111–120 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With computerized drivers, it will finally be possible to fully enforce speed limits Why the hell would you want speed limits on a road with computerized cars? That's the whole point of eliminating human error and human limitations from the control loop, that 200 mph+ driving can be extremely safe.
Speed limits, in some areas, also serve to limit noise.
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…
The pilot should be there when the Software fails, and that's why he shouldn't be busy with something else. It adds to security, and it's worth it (from my point of view) whatever is the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there are conditions in which seatbelts cause fatalities (even when used properly) Do you have an example?
The typical example is an underage child in an adult seatbelt. Because of the difference in dimensions, a crash causes the seatbelt to impact the neck. I'm not sure that would be classed as "used properly", though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument (while good) won't apply to cars for simple economic reasons. Having a human pilot or subway driver costs 1 marginal person for hundreds of people. Having an extra driver per car costs 1 person per person. I will strongly bet that the two orders of magnitude difference in cost will overcome the bureaucracy. Additionally, once cars become sufficiently advanced, it will be much cheaper to insure a self-dr…
"Social stigmas are hard to sustain towards a large portion of the population." Over 90% of Americans have used illegal drugs, and yet there is still a strong stigma there. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009... (C.f. page 101, as well as the methodology.)
Hypocrisy is demonized. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly.
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…
There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. I will wage anyone that if all the cars on the road were computer driven there would be no where near 42,636 people k…
If we blame the car makers, there may not be any car makers because nobody will want to take on the liability.
If we don't blame anyone then there is no incentive to improve the situation and no way to hold people accountable for sincere negligence.
We would have to accept that a consumer product will occasionally kill us, and come up with some standard to judge whether the manufacturer "tried hard enough" to prevent it.
I can't think of any precedent for that. There are plenty of products that can kill us, but only if we misuse them. A driverless car will have a few deadly design flaws that we only learn about from experience.
Maybe this should be publicly acknowledged up front and a legal framework established. That seems better than pretending it's completely safe, causing a shitstorm when something inevitably goes wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You misinterpreted my sentence (but perhaps it wasn't your fault since I elided a crucial piece of information). I did not say that human-driving ought not be morally blameworthy but, since I enjoy driving, I am understandably worried about a time when something that brings me pleasure will become unethical.
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…
This suggests that any effort to introduce driverless cars should be preceded by a multi-year ad campaign that (ahem) drives home the >40k dead/yr. figure. Presumably, it would be paid for by insurance companies. It could be rolled out as a general public awareness effort (i.e. packaged with generic reminders about wearing seatbelts, maintaining proper tire-pressure, etc.), combined with localized elements that inclu…
A little siren goes off, warning you to break. Navigation tells you where to go, and how.
An override button appears, allowing you to give the computer control in an emergency. Eventually, the button becomes a switch, and the switch gets left on.
"Autodrive" licenses (similar to automatic licenses) are introduced, allowing people to pass their driving test in full auto mode, provided they only drive cars in full auto.
No state has anything close to a functioning system to inspect whether the computers in driverless cars are in good working order, much as we routinely test emissions and brake lights. Having lived in Oregon, Arizona, and California, I have never had anything other than emissions routinely inspected. Demonstrate a car smart enough to monitor its own brake pad wear, alert on burnt out bulbs, and provide a clear readou…
We also have mandatory annual safety inspections where I live, which should catch things like worn suspension, rust-damaged parts, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pilot should be there when the Software fails, and that's why he shouldn't be busy with something else. It adds to security, and it's worth it (from my point of view) whatever is the cost.
You can't say "whatever the cost". What if it were $1 trillion per passenger? Obviously it's not, but there's some point at which you would change your mind. You have to assign a cost to these decisions in order to have a well reasoned discussion. The EPA, CPSC, NRC, OSHA, and OMB for example all use varying costs of life to make decisions with the value of one human life ranging from $1-$8 million.
If 1 pilot in a hundred million decides to override the autopilot, and crash the plane into a landmark building, this is a cost.
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…
As for driverless cars... It just seems folk are getting a bit ahead of themselves - can computers really handle all the edge cases that come up while driving? Like when you have to break some road rules temporarily in order to circumnavigate an obstruction. Or when the car gets stuck. Etc.