AI Controlled Cars, or Your Right to Drive

[Cheetah]

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.

Sure, you can argue that it is authoritarian. In a regulated society, a lot of things are authoritarian, by design! It's just a description. We decide to curtail some freedoms to promote certain values that we as society deem important. And reduced loss of life, increasing economic benefits, and reduced traveling time are values that we as a society are want to promote - at least to this extent - by reducing your freedom to steer tons of metal at 40 meters per second speeds around other humans.

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.

Spoiler :

Those are interesting, if inaccurate, statistics. There were less cars per person in 1950 than today, and that is probably what explains the low number of casualties back then. As you can see, when the economy was booming during the 50s and 60s, and more people could afford cars, the numbers skyrocketed.

With lots and lots of new laws and standards - those authoritarian things that limit your freedoms or take of your tax payments - we've reduced the number of fatalities even while the number of cars have remained high. But why stop now? Why is 30,000 deaths a year (and an untold economic cost as well) acceptable? Especially when most of these deaths occur because of human errors, and can be prevented?

...when they pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel!

I'm willing to bet good money that you'll switch to an automated car during point 4 at the latest.

4. Car manufacturers, the laws, traffic authorities and insurance companies finally agree on how to distribute responsibilities and liabilities regarding automated cars. Insurance companies increase the fees for customers who demand to drive manually. This is when the Robo-Car Taxi fleets become operational.

 

[Zelig]

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.

I'm not sure why manually driving a firetruck would be any faster than having it drive itself. Firetrucks are hardly high-performance vehicle, most of the difference from optimal ETA is due to traffic.

You'd save a ton of time over current conditions because a firetruck would always be able to drive as if there was no traffic - as soon as you punch in the priority firetruck route, the other cars along the route prep to make room for it. In fact, the average speed of the other cars on the road would be essentially unchanged. They'd just need to leave some extra space (about the length of a firetruck) in the lane the truck is taking, and then smoothly weave out of the lane in a wave (moving the speed of the truck) allowing the truck to drive at speed, and then back into the lane immediately behind the truck.

 

[Cheetah]

Yeah, emergency vehicles would definitely run automatically. The trick to having the traffic run optimally is that all the cars must run automatically. Any human driver would impact the system negatively.

Bank robbers would have the added problem of hacking themselves into a priority schedule when trying to flee the crime scene however....

 

[Mise]

Robotic cars are superior in every way for 99.9999% of people. This really is a no-brainer.

Re skiing, swimming, etc: skiing and swimming are already banned in areas where it is dangerous to ski or swim, e.g. in busy ports and watercourses, polluted rivers, dangerous/rocky slopes, etc etc. I'm sure driving would still be allowed in designated safe-areas such as race tracks, just as driving over the speed limit is currently allowed on race tracks. You would still be allowed to drive on 99.99% of the Earth's surface -- you just wouldn't be allowed to drive on the 0.01% of the Earth's surface that is designated a robot-only public road. As an enthusiast, I for one would be perfectly happy racing around a track to get my driving fix.

 

[Cutlass]

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?

Maybe self driving cars don't change those things all that much. But they will put those things front and center, at least for a time. And the discussion still needs to be had.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

That'd actually be a semi-terrible idea, I think. You don't take the wheel out of people's hands and let them either atrophy in skill, or never develop skill, then give it back to them in a high stress situation and tell them to "go fast."

You cannot eat or clothe yourself unless a corporation provides it.

I don't think that is true. You can barter with people for goods, and services, and you can come up with both food and clothing without stopping by Walmart or a big box store, or ordering on Amazon. The fact that this is somewhat inconvenient compared to the service level the corporations are selling is not really material. There are certainly no legal bans on doing these things for yourself. Which is what robo-roads, in the format they are being discussed, will require.

Robotic cars are superior in every way for 99.9999% of people. This really is a no-brainer.

Not really, no. People don't drive that badly, and anything that adds expense or limits scope of use is not superior for somebody that does not need it. It's markedly inferior. I do not need a robotic car to avoid traffic congestion. The fact that much of this forum lives in concrete rat warrens and ticky tack where you jam humanity into stupidly small spaces that then worry about congestion is not universal. And not near 99.99999%

 

[warpus]

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.

Since.. when is that an argument that works in any scenario at all?

I mean, I'm not arguing that we should be banning driving manually at all, but your reasoning just doesn't make sense to me. It reads like a knee jerk reaction to something that offended your sensibilities or something - something you refused to even put any thought into!

I mean, we use the argument "it's safer, let's do it!" very often. How in the world does that mean that we should be banning EVERYTHING each time we use it? What sort of logic are you using here, sir?? Or maybe you're not using any at all

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sure, you can argue that it is authoritarian. In a regulated society, a lot of things are authoritarian, by design! It's just a description. We decide to curtail some freedoms to promote certain values that we as society deem important. And reduced loss of life, increasing economic benefits, and reduced traveling time are values that we as a society are want to promote - at least to this extent - by reducing your freedom to steer tons of metal at 40 meters per second speeds around other humans.

Only we aren't really "steering it around other humans" unless they are playing in the street. Now are we?

And I'm all for such "authoritarian" measures as mandatory seat belt use and airbags. But let's not try to kid ourselves that depriving ourselves of the freedom to properly operate a motor vehicle in a safe and alert fashion is some sort of freedom for someone else who wishes to take it away.

Those are interesting, if inaccurate, statistics. There were less cars per person in 1950 than today, and that is probably what explains the low number of casualties back then. As you can see, when the economy was booming during the 50s and 60s, and more people could afford cars, the numbers skyrocketed.

Despite having far fewer cars, the number of highway fatalities were the same. Cars are getting far safer yet people are still whining about how dangerous they are while continuing to not address the real issues.

The numbers "skyrocketed" because people were going faster without taking the proper safety precautions, and cars back then were far less safe than they are now. The highway standards also left a lot to be desired. Now the interstates can support travel at 150+ mph in many areas. Yet we don't allow people to drive that speed because the drivers which typically do cause the accidents can't handle it due to blatant incompetence.

While our safety agencies have focused on vehicles, technology and litigation, other countries have zeroed in on the cause of most crashes: drivers. Through education and rigorous law enforcement, they’ve improved driver behavior and driver performance, yielding far greater gains in traffic safety than we’ve attained in the same time period. We’ve made some improvements with proliferating airbags, rigorous crash testing and, soon, mandatory stability control systems, but we haven’t addressed the driver in the same comprehensive fashion.

In Denmark, a new driver—who can’t get a learner’s permit until age 18—can expect to invest at least two years and more than $4,000 in progressing to a full license, according to Bo Christian Koch, editor in chief of Motor magazine (a publication of FDM, Denmark’s national auto club). Time and cost are typical for those countries lowest in road fatalities and include not only the cost of attending a driver’s school and the steep testing and licensing fees but also, frequently, the cost of mandatory training in advanced first aid and emergency response. Total highway fatalities have dropped in Denmark by about a third in just the past decade.

In Germany, only a state-certified driving school can grant an applicant admission to take the final driver’s-license tests. There are restrictions on the minimum age to start learning (18), but there is no age at which a new driver is exempt from the education requirement in many EU countries. Road tests are typically 45 minutes to an hour long.

Most European countries mandate a national curriculum that includes emergency braking and low-friction handling (Sweden is notable for demanding rigorous skid-control training), and some—Germany again being more stringent than most—also professionalize the education process by licensing instructors. Becoming a licensed driver educator in Germany can take thousands of dollars and years of study. It’s a far cry from the high school shop teacher or librarian who earns a few extra bucks teaching driver’s ed on the side in American public schools—many of these are sincere and dedicated to their role, but the official demands on them aren’t nearly as great as they are for the full-time professionals teaching in other countries.

Even Canadian provinces, where practice resembles that in the United States in general terms, usually have stiffer regulations under their graduated driver-licensing plans for new drivers. In Ontario, for instance, a new driver must undergo not one but two road tests before reaching full licensure. It can take up to five years to complete the process, though most finish in two or three. The probationary period can be shortened by taking classes approved by the Ministry of Transport. Fees borne by the applicant for testing and each stage of licensing tend to be more expensive than those in most U.S. states.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

That'd actually be a semi-terrible idea, I think. You don't take the wheel out of people's hands and let them either atrophy in skill, or never develop skill, then give it back to them in a high stress situation and tell them to "go fast."

Yeaa.. I'm not really sure if 'overriding' the system means that you're required to drive it manually. I didn't put more thought into it than that you'd need to, somehow, be able to circumvent the ordinary traffic-system. Will the robo-taxis be able to be manually driven at all. Emergency vehicles probably would be.


I think the implementation of such a system is more interesting. Is it going to be a single data-system that handles a society's (state's?) infrastructure? Who will have the control? Do the governments have the control over air traffic?


Over 30 000 deaths/year is still a crap number.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Not really, no. People don't drive that badly

http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-dui-arrests-per-state/

Clearly they do.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would disagree on that point, even with your statistics provided.

 

[illram]

Anecdotal, but out of the 300,000 miles driven by Google autonomous cars in real streets, there have been two accidents. One was caused when the human driver took over. The second was caused by a human driver rear ending the Google car.

 

[timtofly]

I would disagree on that point, even with your statistics provided.

I would have to disagree on both of your points. There are a lot of bad drivers out there. The numbers only show the RESULT of being a bad driver. That the numbers are not higher, just means we have better luck than Russians do, or whatever other plausible reason that fits one's world view.

 

[Mise]

Not really, no. People don't drive that badly, and anything that adds expense or limits scope of use is not superior for somebody that does not need it. It's markedly inferior. I do not need a robotic car to avoid traffic congestion. The fact that much of this forum lives in concrete rat warrens and ticky tack where you jam humanity into stupidly small spaces that then worry about congestion is not universal. And not near 99.99999%

Fine, you, personally, don't benefit from driverless cars. I don't benefit from a lot of things. You may enjoy driving, too -- some people enjoy cooking, and would be loathe to replace their ability to cook with a robot. And, for you, personally, your driving may not ever cause any deaths, or even come close to causing any deaths -- and neither would cooking. But if cooking killed tens of thousands of people per year, then it's perfectly acceptable to ban cooking -- even if you, personally, are a perfectly safe cook. The same argument is applied to speed limits at present: certainly, some drivers are perfectly capable of driving above 30mph in built-up areas or 70mph on motorways without causing any extra deaths. I've done it before, not caused a single death. Yet setting a line in the sand to say "you're not allowed to drive above 70mph for road safety reasons" can, should and must be drawn. Saying "I'm a good driver, I only drive in safe, rural areas, I don't need extra road safety features on my car, and I should be exempt from any mandatory road safety laws the government puts in place" completely misses the point of laws. There are countless laws that, if I were to violate them right now, would have no ill-effect on society, myself, or any other individual. But we must make such laws in order to prevent greater societal harm if they are routinely violated.

I'm terribly sorry if you are personally disadvantaged by such a law, but enforcing it will save countless lives (per the premise of the thread). This is as much of a no brainer as a law that says "don't break red lights/stop signs/whatever you have in America, ever, even if you believe it is safe to do so", or "don't have sex with a 15 year old, even if you believe they are totally mature enough to handle a relationship with an adult".

If you think we can come to a compromise, and specifically demarcate areas of the country where a ban on non-robotic driving is not justifiable on safety grounds, then fine, I'd accept that. But the general principle, as per the premise in the OP, is that robotic cars have an overwhelmingly positive effect on road safety (and traffic). From that premise, it is a no-brainer to ban non-robotic cars.

 

[Farm Boy]

The urban rarely compromise. They merely stall for a period of time, then take everything they wanted in the first place. The rich are much the same. Particularly if there is more profit to be had.

 

[timtofly]

I would like to point out, that if the day comes for fully auto automobiles, that an "owner" only lease/rent the privilege to ride in one, and that the burden of insurance and maintenance be the sole responsibility of who ever is making the money on the endeavor. That is remove all human error from the equation, especially from the person who pays for the privilege.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Thinking on it coldly cars should be strictly a mean to go from point A to point B. So if computers could do it safer so be it. Considering driving as a funny thing usually leads to dangerous behaviours at the road. However i like to drive myself so i am in a kind of dilemma here...

Anyway the technology to accomplish it is further away than we think IMO...

 

[schlaufuchs]

Anyway the technology to accomplish it is further away than we think IMO...

Link to video.

The only reason it would be "further away than we think" is because governments/insurance companies are reluctant to endorse it fully. The technology is already here.

btw: the video was filmed in my hometown

 

[illram]

Apparently these things have driven on the Golden Gate Bridge, down Lombard Street (a notorious tourist-trap crooked street in San Francisco), around Lake Tahoe... all over. It's closer than we think...

The Golden Gate Bridge part is particularly impressive. For those who have never traveled on it, it is a six lane highway going in both directions with no center divide. People routinely go 50+mph on it. Although perfectly straight, it has very windy conditions, lots of people gawking at the view rather than paying attention to the road, not alot of room between lanes due to its age; lots of potential for dangerous collisions. Frankly I am surprised there are not more fatal accidents on the Bridge.

 

[timtofly]

The only reason it would be "further away than we think" is because governments/insurance companies are reluctant to endorse it fully. The technology is already here.

btw: the video was filmed in my hometown

He left his dry cleaning in the car, but cool video.