AI Controlled Cars, or Your Right to Drive

[bhsup]

And again someone comes up with the "saving lives" trumps everything argument. Then ban all swimming pools. Ban bungee jumping. Ban skiing. You cannot use that argument and ignore the people that harm themselves, so all of those other activities must also be banned for you to be consistent.

You got in a wreck and were harmed. I am sorry, I really am, but life is not a guaranteed bubble existence where you are ensured safe passage everywhere. So stop using that as an excuse to try to take away my privilege of enjoying a nice drive with my doggie.

 

[Masada]

If insurance companies massively increased premiums for driver controlled cars with more or less the same effect would you still object?

 

[bhsup]

Depends. Could they justify it? They're heavily regulated and have to justify their rates to the government. Just raising them for horsehockyes and giggles to get manually controlled vehicles off the road? No, I don't see that being okay. What would lead to this sudden massive increase?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I don't remember how much but there's a large environmental benefit to it as well. Huge cost savings for society could probably be made, if done right. Insurance costs should go down and you wouldn't need to buy cars any more.

 

[Azale]

You got in a wreck and were harmed. I am sorry, I really am, but life is not a guaranteed bubble existence where you are ensured safe passage everywhere. So stop using that as an excuse to try to take away my privilege of enjoying a nice drive with my doggie.

There have always been safer alternatives. The choice to make driving the ubiquitous American transportation option was just that, a choice, heavily subsidized and coddled by government-corporate cooperation. I won't make too much of a judgment on whether this was a good or bad thing, the car industry was great for millions of people.

Now though there is the chance to make it much safer, cleaner, efficient, and convenient. I don't care who's USA #1 shoes get stepped on to make it happen.

 

[Masada]

Depends. Could they justify it? They're heavily regulated and have to justify their rates to the government. Just raising them for horsehockyes and giggles to get manually controlled vehicles off the road? No, I don't see that being okay. What would lead to this sudden massive increase?

Yes. You split the insurance pool into two with one capturing manual drivers and the other AI drivers. Given that AI drivers are far less likely to have an accident, the insurance companies can and would reduce their premiums while the premiums for the much riskier manual drivers would rise. The manual drivers premiums would also only increase overtime as the pool of manual drivers declined. The timing would depend on how quick the implementation was. But the end result would be the same: sharply increased costs for manual drivers. (I also think there'd be another reason to raise premiums for manual drivers, the risk to safer AI drivers from manual drivers).

 

[bhsup]

Could you please post some examples of safer AI drivers? I'd like to see how they control a jack-knifing tractor trailer on an icy highway. Maybe one that has a deer jump in front of it unexpectedly from the side where it was not observable and it also has oncoming traffic in the other lane. Can they handle those (and other) situations better than humans? You sure they deserve lower rates?

 

[Silurian]

Depends. Could they justify it? They're heavily regulated and have to justify their rates to the government. Just raising them for horsehockyes and giggles to get manually controlled vehicles off the road? No, I don't see that being okay. What would lead to this sudden massive increase?

In the UK Insurance is cheaper if you are monitored now.

It is extremely likely that it would be cheaper for a robot or partly robot controlled car.

2. Telematic car insurance
This new 'pay how you drive' insurance rewards safe driving. A small telematic 'black box' GPS device is fitted in your car to record how the car is driven. Factors like speed and cornering are measured to give you a score which may lead to a reduced premium if you drive safely.

The advantage of telematic insurance for responsible young drivers is that you pay a premium that's based on your driving record, rather than the record of all young drivers.

 

[Masada]

Could you please post some examples of safer AI drivers? I'd like to see how they control a jack-knifing tractor trailer on an icy highway. Maybe one that has a deer jump in front of it unexpectedly from the side where it was not observable and it also has oncoming traffic in the other lane. Can they handle those (and other) situations better than humans? You sure they deserve lower rates?

I'm not an insurance company. But the last time I checked AI's couldn't get drunk, fatigued or distracted. Nor for that they matter do they speed or tail-gate. Those factors alone are far more significant that the risk of deer strike or a jack-knifing semi. So yeah, I'd run my models and full-well expect that AI's were significantly less risky to insure than manual drivers.

 

[Farm Boy]

And again someone comes up with the "saving lives" trumps everything argument. Then ban all swimming pools. Ban bungee jumping. Ban skiing. You cannot use that argument and ignore the people that harm themselves, so all of those other activities must also be banned for you to be consistent.

You got in a wreck and were harmed. I am sorry, I really am, but life is not a guaranteed bubble existence where you are ensured safe passage everywhere. So stop using that as an excuse to try to take away my privilege of enjoying a nice drive with my doggie.

This is a good point.

For LT, you would only be comfortable if the government did your driving for you, I assume then as an integral part of this you necessarily view the government knowing the physical location of all inhabitants at all times, and having the capacity to store that data is a desirable outcome?

 

[Borachio]

Could you please post some examples of safer AI drivers? I'd like to see how they control a jack-knifing tractor trailer on an icy highway. Maybe one that has a deer jump in front of it unexpectedly from the side where it was not observable and it also has oncoming traffic in the other lane. Can they handle those (and other) situations better than humans? You sure they deserve lower rates?

Speaking as a former articulated truck driver, let me tell you that there's practically no way of controlling it when it happens.

I imagine an AI driver would have some chance. Perhaps. But not much.

The only way of "controlling" one is not getting into one at all.

Having said that, ABS made a huge difference to the likelihood of the back end breaking away under more usual, non-icy, conditions.

As for AI control in general, how many people are unhappy with computer controlled subway trains? Or computer controlled aircraft? Aren't the drivers and pilots, respectively, mainly just for show?

 

[Angst]

And again someone comes up with the "saving lives" trumps everything argument. Then ban all swimming pools. Ban bungee jumping. Ban skiing. You cannot use that argument and ignore the people that harm themselves, so all of those other activities must also be banned for you to be consistent.

You got in a wreck and were harmed. I am sorry, I really am, but life is not a guaranteed bubble existence where you are ensured safe passage everywhere. So stop using that as an excuse to try to take away my privilege of enjoying a nice drive with my doggie.

Why didn't you answer my question?

Anyways, your argument relies on enjoyment, and I'm sure you're having a lot of fun driving around. But the primary purpose of private automobiles is not comparable to hobbies. This is not taking away your ability to play dangerous chess. The primary purpose is to get you to and from work. Skiing, swimming and bungee jumping are not used to get to work. Incidentally, their harms only inflicts the self. Driving inevitably destroys lives that aren't the driver's. In all three of your examples, the consequence was for yourself.

Also, and this is another thing, but: Small-scale automobilism is completely destructible to the environment. I'm a little bit offed that you just take drives around the country without any purpose but to drive.

 

[warpus]

And again someone comes up with the "saving lives" trumps everything argument. Then ban all swimming pools. Ban bungee jumping. Ban skiing.

If there was a safer way for people to ski and bungee jump, many operators would have implemented it.

Same with AI cars - if they're safer, why not think about implementing them in more places? This is more equivalent to banning skiing backwards - not skiing entirely.

 

[bhsup]

Okay, so you cannot provide examples of how they would respond to totally unexpected road situations like I listed then? Perhaps that is because they cannot deal with that kind of stuff, so no, they have no business being on the road at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Could you please post some examples of safer AI drivers? I'd like to see how they control a jack-knifing tractor trailer on an icy highway. Maybe one that has a deer jump in front of it unexpectedly from the side where it was not observable and it also has oncoming traffic in the other lane. Can they handle those (and other) situations better than humans? You sure they deserve lower rates?

That is why the supposedly alert at all times and ready to snatch control at a moment's notice driver is still a requirement. But, of course, we all know what would really occur if the human didn't even have to turn the wheel and operate the pedals anymore given how many already read magazines or text on their cell phones while driving...

However in this make-believe future which is supposedly right around the corner, the government would apparently just prohibit you from travelling when tractor trailers were on the roads, wildlife was known to be present, or inclement conditions were expected. Or they would simply do nothing while reassuring the living that accidents do occur even in the most Utopian fantasies. That the accident rate is now down from what it used to be back when good drivers could still avoid being killed by having skills learned through years of practice. That things are far better now that the government is regulating your daily lives for your own good.

Spoiler :

 

[schlaufuchs]

As I said in an earlier, similar thread, I think the correct choice would be to make all the freeways (multi-late, mostly straight and flat with on- and off-ramps) automatic driving cars only. I would absolutely relish the chance to get to travel through 405 or 101 with no stop-and-go traffic. You would also make highways which have no alternative automatic-only as well, so in Northern California that would be your 152s, and your 17s, that would probably include at least parts of PCH down in SoCal. Then you create a new division of various parks departments or create a new department entirely who opens and maintains designated roads which would be open to manual driving for recreational purposes. I mean that's more or less what it's like today (minus the awesome automatic driving cars):

If you want to get from San Francisco to LA as absolutely as quickly as possible you:
Take 80 over the Bay Bridge to 480 over to Sacramento and then 5 all the way down. Or you take 101/280 to 152 in Gilroy through Pacheco Pass to 5 and take that all the way down. If you want to drive from SF to LA but with pretty scenery then you'd take 1 or 101 all the way down. These routes take a good 3-5 hours longer than 5, and as such, few people take them if they merely want to get where they're going, but it is a pretty drive, and going down those roads is an experience in of itself.

Of course surely this will all be invalidated when the Hyperloops are built and you can just take that+buses/light rail to wherever you need to go.

 

[bhsup]

If there was a safer way for people to ski and bungee jump, many operators would have implemented it.

Same with AI cars - if they're safer, why not think about implementing them in more places? This is more equivalent to banning skiing backwards - not skiing entirely.

Sorry, no. They are taking unnecessary risks with their own lives for no reason other than "enjoyment." If you want to ban driving manually because it will save lives, you have to ban -everything- that is not absolutely necessary that is a risk to life and limb. People don't need to ski. People don't need to bunjee jump. People don't need to jump out of airplanes unless they are military paratroopers (or perhaps other professions requiring access to remote areas...), and so forth and so on.

Now go sit on your lazyboy and have robots tend to your every need because to do otherwise is unnecessarily risking injury or possibly death.

 

[Cutlass]

Depends. Could they justify it? They're heavily regulated and have to justify their rates to the government. Just raising them for horsehockyes and giggles to get manually controlled vehicles off the road? No, I don't see that being okay. What would lead to this sudden massive increase?

Insurance companies are not nearly as regulated as you seem to think they are.

 

[Borachio]

I think driving manually will disappear, not because it's safer to have AI drivers (though I think it is - provided the software is sufficiently developed), but because the demands for efficient mass transport will require it.

 

[Masada]

Okay, so you cannot provide examples of how they would respond to totally unexpected road situations like I listed then? Perhaps that is because they cannot deal with that kind of stuff, so no, they have no business being on the road at all.

You've comprehensively missed the point. Most road deaths and most accidents are preventable and occur due to a very small range of proximate causes i.e. alcohol, fatigue, speed and basic human error. It's that simple. You can whinge about the small range of factors that an AI might not be able to deal with. But really, the onus isn't on me to prove the AI can deal with the issue. Because it should be glaringly obvious that a deer moving at say 20km/h is far less problematic from the perspective of the computer than the cars it avoids all the time which can move at many multiples of that. The same could be said of the truck jack-knifing. The car will avoid it, like it avoids other road hazards. And it will likely do it better than humans because it's reaction times and it's ability to calculate distance, speed and a whole range of other factors are simply superior to ours.