Kids With Wheels: Should the Unlicensed Be Allowed To 'Drive' Autonomous Cars? 437
Hallie Siegel (2973169) writes "From the Open Roboethics Research Initiative: Earlier this month, when we asked people about your general thoughts on autonomous cars, we found that one of the main advantages of autonomous cars is that those who are not licensed to drive will be able to get to places more conveniently. Some results from our reader poll: About half of the participants (52%) said that children under the legal driving age should not be able to ride driverless cars, 38% of the participants believe that children should be able to ride driverless cars alone and the other 10% also think that children should be able to drive autonomous cars with proven technology and specific training."
no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
no. the idea of an autonomous vehicle with no possible driver to override it is just plain stupid.
The idea of a manually-operated vehicle with no possibility of a more accurate automated system overriding it is just plain stupid.
It all comes down to risk. Obviously today autonomous vehicles aren't ready to take over completely. However, they will steadily improve, and it seems unlikely that human drivers will improve at all. At some point the risk of a computer causing an accident will drop below the risk of a person causing one, and at that point it becomes safer to just not let people interfere with the operation of the vehicle.
Would you consider it wise to give passengers in an airliner the ability to take over in case the pilot makes a mistake? Such a feature is far more likely to cause a disaster than avert one. Once cars get to the point where they can be operated more safely than aircraft (which are already safer than cars are today) then taking control of a car in a crisis will just be getting in the way of the proven driver: the machine.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. By the time this question is germane it will be equivalent of "would you let your kid ride in a taxi without you?".
The long term direction is a far safer driving experience solely based on removing human drivers from all cars. Allowing them to "override" the automated systems just makes them far more dangerous than cars today where at least the norm is drivers who are somewhat used to driving. Letting people who rarely if ever driver override is just a disaster waiting to happen.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll see your straw man, and raise you a spark.
Your preposition is unproven. It may occur at some time in the future, but that remains to be seen.
Re:no (Score:4, Funny)
Mythbusters tested landing an airplane (Score:3)
Mythbusters (almost as accurate as wikipedia) tested the myth of an untrained pilot landing a plane with coaching from the ground. They concluded it was "plausable".
But their second go-round with coaching assistance from an air traffic officer was much smoother sailing. Though the coach wasn't inside the simulator with Jamie and Adam, he was able to point out the gauges and controls and how to use them to correctly maneuver the plane. After being talked through how to steer and land step-by-step, Jamie and
You are wrong,, and probably a liar. (Score:3)
I hate to break it to you, but I know for a fact their are aircraft in the air, right NOW that the pilot will do nothing from the moment the roll out, until they have landed.
" Try talking someone in from the ground"
it's trivial:
Push this sequence of buttons. After which the craft will go to the proper airport and land itself.
Of course you know as well as I do that has never happened, outside of the airport movie's.
"By the way, doing an automatic Cat 3 approach is actually more work than a normal manual appr
Re: (Score:3)
The vehicle really only has to be safer than an average human driver but we'll probably have to make it safer than any conceivable human driver before it will be widely accepted.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
Catch with that. Taxi drivers are largely kid proof and computers are not. Much like elevators, those devices that interact within public space are very difficult to make child proof. Even something a simply as a swing is rather difficult to make child proof and something that needs to be used with adult supervision. Let alone the most obvious danger hacking of the service to facilitate remote control abduction of children. Children require adult supervision, that is their nature, they are learning to be human beings and will make many mistakes. Adult supervision reduces the number of mistakes children will make and the greater the risk the greater the need for adult supervision. Simple hack of an automated car and yet very disruptive especially in rush hour, would be for the child to instruct the vehicle to drive round and round, a roundabout actively denying other vehicles access, yet completely legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Children require adult supervision
Yes, to a point.
When they're old enough to be left at home, to use public transport, to cycle around the neighborhood - then they're old enough to ride in an automated car without adult supervision.
Until then, kids should not be left alone - full stop.
Re:no (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
People do that every single day:
1. Bus
2. Taxi
3. Airplane (most people are passengers, not drivers)
4. Train
5. Streetcar
6. Subway
7. Carpool
8. Use of public roadways
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. While I don't think the concept of self-driving cars is a bad one, it's inevitable that corporations and governments are going to use them to invade people's privacy, use DRM-like nonsense to control what people do and where they can have the car repaired, and generally hide what the car is actually doing. Unless I can see the source code for the software they use, I won't trust these things.
I would just love to see you at an airport.
Re: (Score:3)
it's inevitable that corporations and governments are going to use them to invade people's privacy
"Vehicle owner: Please take me to Xyz airport."
"Vehicle: OKAY"
(Silently... Vehicle... I noticed [Vehicle owner] is on the no-fly list, please transmit instructions.
Government computer: Acknowledged. Ultraviolet clearance revoked. Please divert to the nearest self-incrimination station; seal all doors and windows -- upon stopping, lower security grilles over windows switch to imprisonment m
Why can't passengers fly the plane? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, you COULD give every passenger a virtual control stick on a display panel on their back seat, and let democracy fly the plane.
It worked for Twitch Plays Pokémon.
Re:Why can't passengers fly the plane? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we have passenger jets that the pilots cannot override the autopilot?
I mean that is the real comparison here. If anyone can override the automated systems, then that person or some person needs to be qualified and present during the operation.
Before we go completely autonomous with cars, it should be safe to have autonomous lawnmowers. If the thought of a machine with spinning blades roaming around by itself doesn't sit well, cars without the ability to override yhe autopilot shouldn't either.
Re: (Score:3)
Before we go completely autonomous with cars, it should be safe to have autonomous lawnmowers.
Behold! [husqvarna.com] The [robomow.com] future! [lawnbotts.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's an urban myth - in Normal Law the pilot cannot exceed certain thresholds as you say, but its a simple button press to put the aircraft in Alternate Law where they can. Boeing aircraft from the 777 onward are essentially the same.
Re:no (Score:5, Interesting)
In my city (Vancouver), trains are basically run automomously under normal circumstances unless there's an interruption, in which case staff at HQ. could manually take control of the vehicles. This is at least somewhat over simplified, as they run on almost entirely isolated railways without much risk of outside risk factors, but a highly advanced car with little more than a GPS (with auto-nav) / stop peddle and an on-star-like communications terminal for emergency stop responses and rescue situations could eventually become a valid and functional road driving system for cities. Even a 'manually driven' option for truly rural areas not covered by the grid could be an option that 'turns off' when entering managed city roads.
I don't see why we couldn't 'have faith' in central city command and control centers which are paid for by road taxpayers to help manage and mitigate risk to public safety. Do you think the added taxes in supporting this would be more or less than the amount lost to accidents/life lost/insurance of a non-managed roadway?
Oh, well, nice dream but I don't see it happening any time soon. Here's hoping I happens before die and..fdsfzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Re: (Score:3)
Granting sufficient contextual awareness to free roaming vehicles is too intractable. The computer is clueless about compound cause-effect situations where prevention is better than reaction. You have it backwards. If the automated system can handle 90% of the situational dynamics of driving, you want the human to be able to override it when it's clearly about to get something wrong. I am being 'extremely' generous with that 90% btw.. It's unlikely we'll get that far. computers are faster, but humans hav
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the computer can't tell the difference between a bag and a rock? Then it assumes the highest-risk possibility and takes the appropriate mitigation action with reflexes so quick that it has probably begun before the meatbag in the car even takes note of the bag.
What happens when the perfect driver is checking his side view or rear view mirror right at the moment the rock rolls into the lane in front of him?
Automated systems are never going to be perfect, but I see no reason they can't be far, far more safe than a system guided by a human being.
Re: (Score:2)
Granting sufficient contextual awareness to free roaming vehicles is too intractable.
That's a pretty bold statement. Human brains can do it, and they're made out of matter. Why wouldn't a computer that is also made out of matter not be able to do the same thing?
I didn't say that it would happen tomorrow. However, at some point computers will surpass humans in driving skill - it seems inevitable to me. It is just a matter of when.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
So are humans. Every single workplace safety program starts and ends with "stop and think what you're about to do before doing it". Our higher functions operate at the timespan of minutes, not fractions of a second. This is also the reason we have traffick laws: they turn driving from an activity requiring judgement into a mechanical exercise. When that fails, accidents follow.
Apart from negating the entire reason one might want to get an automated vehicle in the first place, it's also not physically possible to stay alert and pay attention to a system - in this case traffick - that you aren't actively participating in. This means that you have no idea when the computer is about to do something wrong, much less what to do about it.
Humans have next to no intellectual contextual awareness in realtime situations. Various levels of automation drive your body, most social situations, and even activities usually considered intellectual, like math or programming. "Intellectual contextual awareness" is what you use to pick a career, and often not even then.
Is there a rock beneath the bag? You can't know. You can, however, guess there isn't and adjust your estimates about any future bags containing rocks should this one be harmless. That happens all the time, and is one of the numerous ways in which human rationality tends to break down.
No, it doesn't. Your survival instinct manifests as a bunch of reflexes, which do little to help (shielding yourself with your arms) or even need to be worked around (ABS brakes). It doesn't stop people from speeding or ignoring the road in favour of their cellphone, whereas a computer that's told to obey the speed limit will obey the speed limit.
This being a good example of a gross, heuristic assumption. Your "safe" accelerator can be defeated by a cable jam, metal fatigue in the spring, or even a simple bit of sticky dirt on the cabin floor.
And this calling for something that doesn't exist.
And how would you go about "fixing" humans?
Re: (Score:3)
Would you consider it wise to give passengers in an airliner the ability to take over in case the pilot makes a mistake?
False analogy. Very few passengers would know how to fly an airliner. For the forseeable future however, most adults can drive a car if they needed to take over, Which brings us back to the question of whether that ability should be a requirement.
In any case, while I do not know much about what these automated cars are capable of, surely some human control is going to be needed. It will not be good enough to say to my car "Go to the office" because sometimes I just need the car park (where I prefer
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just so I am clear... When the autonomous vehicle runs someone over because it failed to "see" the person, the CEO of the company making the vehicle as well as the developers go to jail for manslaughter, right? Then I'm fine with it.
Sure, as long as when a human runs somebody over we send their parent and every driving instructor they ever had to jail for manslaughter as well.
A CEO who comes up with a car that saves the lives of the 40k people who die every year in the US from car accidents and then fails to save the life of a few odd people is a hero in my book.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
no. the idea of an autonomous vehicle with no possible driver to override it is just plain stupid.
The idea of requiring a driver's license to "ride" in an autonomous car is stupid. What's the point if you need to be able to drive?
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the concern is twofold.
As of yet autonomous vehicles are unproven. It would be nice to have a driver on the wheel just in case. This might not be for emergencies as a person would be reading or whatever and it's dangerous to give him the wheel unprepared and unaware. But we can presume that the computer might just get confused (lets say a construction site) and come to a stop and say "Please, human, guide me here until I can take over again." That's legitimate because the first generation of autonomous vehicles are certainly not going to be perfect.
Second, we don't want kids having free access to autonomous vehicle. 10 year old Johnny is riding in a car with no parents and just cannot resist the urge to take over the controls. 9 year old Amanda just met a really cool adult online that promises her if she goes to this one address, she's getting all the toys she wants.
So maybe not a driver's license, since blind people should have access to this technology after the bugs are worked out, but there should be some regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
10 year old Johnny is riding in a car with no parents and just cannot resist the urge to take over the controls.
There is no reason this should even be possible.
9 year old Amanda just met a really cool adult online that promises her if she goes to this one address, she's getting all the toys she wants.
So, exactly the same situation we have today?
Neither of these make any sense when it comes to regulations concerning autonomous cars.
Re: (Score:2)
i thought on this site at least we were above the 'think of the children' stuff. :(
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
First, unaccompanied children riding in these cars would wait until the cars have proven themselves. I wouldn't support children until it's reached the point that you're dropping the steering wheel.
As for #2, it's easily solved by placing the car into a mode where it only has limited destinations. Worst case, you should readily have records of where the car went and can use that to find the 'cool adult'.
Re:no (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. If there WERE fully autonomous vehicles (like computer controlled trams in airports are now), it shouldn't matter who drives them. If we get to the point where we trust automobiles to be completely devoid of manual control and override then what difference does it make who's inside?
Until then, no... as long as there are controls or overrides that someone can cause dangerous scenarios then you should have a license. Maybe we can have a different conversation about an "emergency stop" or changing destinations or minor route corrections, but the way the cars are built now allow for pretty complete driving responsibilities, and they should require similar of not identical rules for the drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd modify this answer to be: not yet.
At this point we don't understand what the impact of many driverless cars will be. It makes sense *for now* to require a licensed human driver be ready take over the vehicle in case the robotic control begins to conduct the vehicle incorrectly.
Later, as we gain more experience with autonomous vehicles and the systems become both more sophisticated and more proven, we'll reach a point where he have hard, data that proves having a human driver handy doesn't statistically
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it as a train without tracks (Score:2)
So it's better to have the child driven by a sleepy, irritated or texting parent or, worse, barely legal, sibling? Why not just think of an autonomous car as a trackless train that can take passengers to designated places without worrying about the precise turn by turn navigation? This way, the child would have as much control over the car as a train driver. Put a "brake" or "force stop" button that will park the car in the nearest safe location.
Also, the car AI should already have a built-in restriction ag
Re: (Score:2)
It seems pretty clear that there is going to be a transition period where autonomous vehicles will absolutely need to have the ability to let the driver takeover for situations like:
1) Driving in places where you usually are not supposed to due to road work or an accident.
2) Driving in places that no map data is available for yet.
3) Getting a vehicle onto a lift at the repair shop for servicing.
4) Pulling a trailer, this adds an entire new level of difficulty that I suspect autonomous car makers will not ta
Re: (Score:2)
It seems pretty clear that there is going to be a transition period where autonomous vehicles will absolutely need to have the ability to let the driver takeover for situations like:
2) Driving in places that no map data is available for yet.
You're assuming the car is going by map data alone, and not by video analysis? How quaint.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I find the idea of an autonomous vehicle with someone who thinks they're clever enough to override it just plain stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It would get rid of pubic transportation, be cheaper in the long run and if there is zero manual allowed, safer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. We know GPS and other technologies can be disrupted by stray radio transmission. It doesn't outright jam it but can cause the reciever to read the wrong location. You only need to be off by two or three feet to make a sunday drive your last drive ever. We know failed software updates have taken the traffic control systems down at major airports. We know that something as simple as scotch tape over sensors can shut down entire production lines at factories.
Road debre, another car's sensors breaking
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Potholes filled with brackish water.
Debris.
Animals.
Diverting around a dangerous situation like a fire, downed power lines, or police response.
Following detours.
Following manual police or other responder's manual directions.
Intentionally blocking the road to other traffic (ie, to protect an injured bystander laying in the road).
Even with those reasons to allow for manual operation by a licensed driver, I would still allow license-less occupants to use an automated car in the same fashion as a sedan service, assuming that certain conditions are met. Those conditions could be things like legal restrictions that require a combination of age and owner consent, or legal restrictions like a form of state-issued ID that allows the occupant to state destinations for the car, or perhaps for a class of operator for those that used to be licensed drivers but are no longer generally capable of driving at-speed on normal roadways, but could perhaps manually operate the vehicle in a limited capacity in an emergency or when automated operation is not possible, with restrictions on speed and with automated assistance to supplement the operator's own restrictions.
States have a form of state-issued ID that is issued when the individual either does not qualify for a driver's license or does not want one. States also have multiple classes of vehicle operator permitting, often a range including minors and new drivers with time-of-use or caps on the number of passengers, to motorcycle licenses, to higher GVWR/GCWR or special-purpose licensing like for hazardous chemicals or high occupancy. It would not be unreasonable to add a new kind of endorsement, for those considered old enough to be capable of instructing autonomous vehicles what to do, and it could have a combination of minimum age and parental consent, something like twelve years of age.
There would still need to be some kind of means for the car to either make choices to abort a trip if road conditions couldn't be handled in an automated fashion, or for the car to allow the occupant to provide additional direction in some situations. There would also need to be a way for the car to either reject destinations or to restrict to only certain destinations based on parental or owner input, and for the vehicle to be able to have limits on the number of occupants and to handle behavioral issues like the failure to wear seatbelts or to remain seated. Those could be as simple as detecting the length of the seatbelt (ie, calibrated to know a minimum length when buckled so one can't buckle it first then sit on it) and knowing if the seat is occupied when the trip starts, and to abort the trip if the occupant gets off of the seat.
My in-laws could benefit greatly from an autonomous vehicle. They stopped driving due to vision problems and now have to rely on a dial-a-ride service. I'm sure that if an autonomous vehicle existed and was within their means that they'd buy it so long as it could convey groceries and other small to medium sized parcels in addition to at least two occupants.
I could see families with children in that adolescence age benefiting. Even with two-parent families, it can be difficult if more than one child has an activity to attend and the parents still want to cook dinner or handle other responsibilities, so I could see a parent being able to use an autonomous vehicle to help pick up children from events like that.
If they can make the cars function completely driverlessly then I don't see any reason why they can't make them function with occupants that can't operate them manually.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be more useless without the ability to override it.
Suppose your autonomous vehicle has a sensor go bad unexpectedly. It pulls over and shuts down safely but will not continue to its destination. Now you are stuck in the middle of no where or a busy highway possibly without cell service. Do you sit there waiting on help to arive at a premium, take off walking, or become the sensor yourself and drive away manually?
Well, of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the guy sitting in the seat is the actual "driver" of an autonomous car.
And it's not like anyone is actually required to sit in that seat.
Note that if an "autonomous car" that requires someone to sit in the driver's seat and pay attention, you might as well not bother making it autonomous. If I have to pay as much attention as if I were the real driver, I might as well drive it myself, since the act of driving at least helps me keep my attention on the traffic.
Re:Well, of course. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, by all means, let's have a crying six year old be the sole occupant of a car when it gets in an accident...
Re:Well, of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How old does a kid have to be before they can walk to school on their own? How would it be any different in an autonomous car?
The difference is how far a kid can go in an autonomous car vs walking under their own power.
Even a bike doesn't change the situation all that much, since cars are still several times faster than a child's top speed.
Re: (Score:2)
How old does a kid have to be before they can walk to school on their own? How would it be any different in an autonomous car?
The difference is how far a kid can go in an autonomous car vs walking under their own power. Even a bike doesn't change the situation all that much, since cars are still several times faster than a child's top speed.
I guess it depends on how much cab fare you give the kid. Or in the case of the autonomous car, how far you let the car take them. I'm assuming there are some safeguards in place that a thief just can hop in your autonomous car and say "take me to Denver." And that these same safeguards would keep your kids from straying too far from home without permission. Parents can always be incompetent, of course, but that doesn't require a self-driving car to cause serious problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get kids off the lawns of America, and out on the road behind the wheel where they belong!
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, by all means, let's have a crying six year old be the sole occupant of a car when it gets in an accident...
Frankly, a crying six year old being the sole occupant of a car involved in an accident is a lot better then a six year old plus a badly injured parent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the guy sitting in the seat is the actual "driver" of an autonomous car.
He is the one programming the destination. The one who ultimately decides whether the run is within the car's operational parameters. I don't want to see a young child or an impaired adult making those decisions.
The geek tends to assume that the autonomous car will have complete and accurate situational awareness. That it can plan ahead.
I have my doubts.
I learned to drive on country back roads ---- learning to sweep my eyes right and left watching out for traffic approaching a blind crossroads long befor
Re: (Score:2)
Which, in practice, means checking the actually is a road where the map says it is, and there's enough fuel in the tank. The latter is trivial, and the first one is an absolute requirement for any kind of self-driving car.
You haven't given any compelling reason why they would need to.
Re: (Score:2)
Lovely. And to think I get the heebie jeebies thinking about On Star.
How is the aluminum foil going to help in this dystopic future?
Re: (Score:2)
Trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Should kids be allowed to ride trains/metros all by themselves? Same answer.
Trains in Vancouver are driverless and have been that way since their introduction in 1986. Oh the humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Or in Vancouver should they be allowed to ride the Skytrain which are indeed autonomous. No drivers. We do still have drivers in our taxis and buses though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually, and it's done.
Re: (Score:2)
NYC thousands of kids ride the trains to school every day
Robotic chauffeur (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If the autonomous car is reliable there should be no need for a drivers' license, for the same reason I wouldn't be required to have one if driven by a chauffeur.
It's even clearer than that, once you consider the bureaucratic and legal implications of it all.
Do you seriously think any manufacturer or government would let a child ride in such an "autonomous car" if it weren't "reliable"? I'm sure before that's the case, any "semi-autonomous car" or whatever will carry strong warnings that it can only be operated by a licensed driver -- and if you don't follow that and let your kid ride in it alone, the company will claim they are not liable. Further, the parents
Doesn't seem like a difficult question (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a scenario in which the unlicensed will be required to operate the vehicle themselves?
If yes, the unlicensed can't drive.
If no, they can.
For a partially autonomous car requiring occasional driving an unlicensed user obviously can't use it.
For a fully autonomous car there should never be a necessity to drive since an autopilot failure will require a graceful break down mode regardless. Even if there's a manual drive mode an unlicensed user won't be allowed to use it and the car will essentially be broken down on the road.
The only time it comes up is with a partially autonomous car requiring occasional non-driving guidance. Then it's simply a question of whether you design an alternate certification process for the unlicensed and it really depends on the degree of user interaction required.
Re: (Score:2)
If yes, the vehicle is NOT autonomous.
Re: (Score:2)
If yes, the vehicle is NOT autonomous.
Like a cab with a driver that had a stroke and collapsed. With a legally blind fare in back.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're having drivers take over in an emergency situation, you'd probably be better off having them drive all the time (otherwise they won't be ready to take over) or letting the computer handle the emergency (since the computer has better reactions and is at least as likely to do the right thing). In other abnormal situations the car could find a safe shutdown mode to wait until someone used the override, which would require a license.
Stop with the ethicism already (Score:4, Insightful)
For every Frankenstein pre-emptive handwringing stops, you'll kill a million improvements which will make the world a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
Better place for whom?
Would You Leave This Child At Home Alone? (Score:4, Insightful)
The government would jail you for leaving your child at home alone. If your autonomous vehicle is as safe as being at home, then the government should also prevent children from operating such a vehicle. Perhaps the child could be allowed to ride alone only if a parent or guardian programmed the destination....
Or perhaps we need to go back to the 1970's and allow children as much freedom and autonomy as I had when I was eight or ten, when my mother would tell me "Go out and play, and be back before dark."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish it WERE "laugh out loud" funny about this. But read the newspapers; this is all too common. If you're not in the USA, you may have trouble believing this; I _DO_ live here, and I sometimes have trouble believing how far the nation has fallen, and how quickly. This is no longer the nation that I grew up in.
Re: (Score:2)
However, taking children out of the home and having them reared by "certified professionals" has always been de rigueur among communists, socialists, and leftists of every stripe, so I guess you've made your own position abundantly clear.
Perhaps this article [wikipedia.org] will be of some use to you.
Reminds me of Battlestar Galactica (Score:5, Insightful)
The reimagined Battlestar Galactica copped a lot of (somewhat) deserved flak for its filler episodes, but my favourite episode of the entire series is also one of the more blatant filler episodes ("Scar").
In particular, I loved the scene where it is revealed that Cylon raider-ships also reincarnate, just as their fleshy biological counterparts do. Sharon even spells it out for the characters.
Starbuck: Raiders reincarnate?
Sharon: Makes sense, doesn't it? It takes months for you to train a nugget into an effective Viper pilot. And then they get killed and then you lose your experience, their knowledge, their skill sets. It's gone forever. So, if you could bring them back and put them in a brand new body, wouldn't you do it? 'Cause death then becomes a learning experience.
This is why, I believe, the future will eventually belong to automated drivers. The initial ones are already very good, but there will be holes. There will be headlines like "automated car drives headlong into school, killing 10 of the world's cutest orphans". Human drivers have similar issues and events like that are almost everyday occurrences all around the world. The problem is, as Sharon pointed out, when those drivers die their experience is lost. With an automated system, the skill set improves. Someone discovers that, for example, hey, if a drunk passenger opens the door to a self-driving car at low speed and falls out the system doesn't realise they're gone and blindly drives away.
So the system improves. The car's internal systems track passengers, and if one exits the car, the vehicle will double back and pick them up. Or contact emergency services if the speed is high enough, and form a roadblock so that this person isn't hit again. Or simply lock the doors to begin with. Or any number of more sane actions. The point is: the accident becomes a learning experience. With a human driver, we spend months training people to become drivers. Then one day they make a stupid mistake -- one other drivers have learnt to avoid, but not this driver -- and become a red smear. Their skill set, their experience and training, is lost.
With automated systems, every mistake is an opportunity to grow. I personally believe that automated driving systems are already better than humans, but this massive evolutionary benefit (directly learning from the mistakes of others drivers as though they were that other) ensures that they will continue to improve, whereas human lifespans are finite and so ours will not.
Not Yet (Score:3)
First the dirverless cars need to be ridden by people of the general public who can take over if it is necessary. When driverless cars prove to be trustworthy, then it'll make little difference who the "driver" is. All I know is that taxi drivers are going to go the way of the buggy whip makers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In an emergency you're right, but there are other reasons a person might need to take over. For example, if there's road construction or an accident blocking part of the road and the autopilot doesn't know how to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
Go collect some data. Like the Google cars, for instance. Zero autonomous accidents. Zero. The only accidents they have had is when a human driver is at the controls.
children "on the road alone" (Score:2)
Anyone who responded postively to that idea should be neutered immediately.
Unaccompanied minors (Score:4, Insightful)
There are three broad topics that I feel need to be addressed before allowing minors to ride around unaccompanied in automated vehicles:
Liability: Who is responsible for the safety of an unaccompanied minor in the event of an accident or vehicle malfunction, especially if the vehicle is a long distance from home? More importantly, who will be willing to accept that kind of liability and at what cost?
Capacity: Is there enough room on our roads and in our parking lots to accommodate children riding around in their own personal vehicles? Will the efficiencies of automated vehicle traffic be enough to overcome an overall increase in vehicle traffic? How much will associated expansion projects cost? Can we afford to pay for them?
Energy: Can we afford the increase in energy consumption associated with increasing vehicle traffic at a time when the capacity of available energy reserves is questionable and energy policy is all over the place?
Re: (Score:2)
For liability the answer is fairly simple, require them to be fully insured against malfunction. The price would probably be fairly high to begin with but as they prove themselves better than human drivers it would go down.
As far as capacity, you have a point as far as parking, but not for total traffic. Currently parents will drive both to and from wherever their child goes, with a fully autonomous car, the car would only go where the child does. The same argument applies for energy.
Missed The Point (Score:3)
In a perfect world... (Score:2)
An autonomous car should not allow human input. It should come to a stop if the controls fail and remain stopped until help arrives
IF it is safe to stop here.
IF help arrives in time AND IF the kids remain in the car until it does.
Re: (Score:2)
If your going to go that far why not just implement autonomous (mini) buses. If you do not control it it's not yours.
People who are under the influence (Score:2)
A common thing that people claim is that this will reduce accidents caused by drunk drivers... I would trust my son or daughter to drive more then I would trust myself to drive drunk.. As I would trust a autonomous car to drive us better then either of us.
Now what really concerns me is what if the computer of a driverless car is under the influence of ethanol? :P
Interference? (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, when you pack a bunch of these on the road, will their laser systems ever confuse one another? How much power are they using anyway? I have a hard time thinking they can get away with just a few mW. Any fear of blinding pedestrians?
I have just so many low level questions.
Absolutely not! (Score:4, Insightful)
2 basic issues (Score:3)
2) If the car has been driving you around for a couple years with no intervention from you, how good a driver do you think you'll be in an emergency?
Re: (Score:2)
What if it isn't an emergency, just a situation the autopilot can't handle, road construction and accidents come to mind.
children?? how about the elderly? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the next few decades there'll be plenty of elderly that need to get around: They're a huge part of active society, yet for simple physical reasons (eye-sight or limb coordination issues) many of them can no longer drive, and a lot of them are homeowners that live in the suburbs, far away from public transportation. I'd say that's a much bigger market, especially in the next 30 or 40 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this completely. I know the impact of not being able to drive on the elderly from how it affected my parents. Now that I've turned 60 I can see how it is likely to affect my wife and myself in ten years or so. I am certainly hoping that easier to drive and ultimately autonomous vehicles are going to lead to improved quality of life in the future.
More nuanced choices would be nice here. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a parent of four precocious kids in a small college town in the mountains of NC.
We have taxpayer-funded public transportation here. 12 years old and up are allowed to ride the bus alone (to go to the library, etc). Would I let my 7-year old if he were allowed? No. Would I let him go with his 12-year-old brother who has a way to stay in touch with me? Probably.
I don't think the issue here is automotive safety. A fully-automated car should be safe enough for kids to ride in by themselves, or it shouldn't be on the road. I think the bigger concern is, when is it okay to let your kids out in public without supervision? 72% of the people who said flat out "no" did so because they have the impression that parents should be attached to their children at the hip, or because there was no option for, say, 15 and up. Maybe kids should be able to earn the freedom of being out without their parents with good grades above a certain age, etc. The survey sucked. There should have been an option for unlicensed adolescents but not younger children, etc. Parental consent and discretion should be part of the equation as well. We're the ones responsible for our kids, and with that responsibility should come some discretion on our part.
On a side note, I think autonomous cars will reduce the need for us to go out for non-social things. I mean, aside from losing the ability to pick the best produce, I certainly wouldn't mind telling my car to make a run to the grocery store for me. For me, shopping is just time I'd rather spend with my family.
Fully autonomous probably not possible (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing about the blind and the blind drunk, but the problem is at the start and end points. The car may not know how to get out of a parking garage (scan for exit signs?), and it probably won't know how to find a parking spot in congested metro areas (heuristic search?) so at some point you're going to have to take over.
Goes Automatically to Children (Score:2)
Not at first at least (Score:2)
At first, cars will require manual override. Maybe 20-30 years into it when the manual override is no longer needed we can talk about younger kids using them, but at first, due to manual override, kids should have their drivers license.
Remember Astor Boynton! (Score:2)
http://youtu.be/GYSfncB4peU?t=... [youtu.be]
.
Meanwhile, in some sorry-ass future... (Score:3)
I know autonomous cars will be "oh so safe". At the moment I'm just as worried about what these things will make people do to people.
[OPENING OVERATURE [youtube.com]]
Your driver liability insurance policy has come up for review. We have been recently been acquired by AAAA, the quadruple-A company -- the "Autonomous AAA of the future" and what that means for you as a member is -- it has never been easier to upgrade to an a-car! Financing is available! [link] Due to increasing pressure in the political, legal and underwriters' arenas, we regret to inform you that the cost of your driver policy will be rising this quarter in order to begin collection of fees for the Federal National Driver Insurance Pool, and rising at a steady rate thereafter. It will continue to rise over time despite your [good to excellent] driving record. Now that the Autonomous Vehicle Safety Act is law, and blanket liability accident investigation procedures have been approved by Congress, the legal liability of autonomous vehicles is capped nationwide. While this grants the manufactures freedom from risk of direct criminal penalty and potentially unlimited civil liability, it places human drivers in a difficult position. Most a-car accidents will, of historical necessity rather than actual circumstances, be "no-fault". Since human drivers and any victims claiming injury from them are still obliged to use traditional law enforcement and legal means of redress -- and the cost of these continues to rise -- underwriters are pressuring insurance companies to drop human drivers altogether. We do not intend to do this, but we can no longer provide policies for extended periods. Your new maximum policy period is now [one month]. Thank you for insuring with AAAA.
[INTERMISSION [youtube.com]]
Meanwhile...
Dear editor: DRIVERS cause accidents. A-CARS prevent them. That's what the billboard says -- and if Howard County Referendum passes this September manually operated cars will soon be a thing of the past here. What started as a discussion at a hearing after last year's tragic accident grew into a full heated debate, and to think it all started with the parents who provide their children with a-cars pinning the blame squarely on other peoples' children. But then, after co-opting the national campaign with its slick literature and canned answers for everything -- NOW the fault is with human drivers themselves. And then in an astounding feat of lunacy they claim that it's only fair to place the blame on everybody. Not just the drunk, the aged or infirm, the inexperienced, the distracted or the just plain stupid. But no one's stupid in their book, we're just behind the times is all. They are like the drum majorettes of some utopian humanist parade. I say, SAVE US from these rich hippies, their weird toys and their broken ideals. Now I know a lot of these people, even like some of 'em, but aside from this national 'sideline the humans' campaign they're pushed at us (and WHO is paying for those TV spots I wonder) let's not forget that this debate started around kids. Kids who need to learn to drive as surely as they need to learn to push a pen and spell their name. It's like swimming, who would discourage their own children from practice in swimming, to become expert swimmers, because water is dangerous?? Every kid will need to drive some day, or suffer harm or hardship by not knowing how. These a-car parents even forbid their kids from riding in cars being driven by folks they've grown up with, trusted for years. At the parent conferences we even sit on opposite sides of the table, we can barely be civilized even, because this crap has gotten so deep. Well I say they are making a big mistake and don't seem to get it. It's not just that everyone who cannot afford these a-toys will be walking or begging rises on a-buses or buses wi
Wrong question. (Score:3)
Ya know, they're either autonomous or they're not. If they're truly autonomous, I should be able to train my dog to get inside and hit the "home" button and it should be just as legal and appropriate as if it were an elevator. If they still need an adult behind the wheel, they're not what I would call autonomous.