Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by illram, Dec 30, 2013.
It will only be a good thing if it is tested as a good thing and the results are proof of such.
Well written and it seems reasonable, except that I assume that this will fairly quickly go from individual robocars to a total solution - a fleet of cars where you rent a transportation service. The states will take offers from companies such as Google, which implements their system, perhaps with a few large car companies supplying cars and NSA watching over the system.
I really can't see largescape adoption in this because of the liability issues these car companies would face in the case of a car accident.
Only in the US. How is this handled in your taxi-industry? Do you sign any papers before driving off in taxis in case of accidents?
Its different, Taxis are human liability whereas robotic failure would be machine liability. The manufacturer is not liable for human failure. This would be like if your brakes didn't work.
There's usually a human mistake at the bottom, either driver mistake or programming mistake, but there's always the possibility to change the laws, or let people wanting the service sign away their right to sue. Isn't that how it usually works?
I honestly like the idea of making some roads automated only and allowing human drivers on other roads when the time comes to that.
Another question: Why don't they just have stricter driving tests and more restrictions on who can drive and distracted driving?
For example, raise the driving age to 18, no driving with any alcohol, no eating, drinking, doing stuff not related to driving while the car is in motion.
Restrictions like those found currently in, say, Norway, or a bunch of other countries? We still have accidents, we still have fatalities. Even the best human driver can have a bad day, or losing attention just at the wrong moment.
One thing I forgot to add in my previous post though: Automated Traffic Systems will be extremely juicy targets in a conflict involving cyber war. Just something as trivial as reducing the efficiency of traffic coordination will easily lead to large financial losses (or, from another perspective, bring the efficiency down to the current level)...
Sounds a bit foolhardy in that light. Sort of like failing to mandate a baseline of competency at something basic and a core social foundation that is usually easily automated, like say, addition.
That's because some people don't like to actually engage in rational discourse and will conveniently ignore any argument that delves too deep, instead waiting and restating the same thing they did before.
At times, it feels that these "freedom-loving" people don't actually love freedom. They just want to have the freedom to do more things, even when it infringes on others' freedoms even more. Fairly selfish, in my opinion.
Hey now, don't hog all the fun. I want in on this too.
Although I will do my usual utterly shameless plug for expanding mass transit to get people off the road, there are many places that don't need it. It's for populated areas where traffic is a problem.
Interesting that you would see it that way. Seeing as the people concerned with the expansion of this technology are not arguing against the ability of roads to be built that allow for it to be used effectively. What they seem concerned about, rather, is the ability of them to get from point A to point B at least semi effectively without needing to buy into putting their lives literally in the hands of google. Or the NSA, or whoever builds/engineers/runs this thing in whatever form it takes. The only people I see in this discussion arguing for curtailing the actions and agency of others are the technologically hopeful that would wish to limit the choice of others "for their own good," or for "the good of everybody" if you like it phrased better that way. The scorn of your post seems pretty misplaced. But I guess freedumbs and amerifats or whatever?
Edit: this was supposed to be rueful, but I was writing in a hurry. It didn't come out that way, please take the tone and make it 2 points less female doggy.
If a sufficient number of people were deliberately using vehicles to kill each other it might be a different matter. But claiming that everybody needs to be shielded from what is largely incompetence on the part of a fairly small segment of drivers drivers by depriving everybody else of the freedom to operate motor vehicles is clearly authoritarian.
The odds of dying in a traffic-related death is fairly small, and it is falling despite the population growing. In 1950 the population was considerably less than half of what it is today, yet the fatality rate was essentially the same.
...when they pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel!
I guess depriving everybody of the freedom of racing F1-style cars on public roads is authoritarian too.
It's still the number one cause of death among age groups which have minimal age-related health problems (Which we should also be working on fixing.)
That's a separate point and approach to the issue, and must be dealt with separately as a necessity. This part of the discussion instead addresses the risks of becoming dependent on a government or corporation for some aspect of our lives. To a great degree, we are already in this situation. You cannot eat or clothe yourself unless a corporation provides it. There are many such aspects over which we have little choice. Not that this is an argument in itself; simply that if this indeed is such an issue, then we should be taking up huge quarrels with how things are working now.
To which I respond: establish better overwatch groups and checks-and-balances and whatnot. Can't be done because politics? Then we can't discuss much of anything. Any idea can be shot down as ineffective due to the insidious nature of politics and decision-making. But I'm getting ahead of myself, since I always try to see many steps ahead of a particular debate and may instead sound like a rambling buffoon when I address points that haven't yet been made.
You interpret my demeanour as scorn since you do not realize how I relish my favoured tactic: using one's own argument and principles against them. If a person proclaims a particular approach to be inappropriate due to the principles of "freedom", then I will show, using only "freedom", exactly how the approach is most appropriate for such principles. Thus, it is revealed that the item, in this case "freedom", is a veiled excuse to get what they want.
In this particular thread, it arose that some of the ones standing against robocars in the name of "freedom" weren't actually interested in "freedom for all", but instead "freedom just for them specifically". After all, the freedom to take slaves is outweighed by the freedom to not be enslaved. In a similar manner, it seems very sensible that people should not be allowed to engage in activities that endanger others, even if slightly or notable (not significantly), when these activities are preventable and may only offer some mild entertainment or convenience. An example is how the legal alcohol limit is what it is and not a bit higher.
You will find I use this style of debate very frequently. Back during the to-invade-or-not-to-invade-Syria discussions, I enjoyed taking on anti-war extremists by positing or demonstrating how their approach would lead to more deaths instead of preventing them - the entire purpose of their position. It's fun and highly recommended, if only you can find an opponent who is willing to stick through it.
I guess coming up with inane hyperbolic examples such as that merely because you disagree with others' opinions is your notion of discussion. Restricting people from doing what they can now do is hardly freedom.
It is also the predominate mode of transportation. Where else are you exposed to even possible death in your everyday life?
There is a simple solution. Live in isolation on property where you forbid any motorized vehicles to operate.
Restricting people from street racing is hardly any less free than restricting people from manually driving if the safety difference between manual driving and robocars is large enough.
And with robocars it would still be the predominate mode of transportation, just much safer and more efficient.
There's a simple solution to your dislike of robocars. Live in isolation on property where you forbid any robocars to operate.
I don't really see autonomous cars drastically increasing the current growth rate of government snooping or private corporate invasions of privacy. What data will an autonomous vehicle potentially provide to the government or a private company that is not already available? The government and/or private companies already (1) have the ability to know where you are at all times, in or out of your car, just using common electronic devices you already own; (2) have the ability to do things like, shut down your vehicle remotely while you are driving it, instantly take all of your money out of your bank account, gather the "metadata" of ALL of your communications without a warrant; track and record all of your purchases... the list goes on. We are already in the big brother future. Does controlling your vehicle, or not controlling it, have a significant impact on the tremendous intrusions into our private lives we have already seen? Driving is already hugely regulated activity and insurers already gather a huge amount of info about your driving history when they insure you. Why does an autonomous vehicle have to include some other privacy invasion? What other privacy invasions are there that we are not already suffering?
I guess there will be some way to override the system if you'd need to get to some place quickly. If there's a fire and you're a fireman, if you need to catch a criminal, if your wife's in labour or if you just robbed a bank and need to get away.
Separate names with a comma.