Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday December 16 2015, @01:44PM   Printer-friendly
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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 16 2015, @03:35PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 16 2015, @03:35PM (#277141) Journal

    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

    by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:20PM (#277174)

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:24AM (#277416) Journal

      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

        by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:40AM (#277641)

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:55PM (#277670) Journal

          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

            by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday December 17 2015, @02:49PM (#277687)

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @10:47PM (#277956) Journal

              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

                by Vanderhoth (61) on Friday December 18 2015, @02:38PM (#278193)

                Let's also do away with the myth that all drivers are irresponsible

                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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 18 2015, @10:30PM (#278382) Journal

                  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

                    by Vanderhoth (61) on Sunday December 20 2015, @11:14PM (#279075)

                    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

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 21 2015, @02:49AM (#279135) Journal

                      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

                        by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday December 21 2015, @12:55PM (#279240)

                        But they are going to give you a break if you're a less of a risk than you were.

                        Not necessarily.

                        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.

                        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.

                        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.

                        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

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 21 2015, @05:47PM (#279338) Journal

                          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

                            by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday December 21 2015, @06:28PM (#279364)

                            The point here is that the cost to insurers drops

                            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.

                            that will be passed on to human drivers as well

                            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

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 21 2015, @06:54PM (#279376) Journal

                              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

                                by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday December 21 2015, @07:58PM (#279418)

                                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.

                                Because they will lose business to insurers who don't do that.

                                This is predicated on the assumption that insurance companies want to keep those people.

                                And it won't be in the interests of the insurance companies which remain in the human driver business to throw away their customers.

                                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

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 21 2015, @08:22PM (#279428) Journal

                                  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

                                    by Vanderhoth (61) on Monday December 21 2015, @10:11PM (#279470)

                                    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.

                                    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.

                                    Second, the least safe drivers will have a strong incentive to stop driving.

                                    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.

                                    do I need to remind you that drivers are not all irresponsible?

                                    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.

                                    To argue that the risk for human error doesn't go down even when one removes the least safe portion of the driver pool

                                    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.

                                    is to commit to this particular myth.

                                    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

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:18PM (#279846) Journal

                                      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

                                        by Vanderhoth (61) on Tuesday December 22 2015, @10:23PM (#279956)

                                        No, reality doesn't work that way.

                                        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

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 23 2015, @03:40PM (#280231) Journal

                                          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

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 23 2015, @03:45PM (#280234) Journal

                                          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

                                            by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday December 23 2015, @04:13PM (#280241)

                                            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

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 17 2015, @06:15AM (#277561)

      > 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

        by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:32AM (#277636)

        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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:26PM (#277177)

    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:52PM (#277323) Journal

      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

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 16 2015, @04:44PM (#277189) Homepage Journal

    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

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 16 2015, @09:28PM (#277312)

      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

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:43PM (#277350) Homepage Journal

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @12:34AM (#277421) Journal

          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

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 17 2015, @03:43AM (#277487) Homepage Journal

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:02AM (#277494) Journal

              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

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 17 2015, @04:23AM (#277511) Homepage Journal

                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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:13AM (#277629) Journal

                  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

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:37AM (#277640) Homepage Journal

                    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

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @01:40PM (#277663) Journal

                      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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 17 2015, @11:01PM (#277970) Journal
              As supporting evidence, we have this [medium.com]:

              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

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 18 2015, @05:20PM (#278269) Homepage Journal

                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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 18 2015, @10:26PM (#278379) Journal
                  Well, let's do that then:

                  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

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Friday December 18 2015, @11:02PM (#278390) Homepage Journal

                    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

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 19 2015, @05:37AM (#278486) Journal

                      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 VLM on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:08PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 16 2015, @10:08PM (#277333)

    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.