Random thoughts 1: Just Sayin'

[hobbsyoyo]

Some humans might like to drive dangerously. Others might drive very responsibly. In any event, the phase "going to be so much safer" is the part that concerns me ... the transition between "you have to pay full attention in a self-driving car" and "you can start the engine, set your destination, and then take a nap" is what concerns me.

Why does it concern you? The car industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the US (don't know about the rest of the world). I'd put money on the government being very restrictive on self-driving cars until they are proven to be far superior to humans in all situations over the government letting car manufacturers wing it.

 

[Ryika]

Self-driving cars are not currently better than human drivers. That'll take a few more years. This is also why they have rules that you must be engaged as they drive - because they are not as good as humans, yet. When they do reach the 'better than human in all conditions' level, that requirement will go away.

Pretty much everything I find in Google states the opposite, that self-driving cars are safer than the average driver. An attentive human driver might be better than a self-driving car, but the actual, average driver that is using our streets is not.

The requirement seems more like a "feel good"-rule to me, as a large majority of all people are not yet convinced that self-driving cars are really safe. Making sure the human element is still in the equation might actually be a really good way to bridge that belief and bring it towards a view that is more in line with reality.

 

[Lexicus]

Some humans might like to drive dangerously. Others might drive very responsibly. In any event, the phase "going to be so much safer" is the part that concerns me ... the transition between "you have to pay full attention in a self-driving car" and "you can start the engine, set your destination, and then take a nap" is what concerns me.

I'm not sure why it would be worrying. The only thing likely to happen during that transition is that the number of accidents and fatalities should drop. The question isn't whether this transition will be "dangerous", it is whether it will be more or less dangerous than the current status quo...and the answer is that it will be less dangerous.

 

[Borachio]

@Valessa
Ah, but then, Google would say that, wouldn't they?

Waymo. And all that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Pretty much everything I find in Google states the opposite, that self-driving cars are safer than the average driver. An attentive human driver might be better than a self-driving car, but the actual, average driver that is using our streets is not.

The requirement seems more like a "feel good"-rule to me, as a large majority of all people are not yet convinced that self-driving cars are really safe. Making sure the human element is still in the equation might actually be a really good way to bridge that belief and bring it towards a view that is more in line with reality.

Google results are going to be filled with wishful thinking on the subject. Self-driving cars are not safer than humans in all situations yet, just many situations. For one, the sensors are just not as good as the MK I eyeball in off-nominal weather. For another, the algorithms that drive the cars are also not as good as the MK I brain in interpreting what the sensors report in off-nominal weather.

They are hands-down better in perfect weather in highway situations. Things get dicey when it rains, snows or is foggy or when the car is in stop-and-go city traffic with pedestrians about.

 

[morgenstern1]

I suppose I will have to wait and see the data, once there are enough self-driving cars on the road that are simultaneously sharing with road with human operators in order to convince me that accident rates are decreasing.

At this stage, I see it as a danger, because I believe many (not all) users of self-driving cars will see the current technology as essentially a justification to divert their attention from the road in order to give their attention to something else, and this will ultimately cause more injuries and deaths, at least in the near-term.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I suppose I will have to wait and see the data, once there are enough self-driving cars on the road that are simultaneously sharing with road with human operators in order to convince me that accident rates are decreasing.

At this stage, I see it as a danger, because I believe many (not all) users of self-driving cars will see the current technology as essentially a justification to divert their attention from the road in order to give their attention to something else, and this will ultimately cause more injuries and deaths, at least in the near-term.

The only people who are currently driving truly self-driving cars right now are employees of car companies. It's unfortunate that Tesla went with the name Autopilot for their driver-assist system because it's not really self-driving (yet). There are currently a few different car brands with various degrees of driver assist but none of them are really self-driving at this point. There is a big difference.

 

[Ryika]

@metalhead :

The other thread was closed due to reasons unrelated to our posts, but I have something to say about our part of the discussion that was about capitalism (I think that's allowed? I hope!):

In any system where people live with each other, they must first and foremost make sure that they either have got something of value to offer to the society they live in, or that they can gather whatever they need to survive on their own. Because if you don't have anything to eat, then working on what you think is the greatest epic that was ever written is indeed "a waste of time" if you starve (or run out of pens with no ability to create new ones yourself) half way through. Only after you've made sure that you have the means to sustain yourself, and be able to live through hardship that can be reasonably expected to happen is following your dreams and hobbies no longer a "dangerous decision".

That's not unique to capitalism. People generally have to contribute to society if they expect to get something from it. If anything, the capitalism-fueled societies of Europe are the closest to making sure that is no longer the case with their social safety nets.

 

[Borachio]

There's three hurdles for self-driving cars to negotiate.

1. 100% reliability
2. Public acceptability
3. Who's liable when accidents do occur? The owner of the vehicle, the software company, or someone else?

(I realize that most of 2 and 3 would be automatically covered by 1. But I don't think you're ever going to achieve 100%, and it wouldn't be sensible to wait for it if self-driving cars could be demonstrated to be, say, 10 times safer than human ones.)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There's three hurdles for self-driving cars to negotiate.

1. 100% reliability
2. Public acceptability
3. Who's liable when accidents do occur? The owner of the vehicle, the software company, or someone else?

I believe the idea has been floated that the manufacturer of the vehicle is liable. I think even the auto industry is on board with this idea but I may be mistaken.

100% reliability is also not a realistic goal and it won't gate deployment of self-driving cars.

 

[Takhisis]

The problem with this line of thought is that humans like to drive dangerously. Self-driving cars don't. They are going to be so much safer than flesh-and-blood drivers that insurance will rapidly make driving your own car prohibitively expensive. There was a thread on this a while back and I said then that driving your own car will eventually end up like horse riding, something that affluent people do for fun, but not what most people do to get around normally.

We have horse-riding parks and tracks, so would we get car-riding ones as well?

 

[Hygro]

My favorite places to drive are where a series of skyways merge and split from each other, with entrances and exits on both the left and right. In these areas, there's no clear fast or slow lane, and no one is expected to stay in their lane, as they are likely to move to the next spot. In these areas, I rarely see crashed cars. What I see is a beautiful and safe chaos of focused drivers. I don't look forward to sharing that space with AI players.

 

[CurtSibling]

The current debate about self-driving cars is similar to the debate various old ladies had regarding early train speeds exceeding 20 mph.
We will look back in future eras and laugh at how foolish all the hullabaloo was.

 

[Borachio]

First things first. Let's get electric cars fully on the road. I personally can't wait.

Well, I can (never an early adopter). They're just too expensive for what they are, atm.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

First things first. Let's get electric cars fully on the road. I personally can't wait.

Well, I can (never an early adopter). They're just too expensive for what they are, atm.

That depends on what kind you want. My lease is only $65/mo. I don't know how that compares to other small vehicle leases in the UK though. It has a 100 mi range so it's not for cross country trips

 

[Borachio]

Well, I've never leased a vehicle. And don't intend doing.

All I know is that an electric vehicle costs twice as much as a similar performing (bar the range) petrol one at the moment.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I've never leased a vehicle. And don't intend doing.

All I know is that an electric vehicle costs twice as much as a similar performing (bar the range) petrol one at the moment.

Sticker price doesn't equal the total cost of the vehicle. Electricity is cheap and the maintenance is also cheaper for electric vehicles.

But yeah, generally they are more expensive up front.

 

[cardgame]

You have a 100 mile range per month?

How does that take you anywhere at all?

 

[Synobun]

You have a 100 mile range per month?

How does that take you anywhere at all?

Per charge methinks.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

$65/mo
100 mile/charge