Google's Driverless Car and the Logic of Safety 510
mikejuk writes "Google's driverless car could save more than 1 million deaths per year and tens of millions of injuries. It is an impressive achievement, but will we allow it to take over the wheel? Sebastian Thrun puts the case for it in a persuasive TED Talk video. However it may be OK for human drivers to kill millions of people each year but one human fatality might be enough to finish the driverless car project — in fact it might not even take a death as an injury might cause the same backlash. Robot drivers might kill far fewer people than a human driver but it remains to be seen if we can be logical enough to accept the occasional failure of algorithm or hardware. Put simply we might have all seen too many 'evil robot' movies."
Automobiles are just dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Brings into the light the numbers on just how dangerous automobiles are. Few activities have these huge numbers of deaths, accidents, and property loss and damages.
Automobiles are just intert lumps of metal (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the driver behind the wheel which makes it dangerous.
And here's the problem with robotic drivers... They are all identical. Every one on a particular model will be byte for byte identical. Which means a fault in one is a fault in all.
Humans on the other hand are all different. Just because one causes an accident under certain circumstance doesn't mean another would.
Issue of Trust (Score:3)
The problem is therefore one of trust. I trust (most) people I know to drive me safely - after all there lives are on the line too. However with a robot I have to trust that some random progra
Re: (Score:3)
We already have aeroplanes which can fly themselves
Airplanes rarely come closer than a few miles distance from any other solid objects, except during takeoff and landing. Roadways are a winding gauntlet of potential collisions; some stationary, some moving. In many cases, these collisions must be avoided with clearances of a few feet. Failing to manage these potential collisions could mean anything from scratched paint to the car and its occupants being shredded and strewn across the landscape.
Re:Issue of Trust (Score:4, Insightful)
The distance between the planes is larger. But there is a whole lot of reasons why you need larger distance to get the same amount of risk.
Re: (Score:3)
People aren't suggesting computer controlled passenger jets at this point, because they're already in the air. You don't really think the pilot is really touching the controls for the entire flight, do you?
By that definition we already have computer controlled cars thanks to cruise control. With planes the pilot is in the cockpit continuously monitoring the situation and ready to take over when needed. This will not be the case in a computer controlled car...because if it were why would anyone want to buy it? If they have to be looking at the traffic and monitoring it all the time they might as well just drive themselves.
The designs are ready for the next generation of aircraft controls, where the pilot will be a babysitter for the computer. Why should cars be different?
As I said above: if I have to babysit the car why not just drive myself anyway? Cars ar
Statistics (Score:3)
...with respect to aeroplanes the degree of automation these days compared to 20, 30 years ago is astounding, for precisely the same reason: it's been shown to save lives a few orders of magnitude more times than the ones they take.
This is, I think, the root of the problem. Using statistics works fine for aeroplanes because, every time you fly, you are essentially getting onto a random plane with a random pilot and so you want them to be very safe on average. However when you drive it is always you driving so, while you might on average improve the quality of driving with computers that is not what is important to each individual anymore. The question which needs to be answered is "is it better at driving than me?" and since it has
Re: (Score:3)
You are confusing a security argument for a reliability argument. In general, if there's a reliability issue subtle enough to slip through testing and general usage, then by definition that flaw must appear in only a tiny fraction of usage situations. Since at any given moment most people will not be in those situations, the fl
Re:Automobiles are just dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Brings into the light the numbers on just how dangerous automobiles are. Few activities have these huge numbers of deaths, accidents, and property loss and damages.
If anything, this just brings to light how USEFUL cars are. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth the cost.
Re:Humans are just dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think people realize just how automated their vehicles already are. Sure, it's nice to be able to point to something and go "It parks itself! Ohmigawd!" but if you dig deeper you'll realize that the beginning of the "cars driving themselves" era has already passed us by. Thirty years ago when you mashed the brakes in your car, it pushed on a hydraulic, vacuum-assisted cylinder, and forced a fluid down to the brakes. That's it.
Now when you nail the brakes, a computer is deciding that the "rapid engagement of the brakes" is really a request for 100% braking power and fully actuates the master cylinder by itself regardless of your exact input. Some cars will even adjust your steering inputs for you. Meanwhile another computer is looking at the rotating speed of each wheel, comparing them, and reducing and/or modulating the pressure to keep them from locking up. Another computer (or maybe the same one) is checking the speed of all four wheels versus the angle of the steering wheel versus roll/pitch/yaw sensors, and further adjusting the brakes and engine torque split to ensure that the vehicle isn't spinning or attempting to roll. Yet another computer is seeing that a massive load is being placed on the front suspension and actuates a set of valves or magnets to firm up the front shocks to reduce braking dive. Meanwhile a front facing sensor is comparing your rate of deceleration with the speed at which you're approaching an object, and when the check fails it weighs each occupant and primes a series of airbags for them, fires the seatbelt pretensioners, unlocks the doors, brings the seats upright, rolls up the windows, closes the sunroof, disables non-essential electrical systems, and basically does it's best to prepare the cabin for a crash. Some cars even have microphones tuned to listen for the sound of impact as a queue for firing the airbags! And how many cars these days phone home (OnStar, etc) when you're in an accident? You smash into a tree and before the fog clears from your eyes there's a friendly sounding lady on the phone going "We've detected a crash. Sir, are you alright?"
Cars already drive themselves. We just point them in the direction we want to go. One day we won't even have to do that, we'll just say "take me home" and it will figure out the rest. Why that is so much more terrifying than our present state is largely a matter of perception.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice list of automated systems, but the reality is that these are all optional -- disable every single one of the systems mentioned, and the car would still work.
You could list the things in the engine that automatically control it -- at least the car would stop if those failed -- but ultimately, when people talk about automatic cars, you know what they're talking about -- the important stuff. Computer control of the steering, brakes, throttle. Three analog channels. Everything else pales in comparison t
Re:Humans are just dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah. You aren't driving, you're just riding in a box. You don't even need to own it -- you can just rent it for you trip.
We already have that. We call them "cabs".
And they're sometimes useful.
Which may be the way to sell this, more than "it's a car you don't have to drive!". Why bother? The *point* of owning a car is to drive it. Driving is *fun*.
(And if it isn't, please, please, please take the bus, train, or trolley. If you don't enjoy driving, you're not going to be paying attention, which, frankly, makes you part of the problem.)
The problem with driverless cars is not that they're going to be unsafe, but that they're basically useless. We HAVE means of transporting people so that they don't have to pay attention already.
And yet we still own cars. Why? Because they're _fun_. Who's going to drop US$50,000 on a car that they don't get to drive?
Re:Humans are just dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
I know plenty of people who drive for "fun" but do it dangerously and don't pay the necessary attention. I also know plenty of people who have no interest in driving for the sake of driving, but are careful and attentive because they understand that's how you should act with a couple of tons of metal under your control.
Except they're more expensive and less convenient. Your same line of reasoning concludes: why have cabs when we already have buses and trains ?
The vast majority of people for whom cars are a tool to get from A to B, and not a leisure pursuit ? I drive for fun on weekends. All the other trips involve wasting my valuable time sitting on roads full of other cars. A car that drove itself to work and back every day would be _awesome_.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're talking about ABS (reducing braking power to avoid wheel lockups, so that steering input still has an effect) but what you've quoted is a long-winded way of saying Emergency Braking Assist [wikipedia.org], which is becoming fairly common. ABS will override EBA, but EBA is more about the speedy application of brakes than finding the upper limit of available traction (ABS' job).
Will we? (Score:5, Insightful)
As I don't live in a country that's very sue-happy (yet, we're heading that way), yes! Please take the wheel! A snooze on the way to/from work would be excellent, thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
You can have that today. That the bus or train.
If you haven't got 'em, take a carpool. Or taxi.
Re:Will we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which doesn't go where I need to be, when I need to be there or leave there.
In fact, they cut the bus line that went near my workplace. Never mind that the public transport route from home to the job involves 3 transfers and takes 2+ hours while the drive is 25 minutes. And I can go out for lunch or run errands. Or basically be something more productive than a cog in a machine.
Re:Will we? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good point. When I've visited the US (minus NYC) it's always seemed like the cities were built with the assumption of car ownership. There's even houses you can't walk to because there's no sidewalk. "Going to buy some groceries" seems to mandate getting in a car and driving a good few minutes, which often means buying a huge amount of stuff each time is clever. When I was living in London, you could just walk out the door and be at a shop within a minute, buy a couple of things, and be back.
Say what? (Score:2, Funny)
"save more than 1 million deaths per year"
Wouldn't it be much better to save 1 million LIVES per year?
can't take revenge against a computer (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You can't take revenge against a computer. A human being killed is a-ok with most people as long as you can take revenge.
Re:can't take revenge against a computer (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what people fear. It's the perceived lack of control, even if automated driving is statistically more safe. Same with nuclear energy paranoia.
Re:can't take revenge against a computer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:can't take revenge against a computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Autopilot landing is EASY. You have a stationary runway, known wind, ground velocity, altitude, weather conditions,etc. Also the airplane is in the air, surrounded by nothing for miles unless the air traffic controller messes up. Even autopilot landing a fighter jet on a carrier in choppy seas is more predictable than driving a car in traffic.
A car is surrounded by obstacles on all sides, some stationary others in motion, it has to obey laws, traffic signals, and must adapt to unknown weather and road conditions. Most people don't give it a second thought in a car, but I can promise you nothing ruins a bright, warm day of motorcycle riding faster than hitting gravel in a turn.
This push towards automating driving is yet another attempt to nerf the entire world. Doomed to failure, but that won't stop the "visionaries." They should instead of focusing on having much better driving schools, much more stringent driving exams and recurring examinations. I find it ridiculous that having passed two laughable exams, I can now drive my car and ride my bike FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE (or at least for the next 50 years) without any retest.
Granted, some people will fail more difficult driving exams, and I'm ok with that even if I fail myself. They lack the hand-eye coordination required to be in control of a multi tonne vehicle, and should not be on the road. They can ride the bus, take a cab or walk. I'm not being facetious, I truly mean it. The day I fail a driving exam is the day I stop driving, at least until I can successfully retake it (and there should be a limit on retests too). :)))
Re:can't take revenge against a computer (Score:5, Interesting)
This push towards automating driving is yet another attempt to nerf the entire world. Doomed to failure, but that won't stop the "visionaries." They should instead of focusing on having much better driving schools, much more stringent driving exams and recurring examinations. (...) Granted, some people will fail more difficult driving exams, and I'm ok with that even if I fail myself. They lack the hand-eye coordination required to be in control of a multi tonne vehicle, and should not be on the road. They can ride the bus, take a cab or walk. I'm not being facetious, I truly mean it.
Bus? Not available.
Cab? Too expensive.
Walk? Too far.
Let's face it, many people are completely dependent on having a car. Even if you tell them to rewrite their lives to be car free - possibly abandoning childhood homes, neighbors and local communities - there are many things that are completely dependent on having a car. There'll never be any public transport to take you up to your mountain cabin for the weekend and the taxi driver would charge you a small fortune for it. You can of course say "don't do those things" but that's a really crappy solution to the people you want to take it away from. Particularly for many elderly the car is a lifeline for getting around, losing their license and being "stuck" in their apartment is one of the saddest day in their sunset years. Given the alternatives, I can understand the "You can pry it from my cold, dead fingers" attitude many have to their driver's license.
If there is to be a change of tune, I think it will come from these people. People that know that maaaaaaaybe they shouldn't actually be driving, but they don't feel they have a choice. People that could say "hey, this is enough for me to let me get my groceries and visit my grandkids", who don't give a crap about any loss of manual control - they never really asked for it in the first place. Like a cab, without the cost of a cab and that is your personal space. And commuters, honestly who thinks that is fun driving? Just get in, tell it to go to the office and spend the time doing something else while the computer limps after the tail lights ahead of you. Or just people that don't care, it's a tool to get from A to B and as long as the computer gets you there in roughly the same time that's fine.
Not to mention, driverless cars also enable passengerless cars. The implications of that could be great, like I get off and the car parks itself. I call it and it comes to pick me up - perhaps not even in the same place, I don't need to return to where I parked it. I could drive myself to the airport and it'll go park itself. Or even drive home and wait for me to schedule a pickup. Also things like people that aren't old enough to drive. Deliver your kid to soccer practice? Put him/her in the car, tell it to go drop him off. If they're old enough, maybe even pick them up on their own. Or when you're drunk and can't drive yourself, no more need for "designated drivers" - which nobody wants to be in my experience.
Seriously, driverless cars would be the solution to so many problems that only skilled drivers would never solve and which is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. Most people are just average and the great majority is not going to "throw out" themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that it's a bad technology, it just doesn't have a great track record.When it works, it works well, when it doesn't the results are horrifyingly bad.
Funny, it seems that nuclear has had the BEST track record:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html [nextbigfuture.com]
But you are right, that when nuclear fails, the results CAN BE horrifyingly bad. Note that it CAN BE bad, but it's not a certainty. Three Mile Island is the 3rd worst nuclear power incident in history, and its negative effects were almost non-existent. No deaths, no serious radiation exposure to anybody, and no land contaminated and made uninhabitable. It's almost as if the i
More tolerent of human error (Score:5, Insightful)
People are obviously much more tolerant of human error than machine error. Machines in life safety areas are expected to be perfect.
Also who is liable in a fatal accident caused by a machine? People want a human scapegoat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
programmers never take the blame when their software fails.
there fore the blame lies with the party who assembled it at best.
Re:More tolerent of human error (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You could also just build the cost of insurance into the cost of the car, which is what will happen if the auto manufacturer is liable. It's not like plaintiffs' lawyers aren't taking on insurance company lawyers now.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes perfect sense to hold the manufacturer responsible. Anybody who is making driverless cars (or cars of any sort, really) is a very large business and can afford to pay for the shortcomings of their product. It will also provide a very strong market incentive (which is what large businesses, by necessity, understand) to improve the safety of the vehicle. The manufacturer probably wouldn't even bother to purchase insurance from an insurance provider, as they could provide what amounts to their own
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, nobody can make a perfect car. It is virtually guaranteed that some people will die in these cars. These deaths will be shocking to the public, and will garner huge verdicts. Manufacturers won't bother to make cars as a result.
This is why childhood vaccine manufacturers are shielded from general liability (there is a government-regulated pool to reimburse victims of vaccine side effects). If you give 100M people a shot, you'll probably save 30M lives, and be certain to kill a few thousand or whateve
Re: (Score:3)
Just wait until a human driver is found negligent because he caused an accident that a robot vehicle would have prevented.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that computer-controlled cars would prevent all automobile fatalities in the US (and that's what 35k means) is preposterous. Consider equipment failures, "black" ice, drunken pedestrians, and the occasional murder by pushing someone into traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, it is in the nation's best interest to prevent 34,950 deaths a year from auto-accidents.
A solution doesn't have to be perfect to be great.
Oh, and cars that drive themselves would eliminate road rage, the need for parking lots (which are horrible for the environment), handicapped parking spots, and in many cases would allow families to get by with fewer cars (if the car can drop people off at work and return you can get more utilization out of it). It would also make on-demand rental fairly straightforw
Re: (Score:2)
The insurance company that owns the policy for the vehicle, same as if it were being driven by a human. And while the general public may have a hard time reconciling statistics that say driverless cars are safer with a few stories about them getting into fatal accidents, insurance companies do not have that problem and will support whichever costs them less money in claims.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all marketing. They'll go "ban them ban them" ... until Apple makes the iCar and then it will be just fine and dandy!
Re:Agreed... but there's more. (Score:5, Funny)
I just threw up in my mouth a little. But then I imagined Microsoft's response:
You have successfully changed your radio station.
You must restart your car for the changes to take effect.
Do you want to restart your car now?
Re: (Score:3)
But Apple would want to take 30% of the charges any time you pay for parking/toll/etc.
You are a god. (Score:2)
See subject.
Re:Agreed... but there's more. (Score:5, Funny)
The iCar will have two settings: Destination and an option of "Get me there as soon as possible" or "I want to enjoy the sights".
The competitor will have an option for "GT mode", "Super Sport", "Cruise launch", "Eco-boost" and "Rally" that no one understands.
Re: (Score:3)
The iRoads will get you everywhere you need to go, easily and safely. There are other roads for other cars that lead into swamps and off cliffs, and the iCar users will be more than happy they aren't part of the iCar network.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you plot your own course when catching a plane or train? No. The train follows the fixed route, the plane'a route is decided by experts - the pilot and air traffic control having considered the weather and other traffic. And does any passenger give a damn what precise route they take? No,
What's your objective in a car? To get to your destination as soon as possible, or perhaps most economically. Sat Nav together with traffic information systems are far more capable of achieving those objectives than a hu
Re: (Score:3)
Ignorant people measure the worth of technology by the number of features.
In design theory and practice, a major way make products better is by taking things away.
To stick with the car theme, take the Bugatti Veyron. Possibly the most expensive, fastest road car out there. And yet... no radio.
Re: (Score:2)
With guns i don't.
It's totally old, but guns don't kill people by themselves. If someone wants to off a family member and doesn't have a gun, he'll go for an axe or a boning knife (in fact those tend to be usual family murder tools in my country where guns between people aren't too common) - should we ban those too?
And with home invasions... i consider it wrong taking from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there is a difference here. You can never find two people who are exactly alike. Two robots w the same manufacturing and programming will be exactly alike. At lest least to the extent that you can expect the second to make the same mistakes a the first. Hence, it actually votes make some sense to judge them as a group.
Ok we know that patches, etc can make all the difference but good luck explaining that top the population at large
Re: (Score:2)
Two robots w the same manufacturing and programming will be exactly alike
More or less, when they're new. But a car-bot will suffer wear and tear, just like a normal car. Things will get out of whack, tyres get bald, etc, etc.The robot can monitor that to an extent, but it still requires active maintenance.
The guy in the video never mentioned the cost of these things. It must be much higher than a normal car. And maintenance must also be higher. Probably it'll all be locked down and the owners won't be able, or even allowed, to do much maintenance themselves.
If a small part
Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
Also how are the morality police going to get their rocks off if now you can be passed out drunk in your car?
If the cars are all carefully following the rules and in theory you need far fewer traffic cops then who will catch people who jailbreak their cars into ignoring speed limits?
Lastly in this litigious society who will you sue if an empty car has an accident? The owner, the coder, or the local government who probably designed a crappy intersection or whatnot that induces the cars to crash at that spot.
Re: (Score:3)
All of them?
Meh (Re:Nanny State) (Score:3)
There are concerns have already stopped thinking for themselves but this "complaint" seem a bit overboard. One of the most monotonous, most error prone, and rarely deadly common activities people in the US do is drive to and from work. Its boring but requires our focused attention. This means the 30 to hour minute drive is often a lost time activity that we do twice a day. A repetitious activity that can easily bore a human and has to be done to time and safety tolerances? These are all of the hallmark
Re: (Score:3)
...most people don't seriously or rigorously plan their drive to work anyway
And they are already guided by machines more and more, not only on a drive to work (and particularly on the "be free!" trips to unfamiliar places). Machines which are often aided by quite centralized systems of road info.
Machine says "turn right" - the mechanism doing the driving, the cog in the middle (aka "human") does what the machine says...
Speed limits could be programmed now. (Score:2)
Modern cars could easily be programmed to never exceed 80, the current top speed limit in the USA, but there are no regulations forcing this and no cars do this. We could in theory get rid of a lot of invasive search laws if there were no DUI excuses. I don't own a car or drive, so it makes it very difficult for me to be unreasonably searched as I'm not capable of endangering those around me with 40,000kg*m/s of momentum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Modern cars could easily be programmed to never exceed 80
And we could easily prevent you from committing a crime in the future by preemptively locking you up. That sort of thinking leads to all sorts of absurd rules and regulations in the name of "public safety". Do we want to live in a Fischer-Price nanny state or would we rather be treated like adults who can handle themselves responsibly unless we demonstrate otherwise through our actions?
I don't own a car or drive
And yet you gleefully propose onerous regulations on driving because even a miniscule improvement in your safety is worth e
Re: (Score:3)
And as a matter of fact, places focusing in prevention (not in your straw-man style of course) of crime, disease, accidents, etc. fare quite well with that approach.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, do you despair for how elevators operate on
The slef-driving car is inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
I would venture to say the self driving car is simply inevitable, as the economic forces behind it are huge. Millions of people will buy additional cars, to replace theirs as well as to get extra ones to take their kids to work without them, create truck and taxi fleets with no drivers, etc. After cars become self-driving, they will become smaller, as they will really almost always carry one person and be used within city limits. That will be basically the same as PRT systems, which exist already. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit [wikipedia.org] --- Personal rapid transit (PRT), also called personal automated transport (PAT) or podcar, is a public transportation mode featuring small automated vehicles operating on a network of specially-built guide ways. PRT is a type of automated guideway transit (AGT), which also includes systems with larger vehicles, all the way to small subway systems.
Safety is not Logical (Score:4, Informative)
I'm fine with this (Score:3)
Re:I'm fine with this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How will this technology go everywhere I want it to? I do drive places now which don't actually have proper paved roads.
This overall just sounds like limited use, HOV-lane style BS.
And what about motorcycles? Are you just going to ban them?
Who is responsible? (Score:3, Insightful)
I like the idea of a robot-driven car, but I think the difficult thing is that in the case of a death or an injury, people want to be able to hold a person responsible. It's difficult to know exactly how that would pan out with a robot car. However, I guess one advantage is that you would probably have a 'black box' that could give you a much better idea of exactly what happened.
To be honest, people probably worry about this more than they should. We already have the situation where injuring or killing people with a car is very lightly punished. It's exceptionally rare (at least in the UK) for anybody to do jail time for killing people. You can do all sorts of idiotic things in your car, kill someone and get away with a fine of a few hundred pounds.
How deep are the pockets? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that it will be fear of lawsuits that will probably prevent the production cars that can drive themselves.
Solutions to this problem include limiting the liability of the maker to an amount that equals the net worth of the typical driver, or, force everyone to buy insurance that grants very large, multi-million dollar payouts.
Efficiency might be the bigger win (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real selling point for driverless cars isn't going to be safety, but efficiency. Road maintenance is very expensive. Adding more roads costs a lot of money, and widening existing roads often means tearing down whatever homes or businesses are built alongside them. Driverless cars could use cooperative algorithms to better handle things like lane closures and overall congestion. You wouldn't have free-rider problems (no pun intended) like people cutting in at the front of a line, slowing everyone else down. When a stoplight turns green, every car could start moving simultaneously, getting more people through the light. I bet a huge reduction in rush hour traffic would be a selling point for a lot of people (and regulators).
It would take a long time to implement. And there would be a backlash from people who want to do (possibly selfish) things the algorithms won't. But it's still a neat idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably the blinkenlichten will be abolished because the cars will communicate directly with each other. Then you as a cyclist will be relegated to the same status as a pedestrian in the US (outside NY): a person with limited freedom to move (to and from the car is OK).
Bert
Put the blame where it goes (Score:3)
Blame (Score:2)
I LOVE driving (Score:5, Insightful)
I drive manual transmission cars, I ride motorcycles, and I love going to the racetrack and testing the limits of both myself and my vehicles. Never had an at fault accident, but in the interest of disclosure I was rear-ended while waiting at red lights TWICE.
So while I have a personal problem relinquishing control of my car to a computer because I enjoy driving it myself, I can see the benefits of computer aided driving especially on public roads. But I believe an in between system would vastly improve safety while leaving people in control. Instead of the computer having absolute control, have it perform the same analysis and assist in collision avoidance.
Approaching a red light at a speed beyond safety margins? Apply the brakes. Start fishtailing on the highway? Apply corrective steering measures. Changing lanes into another vehicle, cyclist or turning into the path of another vehicle? Sound warnings, apply brakes, etc.
The trick is setting the thresholds to a level where people are completely in control up to the point where they are somewhat close to having an accident. Because if you believe computer driven cars will remove ALL collisions, you're deluded. All it takes if for a child to run out between two parked cars in the path of another car, and all the computer systems in the world will not counter its kinetic energy.
And it would be VERY important for the vehicle to be usable with the computer systems disabled, for several reasons.
First, because many people enjoy driving. Short of banning every single existing car on the road, people like me will always be able to purchase and drive a non-computerized vehicle. Even today I can buy a functioning Ford Model T. Think about that for a second, and you'll realize it could take a hundred years before the last current car stops being available, short of outlawing them. But just like with cigarettes and alcohol, I doubt that will ever happen. Can you imagine the lobby all the wealthy car collectors will mount?
Second, because computer systems fail and sometimes they cannot be inexpensively repaired. A current car can still run with many of its electrical systems disabled (power seats, windows, navigation system, even alternator and starter) for a while. Having worked with cars and motorcycles for a long time, I can tell you I'd rather rebuild an engine than diagnose an electrical problem. A cold solder on a PCB can ruin a while weekend trying to figure out why your car will not start in hot weather, but works fine in cold (I'm looking at you Honda Main Relay!!!) The complexity of a computer that can drive a car is beyond anything we have available today ANYWHERE, and it has thousands of failure points. Sensors, cameras, gps, servo motors, switches, wires, PCBs and only lastly the main CPU. The fact it runs in testing is great, but these systems have to last 10+ years of abuse WITHOUT FAILURE.
Lastly, having fully computer driven cars will make people even more dependent on technology, which is NOT a good thing. I've had my GPS tell me to go down a railway track once. I looked at it, smiled, and found the real route myself. But people HAVE driven on railway tracks, into lakes or in remote areas where they died of hypothermia. Imagine if you program your car to drive you, without any input, and it makes such a mistake?
Wait until the "manual" insurance preium bites (Score:5, Insightful)
No programmer would believe this will happen soon. (Score:2)
It's science fiction, until we can program a creative and reasoning mind.
Yes, we can build warning systems, or even systems that delivers fault free driving in most conditions,
but exceptions happens, and our technology is far from beeing able to handle the unknown.
The margins for errors when driving is frightfully small - we are travelling inches from death, and
even small errors are potentially fatal.
The human mind is excellent at doing fast intuitive reactions, and there is nothing that makes you gain resp
Apparently the Same Thing With Energy Generation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell coal generation in the US releases more radioactive minerals (mostly uranium and thorium) than is contained in all the nuclear plants in the US! If you live near a coal plant you get a higher average dose then living next to a nuke plant!
And the effects of coal related radiation is secondary to the respiratory illness caused by coal particulates released from mining and power generation.
If the coal industry was held to the same standards as the nuclear industry it wouldn't be profitable.
Simple solution to blame (Score:2)
It seems pretty obvious that the cost of this system will see it installed in high-end vehicles first: lorries and vans (and possibly luxury cars) bef
They Already Have Driverless Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from the number of cars I see with drivers blabbing on cells phones while drifting around on the road, people stuffing their faces, digging around the passenger seat, etc I'd say we've had driverless cars for some time now.
GridGuide (Score:2)
"HAL, take a left turn at the next intersection." (Score:2)
"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that. There's a 'No Left Turn' sign there. To do so could only be the result of human error."
Will computer steered cars be able to dodge other dingbats on the road who are: twittering, spilling their coffee on themselves and putting on makeup? That is the real danger on the road. And those are the types of folks who will refuse a computer chauffeur.
A million? (Score:3)
A million deaths per year sounds inflated. Last year, the us had "only" 42k deaths. I can't believe the rest of the world accounts for 660k deaths, ESP when the US has a disproportionate amount of vehicles.
Stipulating "1m deaths" as fact makes me suspect the rest of this analysis.
1.2 million, actually. (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision
Complete with references.
I wan't to be able to.. (Score:3)
Have my car drop me off, go park itself and when I'm ready I'll call it on the cell phone and it'll pick me up.
Now I could go for that!
do opposites mean the same now? (Score:3)
Google's driverless car could save more than 1 million deaths per year
What curious wording. Most safety inventions would strive to "save more tan a million lives, but this one wants to save more than a million deaths. I guess now you can just use any words in a sentence and expect people to figure out what you intended.
Elevators (Score:3)
If we don't trust robot cars, we shouldn't trust robot elevators.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans, while all built from the same base materials, rarely share the same OS and app software. The driverless cars [most likely, in the beginning at least] would. Which means that if widely deployed before the bug(s) is/are discovered, they're statistically more likely to kill a whole bunch of people in a short time
Wow! You really have seen too many 'evil robot' movies. Isn't that the plot of most of them?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about the evil robots, worry about stupid robots and sabotage where some prankster messes with the systems that the robot car driver is using to keep the vehicle on the road.
GPS interference, re-painted lines on the road etc.
Re: (Score:2)
See last post. Would you trust Kroger with a robot guided grocery cart? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the reasoning in this story is stupid. Drivers could get killed many times more when they're driving themself, but at least it's their own fault (or some drunk driver). But I sure as hell don't want to be the one guy in the statistics whos dieing is okay just because the system usually works. At least let me cause my own death, or be in control of avoiding getting hit by a drunk driver so it's at least my own fault!
Re:We all have different limits (Score:4, Funny)
Quick we need a car analogy... oh wait...
Re:We all have different limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, the logic expressed in TFS was reasonable, but only from the collectivist POV. That is, a system where some people are sacrificed for The Greater Good(TM), in this case for likely a significant increase in highway safety, vs. a system where the individual has a large amount (albeit not complete) control over his or her own life. This is just one particular case in the timeless struggle between two conflicting general philosophies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, and when you are driving, your genes get to play a greater part in the "selection" process. So it has a higher chance of "improving" humans in the long run.
With the robot controlled cars, it's more "hit or miss".
Cyborg post-hum
Re: (Score:2)
A drunk driver could just as easily hit a brain surgeon and kill him.
Re:We all have different limits (Score:4, Insightful)
But I sure as hell don't want to be the one guy in the statistics whos dieing is okay just because the system usually works.
What happens when the system works better than you do?
At least let me cause my own death, or be in control of avoiding getting hit by a drunk driver so it's at least my own fault!
You also are asking for permission to cause the deaths of others. And a drunk isn't going to hit you with a car, if they aren't driving.
As I see it, I don't believe we should ever get rid of human drivers altogether. The need for human freedom outweighs the slightly greater death rate from having human drivers on the road. But at the same time, I think you should understand the trade offs of being a human driver.
When you get behind the wheel, you are putting other people at risk of being hit by you. I think that the risk to these other people are outweighed by your needs and wants (driving is pretty safe when done by a skilled driver who is aware of and respects the risks of driving.
Re: (Score:3)
driving is pretty safe when done by a skilled driver who is aware of and respects the risks of driving.
Sure, but how many people fit into that category? Not a lot. It's not (usually) those drivers that are causing the accidents.
There are many weird issues that would have to be considered with car AI though. I probably wouldn't want to develop such software, because a bug really could be life threatening, even if lives are being saved most of the time.. it's a difficult one. Also, drivers are legally responsible when they make a stupid mistake, but who is responsible when the car makes a mistake? The driver t
Re: (Score:3)
who's liable when a part in your car fails and you skid across the road into another car?
it doesn't happen much but lets ignore the software aspect and assume that a wheel just fell of the car.
it could be the mechanic if you just got it serviced a few days before and they either didn't spot it or make a mistake while working on the wheel.
It could be the car company if there's a systematic problem with all their cars.
it could be you if you've failed to keep the car in a good safe condition.
Your insurance com
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you the guy who apologized to Dick Cheney after he shot you in the face? Man, you have some serious self esteem issues.
Re:We all have different limits (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not ignore those who are killed by no fault of their own. How many are killed in accidents caused by someone else?
Unfortunately, this is precisely the point. People are illogical. 600k die every year to heart disease [cdc.gov] and no one flinches, but it a one-time, ~3000 death [wikipedia.org] event caused a massive response. 24k deaths each year can be attributed to coal power plants [msn.com], but clearly it's nuclear power that's the major threat. After all, you never know when your local nuclear reactor might be hit by a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.
Re: (Score:2)
Working on it... Just look at Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya... Some countries are even good at it by themselves...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Liabliity Problem May End This Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, and it is insurance companies that will eventually make automated driving the default option by pricing "manual" driving insurance through the roof.
Why would they? The manual driver wouldn't be any less safe and wouldn't be involved in any more accidents. Quite the contrary. In many accidents, there is one driver making a mistake, but another driver could have compensated for it. If a manual driver goes past a stop sign, a computerised car might be able to get out of the way when a human couldn't.