Concern Mounts Over Self-Driving Cars Taking Away Freedom 662
Lucas123 writes "Opinions in the blogosphere are building and run the gamut on self-driving automobile technology, but a survey supports the trend that most don't want their driving independence usurped by cameras, sensors and an onboard computer. The survey of British drivers last year commissioned by Bosch, a Germany-based supplier of automotive components, found that most would not buy a self-driving car. Only 29% of respondents said thay would consider buying a driverless car and only 21% said they would feel safe as a passenger in a self-driving car. David Alexander, an analyst at Navigant Research, pointed out that while driving yourself is often preferable, there's a lot of "grunt" driving that would be better handled by a computer. Navigant recently released a report stating that by 2035, 95 million autonomous cars will be sold every year."
As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in.
I would pay a lot of money to be able to drive distracted, asleep, or inebriated legally. Right now none of those are legal and one isn't even possible.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
Count me in as well. I do not actually like driving. That's a lot of wasted time for me. I'd rather do so many more things during that driving time. I could read all my commute time. Or even play need for speed! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Count me in as well. I do not actually like driving. That's a lot of wasted time for me. I'd rather do so many more things during that driving time. I could read all my commute time. Or even play need for speed! :)
I don't like driving during my commute, however I do like driving for fun. Unfortunately driving for fun is beyond my economic means these days. Gas is 6 or 7 times what it was when I was a teenager.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Interesting)
Count me in as well. I do not actually like driving. That's a lot of wasted time for me. I'd rather do so many more things during that driving time. I could read all my commute time. Or even play need for speed! :)
As long as it has a manual mode, I'd be fine with having autonomous mode available.
As I progress more in my geezerhood I will probably yearn more for autonomous mode and less for manual.
I like driving, but I like it least in the places I would also distrust an automated car, so I'm conflicted
right there. (Traffic jams) Call me when autonomous cars can totally de-snarl bumper to bumper stop and
go traffic, such that when the light changes every single car in the queue moves forward in unison.
Till then, there are some roads that just beg to be driven, and they are not that uncommon.
Re: (Score:3)
Where I live we have a leash law. When you take your dog beyond your property it must be on a leash. But many people have small lots, or live in high-rises. People wanted dogs to have a bit of freedom, so the city built dog parks. Inside a large, fenced-in area a dog can run around free, just like they could always do when I was a boy. The dogs are happy, their owners are happy.
I foresee the day, not too far off, when all cars on city streets must be computer controlled. Folks who want to enjoy driving will
Re: (Score:3)
When you can sit in the back seat and say "drive to destination" then for all practical purposes its autonomous.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept vehicles that decide where we should go and just stop at some random destination.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasonably legitimate concerns i've heard involve dealing with unexpected situations. You can see there's stopped traffic up ahead but the person in front of you isn't slowing down, you're on residential streets and a you see a ball bounce out between two parked cars and expect a child to follow shortly, etc.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think that automatic cars will be more susceptible to rear-end collisions than human-driven cars?
Sorry, but no.
First off, automatic cars can apply the brakes very much quicker than humans (they can respond in milliseconds rather than in seconds), and they continuously monitor the distance to the car in front of them and the rate and acceleration of closing. This means that, given certain common physics and certain standardised car parameters (such as maximum permitted acceleration), the cars will work out the safe following distance for their speed and (importantly) stick to it at all times.
Phrased differently: avoiding rear-end collisions is a technical problem with a technical solution in terms of continuously calculating a safe following distance for the current speed and adjusting your driving to stick to that.
The problem is that you must actually compute that solution very quickly and adhere to it for it to do any good. Humans can generally (unless ill, drunk, tired, distracted, vision impaired, or whatever) do the calculations and keep a safe distance, but they WON'T. They get bored, are in a hurry, in an emotional state, or plain like taking risks. So they have a lot of accidents. Automatons can do the calculations too, and they will never be in a hurry and will not take risks (unless programmed to) and simply stick to the solution plus a safety margin. Their accident ratio will be much smaller than that of the average human, and they will have their behaviour adjusted if it turns out to be less-than-safe.
Secondly, there are developments that let cars communicate with the car ahead and behind (and even beyond the line of sight), and exchange parameters such as maximum deceleration and current manouevre (cruising, accelerating, decelerating, desired speed). This information is then shared throughout a platoon (i.e. group of cars driving closely behind each other). Cars that can't safely drive in the platoon will automatically drop out and increase their distance. It's like a peer-to-peer traffic control system, and it works very well in traffic simulations.
So, in summary, the objection you raise concerns a technical problem with a technical solution, and isn't an obstacle.
Re: As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
In my ideal world cars can talk to streets and other cars for congestion reports, routing, and local avoidance. Having a manual driver in that process would fuck everything up since there is one X factor in the swarm that isn't responding.
Still that is a long way off, I imagine self drive will begin like ski lifts, drive into a zone, control is taken, moved along a highway, then as you exit a slow ramp with some warning bells as you resume control of the car.
Either way seems to be an infrastructure nightmare but damn would be nice when it is in place. Hopefully i can see something like this when I'm just getting old enough to not drive myself.
Re: (Score:3)
It adds an hour to each side of my commute, and it saves me exactly no money.
"compared to the expense of a car/gas/maintenance it could almost be considered steeling"
um, no. In fact when I calculated it last year, its was 5 cents more a day to take the bus.
You're just reiterating the lies put out be various Bus Companies.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Interesting)
As another poster noted: As long as I can take manual control when I want to. But for law enforcement: It needs a mode that is PROVABLY un-take-controllable so that we can show we KNEW we were sleepy, inebriated, incapable, etc. and "handed over the keys".
Re: (Score:2)
Just sit in the passenger seat. If it doesn't need you to drive, it definitely doesn't need you in the driver's seat.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Funny)
But us Americans want to look in control. Even if we're not. That's why we elect politicians.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Interesting)
You win all the US internets for today.
Now please assume the party escort submission position. The GlaDos (definitely not the NSA) is warming up the.... I mean is baking you a cake.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really want to hand the State Police/TSA/NSA/ATF/FBI that power? Or the power to take control of the car of someone unliked by the authorities and have it crash, due to 'equipment failure'?
Re: (Score:3)
And for some people, a breathalyzer. Car: You are shitfasted, I'll drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you actually want the computer to override you while you're driving? I don't think it should work that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
Hmmm...I would think this would be an automatic reaction for most cars upon hitting an object...doing so ahead of time would be rather pointless, although it would keep the body shops happy :)
The word you're looking for is 'braking' ;o)
Re: (Score:3)
Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.
It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.
Actually a human is faster.
It's just that most humans are dumber.
Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely (erm... This is called defensive driving).
People who feel they need systems to compensate for their lack of driving ability need to go hand in their license. All they do is coddle bad drivers into thinking they're better than they really are (and this is when they start taking even more s
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Interesting)
The car made especially for you should also come with manual ignition advance, manual choke/mixture ratio adjustment, a manual fuel flow valve with a dial pressure readout and, let's not forget a rheostat to regulate the alternator output. Probably also the manual braking force distribution lever. And an SRS button, of course.
What is so hard is that if you actually do measurements, humans are nominally piss poor at a whole lot of of manual things that relate to driving cars. The feeling of being in control and the car doing "what they want" trumps the reality that we're really bad at all that.
Just so that you know, it's quite possible to fly a statically unstable plane. I've had the opportunity on a simulator to deal with a pitch-and-yaw-unstable flying wing. It was done in a preliminary study of biofeedback for training "hard" control scenarios. The biofeedback was auditory, generated digitally in real time with a very small latency (1ms). After about a dozen hours I could actually take off and fly somewhat straight in it. Others who logged a couple man months could pretty much fly it like one would fly a regular plane - looking at the recording of the flight path, it looked "normal". Then you'd look at the stick deflections and you'd go "what the fuck?". The question is: do we really want to do what a hundred dollars worth of high-rel controller hardware, running about 10^5x more expensive software, can do for you?
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I wouldn't call it only 29%, but rather already 29%.
The reason is that the discussion about driverless cars is so new/recent that I wouldn't even have expected that many people saying that they would consider buying a driverless car.
My dream transport-solution is: (a) not owning a car at all; (b) call a car anytime I need one; (c) getting driven (automatically) to any place I want; (d) I pay for the time I use the car and can leave it anywhere in the country (obviously, in a village/town/city or so).
If we had a system like that and everybody would use it, it could be the solution to most of our traffic problems, including congestion (cars can communicate information faster and react faster than humans), parking problems, and more. Most of the time, cars are just parked somewhere and standing idle anyway.
So, yes, count me in...
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
My dream transport-solution is: (a) not owning a car at all; (b) call a car anytime I need one; (c) getting driven (automatically) to any place I want; (d) I pay for the time I use the car and can leave it anywhere in the country (obviously, in a village/town/city or so).
So, a taxi then.
Re: (Score:3)
And on another note: taxis (with their drivers) don't communicate traffic-data to each other. Self-driving cars could do that and optimize the route. Then, of course, if I could also personalize the route with things like "please use scenic route", "use fast route", "use a county road", etc - it would be perfect...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Funny)
Then, of course, if I could also personalize the route with things like "please use scenic route", "use fast route", "use a county road", etc - it would be perfect...
"Please accelerate out of the corners." "Please leave 40 feet of tracks when departing from the present intersection." "Please drop it into second and turn sideways in the next corner." [Vehicle reply] "I'm sorry; I can't do that for you, Dave. Unless you assist by pulling the e-brake at 3...2...1...now."
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
My mom is approaching the point when we're going to have to take away the keys. She's fine for most things, she's just a bit indecisive, hesitant, and, well, wobbly when driving. Taking away the keys means she needs to live with someone, be given rides everywhere etc. Completely unnecessary when the technology exists *RIGHT NOW* to enable her to remain independent. Not allowing/adopting this seem just cruel to me.
Guys! YOU CAN TURN AUTO-DRIVE OFF!!!!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This is just ridiculous FUD / trolling at this point. No one would buy a car that would do this. There's no market for it.
But in my bizarro-universe, the EVIL GOVERNMENT will force you do buy this, thus conclusively proving that (1) the government is evil and that (2) self-driving cars will destroy your freedoms and take away your guns.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Funny)
ObamaCar
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Interesting)
I really don't consider a simple hypothetical scenario that closely matches very recent events "hysterical".
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm in.
If driverless cars were available today I would buy one tomorrow.
You could work, read, screw...seriously think about all the lost time you'd get back to do things that are far more interesting.
I can't relate to people who wouldn't want a self-driving car.
Digital HyperMiler (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
There will ALWAYS be situations where the automation software can't cope with a particular scenario and you have to take the wheel in a split second.
That will never be a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way. It's well known from aviation and industrial control rooms that if the human is out of the loop, it takes much, much longer than a "split second" for the human to get back into the loop. Sometimes entire minutes are not enough, I kid you not.
The automation software has capacity to "see ahead", so to speak, and can and should get the vehicle into a safe state when it looks like a handover is inevitable. The split second taking over of a wheel is your fantasy, it's basically impossible unless you're paying full attention the entire time - at that point you might as well drive the car anyway, why bother with automation. If you pay any less attention than you would if you actually drove the car, there'll be no split-second handovers. I'm serious. You simply have zero clue what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Then of course there are the other benefits. Your car could drop you off at a location, go park itself in a cheap lot or structure, then come and get you when you call it. No more circling around looking for a parking spot. That would benefi
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically most of the bottom quarter think they are in the top half.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as it doesn't hinder, re prohibit MY ability to buy and drive manual cars on the road.
I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.
I like to drive...I buy cars that are FUN to drive.
So, as long as I can continue to drive myself (and I'm sure others do feel this way too)...I'm cool with self driving cars.
I don't want "Johnny Cabs" to become the mandated only option.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Informative)
I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.
I like to drive...I buy cars that are FUN to drive.
But...but...manual transmissions ARE the fun ones to drive! Automatics are boring: press pedal 1 to go, press pedal 2 to stop, put the shift lever in the 'P' spot when you're stopped...yawn...
That being said, automatics are easier for everyday running around in a city. Easier...but still not as fun. Driving a standard gives you a much more visceral connection to your wheels, and even in a little Corolla can make you feel like a race car driver on a straightaway. In a Shelby...mmmm... :)
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll always be free to do your driving for fun on private roads and tracks, but keep your "fun" off the roads that I have to share with you.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Informative)
Stop dictating what other people consider fun.
Jeez, a Fun Nazi.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell
When driving, fun can be very dangerous, but not necessarily so. You are always engaged in a fun activity and that makes you a safer driver (though other factors can more than counter that). Boring always is dangerous since you are thus subject to complacency and drifting of attention.
Re: (Score:3)
Never own a manual transmission? someone take this guy's sports cars away.
And they will probably go away in your life time, and that's a good thing overall.
Just so you know, I have raced, love muscle cars, I have taken several driving course to learn a variety of skill sets.
I love driving so much I'm GLAD when my wife asks me to go to the store.
That era is passing. Just like horse drawn carriages.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've never owned a manual, you've never owned a sports car.
You've already given up most of the control you have over your vehicle, I fail to see why you'd be hesitant to give up the rest.
Automatics certainly aren't fun cars.
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:5, Interesting)
That isn't how statistics work. The one accident in 250k is an aggregate of a lot of data. It doesn't mean that it is expected that after you get to 250k and beyond you're more likely to get into an accident.
To demonstrate if I threw a perfectly balanced die 600 times, statistically I should roll a one 100 times. However if I have actually rolled the die 500 times and have not gotten a 1 (highly unlikely but possible) it would be absurd for me to believe that I would likely get a one the next 100 time. No, for the next 100 rolls I should expect to get about 16 or 17 ones.
For more information, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That isn't how statistics work. The one accident in 250k is an aggregate of a lot of data. It doesn't mean that it is expected that after you get to 250k and beyond you're more likely to get into an accident.
If you have driven 300K miles, you are more likely to have gotten into at least one accident having driven that many miles than if you had driven 250K miles.
Arguably; your probability of an accident per mile driven is nonuniform and nonindependent; miles driven in a parking lot have a lower wei
Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver (Score:4, Funny)
Another driver thingk he's better then everyone else.
Shocking.
300,000 miles? noob.
I am also above average at driving, just like everyone else.
Amusing scenario... (Score:5, Interesting)
Driving a manually operated car through a hoard of autonomous cars. Splitting two lanes, step on the gas. The autonomous cars detect your car impinging on their lane, so they move out of the way, and the sea of autonomous cars parts like a wave in front of you.
They'll need a lot of algorithms to deal with the unexpected, and people who deliberately want to mess with them, heh.
Re:Amusing scenario... (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving a manually operated car through a hoard of autonomous cars. Splitting two lanes, step on the gas. The autonomous cars detect your car impinging on their lane, so they move out of the way, and the sea of autonomous cars parts like a wave in front of you.
They'll need a lot of algorithms to deal with the unexpected, and people who deliberately want to mess with them, heh.
That kind of driving would be dangerous and illegal; whether you can do it without a crash or not. I'd assume that driverless cars would have cameras to gather evidence in case of an accident, because the passengers might not be paying attention, so you'd probably have a dozen videos being sent to the police, enough for a conviction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe that the Google algorithm is taking lane-splitting motorcycles into account. If you watch the video from their engineers they definitely are aware and working on it, I can't remember the solution though.
Re: (Score:3)
This is like vaccinations. If you are the sole anti-social person, no problem. But if you run into (pun intended) a like-minded person, they become your moderator.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids will be even worse. Once they find a way to make the AI panic they won't stop until the AI code is updated.
The whole thing is hand waving anyhow. They aren't even close to being able to build one. Requires strong AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the police arrest you and use the camera and lidar data from 100 cars to make a 3d image of the driver just to prove it was you. :P
Freedom? (Score:2, Interesting)
Freedom has become a nonsense word. It means whatever you want it to mean apparently. Might as well say shamalalalalala ding dong.
another thing to thank the knownothings for.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. People are acting as if you aren't just behaving like computer when you drive now - the route is limited to prescribed turns and lanes, there are signs instructing you on speed, when to stop, when to go, etc. All the human is doing is memorizing the rules of the road and following them until they reach their destination. Humans are not as good as computers at following directions and can't react as fast. We're better at pattern recognition and responding to unexpected scenarios, but those advant
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with this. While I would love a care that will just go where I tell it, I would like to have the option of driving it myself as well. I can't see manufacturers taking that option away, as long as they even pay lip service to giving the consumers what they want, unless the Government tells them otherwise. Too bad they seem to be so ready to jump when the Gov. tells them.
But that's crazy talk, right? What are they going to do, tell us to buy insurance too?
No, there's a specific freedom in mind here... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've missed the point here. They do have a specific "freedom" in mind here:
The freedom to break the rules of the road.
The people talking about self-driving cars taking away their "freedom" are afraid they'll no longer be able to drive 75 mph in a 55 mph zone, or run that red light, or tailgate that person who's got the sheer audacity to drive a few miles an hour under the speed limit when they need to get home to watch the game so close they leave paint on their bumper...!
In other words, they're afraid that if everyone's got self-driving cars, they won't be allowed to be assholes anymore.
Dan Aris
In (Score:4, Insightful)
I love driving. Everything about it, but even I want it. Better driving from everyone. Safer, better traffic, and you can play board games with the family while driving down the road.
All around awesome.
I wouldn't feel safe. I know I would be safer, but at first it would feel dangerous. That's from years of driving and being driven.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I just hope my current car lasts until these start rolling out. As much as I hate Apple I would even buy an self driving iCar. And as long as it takes me where I want to go I don't see where the loss of freedom comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, as soon as autonomous cars come around at a reasonable cost, most people will acquire them, put in a 50" flat screen tv, and let it drive wherever it needs to go. As soon as driver less cars no longer require a licensed driver, families will send their pre teens to the movies in the car.
One thing we can expect is increased traffic, pollution
I completely agree. (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want to give up my driving freedom. Having seen how the rest of you drive, though, I want all of you to give up your driving freedom because I swear, I'd drive better sleepy, drunk, and texting all at the same time than some of you.
Giving up driving is a price I'm willing to pay if I don't have to risk my life on your competence behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
With enough good self-driving cars, you could automatically assemble car-trains to reduce consumption, and with a wide enough acceptance, they could be allowed to accelerate up to much greater speed than is usually allowed on regulars highways for non-automatic cars. Then, when you don't need them, once at work, you could allow them to be used as automated taxis and get some income out of it.
Re:I completely agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll freely admit that I've made major mistakes behind the wheel, and I'm just lucky not to have encountered another car. I've missed red lights and stop signs. I've been fixated on a dangerous swerving driver only to ignore my blind spot. I've been so busy looking left that I missed a pedestrian crossing from the left. Shit happens. I'm human. I have no doubt that computers will someday drive more safely.
Re: (Score:3)
Same here. And what's worse, those are only the mistakes you know you made... :)
Safety (Score:5, Informative)
Except that self-driving cars are already greatly safer than those driven by humans. If such a car doesn't cooperate with government surveillance, it doesn't degrade your freedom -- and as an useful tool, actually improves it. You can do whatever you want when travelling...
Re:Safety (Score:5, Insightful)
If such a car doesn't cooperate with government surveillance, it doesn't degrade your freedom . .
"If". Such a small word, to express so much hope.
Premature Panic (Score:3, Funny)
Despite this technology not existing yet, it scares the shit outta me!
Can you imagine my self-driving car crashing? Next I would be loaded into a self-driving ambulance and taken to an automated hospital where a self-operating robot might cut off the wrong leg. I'll be right back, my Roomba is stuck in the corner again.
Can't wait for self-driving cars (Score:3, Insightful)
There are people who have medical or other reasons which make it so they can't drive. For them a self-driving car gives a huge amount of freedom: freedom to get yourself from point A to point B without relying on favors or public transit or taxis.
Re: (Score:2)
It would me certainly.
I have a tendency not to notice things in my field of vision, so I'd be a danger on the road.
Insurance companies... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Insurance companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the biggest driver (no pun intended) will be people themselves. Think about it, do you buy cars where you have to brace yourself or do you choose the model with the automatically deploying air bags? do you buy the car with all manual brakes or the one with ABS? do you buy the car with manual headlights or the one with AUTO setting? Do you buy the car with manual radio tuning buttons or the one with SEEK forward and backward functions?
Ditto for newer features. If you ever driven a car with radar activated collision warning (and if no response breaking) you would never go back to one without one.
People will surrender their "freedom" (which in this case is a bullshit choice of term) for the safety of a car that drives himself, just like you, along with the rest of us, sacrificed the "freedom" of your ice box for a fridge that turns itself on and off. Come to think of it, that is the complete opposite of "sacrificing freedom" we actually stopped the slavery of having to feed an ice box by having a machine take over.
Same goes for an automatically driven car. Al you are surrendering is your mechanical input to the machine. You are no longer a cog in the driving system. Yay for (real) freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Insurance companies... (Score:4, Insightful)
"As long as insurance is required by the government, there is no reason for the rates to drop, even if they never have to pay out a dime."
Your own sentence proves your wrong. Ig GEIKO, Allstate, or someone else charges you $2000 a year and never needs to pay out, someone else will start a new insurance company that only charges $200, knowing they won't ever have to pay out.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the changes to our society would be even greater. There wouldn't be any need for most people to own a car. Once it scales up it would be much more cost effective to just summon one with your pocket / wrist computer that would take you where you want to go for a fee.
The future of driverless cars looks like a bus (Score:5, Interesting)
We might not have flying cars, but the driverless car is now a legal problem, not a problem of unreasonable expense or technological ability. We have the technology to build them now, and mass-produced, probably for less than $60,000 a piece. We also have systems for issuing commands remotely over the internet ("car, come here") and systems for renting of personal vehicles (Relayrides, GetAround, Lyft). It is only a matter of time before someone ties them all together and forces the law to change, or the law changes and the floodgates open.
Re:The future of driverless cars looks like a bus (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Self-driving cars are liberating (Score:5, Insightful)
It's mass transit without the masses. Imagine your own personal bus, taxi or train. Mass transit is good for many people because it enables travel without so much stress... or at least without the same type of stress and certainly less danger. But among the problems of mass transit is the crowding and congestion which often accompanies more dense populated areas.
I think having HOV lanes replaced with "Automated" lanes, self driving cars are likely to take you anywhere you need to go, respond to traffic problems by dynamically re-routing and generally even out the flow of traffic all over. Even if a driver decides not to participate in the use of self-driving cars, when there are enough self-driving cars, it will likely benefit the non-participants as well.
One caveat is the fact that non-participants will see it as a license to be an even bigger asshole than they were to "other drivers." They would be bigger because they would drive rudely around machines which would, ostensibly, not be offended... (the passengers might though... imagine cutting off a self-driving car and how it might respond)
There are probably a lot of scary scenarios which I haven't considered, but I recall batman movies and the self-driving batmobile and how that could be really useful. A car that will let you get out at your destination then drive away to park somewhere? Awesome... especially if you can notify your car that you are waiting to be picked up and have it arrive in a few moments. There's a lot of awesome there... and some scary.
Machines are better, let them drive (Score:4, Insightful)
Ugh we really need to learn to let machines do the jobs that we simply can't do well in a consistent manner.
Overcoming the Fear of the New (Score:5, Insightful)
Manual vs Automatic (Score:2)
If you asked that question in the early 1950s, I'm sure it would have similiar results and apprehensions.
Self-driving cars CREATE liberty for some folks. (Score:2)
Sure (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to get a driverless car........once it's been tested. A lot. Not before.
were only our human drivers so well-tested.
Not until.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as the self driving car only slavishly follows the ridiculously low speed limits in most of the northeast it will be more hazard to other drivers than benefit, and it will also be slower.
Lots of slower drivers now who do less than the posted limit. My work commute is about 50 miles of rural interstate in Colorado. Posted speed limit is 75 mph. Lots of cars in the slow lane doing less than that and the worst thing is when one of them isn't quite willing to go as slow as the others and gets in the fast lane and S-L-O-W-L-Y passes the other.
Cheers,
Dave
like digital cameras (Score:3)
This reminds me of when digital cameras started becoming mainstream. A lot of people poo pooed them and said they would never replace real cameras. They had to be able to feel and hold pictures. Well, we see how Poloroid and Kodak fared. A similar attitude was had when automatic transmissions first appeared. People wanted the freedom to shift when they wanted and not when some mechanism decided it should be done.
I expect driverless cars to follow a similar path. Once available, they will slowly be adopted and then a tidal wave. There will always be the Jenny McCarthys of the world who have some freak incident and blame technology on their woes, but 99% of those who can afford a driverless car will use them 99% of the time.
Driving Freedom Never Existed (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving is a privilege, that you have to earn, and comes with a thousand point list of rules and regulations.
You can only drive when they want, where they want, and how they want. So were is there any freedom to loose?
People will hate it until they try it. (Score:4, Interesting)
You wouldn't believe how many people I know were dead set against satellite navigation systems, how they would be forced on us, etc. Every one of those people now owns one, by their own choice.
I think people have a similar visceral reaction to autonomous vehicles, but once they experience not having to deal with the stress of everyday driving, will change their opinion.
freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
The loss of end-user control (Score:3)
It's interesting to watch tech trends change. End-user control used to be a priority; the Internet was built around it. With the rise of widespread connectivity, centrally controlled services have become much simpler and more popular. You don't update the OS on your phone, someone does it for you.
You lose the benefits of end-user control, which include more privacy, freedom (as in speech), openness and innovation. Who will track where you self-driving car takes you? On your iPhone, you only can use apps that Apple approves. Facebook was built on open technologies that emphasized end-user control; it allowed them to create something that the creators of the Internet technologies didn't envision and didn't have to approve; what will be built on Facebook?
I'm not against centralized services completely, and many of these issues could be mitigated if the service providers were motivated to do it, but I am concerned that it's a serious trade-off that's being made without discussion.
Save me from bad drivers (Score:3)
This is shameful (Score:3)
Man you guys are living in ignorance city. I had the displeasure of working at a car lot for far too long. You guys just THINK Cars are safe, we had recalls all the time about things catching on fire or brakes failing and nobody knows about this except the owners who receive the letter in the mail to come get something important replaced. The manufacturer isn't going to tell you they knew about the issues and released a potentially dangerous product with potentially deadly flaws.
You actually think self driving Cars are going to be our savior? Then ignorance city fits you very well.
To the other guys who think Manual Transmissions are going away, no. Manual Transmissions are released with some of the cheaper model cars and sports cars as optional and are sold in limited quantity, have been for many years now since automatic engulfed us. But if you want it, you have to specifically ask for it. And by all means, you don't have to read a word I say, just wait for the bad things to happen when the time comes. Car crashes from computer error will become normal, just like stuck gas petals. Life will go on and nothing will change, just like it does now.
Isn't it something? How things so terrible, become the normal and acceptable. And nothing will ever change until people stop rationalizing things. Buckle up kiddies. That's actually or was, an inside joke once because of the number of early seatbelt failures.
Re: (Score:3)
With proper oversight I am not worried... if everybody must have them as well. My robo car is not going to spot some idiot on their cell driving in the next lane and avoid them as well as I do. Take away all the people who can't drive responsibly or lost the capacity (elderly) and that would make me feel much safer. At least a defect would result in investigations and lawsuits to create a permanent solution; idiot drivers have no fault insurance and a slim chance of changing their ways (tickets don't hel
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's going to happen. Especially in crowded traffic. In those circumstances I'd much rather my life depend on something with a reaction time that will make the moving cars seem almost stationary.
Here's how this should play out:
1) Smart people with lots of money start developing these (happening now)
2) In real life trials, they work, and are statistically safer than human drivers (looks promising...)
3) In time, they're indisputably a lot safer than human drivers (we'll see, but I think this will
Re: (Score:2)
This was my point about the word "freedom" used in the headline...
How is one losing freedom? You're not losing any freedom to go anywhere. You are still determining the destination. It's different from public transport or being a passenger because you still going from point to point and through a route.
So what is the difference? You're losing the freedom to run someone off the road or get them into an accident. You will still be able to use your middle finger if you like..