The correct usage of self driving cars in SF

[Czcibor]

Setting: generic, mildly futuristic, nothing that would put you in awe. I rather want to discuss in general terms how get in near future SF correctly usage of self driving cars right with technologies that should realistically accompany them. And get right any social consequences.

Thanks to better monitoring and ability to send a car into needed place - more sharing economy (not necessary with socialistic bent, could be also ultra-capitalistic). So a person less need to own a car, but just need to hire it in the right place:
-less parking places used
-less cars per head (or maybe not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)
-getting a taxi equivalent for night may be actually ultra cheap, the only problem would be during rush hours

Revolution in mass transit:
-no night buses - they would have no chance with individual transport
-smaller buses (if driver cost is around 40% of total cost (number for Poland for city transport, your mileage may vary), then there would be new equilibrium point for balancing transporting empty places and using too many drivers per passenger)

New rules on street:
-encouraging coordinated lines of drafting cars for increased aerodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_(aerodynamics)
-right of way can be determined and coordinated in advance by automatic system comparing social interest (yes, as Spock would say: "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few") or just by outright microauction

Extra uses:
-Possibility of sleeping in one's car and arrive in the morning at a tourist destination, or as GTOM pointed out possibility of sleeping with someone ;)
-smaller cargo transport (not only for pizza, I also thought about intermediate loads)
-being transported in spite of being a kid, disabled or intoxicated. Sounds cool, until one realizes that it could dramatically move congestion up - that would presumably lead to some kind of congestion charges, that would encourage some internet applications to squeeze a few unrelated people into the same car who just want to travel on the roughly the same route.

Any other ideas?

 

[mfb]

Not sure about the buses. Sure, they use the road more efficiently than cars, but you have to wait for them, and you probably have to change buses at least once. If you ban manual cars, the traffic density can rise significantly. At points where traffic jams are still an issue (and only there) buses would help everyone, but the bus passengers don't profit much.
If they are very frequent they might survive. For buses that come once per 20 minutes: why should you use them if a car is there in a minute? Putting unrelated people in the same car could be interesting as bus replacement. It is cheaper than a car for everyone and it saves space on the road so the government might subsidize it.

or just by outright microauction

After net neutrality, we have to keep road neutrality?

Setting: generic, mildly futuristic, nothing that would put you in awe.

Okay, so certainly not 2015 or later ;).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you change your thinking of "bus" from "large public vehicle visiting multiple stops on fixed route" to "large carpool visiting multiple stops on a vague route" you might get a closer idea of a possible future for buses. To expand on that a bit more: imagine a future traveller opening up a travel app to find the best route to their destination. They could get an autotaxi but there's a bus not to far from them heading in that direction. You flag it and it diverts to pick you up and will divert to drop you off at the end (IIRC in some Asian countries there are small buses that do operate like this, but with less technology).

Pros: buses will be cheaper than autotaxis thanks to the increased amount of customers

Cons: Not private, journey time irregular (within a known margin) based on how much time the bus spends diverting to pick up and drop people off.

In terms of SDVs in general some things to consider are uses beyond people transport. Transport of items will change as well, not just bulk freight but delivery of mail or things like take-away. It's easy to envision some small quad-bike SDV that has a compartment for packages rather than drivers. It drives to you (or as close as it can get) and rings you to let you know your package has arrived. You go out, punch in a code you were given in the confirmation, and collect your delivery. Essentially any task that requires getting from A-B on a well maintained surface whilst dodging obstacles can be automated thanks to SDV technology.

One last idea: autotaxis might operate a subscription service rather than an outright billing similar to public transport travelcards. More expensive subscriptions might give you more comfortable cars, peak time travel, long distance travel etc. The cheapest ones require adverts to be played across the windscreen and windows and will only transport you in off-peak times.

 

[Czcibor]

After net neutrality, we have to keep road neutrality?Okay, so certainly not 2015 or later ;).

Good :D (I haven't thought in that direction)

If you change your thinking of "bus" from "large public vehicle visiting multiple stops on fixed route" to "large carpool visiting multiple stops on a vague route" you might get a closer idea of a possible future for buses. To expand on that a bit more: imagine a future traveller opening up a travel app to find the best route to their destination. They could get an autotaxi but there's a bus not to far from them heading in that direction. You flag it and it diverts to pick you up and will divert to drop you off at the end (IIRC in some Asian countries there are small buses that do operate like this, but with less technology).

Pros: buses will be cheaper than autotaxis thanks to the increased amount of customers

Cons: Not private, journey time irregular (within a known margin) based on how much time the bus spends diverting to pick up and drop people off.

In terms of SDVs in general some things to consider are uses beyond people transport. Transport of items will change as well, not just bulk freight but delivery of mail or things like take-away. It's easy to envision some small quad-bike SDV that has a compartment for packages rather than drivers. It drives to you (or as close as it can get) and rings you to let you know your package has arrived. You go out, punch in a code you were given in the confirmation, and collect your delivery. Essentially any task that requires getting from A-B on a well maintained surface whilst dodging obstacles can be automated thanks to SDV technology.

One last idea: autotaxis might operate a subscription service rather than an outright billing similar to public transport travelcards. More expensive subscriptions might give you more comfortable cars, peak time travel, long distance travel etc. The cheapest ones require adverts to be played across the windscreen and windows and will only transport you in off-peak times.

In my country parcel lockers become very popular, and actually they would be superior to such cars, as one can pick up package when he has time. (of course such automated car may serve as to load them or be parked next as emergency overflow package locker)

Large carpool? Possibly... I still wonder about intermediate solution, like using during rush hours cars on loosely populated areas to gather people and then squeeze them on a bus.

I see one more thing - instead of owning an universal car, one would hire cars suited for his needs.
-city car (slow, fuel efficient, maybe designed to fit some ultra stringent pollution demands)
-inter city car - fast, very aerodynamic
-sleep car - for night travel between cities and for trips
-medical transport car - for lying down, with some basic diagnostic equipment and UV lamp to kill all germs after you (actually it would be worth subsidizing as in public interest it is that those germs don't spread on passengers)
-promotion car - where there would be some advertised products from sponsor, but travel would be for free
-picnic car with 4 wheel drive with a fridge, microwave oven and tiny sink

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I've been subscribed to r/selfdrivingcars on reddit for quite some time, if there's one thing I've picked up from all the discussions and articles posted it's that private ownership of a car isn't going away. There are plenty of people that say they would infinitely prefer owning their own car. I don't really mind myself but I doubt SDVs will completely replace private ownership. Aside from wanting to ensure their own car is clean, have their things kept in it and be instantly available when needed there's also a lot of people that want a self driving RV.

 

[Czcibor]

I've been subscribed to r/selfdrivingcars on reddit for quite some time, if there's one thing I've picked up from all the discussions and articles posted it's that private ownership of a car isn't going away. There are plenty of people that say they would infinitely prefer owning their own car. I don't really mind myself but I doubt SDVs will completely replace private ownership. Aside from wanting to ensure their own car is clean, have their things kept in it and be instantly available when needed there's also a lot of people that want a self driving RV.

Good point - but it could lead to a generation gap, where (on average) young people already get used to idea of just renting, while older people feel compelled to own car.

 

[PartialMitch]

Have you ever read Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge? Self-driving automobiles play a minor (but ubiquitous) role in that story. It's been a while since I read it, so I do not recall the economic explanation (if there even was one), but the automated cars more or less traveled around similar to taxis. When someone needed them, they called for them or flagged them down.

Obviously, I'd never suggest using another author's ideas, but if you haven't read it, check it out. You may be inspired by some of the concepts.

 

[Hornbein]

I'd never suggest using another author's ideas

Stealing another author's ideas is perfectly legal. Copyright protects words only.

 

[PartialMitch]

Stealing another author's ideas is perfectly legal. Copyright protects words only.

Absolutely! I'm enough of a Lorite that I'll admit that nothing is really original when you get right down to it. :)

I'm just a strong believer in putting a personal spin on such things.

 

[256bits]

I've been subscribed to r/selfdrivingcars on reddit for quite some time, if there's one thing I've picked up from all the discussions and articles posted it's that private ownership of a car isn't going away. There are plenty of people that say they would infinitely prefer owning their own car. I don't really mind myself but I doubt SDVs will completely replace private ownership. Aside from wanting to ensure their own car is clean, have their things kept in it and be instantly available when needed there's also a lot of people that want a self driving RV.

I would think so too.
There's a disconnect between someone living in the suburbs, the county, and the city inner core in regards to transportation needs and availability.

Inner core already has multiple choice to get from one place to the next ( uterly dependant upon the size of the city ) - metro or subway, 10 minute buses, taxi stands around the next corner, bicycle lanes, walking,, rent-a-car, train station and bus station for inter city. So for someone Not owning a car, they can actually save a lot of time, expense, and grief of ownership, by using what is available. Airports are probably the most difficult to get to by certain means.

Suburbs and country have their choices compromised just by the lack of services and the longer distances to cover and wait times.

Besides the necessity versus luxury, there is also the status thing related to car ownership and people pay extra money just to have that

 

[Loren]

Drafting is only useful at higher speeds; likely restricted to highways.

Then think about that. Long chains of cars would be a real problem for those getting on and off the freeway.

Some places have red lights at the entrance ramps to meter traffic onto the highway. That causes a huge backup on the ramp.

The problem seems to be one of population concentration. We are still tied to the model we started in the US four centuries ago. Everything is tied to waterways, so we now have huge congestion problems. We have plenty of land, it's just not all accessible by water, so no one settled there earlier and it remains mostly unused.

The US historically has been a mobile society, due to the vast distances we have and the social stigma of owning a car. That culture is not going to change easily with 250 million currently registered vehicles in the US. Autonomous vehicles are interesting and there is a push to get them on the road, but I think it is driven mostly by the fact that we technologically can.

In other words, its technology that is driving it and not so much the market. People don't want them as much as those that invent them.

It will be interesting to see how the driving public receives them. I suspect that it will have a backlash effect when people that actually drive their cars (the majority) get sick of these poky autonomous cars.

My guess is that autonomous cars will strictly obey speed limits, which will be a nuisance as most people routinely speed. (typical highways speeds in Florida are about 7 mph over the limit). There will be a lot of contempt for autonomous vehicles if they prove to be seen as road clots and anyone that thinks these will be a game changer for the way people drive is smoking hope.

To answer your original question, I think it is way too early to know what the "correct usage" will be and it will be a long time before some form of equilibrium appears. That means "correct" is a dynamic definition that changes over time.

 

[mfb]

Then think about that. Long chains of cars would be a real problem for those getting on and off the freeway.

Not if the cars communicate. They can let more cars in. Alternatively, those cars can wait for a free spot. Car chains can increase highway capacities by something like a factor of 5, if there is no free spot at all then something went really wrong.

People don't want them as much as those that invent them.

You can spend the time in the car driving - or you can spend it watching a movie, reading a book, working, or doing something else. What do you prefer?
I would expect mose will prefer not to drive.

 

[Loren]

Not if the cars communicate. They can let more cars in. Alternatively, those cars can wait for a free spot. Car chains can increase highway capacities by something like a factor of 5, if there is no free spot at all then something went really wrong.
You can spend the time in the car driving - or you can spend it watching a movie, reading a book, working, or doing something else. What do you prefer?
I would expect mose will prefer not to drive.

That assumes that the preexisting 250 million cars get some form of conversion to work with the system. Who pays for that?

You would need a form of TCAS (Traffic Control Avoidance System) used in commercial aircraft to manage it and that will be costly because it will be a life-critical system and subject to costly adjudication if the system fails. Just look at the simple problems like stuck accelerators seem to cause.

Frankly, I prefer to drive. There are a whole segment of drivers like us that believe the destination is not solely what life is about. There is a lot to be said about the journey. If you want to get an idea of that segment, just look at the number of sports cars on the road. People buying Miatas (almost 1 million sold world-wide so far) aren't looking to watch TV. Then there are the sport sedans that people drive.

You might also look at the after-marker motorsports retailers. That's not as small of a niche market as you might think.

Point being that the utopia autonomous vehicles promise has a lot of issues that get glossed over by group-think. Many of these groups like to preach about diversity, but totally ignore/criticize others that don't share their vision.

Not that those issues are a show stopper for a work of fiction, but the original poster did pose the question.

 

[mfb]

There is a constant turnaround where new cars replace old cars. That's the maximal speed autonomous cars will join the market.

You would need a form of TCAS (Traffic Control Avoidance System) used in commercial aircraft to manage it and that will be costly because it will be a life-critical system and subject to costly adjudication if the system fails.

You don't need it - it will improve traffic even more, but it is not necessary.

People buying Miatas (almost 1 million sold world-wide so far) aren't looking to watch TV.

That is a very small market.

 

[Czcibor]

That assumes that the preexisting 250 million cars get some form of conversion to work with the system. Who pays for that?

Idea 1: What if registration of new cars required self driving capability? In 10 years you get the problem effectively solved.
Idea 2: What if insurance companies were allowed to calculate the premium accordingly?

You would need a form of TCAS (Traffic Control Avoidance System) used in commercial aircraft to manage it and that will be costly because it will be a life-critical system and subject to costly adjudication if the system fails. Just look at the simple problems like stuck accelerators seem to cause.

Need? It would be already handy to have it, even before such nice cars.

Frankly, I prefer to drive. There are a whole segment of drivers like us that believe the destination is not solely what life is about. There is a lot to be said about the journey. If you want to get an idea of that segment, just look at the number of sports cars on the road. People buying Miatas (almost 1 million sold world-wide so far) aren't looking to watch TV. Then there are the sport sedans that people drive.

You might also look at the after-marker motorsports retailers. That's not as small of a niche market as you might think.

It seems that already the cars loosing their importance among youth:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business...r-decline-of-young-drivers-in-1-chart/260126/
Similar thing was noticed also by The Guardian, but as usual the blame poverty (poor starting salaries / student debt) :
http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2014/sep/16/cost-driving-young-people-off-road
So self driving cars would (presumably) exacerbate existing trend.
Some niche of course would be left behind, to what extend it would remain fashionable... no idea, it's more a matter of taste. I remember myself taking part with games involving swordfighting, even though such weapons already a few centuries ago become a bit outdated.

Not that those issues are a show stopper for a work of fiction, but the original poster did pose the question.

So proper work of fiction would require a politically polarizing issue of way of driving? ;) (When I think about it, there is indeed a point...)

 

[Loren]

Okay, we will see what happens.

 

[256bits]

Point being that the utopia autonomous vehicles promise has a lot of issues that get glossed over by group-think. Many of these groups like to preach about diversity, but totally ignore/criticize others that don't share their vision.

.

That's some statement. And so true. Utopia forced upon the masses.

A while back, some car companies came out with the statement that any self driving car of theirs was involved in an accident For Any Reason they would cover the "expenses". A bit of a marketing pre-gambit to encourage acceptance. Insurance companies would be then left out in the lurch with nothing to insure. Car insurance is a good part of their revenue.
So what do they do - go bust and put workers out of a job. Increase rates for other insurable items. Team up with the auto companies. The For Any Reason will of course have caveats to it.

Who fixes these things when they go wron. Certainly not you regular around the corner garage. What will they become - tire change shop only?

Used car - market shrinks, as warranty is over, insurance is through the roof ( insurance companies again ), maintenance skyrockets, government regulation dictate.

I don't see too much of motorcycle talk of being made self-driving. will they be eventually banned on Auto(monous) Routes.
Bus route - 31 people at the bus stop - your number 31 - sorry bus full. But its the last one. How do I get home I only have $4.
We already have self driving cars -taxis and limosines - if it was so great ... where's the great rush for that service.
Self driving taxis - loss of a job again. Same for buses, rigs, deliveries, the mail, ...

Self driving cars can set in motion a major social upheaval and the utopians do not see it.

 

[mfb]

Who fixes these things when they go wron. Certainly not you regular around the corner garage. What will they become - tire change shop only?

Self-driving cars are still cars, they need (nearly) every component current cars need. Replacing some components of the autonomous driving system shouldn't be so hard either. The steering wheel market might get into trouble.

We already have self driving cars -taxis and limosines - if it was so great ... where's the great rush for that service.

They are much more expensive because you have to pay the driver. They also need longer to get to your place.

Yes, taxi and bus driver is certainly a job with a bad long-term outlook. Just like coachman 100 years ago and elevator operator a few decades ago. So what?

 

[Czcibor]

256bits:
I think that what you mentioned already has an economic term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

We already have self driving cars -taxis and limosines - if it was so great ... where's the great rush for that service.
Self driving taxis - loss of a job again. Same for buses, rigs, deliveries, the mail, ...

Price difference? Your taxi bill should cover also wage of taxi driver.

 

[256bits]

256bits:
I think that what you mentioned already has an economic term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Price difference? Your taxi bill should cover also wage of taxi driver.

Yes - computer revolution - same thing.

All I am saying is that there would be a change in peoples, and governments, outlook on transportation as to the way it is seen now.
Which is probably what you are posting about in the first place.
A blanket statement as to how it will evolve has to accept scrutiny.
Who ever predicted something like Uber trying to wiggle their way into people transport, to the dismayy of the secure regulated taxi industry.

 

[256bits]

Self-driving cars are still cars, they need (nearly) every component current cars need. Replacing some components of the autonomous driving system shouldn't be so hard either. The steering wheel market might get into trouble.

They are much more expensive because you have to pay the driver. They also need longer to get to your place.

Yes, taxi and bus driver is certainly a job with a bad long-term outlook. Just like coachman 100 years ago and elevator operator a few decades ago. So what?

I somehow suspected the horse and buggy days would be brought up.
But back then there was a different motive - ownig a horse requires work feeding, housing and cleaning it.
And not everyone had a horse way back then- they either walked to destination or had money to pay for transport.
Different society and bears some comparison to today's wrt changes brought on by the mass movement to cars, suburbs, and shopping malls.
There aren't too many rooming houses with shared bath and dining anymore. Housing units are built complete, either rentable or owned.
There is probably street car tracks still buried in every N. American city downtown - paved over for cars and ( polluting ) buses put into service.

Subsidized roads networks led to easy access to get from place to place, and the urban sprawl that went with it.
The incentive for autonomous cars is what - just the ability to not to have to drive.
Societies incentive is to get cars off the street I guess.

How much change will be provoked from self driving cars?
It could, or will I think, have some far reaching consequences down the road (pun).
How and whether the changes are acceptable to the public at large with glee, dismay, outrage.

I suppose I am discussing the opening post statement about social consequences, as the technological and engineering seems to be sound, in regards to how the car has changed how the way we live due to it being a status symbol in the driveway, a luxury, or a necessity. Autonomous cars may change all that.

Does anyone really need a driveway then? Car parks may become the norm. Another traffic jam to get in and out of, but that would be the car's problem. You would be at home, at work, or at play.

 

[Loren]

Does anyone really need a driveway then? Car parks may become the norm. Another traffic jam to get in and out of, but that would be the car's problem. You would be at home, at work, or at play.

It would be your problem, too, if you had something urgent to get to.

 

[Czcibor]

Subsidized roads networks led to easy access to get from place to place, and the urban sprawl that went with it.
The incentive for autonomous cars is what - just the ability to not to have to drive.
Societies incentive is to get cars off the street I guess.

That's even a more twisted case, because zoning laws tend to prevent too high concentration of population within city, thus encouraging urban sprawl...

How much change will be provoked from self driving cars?
It could, or will I think, have some far reaching consequences down the road (pun).
How and whether the changes are acceptable to the public at large with glee, dismay, outrage.

I suppose I am discussing the opening post statement about social consequences, as the technological and engineering seems to be sound, in regards to how the car has changed how the way we live due to it being a status symbol in the driveway, a luxury, or a necessity. Autonomous cars may change all that.

Social consequences? I know jokes about generation conceived in cars, but so far I don't see here anything so profound, except "driving" kids and retires. Concerning undesired I think about:

 

[GTOM]

I wonder, whether robocars should allow humans to intervene?
For example, if they can communicate with each other, and receive updates from corporate HQ, standalone mode isn't their default, what if somebody hacks up your car to kidnap you?
Or if you are chased, and need to brake the rules to save your life?

 

[Loren]

Speaking of social consequences, this was an interesting article just released: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/

The sample size is low, but the incident rate is very high, which gives some credibility to the claims.

I suspect that the cause of the higher accidents are due to the nature of the way the vehicles drive. Autonomous vehicles most likely strictly obey the rules of the road.

However, that is not how humans drive. Humans are much better adapted to driving around other humans than machines. You would expect the opposite, but I think this is a curious case of the law of unexpected consequences.

As more data arrives I believe we will find that the problem space of mixing humans with machines is much more complex than the designers ever envisioned.

This is something to consider; not only with autonomous cars, but with other autonomous machines as they become available. It might make an interesting side-story, too.

 

[Loren]

I wonder, whether robocars should allow humans to intervene?
For example, if they can communicate with each other, and receive updates from corporate HQ, standalone mode isn't their default, what if somebody hacks up your car to kidnap you?
Or if you are chased, and need to brake the rules to save your life?

They already do now and I think it will be a mandate for all future cars Even spaceships have manual overrides.

Even cars today have limp home modes in their electronics if their is a fault.

Also, when aircraft become automated, would you feel comfortable flying in a vehicle where the pilot (if he was onboard) could not take control?

 

[256bits]

That's even a more twisted case, because zoning laws tend to prevent too high concentration of population within city, thus encouraging urban sprawl...


Social consequences? I know jokes about generation conceived in cars, but so far I don't see here anything so profound, except "driving" kids and retires. Concerning undesired I think about:

It may be decided that the car will be in need of a responsible individual "at the controls" when transporting human occupants.

 

[Loren]

It may be decided that the car will be in need of a responsible individual "at the controls" when transporting human occupants.

Right now there is always someone in the loop.

These concepts are no different than any futurist view, like flying cars. Artist show a future where everyone goes to work like the Jetsons, but realities are glossed over.

Autonomous cars will have a huge challenge to integrate into the world that few people have considered addressing. When it is all said and done the reality will be different than what was initially sold, but not without its benefits.

 

[mfb]

Speaking of social consequences, this was an interesting article just released: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/

It doesn't give any source. The closest thing I could find is http://www.driverlesstransportation.com/road-safety-with-self-driving-vehicles-general-limitations-and-road-sharing-with-conventional-vehicles-7935 (abstract only) and a comment in a blog.

Anyway, even if we just take those numbers, they expect ~2 accidents, and ~5.5 when adjusted for unreported accidents. Then 11 or more accidents have a probability of 2.8%. Add some systematic uncertainty which might bring the expected accidents to 6.5 and we are at ~7%, and the significance is questionable. Without access to the original study, I don't trust that result.

 

[Loren]

It doesn't give any source. The closest thing I could find is http://www.driverlesstransportation.com/road-safety-with-self-driving-vehicles-general-limitations-and-road-sharing-with-conventional-vehicles-7935 (abstract only) and a comment in a blog.

Anyway, even if we just take those numbers, they expect ~2 accidents, and ~5.5 when adjusted for unreported accidents. Then 11 or more accidents have a probability of 2.8%. Add some systematic uncertainty which might bring the expected accidents to 6.5 and we are at ~7%, and the significance is questionable. Without access to the original study, I don't trust that result.

I can't argue that. However, if the accident rate is truly higher, I suspect the reasons are as I cited and as such would make an interesting theme or secondary theme in a fiction novel to explore the ramification of mixing human controlled technology with machine controlled technology.

 

[Hornbein]

Speaking of social consequences, this was an interesting article just released: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/

Very superficial articles like this are why I avoid mainstream media. Grrr!

 

[Loren]

Very superficial articles like this are why I avoid mainstream media. Grrr!

Take it with a grain of salt, but it does raise an interesting question about machine-human interfacing, no?

 

[Hornbein]

Take it with a grain of salt, but it does raise an interesting question about machine-human interfacing, no?

It isn't that I don't believe it. The problem is that it doesn't tell me much. I get this all the time reading mainstream media: the entire content is in the title and reading the article tells me nothing more.

It would seem to me that making human and robot cars compatible is hard. It would be easier to go entirely robot. But that article tells us nothing about the causes of any of the accidents. I could be that the robots made gross mistakes.

 

[Loren]

It isn't that I don't believe it. The problem is that it doesn't tell me much. I get this all the time reading mainstream media: the entire content is in the title and reading the article tells me nothing more.

Very true!

It would seem to me that making human and robot cars compatible is hard. It would be easier to go entirely robot. But that article tells us nothing about the causes of any of the accidents. I could be that the robots made gross mistakes.

The article said the AVs had no at-fault accidents. It would seem they were the victim of human error by normal vehicles. That is where the compatibility issue comes to question.

 

[Khashishi]

If self-driving cars exist in a future where fuel is plentiful, then we can see some interesting changes. There will be a new breed of road warriors who do the majority of their work in cars. Sleeping in cars will be common.

 

[Loren]

If self-driving cars exist in a future where fuel is plentiful, then we can see some interesting changes. There will be a new breed of road warriors who do the majority of their work in cars. Sleeping in cars will be common.

Work is boring. I'd rather drive.

 

[Hornbein]

Work is boring. I'd rather drive.

You're fired.

 

[Loren]

You're fired.

Can't. I own the business.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Work is boring. I'd rather drive.

Plenty of drivers enjoy driving a subset of the period in which they drive, the question is how big is that subset? I like driving occasionally, it can be quite relaxing. But the vast majority of times I have driven in my life it's been as a means to get from A-B and it hasn't been fun. It's just commuting, it involves sometimes being stuck in traffic, driving one of a very small number of possible routes and is time I'd rather be spent doing something else.

When/if self driving cars hit the market I think their biggest appeal will be getting rid of this chore. It would be interesting to see a poll of drivers that asked them what portion of their time driving they enjoyed for the sake of driving and as a follow up, if that time is more valuable than freeing up the total time. I would in a heartbeat (and with sufficient cash) buy a self driving car with no manual option. Sure I'd lose the time in which I enjoy driving but I'd gain a lot more.

Beyond that there is the question of rights. If fully self driving cars are demonstrated to be safer than those with an override and manually driven cars then does the right to drive for enjoyment trump the right for all road travellers to be as safe as possible?

 

[Loren]

Plenty of drivers enjoy driving a subset of the period in which they drive, the question is how big is that subset? I like driving occasionally, it can be quite relaxing. But the vast majority of times I have driven in my life it's been as a means to get from A-B and it hasn't been fun. It's just commuting, it involves sometimes being stuck in traffic, driving one of a very small number of possible routes and is time I'd rather be spent doing something else.

Well, I have owned sports cars since I was 19 or 20 years old. 40 years later I still drive them exclusively.

Yes, there are bad times, but that is no different than any other activity in life. Sometimes we forget that the bad things in life simply make the good things shine all the brighter.

When/if self driving cars hit the market I think their biggest appeal will be getting rid of this chore. It would be interesting to see a poll of drivers that asked them what portion of their time driving they enjoyed for the sake of driving and as a follow up, if that time is more valuable than freeing up the total time. I would in a heartbeat (and with sufficient cash) buy a self driving car with no manual option. Sure I'd lose the time in which I enjoy driving but I'd gain a lot more.

Beyond that there is the question of rights. If fully self driving cars are demonstrated to be safer than those with an override and manually driven cars then does the right to drive for enjoyment trump the right for all road travellers to be as safe as possible?

Well said, I think.

In the US we have about 33,000 fatalities per year from traffic related crashes.

I would say that it would be folly to restrict the right to drive. Actually, that is a misnomer. It is a privilege to drive granted by the state after passing a written and actual driving test (both of which seem to be so simple that a moron could do it. :-) ).

However, it would still be a folly to claim that people should not be allowed to drive on the premise that 33,000 lives are lost her year when we lose over 500,000 lives each year from tobacco related diseases. It's probably worse in Europe.

That's coming from someone that was married to a woman that died from smoking at the age of 39. I think smoking is abhorrent, but I am loath to play nanny-claus just because I feel it saves lives. We are supposed to be adults and we should embrace responsibilities, not outlaw them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, I have owned sports cars since I was 19 or 20 years old. 40 years later I still drive them exclusively.

Yes, there are bad times, but that is no different than any other activity in life. Sometimes we forget that the bad things in life simply make the good things shine all the brighter.

High end cars are lovely to drive (though I'm sure the emotional reaction to driving to work for the thousandth time isn't much different to any other car) but they are by definition niche. Most people just have regular cars to fit their needs of transporting themselves, their family and goods from A-B. Being the driver is a necessary part of that that people don't necessarily enjoy. I'd be interested to see a large poll but on the basis of conversations with friends and family on the subject few people I've asked seem to value driving as much as the chance not to drive.

However, it would still be a folly to claim that people should not be allowed to drive on the premise that 33,000 lives are lost her year when we lose over 500,000 lives each year from tobacco related diseases. It's probably worse in Europe.

That's coming from someone that was married to a woman that died from smoking at the age of 39. I think smoking is abhorrent, but I am loath to play nanny-claus just because I feel it saves lives. We are supposed to be adults and we should embrace responsibilities, not outlaw them.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I would say though that smoking is different given that smoking only harms the smoker. In cases where it doesn't (second hand smoke) most western nations have introduced laws to prevent it. In the UK smoking inside anything but your own home has been illegal for 8 years, you also can't smoke in certain public places even if they are outside (e.g. train station platforms) and this year it became illegal to smoke in a car with children present.

Driving has the potential to kill other people. If self driving cars do reach the technological promise they currently have of being safer for comparable cost I would be one of the people campaigning to have manual driving banned in public places. By all means if you're a driving enthusiast go to an event/track day (the type which are already quite common at many race tracks) and drive manually to your hearts content. But don't endanger 3rd parties on public roads.

 

[Loren]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I would say though that smoking is different given that smoking only harms the smoker. In cases where it doesn't (second hand smoke) most western nations have introduced laws to prevent it. In the UK smoking inside anything but your own home has been illegal for 8 years, you also can't smoke in certain public places even if they are outside (e.g. train station platforms) and this year it became illegal to smoke in a car with children present.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Smoking, like drugs, is not a victimless affair.

Who do you think pays for the medical costs for these smokers?

The same is true for drunk driving. Everyone picks top the tab.

To say smokers are not an anchor dragging down society is simply not true.

Banning manual driving is simply a pipe dream. We have 250 million registered vehicles in the US. It will be a long time before those are replaced by autonomous cars. Most people can't afford a new car and buy used. well, unless you expect the rich to buy cars for the poor, that isn't going to happen for a long time to come, maybe 30 to 40 years.

Cars are simply too big an investment to casually discard like underpants.

 

[Khashishi]

30 to 40 years isn't a long time.

 

[Loren]

I guess its relative. About 25 to 33% of automotive history.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thank you for your thoughts.

Smoking, like drugs, is not a victimless affair.

Who do you think pays for the medical costs for these smokers?

The same is true for drunk driving. Everyone picks top the tab.

To say smokers are not an anchor dragging down society is simply not true.

I'm not denying that smoking has a monetary cost to society at large, it also provides money through taxes and the like but I'm fairly certain the cost is larger. However that's more of a grey area because it's an indirect cost to a nation's economy. Manually driven cars are a much more direct and simple situation: by driving a manual car when safe self driving cars are an alternative you increase the chances that someone else will die in a traffic accident. It's plain and simple. Drunk driving kills people, it's not just about the monetary cost to property and medical services. Innocent people die as a direct consequence (that's why it's illegal).

Banning manual driving is simply a pipe dream. We have 250 million registered vehicles in the US. It will be a long time before those are replaced by autonomous cars. Most people can't afford a new car and buy used. well, unless you expect the rich to buy cars for the poor, that isn't going to happen for a long time to come, maybe 30 to 40 years.

Cars are simply too big an investment to casually discard like underpants.

By banning manual cars I didn't mean a law that comes into effect immediately. What's the lifetime of an average car? Ten years? Once self driving cars have been on the road in large enough numbers for proper studies to be done on their safety then simply legislate that in ten years time all cars have to be self driving. That creates an easy change over as manual cars are gradually phased out, being replaced at the same level as they would have anyway, but this time for safer alternatives.

 

[mfb]

The discussion about the option to drive manually looks similar to the seat belt discussion 40 years ago. Using it became mandatory in many countries and saved hundreds of thousands of lifes.
Sure, we are talking about several decades here. 10-15 years until the first self-driving cars become available on a large scale, 10 more until they become the majority, maybe 5-10 more until manual driving becomes unusual, 10 more for a legislation banning manual driving on public roads.

 

[Algr]

The article said the AVs had no at-fault accidents.

Who is making these judgements? If a person said that they had 5 times as many accidents as average but it was always the other people's fault, you'd laugh in their face. Why is it so easy to blame the human and defend the machine? I suspect there is a reason why we won't be seeing the details of any of these accidents.

 

[256bits]

Who is making these judgements? If a person said that they had 5 times as many accidents as average but it was always the other people's fault, you'd laugh in their face. Why is it so easy to blame the human and defend the machine? I suspect there is a reason why we won't be seeing the details of any of these accidents.

It would have to be determined if it was same registered Auto-vehicle involved in all of the accidents. Then again, if all autonomous vehicles use the same software and sensor kit, it is as if it is the same driver all along, irrespective of the actual vehicle.

Accident reports were finally released, after some hassle by "we have the right to know what's going on crowd|. The motor bureau cited confidentiality ( which is understandable ) and Google cited that the release of the information would not be beneficial ( they didn't say to who ). They both relented.

Reports from the bureau with individual identification removed, ( is that all of them ? )
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/autonomousveh_ol316

Accident on Feb 26 seems to be debatable if it could have been avoided. I assign stupidity as the Google car attempted to brake when in fact it should have continued through the intersection, especially when some other car is barrellling down on. Human Google driver switched to manual moments before the collision.

Editorial comment:
Was he attempting to override a software inadequancy? ( ie. what do you do when the road seems safe when it actually is not even if you have the right of way ).

 

[GTOM]

The discussion about the option to drive manually looks similar to the seat belt discussion 40 years ago. Using it became mandatory in many countries and saved hundreds of thousands of lifes.
Sure, we are talking about several decades here. 10-15 years until the first self-driving cars become available on a large scale, 10 more until they become the majority, maybe 5-10 more until manual driving becomes unusual, 10 more for a legislation banning manual driving on public roads.

Safety belt isn't the best analogy, since it doesn't strip someone from control.
Of course strip drivers from control prevents a fool to run amok with a car.
On the other hand, if they happen to leave any hole in security (and such things happened) offers opportunities like a terrorist modifies safe following distance, and creates a mass accident.
(Well i supposed now, that manual override won't be simply illegal - if it isn't obligatory in emergency, but nonexistent.)

 

[Loren]

Safety belt isn't the best analogy, since it doesn't strip someone from control.
Of course strip drivers from control prevents a fool to run amok with a car.
On the other hand, if they happen to leave any hole in security (and such things happened) offers opportunities like a terrorist modifies safe following distance, and creates a mass accident.
(Well i supposed now, that manual override won't be simply illegal - if it isn't obligatory in emergency, but nonexistent.)

It is a mistake to underestimate a fool.