SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the who's-gonna-drive-miss-daisy? dept.
The race to bring driverless cars to the masses is only just beginning, but already it is a fight for the ages. The competition is fierce, secretive, and elite. It pits Apple against Google against Tesla against Uber: all titans of Silicon Valley, in many ways as enigmatic as they are revered.
As these technology giants zero in on the car industry, global automakers are being forced to dramatically rethink what it means to build a vehicle for the first time in a century. Aspects of this race evoke several pivotal moments in technological history: the construction of railroads, the dawn of electric light, the birth of the automobile, the beginning of aviation. There's no precedent for what engineers are trying to build now, and no single blueprint for how to build it.
Self-driving cars promise to create a new kind of leisure, offering passengers additional time for reading books, writing email, knitting, practicing an instrument, cracking open a beer, taking a catnap, and any number of other diversions. Peope who are unable to drive themselves could experience a new kind of independence. And self-driving cars could re-contextualize land-use on massive scales. In this imagined mobility utopia, drone trucks would haul packages across the country and no human would have to circle a city block in search of a parking spot.
If self-driving vehicles deliver on their promises, they will save millions of lives over the course of a few decades, destroy and create entire industries, and fundamentally change the human relationship with space and time. All of which is why some of the planet's most valuable companies are pouring billions of dollars into the effort to build driverless cars.
After automation puts everyone out of work, will anyone need to drive anywhere anymore?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Covalent on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:53PM
Your stomach might be a bit too weak for this: http://bit.ly/1Npta42 [bit.ly]
No, I really do welcome my auto-driving overlords. I drive over 50 miles a day, and pretty regularly I see mangled cars (and bodies). Anything that reduces the number of fatalities / injuries by even 1% is a good thing.
Jobs will be lost, economies will change, buggy whip manufacturers etc etc etc...
But lives will be saved. And that's a good thing.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:04PM
Agreed. I don't even thing driverless cars need to be perfect. They just have to be better than humans, and that seems like a pretty low bar to set when you see how reckless people are DAILY.
I hate saying, "Because of this one bad person everyone should suffer.", but in this particular case, I think there's a huge net benefit. It's not taking something away from people because of a relatively few bad drivers. Fewer reckless drivers is just ONE benefit this tech will have.
My Grandfather almost ran over a six year old on a side walk because his eyesight was so bad. He cheated the sight test which was why he kept his license. He drove his whole life and when they finally took his license away he was basically house bound. It was a sad situation that only got worse from there. I realize some day I'll also have to give up my license, but if we had driverless cars, it wouldn't be a big deal, even the blind will have personal convenient transport.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:48PM
Another big factor you left out: Automated cars don't get drunk. Just that would save 12,000 Americans' lives every year.
The biggest barrier so far has been liability: If an automated car crashes, who has to pay up? The driver, like it currently is? The car manufacturer? The software company that sold them the automated driving package? And so forth.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @03:08PM
I can't possibly list all the great things that could come. Having transportation to get home is a huge factor in if I'm going to go out to dinner and drinks with friends. Last bus to my place goes at 9:30 PM and it's nearly impossible to get a cab that will leave the downtown. 30 minute drive out to my house, then 30 minutes back for them to where there are people waiting to be driven around. And it's never fun to be the designated driver so it's hard to get someone that will do it. A lot of people will just take the chance with a couple of drinks. Driverless cars solve that problem.
There's also the issue with people driving angry, not paying attention or being overly tired and/or computers just having a better reaction time.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @08:58PM
> A lot of people will just take the chance with a couple of drinks. Driverless cars solve that problem.
There is a flip-side to that - some people never drink in public, not even one beer, because they won't take the risk of driving impaired. But that's bad for the restaurant business. More drinks at dinner means higher sales (and alcohol is the most profitable part of the restaurant business) and larger tips. It's also a factor in deciding to eat out at all - why go to the effort if you can't have the full experience?
So I suspect that self-driving cars will be a boon to the restaurant business.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:31PM
That's easy: the insurance company of the owner of the car. With no-fault insurance, this ought not to even be a question. Yes I know how no-fault insurance works, and in a multi-vehicle accident it would be each insurance policy involved, etc.
Is the question, "whom do I sue?" The answer to that is "the party at fault", if a lawsuit is appropriate. If it's not clear who's at fault, some discovery is in order first. Or maybe we should all stop suing so much.
That is also the answer in the end to "whose fault is it", which may be ultimately what you're getting at. It's hard to say, but then again it's already hard to say in a lot of cases. We ascribe fault to the driver when they're driving a piece of crap 20 year old GM instead of a late model Volvo, when their choice of car influences the outcome of an accident that injures a passenger. Ultimately, if it's the driver who chose that vehicle, perhaps they deserve the blame.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:55PM
Mostly I agree with what you said
The answer to "whose fault is it?" is, it depends. Just like the answer to "whose fault is it?" NOW without driverless cars is, it depends.
If it's a software bug, the manufacture.
If it's soddy maintenance, the owner of the vehicle, who can then take it up with the mechanic if the issue is the quality of the maintenance rather than lack of it.
If the accident is the result of poorly kept roads or traffic equipment, the municipality or government that owns the equipment.
If you're driving an automated car and someone driving a manual crashes into you, it's not likely you're the one at fault as all automated cars will be following a set predictable rules.
Insurance is likely not going to work any different than it does now. You'll still be required to have it if you have a car, just like you're required to have home owners insurance (at least it's the case where I live)
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @06:10AM
> just like you're required to have home owners insurance (at least it's the case where I live)
WHere is that?
In the US home-owners insurance is only mandated by your mortgage company to protect their investment. I, having purchased my home with cash, have no insurance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @02:04PM
With no-fault insurance, this ought not to even be a question
Most places don't have no-fault insurance. It's worth noting here that no-fault insurance is a way for governments to cut back on law enforcement costs, in the process creating substantial insurance costs [mlive.com] for drivers.
Is the question, "whom do I sue?" The answer to that is "the party at fault", if a lawsuit is appropriate. If it's not clear who's at fault, some discovery is in order first. Or maybe we should all stop suing so much.
So the solution is let's go to no-fault and make lawsuits less common. Doesn't sound viable to me.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:56PM
Our judicial system is currently oriented around punishing the guy least able to defend himself, because of evidence, or more commonly race / poverty / etc.
Currently the folks at the bottom take their chances with their own skill and judgement, which oddly enough isn't really all that bad. With automated cars, they'll have to take their chances with whatever corner cutting some MBA thought would get him a bonus, which is way outside of their control and is going to suck for them.
So a fairly well off white male like myself can take the extreme risk of owning an automated car because if they F me over I have the financial and social capital to fight back pretty hard, I'm under no illusion that I could take down GM, but I could really strike back hard, very hard indeed. Consider a dirt poor illegal alien woman, if the car mfgr screws her over, all she can do about it is pray they use lube, the system makes sure she is completely defenseless. Someone like that can't risk owning an automated car, her kids depend on her, etc.
The genocide of the middle class means everyone's gonna be really rich or absolutely dirt poor. I'm not sure which I'll end up. What I am sure is they're pushing a product that's perfectly suitable for the 1%ers and trying to convince the 99%ers its a great idea to screw themselves by buying it. Well, its worked with higher ed and dotcom stocks and social media stocks and real estate, so maybe it will work after all. Hmm.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:16PM
It's way more than one person. I'd say a good 5-10% of drivers are selfish, irresponsible assholes. I drive about 50 miles a day, mostly highway, and I see plenty of people swerving around texting on cell phones. I also see way too many Mario Andretti wannabes speeding around, weaving in and out of traffic like it's a race track to shave 10 seconds off their commute. Then you have the young kids who think they too are Mario Andretti's and race each other weaving in and out of traffic.
I knew a guy who almost died in a wreck when his truck (a real truck, Mack R600 flatbed tow truck) was hit by a little Civic during a street race on a busy highway. The Civic driver miraculously walked away but the trucker was in an induced coma for 3 weeks, hospitalized for 3 months and in a wheelchair for a year. He still can't walk properly and suffers from back and leg pain. I saw a few pictures of the wreck and you couldn't tell if it was a truck or heap of scrap metal. And the pain didn't stop there because since he was an owner operator and it was an older truck, insurance only paid the book value which is a fraction of a new truck. He has to sue to get a new truck and was out of work for quite some time. Almost lost his house because of that.
I had a friend who was killed back in August of 2007. Some fucking retard decided that driving upward of 80MPH on a regular 2 lane road was appropriate. He tried to cut around my friend but lost control, hit my friend in the left rear causing his little '89 Nissan Sentra to swerve and careen into a pole. His car hit the pole at the right front causing it to whip around and wrap around large tree that was about a meter in diameter. His body flew so hard from the impact, that his body hit his girlfriend breaking nearly all of her left ribs, arm and nearly breaking her neck. She lived and he died in the crash. The driver of the other car and his girlfriend were unscathed thanks to the newer, safer car. No charges were brought against him as there was no way to prove he was speeding recklessly. He basically got away with vehicular homicide. He was my oldest friend, we knew eachother since the first grade when we were 6 years old. He was like a brother to me and losing him caused me a great amount of pain for many years. The worst was seeing his mother and father and sisters the day after. The agony they were going through is burned into my mind. I still think about him and miss him terribly. Just a month before he died I told him to buy a new safer car and that the Sentra was a coffin. But he insisted that was the greatest car he ever owned and took great care of it. It's like I had a premonition.
We need autonomous cars because of selfish shits like those described above. People won't change. We have to force them off the roads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @07:39PM
I was in an accident years ago, a head on collision, caused by a young woman applying makeup while making a left turn. She said she didn't see us.
I was a passenger. The seat broke; I was belted in. The seat breaking allowed me and the seat to keep going at full speed, thankfully the dashboard stopped me. If I was not belted in, I would have very likely gone through the windshield. The seat tipped in flight and I was going to go headfirst out, but the seat is a bit bulky compared to a human body, and it gave me enough girth to get caught on other inside parts of the car to allow my legs to hit the dashboard at high speed.
And here it is, decades later, and yeah I have problems. She got a fine.
I cannot imagine how inattentive people are because of cell phones, I so truly wished that they did not become prevalent, but even I depend on one. But I am perhaps more crazy than most about insisting to not use it while driving. And getting belted in.
I see that it is often more important fpr people to check a facebook status update or whatever on the phone than it is to keep an eye on the road; this is no different to me than applying makeup like that young lady did.
I was bedridden for months and narrowly avoided a full body cast. Her parent's insurance probably went up, but she was no worse for wear and wasn't even bruised--I heard that because it was entirely unexpected to her, she didn't tense up and didn't reflexively tighten her muscles or grip the wheel harder. Drunk drivers often are OK in a collision when the people they hit do not; some of that has to do with their not tensing up right before impact. I can assure you, I was incredibly tense. It is hard to describe what it is like to know you are about to get hit at such a high rate of speed and being powerless to do anything about it as a passenger. I remember saying "Please don't do it"--then BANG! metal tearing sure has a high pitch...
And at the same time, I do not want my freedom reduced because of inattentive people. I'd ride my bike (and do my body some good) but the distances I have to go to work are too long to be feasible for that; and even if I did... people seem to treat motorcyclists and bicyclists as irritants, and sometimes are downright abusive. The ones not paying attention aren't even as bad as the ones that resent your being out there with them; if someone doesnt see you, and you know it, you can account for that when riding in the same direction as they are; you can let them pass.
When some idiot that hates two wheelers is out to have fun with you... it's better to just get off the road and wait.
And its a shame that those problems will only likely ever be solved by preventing them from being able to drive to begin with. It's indeed the selfish shits that will make this system worth embracing, but I wish I could be trusted to be able to not look at the unexpected ads on my phone while driving and keep my concentration where it should be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:20PM
> It's way more than one person. I'd say a good 5-10% of drivers are selfish, irresponsible assholes.
When people drive well you don't even notice them. If 1 out of 20 drivers really were that reckless we'd have thousands of deaths a day rather than thousands of deaths a years.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:27AM
That's only if you count accidents that end in deaths. There's a metric shit ton of accidents a day that result in everything from a scratch to a fender bender to a few months of physio to serious injury to death.
Take the stats from wherever you like
http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics [asirt.org]
https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/roadsafety/cmvtcs2012_eng.pdf [tc.gc.ca]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year [wikipedia.org]
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:14PM
Maybe your grandfather wouldn't have ended up house bound if it was practical to walk. (Of course walkways must accommodate wheelchairs.) Driverless cars are all very well, if they work. But I'd like to see more thought and work put into walkways, less fixation on cars. Take the "side" out of the sidewalk. The main route could be the "walk", and the road for vehicles could be the "sideroad".
The precedence and privilege unthinkingly given to cars is really irritating. As if walking isn't slow enough, walkers are supposed to wait and wait, over and over, for signals to be allowed to cross street after street.
How about a 2 level transportation system? Vehicles at ground level, and pedestrians on an upper level. Buildings will be at least 2 stories, with entrances at ground and upper level. No more waiting to cross a street, just stroll over it on a pedestrian bridge. Seems a fraction of the money currently spent on highways could build a "skywalk" grid. Besides, when out walking, I'd much rather be thought of as a skywalker than a mere pedestrian.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:44PM
Practical to walk is a bit subjective here. Walking several blocks is nothing for me, but him just making to the driveway was a challenge. It happens when you get old and have all kinds of medical issues. There are also other factors like climate to consider. I'm Canadian and we do get quite a bit of snow which makes cycling in the winter difficult. There's also terrain. My city was built on what's basically a series of giant hills with a harbor smack in the middle, so the terrain makes cycling difficult as well.
We, the family, had actually bought him a scooter the year he passed away. He lived in a pretty small town quite a ways from the city, so there's no taxis or public transport, but as long as the roads were plowed he could have driven his scooter around. Still would have been a pretty long trip to the coffee club for him though, 20-30 minute walk from his house and I don't think the scooter would have been much faster.
A lot of your suggestions MIGHT work in a larger city, but not for smaller rural areas that are a lot more spread out. Also there are still A LOT of issues with public transport like not going all the way to a destination or being overly expensive. My city blows at transport planning. They tax everyone with in a half a kilometer of a bus stop so what they did was stick a bunch of stops on the outskirts of the city to tax people, but there's only two buses a day there that don't even come at convenient times to be using the buses and no service on weekends. If you live in the city you'd have to walk a couple blocks to get to a stop then there's like ten buses that all go down the same street stopping every half block. They have it planned out so the bus is just SLIGHTLY faster than walking. I can walk from my office to my house in 2 hours, it's a 15 minute drive using the highway, it's 1.5 hours using the bus (IF I make all the connections). If I miss the bus and don't have a car I might as well just walk it because the next bus is 45 minutes to an hour.
What we really need is an artery system where you could take a car to a main stop, then a bus close to where you need to go, with fewer in between stops, then a car from there to your end point. Driverless cars could make that a reality. You'd just call, they'd come right to your house picking up others along the way, take you all to the nearest stop. Then you'd get off and get a car to your destination. People might not even own individual cars it'll be a community asset for smaller towns or part of the public transport system for larger cities.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:39AM
Elevated walkways do exist, for example this one:
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2012/12/circular-pedestrian-bridge-in-lujiazui.html [amusingplanet.com]
As another commenter wrote, they're practical mainly in urban areas.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday December 17 2015, @06:18AM
Yep it'll save lives...and every evening the corp that will own your car's software (you of course won't own it anymore than you own software now) will give a nice bullet pointed list of every place you went to everyone from your insurance company to the NSA, but saving lives, right?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:08PM
I think you're thinking about this issue the wrong way. You're tracked NOW by the NSA. Holding back automated cars for fear you'll be tracked is kind of ridiculous given you're using the internet.
The level to which they track you might vary and you can limit it, but if you're concerns are being tracked then maybe those are the concerns you should be addressing, not "don't make it because this might happen"
If we went with that line of reasoning, the internet, the single greatest tool to track you with, wouldn't exist. And as I've said multiple times, saving lives is only one of a lot of benefits automated cars have. I believe that out weights some people the paranoia.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @06:49PM
If you have a mobile phone that's on, you're already tracked.
If you have a laptop with wifi, the NSA can probably track you if they wanted to.
If you have a car with a license plate and you drive in certain areas, you're already tracked. Even if you have a fake license plate you're still being tracked.
And given you're a Windows user, even if you're not tracked (telemetry etc) you're probably pre-pwned. If the NSA has/gets a cert signed by Microsoft that your machine hasn't seen yet, you can't disable it (since it's not there yet), but if your machine ever encounters it, it will be automatically added and be trusted. Enjoy:
http://www.proper.com/root-cert-problem/ [proper.com]
Windows Vista does act like Windows XP SP2 in that when you try to validate a certificate that chains to a certification authority that is trusted by Microsoft but it is not in your root store, Windows Vista will silently add that certification authority. Like the other certificate authorities trusted by Microsoft, these cannot be removed.
After extensive searching, I could not find a way to remove certificate authorities trusted by Microsoft from Windows Vista. Even if there is a way to do this, there seems to be no equivalent of the Update Root Certificates program that can be turned off. There may be such functionality in Windows Vista, but neither searching in the built-in help nor on the Microsoft support site found anything about such functionality. I tried a few things that people familiar with Vista guessed at, but they were all unsuccessful at getting close to the Windows XP SP2 functionality.
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:19PM
I do, too. I can't tell you how often I see morons driving down the road, cell phone in hand, wandering around and sometimes out of their lanes. Getting them to stop is hopeless. I really think the only solution is making it acceptable by having them in cars that don't crash (or crash less than a competent and attentive driver).
There are recreational activities I'd like to do regularly that are 200+ miles from home, but that I'm not able/willing to spend ~6 hours of my time to drive to and from. Problem solved if I can get in the car, go to sleep, and wake up at my destination.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:29PM
So how long before you and the tyranny of majority deprive me of my right to enjoy a recreational drive?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:51PM
track day bro
(Score: 1) by DeathElk on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:55PM
Maybe you can borrow someone's horse buggy...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:39PM
Won't someone think of the ambulance chasers and traffic cops. Are they to earn a living cage fighting? Are the meter maids going to join ISIL? What about the ticket industry? How will governments replace the revenue? All the radar/laser/vascar manufacturers will go out of business. All the staff of traffic courts will be homeless. What excuse will they use to pull you over? How will dishonest mechanics convince you car it needs needless repairs?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 16 2015, @02:47PM
Anything that reduces the number of fatalities / injuries by even 1% is a good thing.
Not really. The money spent on driverless cars could be spent on curing diseases and other societal problems that amount for magnitudes more deaths than automobile fatalities. Cardiovascular disease in the US alone kills more than 20 times the people who die due to cars.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RobotLove on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:00PM
This kind of thinking is not useful. "Because we can't fix the worst possible thing, we shouldn't fix anything." Unless you can show that the money that is being invested in driverless cars would have otherwise been invested in successful research, it is not a waste.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:30PM
I didn't say we shouldn't fix anything. I specifically pointed to something that should be fixed insead because it causes a far bigger amount of deaths and economic drain than car accidents.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:42PM
People are already pouring billions into medical research, hell the funds spent on developing this tech is a drop in the bucket compared to what pharmaceutical companies spend. Putting more funding there doesn't mean more problems get solved there.
Putting money into other areas where lives can be saved, on top of increasing the quality of life for millions of people, is a better use for it IMHO. And we're only scratching the surface of what driverless cars could do. Driving people from point A to B is the bare minimum. Think of ambulances that could put out signals to communicate with traffic to clear paths. Or cars being able to negotiate with each other rather than people guessing what the other drivers are going to do. Or cars knowing where there's construction or or emergency crews putting out fires.
There's huge benefit here beyond just saving lives.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:02PM
Is there a reason that we can't work on both (and more) issues concurrently?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:19PM
I'm pretty sure almost no one qualified to work on a self-driving car is also qualified for doing medical research.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:28PM
I never said they would be which is why I was purely talking about the funding. The funding for the cars could be spent to actually solve problems that account for the deaths of 100s of times more people a year than all deaths due to accidents.
(Score: 3, Touché) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday December 16 2015, @05:13PM
Maybe we should also shut down cinemas, theaters, football/baseball/whatever league, fast food restaurants and so on. It's also quite a lot of money which could be used to fund medical research.
We might live so much longer... Or, at least it might be perceived as living longer due to boredom :-)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:45PM
So which is scarier AC, the people who write and maintain the code for self driving cars not being "safety of human life qualified" like avionics, or the limited pool of IQ 140+ people currently writing "safety of human life qualified" avionics working on cars instead, such that planes fall out of the sky? It is a zero sum game over time periods shorter than multiple human generations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @08:56AM
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:41PM
Not really. The money spent on driverless cars could be spent on curing diseases and other societal problems that amount for magnitudes more deaths than automobile fatalities. Cardiovascular disease in the US alone kills more than 20 times the people who die due to cars.
All you're doing is pointing up the misdirected resources in our society. Yes, you're much more likely to die of heart disease than in a car crash, but then, you're more likely to die being struck by lightning than in a terrorist attack. Does that mean we should spend more money on preventing lightning strikes than terrorist attacks?
We should (both from economic and societal standpoints) address issues in proportion to the actual risk of death and/or injury.
I would love to see the amounts of money currently being spent on "national defense," "drug interdiction" and "counter-terrorism" scaled to the actual risks and have some part of the balance applied towards auto safety (including driver-less cars), health care and health education, substance abuse treatment and other areas which have higher risks of death/debilitation/injury.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday December 16 2015, @06:41PM
That's an interesting question. I realize this isn't particularly sound research, but it's the best I could do with the 5 minutes I was willing to dedicate to it. I'll also just use US numbers.
Apparently some guy estimated that the US spends $1B per year fighting terrorism.
I decided for "preventing lightning strikes" I'd just go with the cost of adding lightning rods to houses. My first Google result for "lightning rod cost" came up with $2500. I think that's for a retrofit, not a new build, but I'm also ignoring commercial buildings, cost of surge protectors, insurance claims due to lightning strikes, etc. etc. etc. So there. Number of US households: 118,000,000. Average age of house: 35 years.
118M / 35 = 34M houses built per year.
$34M * $2500 = $8.4B per year in lightning rods.
So, you're apparently spending an order of magnitude more per year fighting terrorism than we are on installing lightning rods. Who knew.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @07:09PM
That's an interesting question. I realize this isn't particularly sound research, but it's the best I could do with the 5 minutes I was willing to dedicate to it. I'll also just use US numbers.
Apparently some guy estimated that the US spends $1B per year fighting terrorism.
I decided for "preventing lightning strikes" I'd just go with the cost of adding lightning rods to houses. My first Google result for "lightning rod cost" came up with $2500. I think that's for a retrofit, not a new build, but I'm also ignoring commercial buildings, cost of surge protectors, insurance claims due to lightning strikes, etc. etc. etc. So there. Number of US households: 118,000,000. Average age of house: 35 years.
118M / 35 = 34M houses built per year.
$34M * $2500 = $8.4B per year in lightning rods.
So, you're apparently spending an order of magnitude more per year fighting terrorism than we are on installing lightning rods. Who knew.
Thanks for the analysis. However, I spent ten seconds and got this [pewresearch.org]. According to that article, U.S. government intelligence agencies (that does not include TSA, CBP or DOJ, and certainly doesn't include state and local spending) spend more than US$16 Billion per year on counter-terrorism. That increases the comparative amount spent on combating terrorism vis a vis death by lightning strike significantly.
I'd also point out that death from lightning strikes usually occurs outdoors and isn't normally associated with buildings being struck. This is pointed out here [weather.com]:
And so, while it might be useful to outfit residential homes with lightning rods, doing so wouldn't impact death by lightning strike friend.
My original point being that since it's enormously more likely that one will die in a car accident or from heart disease, why do we spend so much more money on stuff (such as counter-terrorism) which has a much, much lower likelihood. It seems to me that it's not just counter-intuitive, but downright stupid to do so.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday December 16 2015, @08:14PM
Agreed. I was just curious about that, and since I'd done some simple maths I figured I'd share them.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:02PM
First, I disagree with the heart disease thing. Maybe you're more likely to die of heart disease than car crash, but I'm quite sure that I am not. Not everyone has even remotely equal risk for medical things like that. Some people are at high risk for heart disease, other people are at very low risk for it, and being physically healthy is a huge part of that (basically obese people are the ones at high risk). So to me, dying in a car crash is a big worry, it's probably the most likely way I'll die if not of old age.
As for spending money, what we *should* be spending money on is building SkyTran systems. Driver-less cars sound good in theory, but in practice there's a ridiculous number of variables to consider unless the car is just cruising on the freeway. And driverless cars will never fix the other problems that cars have, such as low speeds, wasting time at intersections, high energy usage, etc. SkyTran fixes nearly all of those, since it operates in 3 dimension (so no stoplights or intersections requiring stops) and uses small, lightweight cars on maglev rails (so very low energy usage compared to driving 3-4000 pound vehicles on rubber tires on asphalt, a high-friction surface). With elevated rails, you don't have to worry about things like cars hitting children or small animals in the road (birds might be a problem though), or cars and pedestrians interacting at all. Cities would be far safer and nicer for both pedestrians and cyclists. And the noise level would be much lower too: even EVs make a lot of noise because of the tires.
Of course, the main problem with SkyTran is that it'd have to be run as a government service (either directly or through a public benefit corporation like NYC's MTA), and the US seems to generally do a miserable job of that. Maybe we could solve that by simply outsourcing the operation of the system to the Scandinavians, since they don't seem to have all the problems with corruption and idiocy that we do in our government at all levels. Or the Japanese; their subway systems are reportedly excellent though a bit crowded.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:52PM
First, I disagree with the heart disease thing. Maybe you're more likely to die of heart disease than car crash, but I'm quite sure that I am not. Not everyone has even remotely equal risk for medical things like that. Some people are at high risk for heart disease, other people are at very low risk for it, and being physically healthy is a huge part of that (basically obese people are the ones at high risk). So to me, dying in a car crash is a big worry, it's probably the most likely way I'll die if not of old age.
Just so I understand, you're saying that since you're a statistical outlier, we should base our public policy on your life and experience, correct? Or are you saying "fuck you, jack! I got mine!"? Or are you saying, "I don't give a rat's ass about anyone but myself. And since this isn't affecting me, why are we having this pointless conversation?" Or is it something else you're trying to communicate, friend?
I'd point out that in many cases, a poor understanding of health risk factors makes people more unhealthy. Hence my suggestion:
I would love to see the amounts of money currently being spent on "national defense," "drug interdiction" and "counter-terrorism" scaled to the actual risks and have some part of the balance applied towards auto safety (including driver-less cars), health care and health education, substance abuse treatment and other areas which have higher risks of death/debilitation/injury. [emphasis added]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 17 2015, @05:07PM
Just so I understand, you're saying that since you're a statistical outlier, we should base our public policy on your life and experience, correct?
If I'm a statistical outlier because I'm *not* obese, then this country has some serious, serious problems and we should definitely make some huge changes to our public policy.
Anyway, my point was only that for those of us who aren't obese, the risk factors are very different, and instead of worrying about heart disease, we have to worry a lot more about our lives being cut short by auto accidents, so for us, focusing on auto safety is more important. Sorry if that hurts your little feelings. I never realized relatively-healthy people were such a tiny minority.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 18 2015, @01:40AM
If I'm a statistical outlier because I'm *not* obese, then this country has some serious, serious problems and we should definitely make some huge changes to our public policy.
Gee, that's funny. I thought that was the initial point I made. It only took three tries for you to get it. Maybe there's hope for you after all.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 16 2015, @03:35PM
Anything that reduces the number of fatalities / injuries by even 1% is a good thing.
Bullshit. If you're going to take away a major freedom of a lot of people, you need a better justification than that. A few lives are not that valuable. Sorry.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:20PM
You'd have the same 'freedom' of mobility with or without a driverless car, but driving isn't a freedom, as in a right, it's a privilege.
On top of that driverless cars will allow people who can't drive to have the 'freedom' of mobility the rest of us enjoy. There's also the fact that some day you'll be old, possibly blind, reactions slow, on medications and you'll have to choose between giving up your license or having someone come and take it away.
I'm looking forward to a day sometime in the distance future where instead of being housebound and alone, like my grandfather was, I'll have a car that can take me anywhere I want to go. Even if it's just to the store to get groceries or to coffee with some friends.
Reducing fatalities is just one possible benefit from not having people who believe driving is their right so they take it for granted in control.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:24AM
You'd have the same 'freedom' of mobility with or without a driverless car, but driving isn't a freedom, as in a right, it's a privilege.
See here [soylentnews.org] for my rebuttal on the assertion about scare-quoted "freedom".
An additional remark is that in democracies privileges usually can't be arbitrarily or selectively revoked. That is in general, if a privilege, granted by government, exists in a democracy, then you have a right to obtain that privilege, provided you pass reasonable criteria for obtaining the privilege.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:40AM
I'm not using scare quotes, I'm using them to differentiate two distinctly different types of freedom. There's the freedom as in you can do something and there's the freedom as in you have a right to do something, and people tend to try and obfuscate the two. I have the freedom to walk into a high security government facility, as in, I can do it, but I don't have the freedom to walk into a high security facility, as in, I have a right to do it. I have clearance, part of that clearance is knowing where I should and shouldn't be. If I abuse it, I lose it.
That's the difference between a privilege ("freedom") to do something and a right (freedom) to do something.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:55PM
That's the difference between a privilege ("freedom") to do something and a right (freedom) to do something.
And my point is that once a privilege exists, in democracies you usually have the right to obtain that privilege once you've met the requirements for the privilege. For example, the US has the 14th Amendment which in part states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
[...]
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
In this way, we have a right introduced in the US.
Looking at this, I think it will be impossible to remove drivers from US roads as a result. Any attempt to exclude human drivers runs into the problem that responsible human drivers aren't being treated equally under law with respect to robotic drivers. If there's an automation or AI scare as well, the issue will go far with voters.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 17 2015, @02:49PM
But you're not removing drivers from the roads.
If you have a car to transport you now, you'll still have a car to transport you later. The only difference is your hands won't be on the steering wheel as you try to shave / put on makeup while you eat a bagel and drink coffee trying reading the morning news and texting your wife / husband as you speed 120 Km/h down the highway trying to avoid other people who are doing the same.
And in fact this will give more people the privilege to have that convenient transport, while being safer for everyone.
The only "privilege" you lose at all is being responsible for the shoddy erratic behavior of your vehicle or being involved in an accident because of someone else's shoddy erratic behavior.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @10:47PM
If you have a car to transport you now, you'll still have a car to transport you later. The only difference is your hands won't be on the steering wheel as you try to shave / put on makeup while you eat a bagel and drink coffee trying reading the morning news and texting your wife / husband as you speed 120 Km/h down the highway trying to avoid other people who are doing the same.
Let's also do away with the myth that all drivers are irresponsible. As someone has noted, you can drop death rates on US highways by removing the drunks from behind the wheel. IIRC, a similar further reduction can be had by removing everyone who commits fairly egregious driving violations in the course of the past few years. As I recall, that leads to a 50-60% reduction in deaths. Sure, I'm fine with self-driving cars for the people who are so incompetent or negligent that they can't drive. I'm not ok with forcing that on everyone and I do believe I have law on my side.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday December 18 2015, @02:38PM
I don't think ALL drivers are irresponsible, I'm certainly not nor is my wife or my father or siblings, BUT there is a large enough percentage that pretty much ANYONE you talk to will tell you they've had a near miss, if not have been in an accident themselves. It's a huge issue because one person driving irresponsibly puts hundreds of other drivers at risk, not just themselves.
Personally I think a better solution would to be more strict on licensing drivers. I had a cousin that failed their driving test four times before they finally passed on the fifth try and was in frequent accidents afterwards before they're insurance company refused to insure them anymore.
I'm also not advocating forcing people to use an automated car by law, but honestly we know once it's available insurance companies will jack up the cost on manually driving so much it'll be impractical to not have an automated car. I think we'll see a trend reversal. Rich people will drive manually, poor people will drive automated.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 18 2015, @10:30PM
I'm also not advocating forcing people to use an automated car by law, but honestly we know once it's available insurance companies will jack up the cost on manually driving so much it'll be impractical to not have an automated car. I think we'll see a trend reversal. Rich people will drive manually, poor people will drive automated.
Why would insurance companies do that? The insurance risks of manual driving would have actually gone down due to greater safety from the self-driving vehicles and drivers can shop around for affordable insurance.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Sunday December 20 2015, @11:14PM
That's not how insurance works. I mean you can shop around for a better rate, but they're not going to give you a break because someone is less of a risk than you are.
When insurance pays out, it'll be more likely due to human error, so people driving manually will pay a premium to drive manually as they'll be more statistically risky for being at-fault. I think it's unlikely automatic cars are going to break rules, fall asleep, get drunk, or drive distracted.
Statistics are the reason men pay more for insurance than women and why younger/older people pay more than middle aged people. Why would an insurance company charge less to people who are more likely going to be at-fault!
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 21 2015, @02:49AM
That's not how insurance works. I mean you can shop around for a better rate, but they're not going to give you a break because someone is less of a risk than you are.
But they are going to give you a break if you're a less of a risk than you were.
There is this unwarranted assertion that insurance companies will charge more. But it ignores that the risks from human drivers go down in two ways. First, a larger portion of vehicles on the road are driving very safely. Second, society would have an acceptable way for the dangerous drivers to be removed from behind the wheel. Insurance rates are bound to be better for automated-only vehicles in this scenario and the most dangerous will probably save a lot of money by relinquishing the driver's wheel. That means the risk pool for human drivers is much safer and insurance companies would not charge as much relatively as they currently do in a higher risk driving environment and a riskier pool of drivers.
While I can see the value of human life going up a bit due to the shuffling of bad drivers out of the risk pool and increasing infrequency of death and harm from automobile accidents, I think the possible damages of an automobile accident will remain capped by downward pressure on developed world labor from globalism. The legally established value of human life and the price of vehicles will be capped by weak wage growth over the next few decades.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday December 21 2015, @12:55PM
Not necessarily.
I'm pretty sure this is what I've been saying, expect by insurance definitions they'll consider everyone driving manually to be risky drivers. Unless of course people are going to using doodads to track their driving habits, which I'm pretty sure most people who aren't on board with automated cares will have privacy issues with. Other wise insurance companies won't be able to differentiate you from other not so safe manual drivers.
Again, this isn't how insurance works. I can see at this point we have vastly different ideas of how business works, insurance is a business.
You have group A, drivers who are responsible for less than 0.1% of accidents, and you have group B, drivers responsible for more than 99.9% of accidents, which is the riskier group?
We don't care that because group A is larger we've gone from 10M accidents a year to 1K. That's great and all, but...
There's still 1K accidents a year because of group B. If EVERYONE was part of group A we'd likely only have 1 accident, or less, a year.
Therefore group B is costing us A LOT profit
The simple solution is just not to server group B at all, after all we have group A. Even if group A isn't a larger market, we make a lot of money off them. We almost never have to pay out because they're almost never at-fault for an accident.
No one is REQUIRED to offer insurance for things they don't want to cover, they do it because people will pay for it. Especially since people are REQUIRED to have it to drive. Most business will likely phase out coverage for group B or will charge more for them because there's now a huge demand for coverage for manually driven cars. Some people are likely willing to pay a significant amount for coverage though. Antique and classic cars come to mind as a healthy size market with people that have a lot of money who would likely pay any amount to keep driving their pride and joys. My Uncle has a Model T, so I know they already pay a bit for special antique car insurance, despite not being a high risk group.
Rules of supply and demand apply. When supply is low and demand is high, price is significant.
I believe the logical business decision would be to only cover automated cars because they're less risky. So supply for automated car insurance will be high and competition for that market will be high. It's MINIMUM risk for MAXIMUM profit.
I see insurance for manually driven cars becoming a niche market. So there will be high demand from "hobbyist" and not many companies will offer it. Supply and competition will be low and the price will be significant enough most who aren't serious about it won't be able to afford it.
This is all my opinion, it's just how I logically see the scenario playing out. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 21 2015, @05:47PM
I see insurance for manually driven cars becoming a niche market. So there will be high demand from "hobbyist" and not many companies will offer it. Supply and competition will be low and the price will be significant enough most who aren't serious about it won't be able to afford it.
So what? The point here is that the cost to insurers drops. And because auto insurance is very competitive (a isituation I think will continue even in the era of "niche" auto insurance), that will be passed on to human drivers as well.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday December 21 2015, @06:28PM
The cost to insurance companies will drop. The cost to insurers likely won't drop, it will likely increase for people driving manually as they'll be at greater risk for human error.
Please explain why you believe this will happen because all business reason and history tells us insurance will continue charging the same, if not more, to discourage driving habits they deem reckless. As an example when seat belts were invented insurance rates didn't go down just because you had seat belts, but it did ended up being increased for cars without belts.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 21 2015, @06:54PM
The cost to insurers likely won't drop, it will likely increase for people driving manually as they'll be at greater risk for human error.
I already noted that there was less risk of human error. The risks go down.
Please explain why you believe this will happen because all business reason and history tells us insurance will continue charging the same, if not more, to discourage driving habits they deem reckless.
It should be obvious to you. Because they will lose business to insurers who don't do that. And it won't be in the interests of the insurance companies which remain in the human driver business to throw away their customers.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday December 21 2015, @07:58PM
No the risk for human error doesn't magically go down. People who manually drive are still going to be prone to distraction, sleep deprivation, breaking laws (speeding for example), driving drunk and erratic driving.
This is predicated on the assumption that insurance companies want to keep those people.
It will be in their interest if those customers cost them profits. Like I said you have Group A who will cost you next to nothing and Group B who who will likely cost you an arm and a leg as customers.
You have a service, insurance is the product here, if Group B demands that service they have to be willing to pay for you to supply that service. If Group B cost you more than Group A, then likely you'll charge Group B more for the service they're demanding.
People often think companies will do anything to retain customers, but they don't. Not all customers are worth the cost of keeping. I bet if you check with some of your local pizza places you'll find they have people they won't deliver to, likely because those customers are never happy and always complain. Those customers cost you money when they demand freebies and they're not worth the cost to keep as customers.
When I worked at a pizza place back in my university days, we actually had customers who were blacklisted from the store and whole areas we didn't normally deliver to, it was really up to the drivers at one point. The areas we didn't deliver to were high risk areas drivers were often mugged so unfortunately for the people living in those areas, the cost of having them as customers was just too high. Some drivers did deliver to a couple people in those areas because they paid A LOT in tip money. They'd even go out and buy beer to deliver to them if asked because of what they got paid. But the risk was high, one driver (really big guy) ended up in hospital when a group of kids attacked him. Beat him up with hockey sticks and baseball bats and smashed up his car. We stopped delivering altogether after that. But I KNOW we weren't the only pizza place that wouldn't deliver to those areas.
So when it comes down to it a business has to weigh out if someone's going to be a worth while customer. If I can have 100 people that will cost me nothing I'm not going to cater to five people that will to cost me a lot. If I am going to carter to them, you can bet I'll be charging them an arm and a leg to make up for the possible issues they create.
I personally would be happy to let my competitor have those people, it'll put them out of business faster.
Also car insurance is required by law in most places and it's not really as competitive a market as you think it is. Insurance companies do turn away high risk drivers all the time.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 21 2015, @08:22PM
No the risk for human error doesn't magically go down. People who manually drive are still going to be prone to distraction, sleep deprivation, breaking laws (speeding for example), driving drunk and erratic driving.
I already specified two ways the risk for human error went down non-magically. First, more of the other vehicles on the road are self-driving and by initial assumption, much safer drivers than human. That means that any human drivers on the road will have a lower risk of accident due just to the number of self-driving vehicles on the road. Second, the least safe drivers will have a strong incentive to stop driving. That makes the remaining pool of drivers more competent with a lower risk for human error per driver.
And once again, do I need to remind you that drivers are not all irresponsible? To argue that the risk for human error doesn't go down even when one removes the least safe portion of the driver pool is to commit to this particular myth.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday December 21 2015, @10:11PM
The number of accidents due to human error will decline, the risk of human error won't, and will still be more significant than the risk of error from an automated car.
I don't think this is true. I think the people who like to pretend they're fantastic race car drivers and people who will be able to afford insurance (rich people) will likely be the ones to insist on driving manually and they're likely to already be two of the most reckless groups. Note: I'm not including ACTUAL race car drivers, who do tend to be very cautions drivers, just people who THINK they're fantastic race car drivers.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up. We're not talking about everyone being irresponsible, but one person can still puts hundreds of people at risk, and the insurance companies don't know who those irresponsible drivers are until they have to pay out. You can be in an accident even if you are a great driver because of someone running into you, and I doubt even an automated car can avoid some people with the way they drive.
Accidents might go down, but the likely hood of human error doesn't, it's been happening for a long time http://mentalfloss.com/article/31807/when-and-where-was-first-car-accident. [mentalfloss.com] YOU are just as likely to cause an accident, because of YOUR driving habits, regardless of how many people are on the roads. This seems like a pretty simple concept to me.
It's not a myth, it's a prediction. We know after seatbelts were introduced the cost of insuring cars without them went up, so there's reason to believe the cost of driving manually will also go up if/when automated cars are safer. If you can disprove that, THEN it'll be a myth... I can wait.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:18PM
The number of accidents due to human error will decline
That's it in a nutshell. Risk from human error declines.
YOU are just as likely to cause an accident, because of YOUR driving habits, regardless of how many people are on the roads.
No, reality doesn't work that way. For example, a key part of defensive driver training is to look for and compensate for unsafe driving behaviors you see in others. The obvious goal is so that you aren't involved in an accident with the unsafe driver. But a big side effect is that it makes it less likely for the other driver to get into an accident even though they still have the same error rate they always did. Error is synergistic. The fewer errors per driver and the more that drivers compensate for those who display driving errors, the safer and less error prone the more error prone drivers are even if they never change their behavior. Sure, there are plenty of accidents [wsj.com] that only involve one driver or even none at all, but there are also plenty of accidents which do involve two or more cars.
Let's look at that link I just provided. It states that almost 45% of accidents involve at least two cars in motion. About 20% don't involve driver error at all (things like windshield chips, acts of god, struck by tree limb, vandalism, etc). So more than half of the accidents which actually involve driver error, involve two or more cars.
These accidents also tend to be more costly than average due to more stuff to damage (the presence of two cars and at least two people) and higher energies (particularly collisions between fast moving vehicles).
Another obvious rebuttal here is that insurers don't just insure me in isolation. They insure a pool of drivers. I already stated the mechanism by which the error rate per member of the pool goes down by rejecting the worst of the group even if individual members of the pool don't change.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Tuesday December 22 2015, @10:23PM
Yeah, it does.
If you're prone to driving carelessly, distracted, drunk or tired, you're going to do that whether there are other people on the road or not. Other people don't determine whether you're a good driver or bad driver, but just because others are driving in automated cars doesn't mean you can't hit them while drunk, distracted or tired. Or even if you're a good driver and visibility is just bad. or when you do something a human driver couldn't predict let alone an automated car.
All you're doing is trying to shift the goal post. If/When automated cars become popular, insurance companies will raise rates for manually driven cars to discourage people from diving them because from a business perspective it makes sense. Encourage people to use automated cars, they pay premiums and there's little risk of paying out. Charge more for manually driven cars because they'll be causing accidents and will cost you money.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 23 2015, @03:40PM
If you're prone to driving carelessly, distracted, drunk or tired, you're going to do that whether there are other people on the road or not.
That is not human error. That is a state of mind conducive to human error.
Other people don't determine whether you're a good driver or bad driver, but just because others are driving in automated cars doesn't mean you can't hit them while drunk, distracted or tired.
Which is not the point. Other people can drive in ways that mitigate your terrible mental state, or they can drive in ways that make things worse. Sure, you can still hit them while drunk, distracted, or tired, but it happens less often because someone programmed that into the self-driving car.
All you're doing is trying to shift the goal post.
What goalpost? Several people have made the claim that insurance rates for human drivers will go up. I point out the obvious, that accident rates per human driver will go down because the overall traffic on the road becomes safer and more accommodating of human drivers. You say that's wrong for several reasons that ignore my argument.
If/When automated cars become popular, insurance companies will raise rates for manually driven cars to discourage people from diving them because from a business perspective it makes sense.
Because they didn't want that money anyway. After all, if the insurer discourages people from driving, then it doesn't get the more profitable insurance premiums from human drivers. And what's to keep me from offering profitable insurance in their stead, if they play that game?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 23 2015, @03:45PM
but just because others are driving in automated cars doesn't mean you can't hit them while drunk, distracted or tired
And really, a huge part of the reason such people are still on the road now is because society is a bit cautious about taking away someone's privilege to drive. If there are reasonable, safe, cheap alternatives, they're not going to put up with that degree of unsafe driving.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:13PM
This is something we agree on.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @06:15AM
> driving isn't a freedom, as in a right, it's a privilege.
Bullshit.
If any kind of travel is a privilege then all forms of travel are a privilege. Saying "you can walk so you have the freedom to travel" is a cop-out because walking is an impractical method of travel for the needs of the majority of normal citizens. When you put restrictions on the normal behaviors of a large portion of the population those actions are de facto no longer free.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:32AM
If driving was a right then you couldn't legally stop blind people or underage people or drunk people from getting behind a wheel.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:26PM
I don't see being forced to sit behind the steering wheel and concentrate on the road as freedom. Quite the opposite. Not having to do this is freedom.
The freedom a car brings you is not the freedom to operate a machine. It's the freedom to go wherever you want to go with relatively little effort. As long as the self-driving car goes where I want it to go, I see it as more freedom, not less.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:52PM
I don't see being forced to sit behind the steering wheel and concentrate on the road as freedom.
I agree. You don't see it. Doesn't mean it's not there though.
As long as the self-driving car goes where I want it to go
This is the primary problem. An obvious example might be self-driving buses aren't permitted within a few dozen miles of large protests or business owners get lots of cars routed by their fast food restaurants and malls.
Also, it increases the loss of privacy by allowing authority and others to know where you've been in greater detail.
Finally, what happens when your self-driving car doesn't work? It's another failure mode on top of existing failure modes. And if a network failure causes all self-driving cars to fail, then that's a massive number of people stuck somewhere.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:44PM
Anything that reduces the number of fatalities / injuries by even 1% is a good thing.
Bullshit. If you're going to take away a major freedom of a lot of people, you need a better justification than that. A few lives are not that valuable. Sorry.
What "freedom" would be taken away? As long as you can still go where you wish when you wish, what have you lost? Or are you referring to a loss of the freedom to drive unsafely and risk your life and the lives of others?
As for the value of life, Why don't we just kill *you* and then keep things the way they are. That's an acceptable loss, no?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:28PM
As long as you can still go where you wish when you wish
The same class of male version of cat lady who become OSHA inspectors will become the folks in charge of which automated cars are permitted to go where and when. The concept of an OSHA inspector safety nazi looking at "cars on a street" without guarding and lockouts and gates is kinda funny. The cost of implementing auto driving cars might be the elimination of all architecture and replacement of everything with a weird cross between a subway and space station, its just that this subway doesn't use rails, it uses tires.
I suppose the 1/2 of the population with jobs can't have one because the boss isn't going to tolerate a guy who won't come into work because his car said it was too rainy, but the guy who has an old fashioned car can just drive in.
This is before we get into redlining and no-drive-zones. "someone" says ethnic group X isn't allowed in neighborhood Y in certain hours, due to crime or civil disorder, I guess you're stranded.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:43PM
Your paranoid dystopian vision is rather Kafakesque. I commend you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:34AM
Your paranoid dystopian vision is rather Kafakesque. I commend you.
The problem here is that he is right. Once someone has the power to tell your car where to go, they will use it. First, it'll be used relatively sensibly, say for pulling over criminals on the run. Later, it'll be profoundly stupid or abusive, such as pulling everyone on the freeway through Sunflowerville's main street for the annual Sunflower Festival or preventing all self-driving buses from getting within 500 miles of Washington, DC during the course of the Million Geek March.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 17 2015, @03:43AM
Your paranoid dystopian vision is rather Kafakesque. I commend you.
The problem here is that he is right. Once someone has the power to tell your car where to go, they will use it. First, it'll be used relatively sensibly, say for pulling over criminals on the run. Later, it'll be profoundly stupid or abusive, such as pulling everyone on the freeway through Sunflowerville's main street for the annual Sunflower Festival or preventing all self-driving buses from getting within 500 miles of Washington, DC during the course of the Million Geek March.
This assumes that there is centralized control of *every* car. It also assumes that the government in in possession of said centralized system. Both of those assumptions are highly speculative and, with even a little thought to the potential viability of such a system, highly unlikely.
It's catastrophizing [psychcentral.com] at its best (worst?).
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:02AM
This assumes that there is centralized control of *every* car.
Sounds a reasonable assumption to me.
It also assumes that the government in in possession of said centralized system.
Same.
Both of those assumptions are highly speculative and, with even a little thought to the potential viability of such a system, highly unlikely.
Highly speculative why? Aside from the obvious, that any control system tried by government will probably be centralized, we also have the huge factor that this unloads a large liability off the hands of the manufacturers of self-driving cars.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:23AM
Highly speculative why? Aside from the obvious, that any control system tried by government will probably be centralized, we also have the huge factor that this unloads a large liability off the hands of the manufacturers of self-driving cars.
Because any entrants into the market in the foreseeable future will be based on the "experienced driver" model being developed and tested by the major auto makers and Google. Which is a distributed, rather than a centralized control model. What's more, even if (and that's a big if) and when we have car-to-car communications for automated driving, that will be distributed as well (on an autodetect/bluetooth-like basis).
AFAIK, no one is working on centralized traffic control. If such a system were to be developed, it would almost certainly be applied for Air Traffic Control first, and there's no evidence that's happening.
Your paranoid fantasies do not approximate reality, friend. I urge you to liberally apply Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] and realize that no one is out to get you. The government doesn't want to take your guns or your cars or your right to travel to the tittie bar or the amusement park, or anywhere else you want to go. Well, unless you want to go to a terrist training camp -- but if you want to go to one of those, they are out to get you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:13AM
Because any entrants into the market in the foreseeable future will be based on the "experienced driver" model being developed and tested by the major auto makers and Google. Which is a distributed, rather than a centralized control model.
Who will assume liability for this "experienced driver" model? How is it going to respond to top down orders from governments with control over its operation?
AFAIK, no one is working on centralized traffic control. If such a system were to be developed, it would almost certainly be applied for Air Traffic Control first, and there's no evidence that's happening.
Every plane flies through a region of centralized air traffic control when it takes off and lands. All airports are under centralized control. I think we'll see the same thing on the busiest stretches of highway.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:37AM
Because any entrants into the market in the foreseeable future will be based on the "experienced driver" model being developed and tested by the major auto makers and Google. Which is a distributed, rather than a centralized control model.
Who will assume liability for this "experienced driver" model? How is it going to respond to top down orders from governments with control over its operation?
Presumably the car owner -- or at least his or her insurance company.
Of which "government" do you speak? and how would such an entity give orders to an automated driver -- presumably speed limit information broadcast from the speed limit signs, I guess. Maybe even real-time traffic updates to route around accidents and high volume. Anything more is way beyond current technology.
You seem to be under quite a few misapprehensions about this suite of technologies. I'd suggest becoming more familiar with the topic before accusing the evil gub'mint about how they will misuse the non-existent technology you're blathering on about.
I get it. I really do. Gub'mint bad. Bad gub'mint! Where's my rolled up newspaper?
AFAIK, no one is working on centralized traffic control. If such a system were to be developed, it would almost certainly be applied for Air Traffic Control first, and there's no evidence that's happening.
Every plane flies through a region of centralized air traffic control when it takes off and lands. All airports are under centralized control. I think we'll see the same thing on the busiest stretches of highway.
My apologies. I should have been clearer -- I mean fully automated centralized air traffic control, without human controllers.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:40PM
Who will assume liability for this "experienced driver" model? How is it going to respond to top down orders from governments with control over its operation?
Presumably the car owner -- or at least his or her insurance company.
It was a rhetorical question. The car manufacturer and the managers of the network will bear liability, unless a government steps in the way. There's no way the driver or their insurance company will be liable for software glitches in the control system or miscommunications between vehicles.
Of which "government" do you speak? and how would such an entity give orders to an automated driver -- presumably speed limit information broadcast from the speed limit signs, I guess. Maybe even real-time traffic updates to route around accidents and high volume. Anything more is way beyond current technology.
Any scale of government from local up to global. And given your later discussion of misapprehensions, I think you're way out of touch with what's available using current technology. For example, one could enable large scale control just by pushing commands from satellite. It wouldn't need any more hardware than GPS uses (which is a similar satellite-based technology).
Further, we aren't close to extinction of the human driver now. When we are, we'll have more advanced communication and control systems too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:01PM
the CA DMV proposed a draft rule that would require a self-driving car to have a licensed driver at all times
This substantially defeats the point of the self-driving car. But that's an example of the top-down control from government I was speaking of.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 18 2015, @05:20PM
As supporting evidence, we have this:
the CA DMV proposed a draft rule that would require a self-driving car to have a licensed driver at all times
This substantially defeats the point of the self-driving car. But that's an example of the top-down control from government I was speaking of.
Did you consider actually looking at [ca.gov] the draft regulation you've pilloried?
I know. Reading the actual regulations and understanding them is far too much work when you can find someone with a strong economic interest who blogs exactly what you want to hear.
Congratulations! Someone else agrees with you. Context doesn't matter, nor do facts. Someone agrees with you! Woo-hoo!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 18 2015, @10:26PM
Autonomous vehicle operators must be a licensed driver who possesses an autonomous vehicle operator certificate issued by the DMV. The operator will be responsible for monitoring the safe operation of the vehicle at all times, and must be capable of taking over immediate control in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency. In addition, operators will be responsible for all traffic violations that occur while operating the autonomous vehicle. These operator requirements create the safeguard of a driver who is capable of taking control of the vehicle when needed.
A consumer education plan and behind the wheel training program developed by the manufacturer will provide operators with an understanding of how the autonomous vehicle technology is to be engaged, used, monitored, and disengaged.
The draft regulations exclude autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without the presence of a driver. Given the potential risks associated with deployment of such a new technology, DMV believes that manufacturers need to obtain more experience in testing driverless vehicles on public roads prior to making this technology available to the general public. The department will address the unique safety, performance, and equipment requirements associated with fully autonomous vehicles without the presence of a driver in subsequent regulatory packages.
No, I'm not seeing your concern. All self-driving vehicles are required to have a driver, unless the California DMV decides to anoint the vehicle as self-driving. The requirement is still there.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday December 18 2015, @11:02PM
Autonomous vehicle operators must be a licensed driver who possesses an autonomous vehicle operator certificate issued by the DMV. The operator will be responsible for monitoring the safe operation of the vehicle at all times, and must be capable of taking over immediate control in the event of an autonomous technology failure or other emergency. In addition, operators will be responsible for all traffic violations that occur while operating the autonomous vehicle. These operator requirements create the safeguard of a driver who is capable of taking control of the vehicle when needed.
A consumer education plan and behind the wheel training program developed by the manufacturer will provide operators with an understanding of how the autonomous vehicle technology is to be engaged, used, monitored, and disengaged.
The draft regulations exclude autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without the presence of a driver. Given the potential risks associated with deployment of such a new technology, DMV believes that manufacturers need to obtain more experience in testing driverless vehicles on public roads prior to making this technology available to the general public. The department will address the unique safety, performance, and equipment requirements associated with fully autonomous vehicles without the presence of a driver in subsequent regulatory packages.
No, I'm not seeing your concern. All self-driving vehicles are required to have a driver, unless the California DMV decides to anoint the vehicle as self-driving. The requirement is still there.
I don't live in California, but I do visit on occasion. When I do, I certainly don't want to be surrounded by autonomous vehicles, a suite of technologies which is largely unproven, without a driver available to take over, unless and until we have sufficient experience with it.
Given the lack of data available, requiring a licensed driver is, at this time, an excellent idea. The proposed regulations also "...exclude autonomous vehicles that are capable of operating without the presence of a driver." Another excellent idea.
Please explain how this is some sort of government grab for control of autonomous vehicles? Please explain how these regulations are a *bad* thing? Yeah. I know. Gub'mint bad. Bad Gub'mint!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @05:37AM
When I do, I certainly don't want to be surrounded by autonomous vehicles
Not going to happen this decade. Makes you wonder what the point of the regulation is, right?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday December 19 2015, @05:43AM
N/T
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 19 2015, @09:54PM
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:08PM
take away a major freedom
Something that's worth pointing out is control system theory has taken great strides over the past century.
So in the 40s only top tier strategic bombers had really dumb autopilots. But by the 90s the absolute top tier autopilots were full time fly by wire that would let the pilot do WTF he wants, but if you do something dumb enough to crash the plane, bells start going off and the nanny voice kicks in and control authority is lost. Sometimes the plane is wrong and the plane kills itself and everyone aboard and it really makes headlines, but on long term average its worked out a lot better than letting humans crash planes.
Anyway you can buy dumb autopilots for a little C172 that barely does more than level the wings when asked to, but you can also buy really smart full authority fly by wire systems for top tier jetliners.
I'm guessing in the future whats expensive, secret, and top tier in 1990 will be done in a 35 cent PIC microcontroller equivalent in 2040 or whatever. At that point your car will drive itself, but if you insist, just like a 1990s jetliner you will be permitted to drive the car until you attempt to do something stupid at which point the autopilot will WTF you and take over, just like planes do today.
The only real freedom you'll give up is not being permitted to crash when the software thinks you're about to crash (and it'll be wrong occasionally, although only a thousandth as often as humans are wrong).
I am a little mystified at some situations. I've visited rural friends with the stereotypical dirt county road, I wonder what an auto driving car thinks of intentionally driving off a road. Not to mention parking on the grass in prepared areas at campsites and stuff. My guess is much like anti-lock brakes, self driving cars will have a low speed cutout where no matter how stupid the car thinks you're behaving, you can do any damn thing you want at less than 3 MPH, to tolerate weird and unpredictable situations. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that for various sensor related issues, anti-lock brakes don't work below a couple MPH, I imagine ignorant car owners will be equally surprised that their self driving car won't let them drive into a brick wall at 50 MPH but is perfectly happy to let them try at 10 MPH or whatever the cutout speed will be.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday December 16 2015, @07:58PM
You sure about that? In the long run?
Driving, while currently agreed to be a privilege, is something we all equally have access to (more or less). It's an issue of freedom and equality. When you're no longer allowed to drive without the assistance of a major corporation, you've become their watched, and monitored slave.
Not only can the government or law enforcement restrict your movements nearly instantly (Minority Report), they're watching you constantly. Give up all hopes of privacy, and get used to a world of massive, massive, massive, information asymmetry . I'm wholly convinced that the world your proposing is actually far worse for us.
That's okay right? The roads are least safer.....
Whether driver less cars exist or not, I'm going to absolutely insist on modes of transportation that I can completely control, and likewise, remove all offending technologies (like DRM, OnStar, etc.). What is far better than a completely driverless world, is one in which drivers are actually trained and vetted for operations no different than airplane pilots . I've got no problem taking many tests and proving to the rest of you that I can be considered a professional driver. Were I to truly fail? I would accept the anonymity of the bus, a bicycle, or walking.
That wouldn't happen though, and I would maintain my rights to operate transport vehicles around the robotic ones. Which is very important to me as it's the only possible hope I have in maintaining my privacy.
What really pisses me off, is that everyone is considering a world of no privacy at all, when we could just be removing licensed drivers by the millions. The people who can't drive, are the ones who deserve no privacy and to be driven by a robot.
On that note, I don't object to having my own personal driving intelligence. As long as I maintain the logs, firewalls, etc.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:06AM
Those are great arguments that automated cars shouldn't phone home, not against automated cars in general.
Not that the ills you fear are here right now if you don't totally disable Onstar.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:10AM
They'll never be allowed to *not* phone home. That's the problem; The technology itself requires massive amounts of communication between the other drivers (only way to get "super harmonic" traffic) and the roads itself. Privacy is impossible when one car literally watches thousands, and thousands of car watch one.
With government being what it is, I can entirely foresee that the only way *they* will believe it to be safe is to require their ability to come in and control it. Of course, under the pretense of a warrant, probably cause, and immediate harm to other people. That's both control and information asymmetry from a group of people that deserve absolutely none of your trust.
It's all academic anyways, and it will never get off the ground. We have no security whatsoever, and it would be a matter of moments before a cyber attack succeeded in bringing all traffic to a halt. Most likely, with a few casualties and a lot of damage if malicious. All of the major corporations will fail utterly in providing both a system that can be controlled by government safely, and one that is autonomous. They're mutually exclusive. Were they to succeed, enter a world of no privacy from government, which completely screws us in a different way.
No. I either get to drive my own electric vehicle, after being vetted sufficiently enough to be considered professional and certified, with absolutely no networked electronics of any kind, or I don't drive at all.
That's the real issue. For people that will refuse like me, we're going to affect the economy. Our worlds will get far smaller, and our wallets can only travel so far in a day on foot privately. Were it to be completely free and like public transportation, it might be possible. With full burkas or Guy Fawkes masks, and that's only if they'll accept cash. If they demand traceable payments, then I'm on foot or a bicycle for the rest of my life. Again, that greatly reduces my opportunities for work, pleasure, and participation in the economy. On the other hand, it might be a great boon to local businesses.
I will simply not be monitored, or controlled in such a fashion. They need to wait till my generation dies off, and they can prey upon the youthful idealism and naivete of the younger generations today.
P.S - The entire conjecture is based upon fear and our unwillingness to admit that we simply suck at driving. I've witnessed a miracle in China, that can only be witnessed to be believed. That was traffic at least 3 times as dense as any L.A freeway traffic, but moving like schools of fish in the ocean. Average speed was 54 mph, which is suicidal when all cars are within 2 feet of each other (I'm NOT kidding) in America. Not only did I not see any accidents, but my driver made it over 4 lanes of traffic to the exit, diagonally, with barely perceptible communications to the other drivers. All of the people in this city are in a de facto hive mind on the road. Incredibly impressive, and it means, that *we* are the problems while driving. Get everyone certified, trained, and operating with different paradigms. It provably can work, so I don't buy the arguments that we must do it because of safety. We must do it because our drivers suck, are entitled little shits (younger generations), and can't put down the distraction-devices we all love so much.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:55AM
The technology itself requires no such thing. Which currently existing prototype depends on talking to all the cars around it (given that none of the cars around it have the technology)?
The more advanced features do require communication, but there is no technical reason the car cannot generate a new random UUID each time it starts.
Government demands are a more difficult hurdle and might ultimately require hacking to disable disablers, tracking, and commanded pull over "features". Of course, as I said, if you have OnStar you already have those problems PLUS it can listen in on the inside of your car. Rip it out NOW. Not sure what technical solutions you might have for license plate readers.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:17AM
Call me cynical, but I'm having a hard time choosing between handfuls of people dying almost instantly here and there, and tens (hundreds? thousands?) of millions of truck drivers out on the streets without a job. I'm not one of the 1%, but I'm not confident in my ability to not get caught in the crossfire.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:52AM
I actually think this is a reasonable concern, but I don't believe having an automated truck will mean drivers go out of business.
If we're talking about small deliveries the driver still needs to load and unload the vehicle / deliver the packages so there's still a need for them to be with the truck.
If we're talking about long haul, I still think it's unlikely automated vehicles will be allowed to operate without someone in it, at least not for a long time.
There's always a need to have a driver with the truck for security reasons, I think it's likely their rolls might change, but not that they'll just go away.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe