Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
nytimes.com
Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
1–10 of 40 posts
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#2> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today.
There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#3> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
The suggestion I've seen repeatedly is that self-driving cars can travel faster with smaller gaps between vehicles due to strong coordination between them and near-instant response time in processing compared to a human. The article also suggests safety equipment in the vehicle would potentially be lessened as well. (Google's little koala cars would crush like tin cans, for example.)
Of course, when something goes wrong with that, yes, the accident would be more severe, because the velocity is higher and the likelihood of multi-car collision would also go up.
Of course, the effect may be akin to an airplane crash: When one crashes, the survival chances are lower, and more people are killed, than say, in a car crash. However, the frequency of the incident is drastically less, and hence airplanes are generally understood to be safer, statistically.
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#4Yes. Yes, I do.
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#5> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
I think the point is if trains of several autonomous vehicles becomes common suddenly crash is worse than just one vehicle; more mass more energy.
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#6> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
Not defending the argument, but I suspect the author was referring to the reduction in safety equipment installed on autonomous vehicles leading to more grisly accidents.
From the article: "One of the claims made for autonomous cars is that they can be lighter, shedding heavy metal crash cells and expensive safety gear, like airbags, saving fuel."
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#7Yes, yes we want them.
Idiotic things like this in the article miss the point:
> And yet this trend has never been voted on or discussed seriously by our politicians
We already voted with our dollars and will continue to do so (and our politicians suck).
The article also has stupid shit like:
> The truth is, no one knows for sure how many lives could be saved by driverless cars, because data on the role of human error in crashes is incomplete and misleading
Human error is the cause for all accidents, barring freak accidents like sinkholes and tornadoes (both hitting my state recently :( ). This one is so simple to reason about. Think about the cause of any accident, even the ones where clearly some technology failed. Even a rear-end caused by brake failure is the fault of the driver for ignoring his dashboard and not fixing the car often enough.
A self-driving car can and will refuse to drive if the brakes go back (provided all the sensors don't go bad at the same time too). A self driving will have unlimited patience for slowness. A self driving car will never be drunk or drive tired.
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#8Personal anecdote: I've been living without a personal car for 4 years now thanks to my city's dedication to public transportation, choosing to live close to where I work, and using literally every car share service available when the need arises. The only part of driving itself I consistently enjoy is listening to my music louder than normal. If I buy a car in the future it will absolutely be entirely electric and have autonomous functionality.
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#9> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
Not defending the argument, but I suspect the author was referring to the reduction in safety equipment installed on autonomous vehicles leading to more grisly accidents. From the article: "One of the claims made for autonomous cars is that they can be lighter, shedding heavy metal crash cells and expensive safety gear, like airbags, saving fuel."
I would hope we wouldn't do that until they have demonstrated years of safety.
We would also need to get most of the humans off the road. No amount of self-driving AI can dodge a human with intent (or stupidity), a similar performing vehicle and a headstart.
Re: Google wants driverless cars, but do we?
#10> The types of accidents we’ll face in this automated future, in which these cars are meant to run together in proximity at high speed, may be fewer, but they’ll be new, different, unpredictable and, on occasion, larger and more grisly than the ones we know today. There's absolutely no evidence to support this, is there? How would self-driving cars result in larger and more grisly accidents?
Perhaps because accidents would be due to large scale system failures instead of idiosyncratic driver-level mistakes?