Regulation, not technology is holding back driverless cars

Post by fr0sty » Mon, May 30, 2011, 4:23 AM UTC

gst wrote: post #47

jxcole wrote: post #9

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turne…

"Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing." Does not surprise me. Most Europeans have not even adapted to automatic transmission in cars, and still believe that a human can switch gears better with manual transmission (which has not been true for decades now). Makes me wonder if they ever adapt to fully automated driving. (And yes, I'm saying this as a European).

Post by sorbus » Mon, May 30, 2011, 4:34 AM UTC

noblethrasher wrote: post #61

jsdalton wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too can imagine the number dropping down far lower than that, even under a thousand, let's say. I can then imagine the newspaper headlines the few times per year that computers do end up, for whatever reason, being responsible for a small handful of deaths: "COMPUTER GLITCH KILLS FOUR PASSENGERS IN HORRIFIC CAR ACCIDENT!" Never mind that human "glitches" are responsible for dozens of such accidents every day at pre…

And I worry about the case when it will become more blameworthy for a human rather than a computer to operate a vehicle.

Post by fr0sty » Mon, May 30, 2011, 4:54 AM UTC

fr0sty wrote: post #101

gst wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing." Does not surprise me. Most Europeans have not even adapted to automatic transmission in cars, and still believe that a human can switch gears better with manual transmission (which has not been true for decades now). Makes me wonder if they ever adapt to fully automated driving. (And yes, I'm saying this as a European).

Unless you create a transmission that reads my mind, or can see the road and surrounding traffic it will not shift "better". Faster? yes. More smoothly? yes. Better? No.

Post by mryall » Mon, May 30, 2011, 5:32 AM UTC

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #33

cletus wrote: post #2

No surprises there. The transition to driverless cars is (IMHO inevitable. At some point it will be cheap enough that the additional cost will pale in comparison to the lives that will be saved as well as the simple convenience of being able to do something else while commuting somewhere. Likewise I see this kind of thing replacing many forms of public transportation. There will simply be a fleet of cars. You'll say…

I couldn't get past the (unclosed parenthese in the second sentence. It's like my inner programmer went into OCD overload...

Post by noblethrasher » Mon, May 30, 2011, 6:58 AM UTC

sorbus wrote: post #103

noblethrasher wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I worry about the case when it will become more blameworthy for a human rather than a computer to operate a vehicle.

Why? If computer-driven cars are much less likely to crash than human-driven cars, it would be entirely appropriate for there to be a social stigma against humans driving cars (because it would show disregard for the lives and safety of others). It would also be entirely appropriate to treat human drivers more harshly when they were responsible for accidents, as they would have had the choice of instead allowing a co…