Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

[Parasondox]

Cristine

that's my thought on driver-less cars

and if you donno who Cristine is, look it up

They won't turn on you and go rouge in a Stephen King way... yet. Maybe. Okay that would be scary.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

What about if you get into a minor car accident?

On a normal car if you get into a little fender bender you and the other driver pull over and exchange information and then you go on your way with maybe a dent to your car and some scratches. On one of these driver-less cars a minor collision could mean damaging sensors on the car that check your distance from other cars. With one of these sensors damaged the car could probably become impossible to drive, then what? Are you stuck going to a repair shop immediately if you want your car working? A lot of people I've seen don't bother fixing cosmetic damage on a car, but with something like this you'd have to fix the damage otherwise your car might be inoperable.

 

[rodneyy]

i think it will be great when the society implodes on itself and we are living in a mad max distopian future all the kids will need older people able to drive a manual car about so we wont be picked off one by one we will be a valuable resource.

 

[Stg]

I work in the oil field. Where I work, we operate million-dollar heavy equipment and even the most intricate pieces of equipment that are in charge of thousands of pounds of pressure tend to fail. This is no different. It's a piece of equipment and technology that people are entrusting their lives to who are running under the assumption that technology never fails. In the field, I receive hazard pay because what I do for a living has inherent risks that can not be mitigated, therefore we must work around pressurized lines all day long and entrust our lives to the equipment not failing. When I get off work, the absolute last thing I want is to entrust my life with another piece of equipment that I have no control over. I understand fully that while I'm driving, there are many risks but I am in control of the vehicle. If someone falls asleep and drifts into my lane, I can move the car quick enough to avoid a head-on collision. Can the same be said for these cars?

 

[DrOswald]

What about if you get into a minor car accident?

On a normal car if you get into a little fender bender you and the other driver pull over and exchange information and then you go on your way with maybe a dent to your car and some scratches. On one of these driver-less cars a minor collision could mean damaging sensors on the car that check your distance from other cars. With one of these sensors damaged the car could probably become impossible to drive, then what? Are you stuck going to a repair shop immediately if you want your car working? A lot of people I've seen don't bother fixing cosmetic damage on a car, but with something like this you'd have to fix the damage otherwise your car might be inoperable.

Certainly a minor disadvantage.

A repair of a sensor might cost twice, maybe even three times as much as repairing cosmetic damage. But fender benders are caused by driver inattentiveness. You can expect simple, small accidents such as this to be nearly eliminated because computers are never inattentive, they never accidentally hit the gas instead of the break, they never put it in drive when they mean to put it in reverse.

The effective cost of accidents for owning a car is calculated as follows:

Cost of repair * frequency of accidents = cost of accidents.

Thus while the cost of any single repair may be greater, the overall cost of such accidents to any one car owner will be greatly reduced, especially considered over the course of years.

But yes, a minor accident may require a greater cost to fix.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

What about if you get into a minor car accident?

On a normal car if you get into a little fender bender you and the other driver pull over and exchange information and then you go on your way with maybe a dent to your car and some scratches. On one of these driver-less cars a minor collision could mean damaging sensors on the car that check your distance from other cars. With one of these sensors damaged the car could probably become impossible to drive, then what? Are you stuck going to a repair shop immediately if you want your car working? A lot of people I've seen don't bother fixing cosmetic damage on a car, but with something like this you'd have to fix the damage otherwise your car might be inoperable.

Certainly a minor disadvantage.

A repair of a sensor might cost twice, maybe even three times as much as repairing cosmetic damage. But fender benders are caused by driver inattentiveness. You can expect simple, small accidents such as this to be nearly eliminated because computers are never inattentive, they never accidentally hit the gas instead of the break, they never put it in drive when they mean to put it in reverse.

The effective cost of accidents for owning a car is calculated as follows:

Cost of repair * frequency of accidents = cost of accidents.

Thus while the cost of any single repair may be greater, the overall cost of such accidents to any one car owner will be greatly reduced, especially considered over the course of years.

But yes, a minor accident may require a greater cost to fix.

Your response is under the assumption that

1. These cars will never have any minor glitches or hiccups (they will, as does any piece of technology, just not on an enormous scale, and the glitches won't be catastrophic failures probably).

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

So yeah, accidents are going to happen even if your car isn't the one at fault. How much is it going to suck if someone rear ends you, and then is able to drive away with some scratches and a dent on their bumper while you have to wait for a tow truck to take you to a mechanic.

That's not to mention the fact that only specific mechanics will even be able to service these cars which will drive up the price, not to mention the fact that reduced accidents means reduced production of spare parts, so spare parts are going to be more expensive as well. So I really don't think that you've taken into account all the costs of an accident with an automated car.

 

[cdemares]

It will make driving much safer, until it doesn't. There will inevitably be a flaw, something overlooked. We are imperfect creatures constantly trying to create perfect systems. When we find the flaw, when it manifests in the driver-less cars, it will kill a lot of people in a short period of time until we fix it. Then we'll be safe again until the next crisis. Overall, the cars will make driving safer than walking in the park. We'll just have to worry about the next big bug causing the occasional cluster of fatalities. Otherwise, fantastic.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

The fix that I advocate for this is "more buses on better bus routes". Even Russia has this down (from my experience, anyways), why doesn't everyone else?

OT: I don't like driving, and I also think this is a horrible idea. Ever programmed AI? First rule: Never trust AI, even if you're the one that programmed it. Especially if you're the one that programmed it. I'm certainly not going to let AI drive a box I'm in at 60+kph. It's already bad enough that I'm soon going to have to deal with AI-driven missiles on roads. I might switch to buses only (they're really safe to be in during a normal car accident) or just driving on all the backroads I can find.

 

[smithy_2045]

Anything that means I don't have to drive can only be a good thing. Fuck driving.

 

[ccggenius12]

Cristine

that's my thought on driver-less cars

and if you donno who Cristine is, look it up

They won't turn on you and go rouge in a Stephen King way... yet. Maybe. Okay that would be scary.

That's too bad. I'd love a car that can change its color to red all on its own. It'd make me feel like James Bond.

OT: Planes are already mostly automated. Pilots are primarily there because passengers feel safer with a pilot on board, and they're only responsible for take-off and landing. Even then, the latter is only because computers are TOO GOOD at landing, and were causing damage to the test runways with the precision with which they landed on the same spot.
Also, currently, the number of airline accidents caused by the auto pilot is far exceeded by those caused by the pilot taking control away from the auto pilot.
If we can get cars to the point where they're that competent, I'd say go for it. It'll be nice to be able to go more then 5 MPH whenever there's a couple flurries.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Cristine

that's my thought on driver-less cars

and if you donno who Cristine is, look it up

They won't turn on you and go rouge in a Stephen King way... yet. Maybe. Okay that would be scary.

That's too bad. I'd love a car that can change its color to red all on its own. It'd make me feel like James Bond.

OT: Planes are already mostly automated. Pilots are primarily there because passengers feel safer with a pilot on board, and they're only responsible for take-off and landing. Even then, the latter is only because computers are TOO GOOD at landing, and were causing damage to the test runways with the precision with which they landed on the same spot.
Also, currently, the number of airline accidents caused by the auto pilot is far exceeded by those caused by the pilot taking control away from the auto pilot.
If we can get cars to the point where they're that competent, I'd say go for it. It'll be nice to be able to go more then 5 MPH whenever there's a couple flurries.

I imagine it's probably a hell of a lot easier to program the autopilot for an airplane than it is to program one for a car. After all, even with thousands of planes in the air at once there's just so much empty sky that the chances of 2 planes colliding completely on accident is infinitesimal until you get relatively close to an airport (which is where pilots take control).

 

[ccggenius12]

I imagine it's probably a hell of a lot easier to program the autopilot for an airplane than it is to program one for a car. After all, even with thousands of planes in the air at once there's just so much empty sky that the chances of 2 planes colliding completely on accident is infinitesimal until you get relatively close to an airport (which is where pilots take control).

I have no doubt that that's the case, given that a plane is generally going in a straight or slightly curved line. Still, that's the kind of precision those things are going to need before I'm willing to get in one.

 

[infohippie]

They're a great idea, I can't wait for them to become commonplace and affordable. It might lead to an end of car ownership in general, apart from people who for whatever reason need to own one, as they could be replaced with a fleet of automated taxis people could call to arrive when needed. Since there is no human driver to be paid it would be far cheaper than our current taxis, and would overall likely be cheaper long term than owning a car of your own.

As a side note,

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, this is so lazy" - my brain.

what have people got against laziness? I think it is rather unfairly maligned. Why should people have to do something they do not want to do? We are a highly technological society with tremendous resources, is it not time we started looking at how to eliminate as much of the unnecessary effort from life as possible?

 

[DrOswald]

What about if you get into a minor car accident?

On a normal car if you get into a little fender bender you and the other driver pull over and exchange information and then you go on your way with maybe a dent to your car and some scratches. On one of these driver-less cars a minor collision could mean damaging sensors on the car that check your distance from other cars. With one of these sensors damaged the car could probably become impossible to drive, then what? Are you stuck going to a repair shop immediately if you want your car working? A lot of people I've seen don't bother fixing cosmetic damage on a car, but with something like this you'd have to fix the damage otherwise your car might be inoperable.

Certainly a minor disadvantage.

A repair of a sensor might cost twice, maybe even three times as much as repairing cosmetic damage. But fender benders are caused by driver inattentiveness. You can expect simple, small accidents such as this to be nearly eliminated because computers are never inattentive, they never accidentally hit the gas instead of the break, they never put it in drive when they mean to put it in reverse.

The effective cost of accidents for owning a car is calculated as follows:

Cost of repair * frequency of accidents = cost of accidents.

Thus while the cost of any single repair may be greater, the overall cost of such accidents to any one car owner will be greatly reduced, especially considered over the course of years.

But yes, a minor accident may require a greater cost to fix.

Your response is under the assumption that

1. These cars will never have any minor glitches or hiccups (they will, as does any piece of technology, just not on an enormous scale, and the glitches won't be catastrophic failures probably).

No, my assumption is that these cars will have far, far less minor glitches or hiccups than people do at repetitive technical tasks that require concentration. Computers can do this sort of thing far better than humans could ever hope to do. There may be some glitches but those will be far and few between compared to human drivers.

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

So yeah, accidents are going to happen even if your car isn't the one at fault. How much is it going to suck if someone rear ends you, and then is able to drive away with some scratches and a dent on their bumper while you have to wait for a tow truck to take you to a mechanic.

Sure, that sucks. But I have been driving with an average commute of 2 hours every day 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for 12 years, for a grand total of 6,240 hours of commute. I have spend 8 and a half MONTHS of my life in daily commute. In that time I have had 1 fender bender, caused by the other guy. I would gladly trade being able to use that 8 and a half months of my life on something productive or even just sleeping for 1 tow truck ride.

That's not to mention the fact that only specific mechanics will even be able to service these cars which will drive up the price, not to mention the fact that reduced accidents means reduced production of spare parts, so spare parts are going to be more expensive as well. So I really don't think that you've taken into account all the costs of an accident with an automated car.

6,240 hours. 8 and a half months worth of man hours. At my current hourly wage that is $156,000. And this only takes into account my bare bones commute to and from work. And I have only been commuting for 12 years out of an expected 45. I think you underestimate the sheer magnitude of how much time is wasted driving.

Even if going to the mechanic is ten times as expensive as before anyone owning a self driving car is far, far in the black.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

No, we really can't. It's not about the actually monetary cost of fixing the car. If you get into a minor fender-bender in one of these cars and a sensor gets damaged and you can't drive the car how are you supposed to get to work, or school, or wherever else you were going? You're not, because now you have to go and get the car fixed immediately, otherwise it's a giant paperweight. Going to an important meeting? Nope, your car refuses to drive you without that little sensor. Job interview? Nope, sensor. Going to a college final? Sensor. It's the fact that you can't just drive off with the little minor damage and just get it fixed later whenever you feel like it, you get into an accident and you have to go right then and there regardless of how inconvenient it would be.

Also, yeah that sucks about your commute. My commute is 10 minutes. I've never minded driving it nor have I ever felt like I was wasting my time in my car because it was only 10 minutes. I might feel different if my commute was longer, but as it stands a self driving car wouldn't be practical for someone like me for who the possible disadvantages outweigh the only advantage. Not only that but I actually enjoy driving. If you hate driving so much why don't you get a chauffeur, or carpool, or take taxis?

 

[DrOswald]

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

No, we really can't. It's not about the actually monetary cost of fixing the car. If you get into a minor fender-bender in one of these cars and a sensor gets damaged and you can't drive the car how are you supposed to get to work, or school, or wherever else you were going? You're not, because now you have to go and get the car fixed immediately, otherwise it's a giant paperweight. Going to an important meeting? Nope, your car refuses to drive you without that little sensor. Job interview? Nope, sensor. Going to a college final? Sensor. It's the fact that you can't just drive off with the little minor damage and just get it fixed later whenever you feel like it, you get into an accident and you have to go right then and there regardless of how inconvenient it would be.

As we all know, it is physically impossible for a car to be taken to the mechanic without it's owner present.[/sarcasm] We already have the solution for that problem. If you are really in that massive of a hurry call a taxi. Which will be far cheaper and more prevalent once cars can be driverless. Any intelligent driver already builds in potential failure time into their travel time for an appointment they absolutely cannot miss no matter what. Anything else and "my car broke down" will be a sufficient excuse.

And seriously, how often have you been in a fender bender? Is this a regular problem for you? If so, statistically speaking you pretty much have to be the problem. A driverless car will fix that for you.

Also, yeah that sucks about your commute. My commute is 10 minutes. I've never minded driving it nor have I ever felt like I was wasting my time in my car because it was only 10 minutes. I might feel different if my commute was longer, but as it stands a self driving car wouldn't be practical for someone like me for who the possible disadvantages outweigh the only advantage. Not only that but I actually enjoy driving. If you hate driving so much why don't you get a chauffeur, or carpool, or take taxis?

Money, impracticality, and money. Guess what, hiring a person to drive for you is expensive! Hiring a taxi would cost more than $20,000 a year ($48.93 one way assuming no significant traffic, ~$100 per day, about 240 work days a year.)

Finding someone with my same commute is very difficult and adds greatly to the unreliability of my commute time (thus extending it significantly and defeating the whole purpose of finding a carpool).

Taking the bus extends the commute by 45 minutes each way. Taking the train adds the same 45 minutes and adds a further 20 minute bus commute or 15 minute walk, for a grand total of 2 hours each way. Most of that time standing in a crowded train car.

I have gone over this thoroughly. Any solution besides driving myself is either prohibitively expensive or highly impractical (I gain less than I lose.)

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

No, we really can't. It's not about the actually monetary cost of fixing the car. If you get into a minor fender-bender in one of these cars and a sensor gets damaged and you can't drive the car how are you supposed to get to work, or school, or wherever else you were going? You're not, because now you have to go and get the car fixed immediately, otherwise it's a giant paperweight. Going to an important meeting? Nope, your car refuses to drive you without that little sensor. Job interview? Nope, sensor. Going to a college final? Sensor. It's the fact that you can't just drive off with the little minor damage and just get it fixed later whenever you feel like it, you get into an accident and you have to go right then and there regardless of how inconvenient it would be.

As we all know, it is physically impossible for a car to be taken to the mechanic without it's owner present.[/sarcasm] We already have the solution for that problem. If you are really in that massive of a hurry call a taxi. Which will be far cheaper and more prevalent once cars can be driverless. Any intelligent driver already builds in potential failure time into their travel time for an appointment they absolutely cannot miss no matter what. Anything else and "my car broke down" will be a sufficient excuse.

And seriously, how often have you been in a fender bender? Is this a regular problem for you? If so, statistically speaking you pretty much have to be the problem. A driverless car will fix that for you.

Also, yeah that sucks about your commute. My commute is 10 minutes. I've never minded driving it nor have I ever felt like I was wasting my time in my car because it was only 10 minutes. I might feel different if my commute was longer, but as it stands a self driving car wouldn't be practical for someone like me for who the possible disadvantages outweigh the only advantage. Not only that but I actually enjoy driving. If you hate driving so much why don't you get a chauffeur, or carpool, or take taxis?

Money, impracticality, and money. Guess what, hiring a person to drive for you is expensive! Hiring a taxi would cost more than $20,000 a year ($48.93 one way assuming no significant traffic, ~$100 per day, about 240 work days a year.)

Finding someone with my same commute is very difficult and adds greatly to the unreliability of my commute time (thus extending it significantly and defeating the whole purpose of finding a carpool).

Taking the bus extends the commute by 45 minutes each way. Taking the train adds the same 45 minutes and adds a further 20 minute bus commute or 15 minute walk, for a grand total of 2 hours each way. Most of that time standing in a crowded train car.

I have gone over this thoroughly. Any solution besides driving myself is either prohibitively expensive or highly impractical (I gain less than I lose.)

Maybe you should take that $156,000 you'd be making by increasing your productivity during your commute and put it into hiring a taxi.

<_<

 

[Twintix]

Honestly? They kinda creep me out.

Sure, they'll make the roads safer, but...there's something really eerie about having a car that drives itself. Like others have said here, what if these cars can get hacked? What if the sensors get damaged in an accident? There will be countermeasures, I'm sure, but I don't really like the thought. As I'm getting my license, driving feels a bit like a chore at the moment, but I might like it more when I finally have my license.

I'm all for safer roads, but I just don't know about driverless cars. They're spooky.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them.l

Take away "driverless" and we have a discussion form 150+ years ago.

Anyway I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Given that these cars can be hacked, and sensors fooled. Is that worse then the current system running the car? We simply don't have enough information to know. The cars could be hacked. Will they be in a significant numbers to overshadow human error? If yes then yeah ban it. If no what's the harm?

Sinp

In many ways I agree. I don't think the potential threats are going to be worse then human error.

The difference between those conversations is one of the biggest problems here, who is liable for the deaths and damages?
The conversation about cars with drivers obviously the driver is, who is financially responsible for damages with a driverless car? Someone has to pay for damages when these things happen and how is this decided when it is caused by a driverless car?

Given how easy these are hacked, and how the systems they chose to use in them have already been hacked and those hacks work on these cars as well, they essentially have already been hacked. The problem with some of the vulnerabilities is there is no fix for them. Such as the issues with GPS, anything that uses GPS is already compromised and they do not know how to resolve that issue. If the car can access the internet, as some newer model cars are currently doing, the issue of Trojans and viruses then takes the risks to another level all together. These things are not a matter of "if" but " when" when you are discussing viruses. People too often make things because they can not thinking of "if they should". Children today are computer literate. MANY know how to do these things, not "just a few". Kids hack things for fun these days, and they should. If we want today's children to be able to make and run these things later, they have to know how these things work. Kids today hacking systems is no different than kids of yester year taking apart everything in the house to see how it works. The problem is when we put things in that can be extremely dangerous without considering the consequences. It is " adults" job to make sure we weigh the consequences and make things accordingly so they cannot be dangerous. I do not think we can consider a vehicle up to " safety standards" if it can get a virus and then you no longer have control over it. SO far, they have not created a driverless car that cannot have this happen, so the idea of " driverless cars" should not even be considered until they do.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.