SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A very small survey of people of different ages suggests that there are age and gender differences in the acceptance of riding in automated cars. In summary, 2,600 people in the US replied and of them 38% of the men and just 16% of women would be happy to ride in an automated vehicle. About a quarter of respondents said they would feel safe in a driverless car while around two thirds said they would not travel unless there was a driver. No mention was made about their opinions of sharing the road with these massive projectiles when driving themselves in traditional cars.
Source : Driverless cars: Men and women have very different opinions on letting go of the wheel
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Men and Women Have Very Different Opinions on Automated Cars
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 136 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 01 2018, @09:46PM (2 children)
Maybe I misspoke about the R&D thing, but as far as the internet is concerned, while the underpinnings of the internet (packet-switched networking, TCP/IP) were around long before the WWW, how long was it between the invention of HTML, HTTP, the WWW and its wide adoption by regular people? It wasn't very long. Obviously, they rely completely on those other technologies I mentioned, namely TCP/IP, but it's the same with self-driving cars: they rely on 1) cars (chassis, engines, suspensions, etc.; we have this stuff down pretty well at this point), 2) computer hardware (that's quite mature as well), 3) operating systems (also quite mature), 4) various sensors (radar cruise control and blind-spot monitoring is pretty commonly available these days on pedestrian cars), 5) GPS navigation (not quite as mature as the others, but millions of people use it daily), etc.
Same goes for smartphones; sure, they depend on the cellular technologies, just like self-driving cars depend on suspensions and brakes, but that stuff is old, mature technology, just like cellular tech was by the time the iPhone came out.
So my whole point is that once the enabling technologies are in place and converge, it frequently doesn't take that long for something built on top of them to take off commercially and become common. Most of the enabling technologies for self-driving cars have been around for ages (ICE engines, computers), and others are fairly mature as well. The "new stuff" is really the algorithms to make it all work. Also, don't forget, self-driving cars have been around as R&D projects for probably a couple decades now. I think there's a self-driving car from the 1990s at the Smithsonian. However, these older projects were used off-road, though in the 00s I think they started doing on-road projects.
So far, the research vehicles are showing great promise, and remarkably low failure rates. And when there is some kind of accident or incident, it's almost always the fault of some human driver who ran into the autonomous car, frequently because the robocar follows the traffic laws too well and isn't as aggressive as human drivers.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday February 01 2018, @10:54PM
You're missing out the fact that for safe mass adoption they also need:
6) Advanced neural AI with the ability to improvise when new problems present themselves and decades of knowledge of the many social cues and habits of human drivers.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 02 2018, @12:33AM
Yes. I agree wholeheartedly.
As I said from the beginning, I don't disagree with your arguments, I just thought the examples you used weren't that good.
So why don't we just agree to agree and snatch victory from the jaws of victory?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr