell, we can't even secure medical implants from being hacked. So long as convenience trumps security and there's any remote way to feed data to the car's computer, this is a risk.

I don't see the incentive. I can see why people would hack routers and phones, they can obtain valuable information this way. But hacking a car to crash seems like only something a deranged murderer would want to do, and if someone wants to cause car accidents there are ALREADY ways you can sabotage a car that are likely to do that. It feels to me like the kind of threat that immediately pops into our mind, but that isn't actually that likely when you come right down to it. You also have to weigh all this stuff with the number of people who die right now from accidents caused by human error.

You've never seen hackers do things "for the lulz?" There isn't always a monetary incentive to hacking, some people just do things to see if they can. Those are also the scariest people, the kind who are loners, don't really have empathy, and think that they're too good to get caught.

As far as being able to cause accidents by sabotaging cars now, yeah sure, you could sabotage a car and make it crash, but could you sabotage hundreds or thousands? Absolutely not. You could however sabotage thousands of cars all at once if they're being operated by computers that are all networked together.

 

[Ronald Nand]

If you think about it computers are probably less likely to screw up than humans, its like when we got computers to do our data entry and analysis, if we got stuck thinking that computers get it wrong then we would never achieve the efficiency it brought us.

That being said there some pretty big ramifications here, we could have hackers taking control of cars and causing people to crash masking the murder as an accident. But then again we wouldn't have incompetent drivers and drink drivers taking lives when they inevitably crash their cars.

A hybrid system would probably be best, where you can switch to self drive and normal drive modes. We could have the best of both worlds.