The correct usage of self driving cars in SF

[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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

As far as I'm aware none of the current self driving car projects are designed to accept updates to their software wirelessly. A terrorist uploading a crash virus to ten million cars at once won't be physically possible if the cars aren't built to work like that.

Anyone got any references to google or other companies addressing this issue?

EDIT: to clarify I'm talking about remote hacking of mass numbers of cars. There have been tests showing that with laser pointers the LIDAR sensors on current self driving cars can be tricked but that's not the same. If you can only harm one car at a time and it requires line of sight the risk is no greater than cars now. A malicious person could shine a laser into the eyes of a driver and have the same effect.

 

[GTOM]

As far as I'm aware none of the current self driving car projects are designed to accept updates to their software wirelessly. A terrorist uploading a crash virus to ten million cars at once won't be physically possible if the cars aren't built to work like that.

Anyone got any references to google or other companies addressing this issue?

So far i only read about someone tried a jammer on robocar to warn to security issues. Of course standalone mode is much safer, but i have doubts someone won't have the great idea, that wireless mode offers so wonderful possibilites.

 

[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.)

I think it will be hard to eliminate manual control.

I have numerous times where the destination has no actual GPS address. Inside parks is just one example.

I may choose to meet someone halfway at a filling station, but hell if I know the address. We just agree to get off at Route 70.

Last minute destination changes will be another issue, i.e., wife says, "Stop here!" What she means is turn here and stop at that store. Or, "I have to pee!" which translates to their will be insufficient time to reprogram navigation without unsatisfactory consequences.

 

[mfb]

I have numerous times where the destination has no actual GPS address. Inside parks is just one example.

Every point on the surface of Earth has GPS coordinates. Some points don't have a street address.
Driving off-road is certainly an application for manual control.

Last minute destination changes will be another issue, i.e., wife says, "Stop here!" What she means is turn here and stop at that store. Or, "I have to pee!" which translates to their will be insufficient time to reprogram navigation without unsatisfactory consequences.

Stopping somewhere is easier with driverless cars, you don't need a proper parking spot even when driving alone.

 

[GTOM]

Stopping somewhere is easier with driverless cars, you don't need a proper parking spot even when driving alone.

Then it runs in circles, or go to a remote parking house? If it can be called back by a phone, that enables remote control of my car.

 

[mfb]

If it can be called back by a phone, that enables remote control of my car.

Worst case: someone else can order your car to drive from a parking spot (or from going in circles) to their place. Not that dangerous, if they can steal the car they can also walk to the parking lot to do so.
Today many cars are secured with a key only. And the new, additional safety mechanism is... electronics.

 

[Algr]

Stopping somewhere is easier with driverless cars, you don't need a proper parking spot even when driving alone.

Well that's AFTER you have stopped. Imagine programming a GPS to go to "That thing we just passed," because you have no idea what it was was and want to see. You'd be miles away by the time you were done mucking with the touchscreen interface.

 

[mfb]

I don't see the problem with pointing on something on a touchscreen.

 

[GTOM]

I don't see the problem with pointing on something on a touchscreen.

The problem is matching the shop with a satellite view image. (Well if it shows a camera image and you point at it, it is intermediate between full auto and full manual.)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There's a weird perception in this thread that an SDV either needs a complete manual override or will only accept commands by complicated sat nav. What makes you think there won't be a stop button that causes the car to pull over as soon as is safe? And touching a way point on a screen that's already zoomed to your surroundings is easy. I have navigation apps on my phone that allow me to do that in seconds.