Dispatch From the Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google 282
First time accepted submitter Dave Jurgensen writes "Uber has said it will be purchasing 2,500 of Google's self driving GX3200 cars to be used around America. They are hoping to have their first set of driverless cars on the road by the end of the year. From the article: 'Uber has committed to invest up to $375 million for a fleet of Google’s GX3200 vehicles, which are the company’s third generation of autonomous driving cars, but the first to be approved for commercial use in the U.S. The deal marks the largest single capital investment that Uber has made to date, and is also the first enterprise deal that Google has struck for its new line of driverless vehicles.'" Update: Yes, this is a piece of speculative fiction.
Jeez, did you even READ the article? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's dateline is 2023. It's fiction. NOT news.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of things. And they will.
But statistically, it'll probably be better than having humans behind the wheel. Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:3, Insightful)
That they have a lower crash rate than humans and we are all forced to switch to them.
Not sure that is going wrong though.
If they can reduce the fatality rate, and the eventually will, it will not matter if different folks die only that less die. This is the same thing as vaccines. You trade X deaths for X/Y deaths, while those latter deaths are unlikely to be the same folks.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
First we get browser shortcuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:worst idea since flying cars (Score:5, Insightful)
I can also imagine people who oppose driverless cars will be going to great expense to try and trip them up, causing accidents. There are some people, that no matter how extensive the evidence is that driverless cars kill fewer people by huge margins, are going to try and stop their adoption. So many people are killed by human error while driving it doesn't even make the news anymore, but I guarantee one driverless car accident will be international headlines. Like 3D printers being used to print guns. Forget the fact they can do anything else like printing organs, food or prototyping innovative ideas. OMG they print guns quick start the presses the masses must know of this injustice.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not going to happen.
Reducing the fatality rate is only a political argument to make people accept speed cameras, which in turn generate a lot of profit for the state.
Driverless cars would render speed cameras useless, so they will never be mandated.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, 300,000 miles without an accident isn't that awesome.
I've probably come close to driving around 300k in about 16 years and I have yet to have an accident. I HAVE had a number of close calls, and I will admit every now and then one of those close calls would have been my fault had there been an accident (legally and realistically).
Re:Good old capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:worst idea since flying cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Cabs are acceptable for a once in awhile thing, but are too expensive to use on a regular basis.
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:5, Insightful)
The technology Double Standard.
If a person does it, they have a particular fault rate, if the rate is low enough they get credited as really good job.
If a computer does it, and they have a fault rate that exceeds the human fault rate by good factors, and it still fails, the idea is a disaster.
In general people don't like giving up control, and doesn't like doing the math to see if they are better off.
The automated driver, has a key advantage, it doesn't get distracted from driving, its primary goal is to get you from point a to point b as safe as possible. It doesn't get distracted by those bad drivers it is just an obstacle to avoid, after it avoided it, it isn't getting all pissy from it. Or if it is stuck in traffic, it will just drive the same without getting stressed about getting late.
Re:First we get browser shortcuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't wanna be first... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's definition of "accident":
Noun
1. An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
2. A crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury.
Accidents can also be caused by chance, but the word itself doesn't have to mean that. When someone says there was an accident somewhere, they aren't (necessarily) implying that nobody was to blame.
I think replacing human driven cars with these things would save a lot of lives.
In risk management there is a big difference between incident and accident. When two airplanes fly too close (what is call a near-miss), that is an incident. If they actually hit, that is an accident. All accidents are incidents, but not all incidents are accidents. What is needed to evaluate the google car is the incident rate, not the accident rate. Why? To minimize accidents, you need to minimize incidents. If google cars are involved in a high rate of incidents, even if they avoid accidents, then the risk of an accident is high.
Think of it this way. Most teenagers do not have accidents, but they do have incidents. Accidents always occur from incidents, so insurance premiums are higher on teenage drivers. It is not the accident rate that is important in evaluating the self driving cars, it is the incident rate. Because even with low accidents, if there are high incidents eventually there will be high accidents.