Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Transportation

Sentimental Humans Launch A Movement to Save (Human) Driving (freep.com) 286

Posted by EditorDavid from the self-driving-people dept.
Car enthusiast McKeel Hagerty -- also the CEO America's largest insurer of classic cars -- recently told a Detroit newspaper about his "Save Driving" campaign to preserve human driving for future generations. Hagerty said he wants people-driven cars to share the roads, not surrender them, with robot cars. "Driving and the car culture are meaningful for a lot of people," Hagerty said, who still owns the first car he bought 37 years ago for $500. It's a 1967 Porsche 911S, which he restored with his dad. "We feel the car culture needs a champion." Hagerty said he will need 6 million members to have the clout to preserve human driving in the future, but he is not alone in the quest to drum up that support. The Human Driving Association was launched in January and it already has 4,000 members. Both movements have a growing following as many consumers distrust the evolving self-driving car technology, studies show...

[S]ome people fear losing the freedom of personal car ownership and want to have control of their own mobility. They distrust autonomous technology and they worry about the loss of privacy... In Cox Automotive's Evolution of Mobility study released earlier this year, nearly half of the 1,250 consumers surveyed said they would "never" buy a fully autonomous car and indicated they did not believe roads would be safer if all vehicles were self-driving. The study showed 68 percent said they would feel "uncomfortable" riding in car driven fully by a computer. And 84 percent said people should have the option to drive themselves even in an autonomous vehicle. The study showed people's perception of self-driving cars' safety is dwindling. When asked whether the roads would be safer if all vehicles were fully autonomous, 45 percent said yes, compared with 63 percent who answered yes in 2016's study....

Proponents for self-driving cars say the cars would offer mobility to those who cannot drive such as disabled people or elderly people. They say the electric self-driving cars would be better for the environment. Finally, roads would be safer with computers driving, they say. In 2017, the United States had about 40,000 traffic deaths, about 90 percent of which were due to human error, Cox's study said.
Alex Roy, founder of the The Human Driving Association, is proposing a third option called "augmented driving" -- allowing people the option to drive, but helping them do it better.

"It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way," said Roy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sentimental Humans Launch A Movement to Save (Human) Driving More

Sentimental Humans Launch A Movement to Save (Human) Driving

Comments Filter:
  • Most people will embrace self driving cars as they can Slashdot on the go.
    • That's probably what he is afraid of: people still drive horses and carts for fun, but they are relegated to minor roads. Like horses, humans will not be able to keep up with what comes next: self driving cars. Imagine a special "diamond lane" for autonomous cars: you could have those cars do 180km/h and follow each other really closely, but a human would have no business driving in that lane. Then, those lanes are expanded and highways may (or may not) be left with a single "slow poke" lane for human dr

      • That's probably what he is afraid of: people still drive horses and carts for fun, but they are relegated to minor roads. Like horses, humans will not be able to keep up with what comes next: self driving cars. Imagine a special "diamond lane" for autonomous cars: you could have those cars do 180km/h and follow each other really closely, but a human would have no business driving in that lane. Then, those lanes are expanded and highways may (or may not) be left with a single "slow poke" lane for human drivers. Then come intersections without traffic lights, etc... At some point it will be too dangerous or too disruptive to let human-driven cars onto the highways and major thoroughfares in town.

        Yeah, I think you're right.

        We will soon reach a point where human-driven vehicles are no longer allowed on roadways because we're not as good as the computer driving the car.

        The existing automobile is responsible for untold waste and pollution and deaths, but it is also responsible for much of the quality of life which allowed us to develop the technology to build autonomous vehicles. The horse and buggy had to be invented before the steel mill could be invented, before the car, before the TV set, before th

        • LOL... I hit send before I was ready. I think we'll see human-driven cars disallowed from some, maybe most, roadways.

      • Intersections without traffic lights (or something like them) are unlikely in places that are actually livable, not car-based US suburban hellscapes. Pedestrians and cyclists still need the ability to cross roads.
    • But there is no self driving motorcycle... And that is NOT a small group.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by epyT-R ( 613989 )

      It is still fucking stupid to give up that much control over your autonomy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      as they can Slashdot on the go

      Like we don't do that alrea~{po ~poz~ppo\[NO CARRIER]

  • All that's needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nukenerd ( 172703 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @11:44AM (#57509264)

    All that is needed is stricter requirements for a driving licence, including psychological attitude tests as well as functional tests. I think that the driving test here in the UK is too lax, yet I understand that it is one of the strictest in the world. I have heard that in some countries you only need to show the examiner you can drive forwards a few yards and then back again.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      The problem with people's self-assessment as drivers is they judge themselves as they are on a good day, when they are performing best. On his best days, an average driver performs considerably better than most of the other drivers on the road, who are having a typical day. This does not make him a good driver; to understand the risk a driver represents to others you have to evaluate his performance on his worst days, which nobody does, particularly to themselves.

      We can pretty much assume that when you ta

      • Yet itâ(TM)s the atypical day that scares me with automated driving. Can a car understand a cop waving you around an accident? Can a car see a frisbee about to fly into the street, with a kid (currently in the yard) running after it? Can a car understand snowy roads covered with ice and a truck kareening out of control on a cross street? Can it understand itâ(TM)s cameras are blinded and drive slower in a snowstorm, or does it assume nothing is there and go full speed? If you can control the entir

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          The difference is that you can imagine all the tricky corner cases you want, and then engineer a robot so it will consistently handle them. You can train a human to handle them, but whether he does or not depends on how he feels that day.

          Now there may be combinations of factors that are unforeseen in testing that a robot might fail to handle properly, but the same can be said for humans. I very strongly suspect that most people's notion of how could they are in tricky, surprise driving situations is over

        • Can a car understand a cop waving you around an accident?

          I can't remember the last time a cop waved me around an accident. It has been at least a couple of decades. Hasn't directing traffic around accidents been banned as a practice for safety reasons - as in theirs?

          Anyway, the least predictable thing in our environment is us. Just as that kid will run into the street, we can't look everywhere and often aren't really looking where our eyes are pointing because we're thinking about something. Everything from texting to simply driving while angry at somebody can le

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by epyT-R ( 613989 )

        The principle is simple: people behave better when they're being monitored. If the average driver consistently drove as well has he is capable of driving, then the roads would be much safer for everyone.

        Do you really want your entire life run by computer? This idea could be used to 'improve' nearly everything else, too, because, in theory, it would save all kinds of money and waste. However, it would end up being a be a life not worth living.

        Considering your UID, I'd expect you to have more wisdom than that shown in your post.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          Do I really want to put my life in the hands of other people? There's a time and a place for everything. Monitoring behavior doesn't belong in the bedroom, but it certainly belongs on the road.

      • There are many issues with your idea of insurance monitoring and overcharging - my wife and I are currently using a sensor tHing from our insurance company to get better rates, and it has criticised for stopping too fast when an upcoming traffic light turns yellow and we stopped instead of blowing through the red light. We were driving safer, yet we got dinged. So now we don't stop for yellows; a policy we refer to as "running red lights for better insurance rates."

        Oh, it also claims that I stopped too qu

  • Ok, but your responsibility increases (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dallas May ( 4891515 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @11:45AM (#57509272)

    This is fine by me. But it's about responsibility. If a person is behind the wheel in a world where there is a much much safer option and the person intentionally chooses the more dangerous option, then their responsibility should increase proportionally.

    • Bikers do this all the time. But what the OP is talking about is not allowing them to make the choice.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      As Car enthusiast that hasn't had a single accident in over 35 years of driving, I'm gonna claim that I'm a better driver than any Tesla with what is effectively beta software driving, and already has a documented record of killing people.
      The real risk on the road are idiots that cant put their fucking cellphone down, or keep focussed on anything for more than 2 minutes. Fix the REAL problem by taking proven distracted drivers licences away, (so they have to Uber or use the bus). Don't take away the rights

      • Everybody is an idiot at some point. Everyone drives distracted at some point in time, usually during some sort of emergency, while upset due to a fight, late for a date, etc. We are selfish and that doesn't mix well with the fact that choosing to drive is making a decision not just for yourself, but for everyone you interact with on the road. Most of those times, no problem. Every once in a while though, whammy.

        Maybe we can come up with a way to detect adrenaline and exhaustion and disable driving of the v

    • Normally that's how it works. But accidents typically happen between two cars. So if human driving is more dangerous than automated driving, then one person choosing to drive increases the risk for everyone else including people driving automated cars.. An analogy might be someone choosing to rock climb El Capitan, vs someone choosing to climb a skyscraper where lots of people are walking on the sidewalk underneath. If he slips and falls from El Capitan, he only kills himself. If he slips and falls off

  • If he wants to save human driving. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @11:48AM (#57509282)

    he should get states to require people to be able to drive a stick shift during their driver's license exam. Since he owns a 1967 Porsche 911S, he should be well aware of the joy of driving a stick shift compared to the numbing laziness of an automatic.

    • I don't know that the requirement is necessary, but I imagine that the few enthusiasts that want to drive for their hobby will want to drive a stick.

    • he should get states to require people to be able to drive a stick shift during their driver's license exam. Since he owns a 1967 Porsche 911S, he should be well aware of the joy of driving a stick shift compared to the numbing laziness of an automatic.

      I would be happy if they forced them to demonstrate the ability to merge onto an interstate, back up in a straight line, parallel park, and other driving skills that 90% of the driving population of the US seems to lack.

  • So many underlying presumptions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SlaveToTheGrind ( 546262 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @12:17PM (#57509402)

    1. Autonomous cars will ever materially exceed the current range of safety/efficiency tradeoff where human drivers are now, or we as a society decide we're OK materially changing that range.

    2. Even if/when (1) appears to become true, we sufficiently address the single-point-of-failure issues in current systems such that a general failure of GPS, comm, traffic, etc. won't cause the entire transport system to grind to a halt until it's restored.

    3. Even if/when (1) and (2) appear to become true, we sufficiently address security issues in current systems to prevent malicious actors from causing catastrophic accidents from localized, regional, or broader disruptions.

    3. Even if/when (1), (2) and (3) appear to become true, we as a society decide we want to cede that level of control by moving to a system it's nigh unto impossible to walk back if future developments suddenly cause (1), (2), and/or (3) to no longer be true.

    Until then, s/sentimental/pragmatic/g.

    • Re:So many underlying presumptions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @12:28PM (#57509436)

      Right. The parent summary is a typical smug fanboi screed mocking anyone who doesn't see it his way. I am virtually certain that he has *no experience whatsoever" about AI or autonomous systems (which have been around a lot longer than the last few years in some fields of endeavor - like maybe 40 years before it became a cause célÃbre - in more life-critical situations that driving on the public roads). If he did, he would know that what he assumed was utter nonsense.

  • This will sort itself out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @12:32PM (#57509458)

    Self driving cars will likely have near zero insurance premiums for the occupants of said vehicle since they are not actually driving it.

    This means the human driven counterpart will see ludicrous insurance requirements to drive it around on public streets.

    The cost alone will prevent all but the 1% from owning a âoe traditional âoe human driven vehicle once self drive becomes mainstream.

    • Re: This will sort itself out (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nehumanuscrede ( 624750 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @12:42PM (#57509508)

      Additionally, since the person leading this charge is the CEO of an insurance company, it is likely he already sees the writing on the wall for the car insurance industry as a whole.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by raind ( 174356 )
        Of course he doesn't want change or go out of business.

        "For that reason, "We're putting ourselves in a position where, if driverless cars happen, we position ourselves differently than the horse crowd did a hundred years ago," where it saw horseback riding becoming a limited hobby for a select few, said Hagerty. "We want to do something about it now.""

        I say good ridance insurance salesman.

      • I will never believe that the writer of this piece was able to call a head of insurance company a "sentimental" or "human"

    • They have to be WAY better than a human for that, AND they need to have critical mass on the roads. That is many years down the line.

    • Self driving cars will likely have near zero insurance premiums for the occupants of said vehicle since they are not actually driving it.

      Coverage for accidents (which I presume you aren't suggesting will completely go away or even diminish all that much -- if so, that's a separate discussion) will have to come from somewhere. To the extent it falls on the manufacturers, they'll just pass the savings along via the sales price. And it would surprise me if we would suddenly decide to shift to a legal regime where the owners/operators of a device would be fully insulated from liability due to an accident caused by a machine they owned, maintai

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Yes, and back in the day it also seemed like electricity would become too cheap to meter. Nice dreams, but the real world is unexpectedly complicated.

  • Driving will be as relevant as horseback riding (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sandbagger ( 654585 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @12:41PM (#57509506)

    Motor sports will survive but day to day driving will be eclipsed by robots. It's only a question of time. Driving will be taught to the police and to people in the military as necessary job functions but most people will eventually not need to drive when renting fleet time on robot cars.

    This will provide us with new opportunities, what I don't know, but car culture will become a thing of a past even though I love driving stick. What will be interesting is seeing what replaces the marker of transitioning to adulthood that the driver's licence has.

  • How many have seen horses pulling wagons/carts in cities? Likewise, horses on rural roads? Iow, we developed our roads for cars, but still share. We do not let horses on highways, but that makes sense. No doubt our highways will give way to lanes that allow travel of 100+ mph, but will require being automated. Makes good sense. I suspect this guy is simply doing marketing.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @12:58PM (#57509580)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • It's called evolution, and it has been going on for millions of years. We are here because of it, and, given its past success, odds are we will be replaced because of it.

      The true best we can hope for is to go cyborg and evolve ourselves as fast as the robots. We should clear all of the obstacles from people who choose to experiment to try to make themselves better. Humans are plentiful. Give us true freedom. We will compete and evolve faster than pure robots. Many will fail, many monsters will be created, b

  • So far self-driving cars have shown that they cannot navigate the roads as well as humans can.

  • obRush (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @02:20PM (#57509976) Journal
    ... race back to the farm, to dream with my uncle at the fireside ...

  • Alex Roy, founder of the The Human Driving Association, is proposing a third option called "augmented driving" -- allowing people the option to drive, but helping them do it better.

    Then he's a pillock.

    A wise man once said: "Should drive yes or drive no, not drive guess so".

  • It's a system that would not allow a human to drive into a wall. If I turned the steering wheel toward a wall, the car turns the wheel back the right way

    But what if the wall swerved in front of your vehicle? Or ran through a stop sign/red light. And by 'wall' I mean bicycle.

  • Finally, some sanity injected into this debate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Saturday October 20, 2018 @02:45PM (#57510110) Journal
    So-called 'self driving cars' will not be the utopia some of you think it will, and I maintain that until IF and WHEN we understand how actual human brain cognition really works, none of the half-assed excuse for AI will produce a synthetic intelligence that is really 100% capable of handling the task of operating a vehicle under ALL conditions and circumstances. Period. Also I maintain that humans will not accept these machines as they will have ZERO control, and you fanbois somehow skip over the basic human nature that makes that statement true.

    I want to join this movement being created and I urge all of you who agree with me to do the same.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close