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, 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.