Again, nobody is saying it'll be easy. Just not impossible due to arguments based on weather, time-limited decision making, or other purely technical challenges. The only really valid arguments are ones like I made as a joke - how do you go outside the parameters of point-to-point travel, like slowly rolling down the Red Mile honking your horn at pedestrians? What about taking a truck off-roading, or an ambulance onto the tarmac at an airport? Those are the kind of free-form, difficult to define problems that actually pose a real challenge.
Or decide who to kill should a child jump out on the road...
Things have broken on cars since they started making cars. That will continue to be the case. Self driving cars will however eventually remove driver error which is the number one leading cause of current accidents.
Things have broken on cars since they started making cars. That will continue to be the case. Self driving cars will however eventually remove driver error which is the number one leading cause of current accidents.
If you recall the Toyota thing was a massive deal. The thing is, there is no alternative to the car. People still needed to drive to work so hearing about the Toyota issue didn't stop them from driving, it did hurt Toyota sales though and I'm sure every Toyota owner made sure they weren't part of the effected cars.
If something similar happens to the Toyota situation with self driving cars early on, I think that would be a nail in the coffin for the whole idea. Would you buy a self driving car that had just killed someone randomly due to some stupid malfunction when you can keep driving regular cars and avoid that situation completely? Probably for less money and effort too?
I also don't buy this "even if it's not reliable it'll still be safer than humans" angle.
Sure, 50 years from now, if everything goes smoothly and every car on the road happens to be a self driving car, we might have a network that can compensate for a faulty car, but even then, how do you think the world will react to the first time one of these cars has an error and slams in to a median and kills all of it's passengers? Right now when we hear about an accident, we have the nice reassurance and ability to tell ourselves that "hey, that won't happen to me, that driver was just an idiot, I won't do that". The moment that goes away you enter a much different world of comfort. Think about the fear people get from flying but now imagine you had that same feeling every time you got in your car. That's exactly what will happen if these cars crash with any sort of regularity.
So even though it might be safer overall, I think the lack of control is far more off putting than the actual statistical risk of being in an accident, much like flying.
I think you guys are kidding yourselves if you think this transition will be so smooth. We've also seen how slow the world is to adapt to infrastructure needs for new driving technology. I work for a fuel retailer and distributor and our CEO flat out laughed when someone asked about EV charging stations being rolled out in our retail network. It'd be such a great thing for the world for these electric cars to catch on, but we still don't do anything about it, why? Cause it takes a lot of benefit for us to "fix" something that isn't necessarily broken.
I personally think self driven cars will have to be perfect and completely autonomous out the gate for them to catch on.
This post is essentially the definition of Hubris.
If you recall the Toyota thing was a massive deal. The thing is, there is no alternative to the car. People still needed to drive to work so hearing about the Toyota issue didn't stop them from driving, it did hurt Toyota sales though and I'm sure every Toyota owner made sure they weren't part of the effected cars.
If something similar happens to the Toyota situation with self driving cars early on, I think that would be a nail in the coffin for the whole idea. Would you buy a self driving car that had just killed someone randomly due to some stupid malfunction when you can keep driving regular cars and avoid that situation completely? Probably for less money and effort too?
What's the difference between this and someone heading to a Toyota dealer after the accidents? Or buy Firestone tires. Or basically relying on anything that has malfunctioned in the past?
Some people won't just because that's how they are. Just like some people won't fly, even though it is vastly safer than any other form of transportation. They aren't in control, and people generally don't like that. But don't confuse that feeling with the idea that because you are in control, you and everyone else is safer. It's not necessarily the case.
Just like anything else, anyone who existed before implementation will have to adjust. It will be innate to anyone born into it (thinka bout how we work video game systems compared to our parents. It's ingrained in us. I could pick up a game controller for a system I've never used and figure it out, whereas my dad almost through my PS3 out the window trying to play a movie on it.).
People died believing the world was flat, even when we knew it was round. As soon as you block yourself to new information, you're automatically removed from our evolution. And our technology is driving our evolution.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
Or decide who to kill should a child jump out on the road...
Sorry, that whole scenarios is so outlandishly remote as to be essentially not an issue at all. I doubt that in all the history of the motor vehicle that anyone has ever faced the choice between two different sets of people, one of which must inevitably be killed to save the other. Further, even if it did happen, cars won't "think" like a human so their won't even be any kind of choice involved, it'll just go along a tree of decisions that will end at "slow the vehicle as much as possible before impact with the smallest object among those you must hit", which I guess'll mean Jimmy and Nancy get plowed over.
If you're going to come up with situations where people get killed, look at things more like stupid teenagers playing matador in automated traffic and deliberately trying to cause issues. Dealing with dumb or malicious humans, that's what really stresses automated systems.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Sorry, that whole scenarios is so outlandishly remote as to be essentially not an issue at all. I doubt that in all the history of the motor vehicle that anyone has ever faced the choice between two different sets of people, one of which must inevitably be killed to save the other. Further, even if it did happen, cars won't "think" like a human so their won't even be any kind of choice involved, it'll just go along a tree of decisions that will end at "slow the vehicle as much as possible before impact with the smallest object among those you must hit", which I guess'll mean Jimmy and Nancy get plowed over.
If you're going to come up with situations where people get killed, look at things more like stupid teenagers playing matador in automated traffic and deliberately trying to cause issues. Dealing with dumb or malicious humans, that's what really stresses automated systems.
Or if the car starts molesting children...
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
Will regular cars be eliminated once self driving ones come into effect?
These are all great examples but all can still be done if one really wants to. I can have a delicious pasta meal with the ready made stuff from the store, or I can go all out and do it myself if I'm really in the mood. The technology might make the pure act harder to get to put it won't eliminate it.
Total spitball guess but I'd wager that yes.
I dont think you can have a bunch of self-driving robot cars on the road and still account for the crazy and unpredictable meatbags at the same time?
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
This post is essentially the definition of Hubris.
Me saying that people won't like it if their cars start killing them is hubris? I offered my take on the situation and compared it to the fear of flying. That makes me arrogant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
What's the difference between this and someone heading to a Toyota dealer after the accidents? Or buy Firestone tires. Or basically relying on anything that has malfunctioned in the past?
Some people won't just because that's how they are. Just like some people won't fly, even though it is vastly safer than any other form of transportation. They aren't in control, and people generally don't like that. But don't confuse that feeling with the idea that because you are in control, you and everyone else is safer. It's not necessarily the case.
But the thing I'm trying to get at is that Self Driving cars will be an alternative to the status quo. You won't need to buy a self driving car at first. In fact, they will most likely cost a premium over normal cars. All I'm saying is that their track record better be damn near perfect. Do you think Toyota would've survived that recall if it had happened in their first year or two of existence? I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Just like anything else, anyone who existed before implementation will have to adjust. It will be innate to anyone born into it (thinka bout how we work video game systems compared to our parents. It's ingrained in us. I could pick up a game controller for a system I've never used and figure it out, whereas my dad almost through my PS3 out the window trying to play a movie on it.).
People died believing the world was flat, even when we knew it was round. As soon as you block yourself to new information, you're automatically removed from our evolution. And our technology is driving our evolution.
I'm not going to be fighting some fight against self driving cars. If they work fine than I'll probably buy one just like everyone else, even though I like driving. I also agree that if they make it past the transition phase then they will be a permanent fixture. It's just that I think that transition period will be a lot more fragile than a lot of you seem to think. I just think it's not "inevitable" that this takes off. Think about all of the other inventions that you'd think would take off like wild fire but didn't. Electric cars are still struggling, Segway is a complete joke, I also suggest reading about The Fiske Reading Machine. Lots of apparently good ideas simply don't catch on for a number of reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Sorry, that whole scenarios is so outlandishly remote as to be essentially not an issue at all. I doubt that in all the history of the motor vehicle that anyone has ever faced the choice between two different sets of people, one of which must inevitably be killed to save the other. Further, even if it did happen, cars won't "think" like a human so their won't even be any kind of choice involved, it'll just go along a tree of decisions that will end at "slow the vehicle as much as possible before impact with the smallest object among those you must hit", which I guess'll mean Jimmy and Nancy get plowed over.
If you're going to come up with situations where people get killed, look at things more like stupid teenagers playing matador in automated traffic and deliberately trying to cause issues. Dealing with dumb or malicious humans, that's what really stresses automated systems.
Outlandishly remote? Are you saying people don't get hit by cars? People commit suicide by cars for godsake. If you plan on replacing every single car in the world with a self driving version than I think it'll be a situation that plays out on a daily basis some where in the world.
Your second point is exactly what I'm talking about. How will you compensate for that?
I see self-driving cars as more of a long haul option. I don't see it as an option when I jump in the car to get milk at Safeways. I see it as an option when I am driving out to Winnipeg for my summer vacation (yes, i am going to Winnipeg for vacation).
I doubt that initially there will be self-driving vehicles putting around town, it may eventually get to that point, but initiailly I see it more akin to cruise control. Useful for long drives but when you are in built up areas you can flip it back to human drive & yes I think the vehicles will be able to flip back and forth between the two options.
I dont think you can have a bunch of self-driving robot cars on the road and still account for the crazy and unpredictable meatbags at the same time?
Depends on the definition of eliminate. I'm sure there will still be a niche for people to go out and drive "manual" cars just like some people like riding horses in their free time.
IMO, you can have self driving and unpredictable humans together. IMO, one of the first changes would be self driving cars only lanes. HOV lanes would be easiest to convert, bike lanes too. Second, if the self driving cars had hive mentality, they could relay information to each other regarding an idiot driver and have all cars in front react (ie: all stay in 1 lane so the idiots takes empty lane all the way to the end). Most likely they would be programmed to drive in a way to preserve all self driving cars first, and least towards a human driver who speeds and weaves (for instance).
I'd imagine it to be like a line of ants walking a path. All ants in behind will walk normally and predictably until a path is ruined. A new path is created and somehow communicated to ants behind and all remainder of the ants follow the new path. The ants will also react offensively or defensively based on new stimuli to the path. Oversimplification perhaps, but the idea is still there.
But before we hit this level, I believe Undercoverbrother is correct. Initially, It would be a cruise control option sort of thing with maybe a pre program to pull over to the side of the road or park in a parking lot around or in a city/town once you reach it instead of driving around inside a more "crazy" traffic environment.
I see self-driving cars as more of a long haul option. I don't see it as an option when I jump in the car to get milk at Safeways. I see it as an option when I am driving out to Winnipeg for my summer vacation (yes, i am going to Winnipeg for vacation).
I doubt that initially there will be self-driving vehicles putting around town, it may eventually get to that point, but initiailly I see it more akin to cruise control. Useful for long drives but when you are in built up areas you can flip it back to human drive & yes I think the vehicles will be able to flip back and forth between the two options.
I'd agree with this sort of plan. That actually makes a lot of sense.
How can a computer reacting to an unknown situation be any worse than a person? As many have pointed out, a computer can have pre-programmed responses to unexpected objects and determine which is the best choice, and be able to reach and impliment that decision at lightspeed. Whereas a human reaction works much slower and there's definitely no guarantee that it reaches the proper one, or any reaction at all, before the incident actually happens.
This is like the I, Robot scenario where the robot chooses Will Smith over the kid due to a better chance of survival. In fact, a lot of this is like an I, Robot scenario. How they work the cars is exactly how I envision this.
Depends on the definition of eliminate. I'm sure there will still be a niche for people to go out and drive "manual" cars just like some people like riding horses in their free time.
Everyone keeps writing things like this, while forgetting that driving is a privilege, not a right.
There's nothing stopping the government from dictating specific roads be for self-driving cars only. There's nothing stopping governments from rescinding your license to drive entirely and dictating that all cars must now be self-driving.
