Self-driving cars will be world changing when they become commonplace. That isn't going to happen as fast as the industry says it will. The average family won't be using self-driving cars for 20-30 years in the best case scenario. I don't see even early adopters/wealthy people owning a completely self-driving car for at least 15 years. Regulators have yet to get their paws on these things beyond licensing them for research purposes.
Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
121–130 of 341 posts
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK there are no cars yet that are _truly_ levels 4 or 5. Both Google and Tesla's cars strive towards that goal, but SAE level 4 requires that the system perform ["all aspects of the dynamic driving task, _even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene_"][1]. (Emphasis mine.) So until you can fall asleep at the wheel without endangering yourself or other passengers, neither of those…
The NHTSA originally designated a 0-4 system for classifying Autonomous vehicles. Then the SAE (engineers love adding features) added Level 5. When the NHTSA adopted the SAE system, they reworded the description of Level 5 to what you've quoted. And seriously, it's a meaningless designation. To have a driverless car that perform as well as an expert human driver in all conditions will take decades, it may require som…
I agree and, yet, you need something at least very close to that before you can have cars without anybody in them shuttling around to pick up people or deliver a pizza. (Which is why anyone who thinks they're going to be able to hail a roboUber in Manhattan within a decade is... optimistic.)
I suppose you can construct really elaborate corner cases that you might give a car a pass on. And maybe there are ways to make things like construction zones easier for cars to navigate. But, yeah, for the most part, the computer is going to have to handle any driving situation a typical human would be able to.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Lets assume a. 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven as an average driver[0] b. .5 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as robo driver c. .25 fatalities per 100 million miles driven as 20-70 sober well rested driver I'm 31yr old male so I have an average life expectancy of 47 more years. That means I lose about .5/100 million * 47 yrs * 365days * 24hrs * 60mins * 60s = 7.4 seconds life lost per mile in robo…
This is a well-reasoned answer, but probably not the same trade-off that most people would make. For example, if a car was twice as bad as the average driver (2 fatalities per 100 million miles), then you'd say 29.6 seconds per mile -- maybe something you wouldn't do at freeway speeds, but you would do at city street speeds. But I don't think that most people would get into a car that was twice as likely to crash as…
I would if the drive were limited to city streets, since a crash there has a much lower probability of injury and death compared to a highway.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.
When I drive, at least I am in control. I don't give any thoughts to accident statistics. A self driving car may become safer statistically, but I don't see myself in a self driving car that is safer on an average but still has a non-zero chance of getting me in an accident.
You fly, don't you?
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#125No mention of pedestrians, cyclists, or how cars (self driving or otherwise) affect the urban realm. So much of the self driving discussion seems to be wholly about the automobile technology in a bubble, with near zero thought put into the impacts on people, cities and society.
The fact that the idea of signal less intersections, a concept that ignores the existence of pedestrians and cyclists entirely, is even a point of discussion is indicative that the discussion is focused on the wrong points.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you get into a self-driving car that you knew had fewer fatalities per mile than the overall human average, but more fatalities per mile than the average of non-drunk, non-sleepy human drivers below the age of 70 and above the age of 20 with more than 5 years of driving experience? Serious question.
No, I would not. We, as a society, are about to learn some hard lessons about software. As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone. We will gain a new appreciation for the value of human decision making.
> As in, deuteronomy-level lessons - things that will be (figuratively) carved into stone.
Bad example--the majority of the lessons in Deuteronomy are shit, especially in a modern society, and were almost never taken literally through most of their history.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just remember that self driving cars do not have to be perfect, they just need to be better than humans. The use is at just over 1 death per million miles. If self driving cars can reach .5 they are better already. If the cars can detect the times they are bad and pull over (screw your appointment) that might be enough.
When I drive, at least I am in control. I don't give any thoughts to accident statistics. A self driving car may become safer statistically, but I don't see myself in a self driving car that is safer on an average but still has a non-zero chance of getting me in an accident.
I am reading this as preferring that if you are in an accident it is at least your fault rather than the fault of a self driving system. However, there are far more drivers on the road than you. Turn this around to be other other party.
So now you are in an accident caused by someone else. If that accident would have been prevented had they turned on the automated driving system that is in their vehicle, then do you still prefer this? Is having someone to blame really worth being in an accident that would not have happened if the computer was in control?
So, is it truly reasonable for you to refuse to engage the self-driving system in your car, putting other people on the road at greater risk?
I wonder if there will be increased liability, both financial (insurance) and legal, when someone willingly chooses to take control in a situation that would be well-handled by their self driving vehicle.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
There will never be a non-zero chance of getting into accident. But if the car is a safer driver than you then it is a net win.
Factually that may be true, but its a matter of belief. When I drive, I am 100% confident that I will not get into an accident. A self driving car with <100% safety is a net loss in my mind.
Then maybe you should update your belief instead of deluding yourself.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
- Moving backwards to a safe and large enough spot when the route is too narrow to fit self-driving car and oncoming huge lorry (and there is no line marking the limit between road and ravine). Surely you're missing the point? With V2V comms there will never be a need to go backwards. All vehicle trajectories become 100% predictable (mechanical failure aside). The problem of massive trucks on narrow country roads (wh…
Autonomous vehicles can't rely upon V2V comms. There are far too many ways for such comms to degrade.
This kind of problem has long been solved in the mobile comms world by strong ECC codes and robust modems and channel coding algorithms. We routinely send autonomous vehicles into interplanetary space so I can't see that linking vehicles on a road is going to be a major blocker. Especially if they're on a redundant mesh network, or a smart highway.
Re: Let’s Talk About Self-Driving Cars
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I understand this intellectually (that is, I know that this is an American-centric thing, and that other societies in the world have a different view), I am curious how this view would be justified? One could "reducto-ad-absurdum" the statement, and say "To be bedridden and unable to walk is to be free!" - which would obviously be a very absurd statement to make. In America, part of the reason we feel this way…
>So I guess I'm trying to understand the statement "it is freedom not to have a car"? It's the freedom to be able to get around without having to babysit a tonne of metal, and then find somewhere to put it when you get near where you're going, and then have to go back for it later. >How is it freedom not to have faster, longer distance personal transport? Decent public transport is faster and much more comfortable ov…
(American here.)
Agreed on all statements, but I need to add the freedom to not pay an absurd amount of income toward insurance, maintenance, taxes, parking, etc. Automobiles are expensive and getting more so as technology gets added and taxes rise to support the roadway infrastructure for them.