SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
While only a small percentage of drivers say they would be completely comfortable in a driverless car, a sizable amount would have no problem as long as they retain some control, according to a University of Michigan report.
Researchers Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak of the U-M Transportation Research Institute examined motorists' preferences for vehicle automation, including their overall concern about riding in self-driving cars.
They surveyed 505 licensed drivers and found about 44 percent prefer to retain full control while driving. Nearly 16 percent would rather ride in a completely self-driving vehicle, while almost 41 percent said they prefer a partially self-driving vehicle with only occasional control by the driver.
Male drivers and drivers under 45 are more likely to favor partially or completely self-driving vehicles, the researchers say.
"Self-driving vehicles are often discussed in regard to their potential safety, energy-consumption and environmental benefits, or the existing technical challenges that must be overcome for their successful implementation," Schoettle said. "However, less attention has been paid to considering the actual level of automation, if any, that drivers desire in their vehicle."
While about two-thirds of those surveyed said they are at least moderately concerned about riding in completely self-driving vehicles, that percentage drops to less than half for partially self-driving cars. Women and those 45 and older are more apt to have concerns with either level of automation. According to the U-M report, nearly all respondents (96 percent) would want to have a steering wheel and gas and brake pedals available in completely self-driving vehicles.
As for partially self-driving vehicles, 59 percent of those surveyed said they prefer a combination of three warning modes (sound, visual, vibration) to notify drivers when to take control of the vehicle. About 19 percent thought that sound and visuals would be enough.
Schoettle and Sivak defined the three levels of automation as:
- Completely self-driving: The vehicle will control all safety-critical functions, even allowing the vehicle to travel without a passenger if required.
- Partially self-driving: The driver will be able to hand over control of all safety-critical functions to the vehicle; only occasional control by the driver will be required.
- No self-driving: The driver will always be in complete control of all safety functions, but the driver will be assisted with various advanced technologies.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:05PM
Why do you say "owner?"
Because lots of people own their own cars, so I would expect the same when these become common.
Regardless, being subjugated by proprietary software is bad regardless of whether or not you're renting something that uses it.
They ride trains, fly in airplanes that are controlled by lots of software and belong to other companies. So what?
The issue is software freedom. In the case of trains and airplanes, the owners of those are being subjugated if they use proprietary software.
There aren't many other reasons to stop it - especially if it has no manual controls.
Harassment. Government thugs do that often.
In the nearest decades you are safe, though. Manually operated cars probably will remain legal for a while. Nobody forces you to buy an automated one. But I would buy such a robot car as soon as I reasonably can because despite the fact that I generally can drive a car, I am not a computer and I am fallible.
They are intolerable if they use proprietary software, DRM, and/or invade your privacy. Normal cars must always remain legal as long as that remains true.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday July 25 2015, @11:53PM
lots of people own their own cars, so I would expect the same when these become common.
Let's stop and think WHY people choose to sink $20-25K into a car. Clearly not because they have too much money. They do it because they want to have guaranteed point to point transportation at low cost. Taxicabs cannot fill this niche because they are too expensive. (Still they do fill it in large cities like NYC.) Robotic taxicabs will be much cheaper because human drivers are no longer needed. Leasing is equivalent to owning + selling after a few years. Some combination of those may work better than owning.
being subjugated by proprietary software is bad regardless of whether or not you're renting something that uses it.
I take it that you are posting this with a computer that you put together from OpenCores IP and open source FPGAs, running open source BIOS and Linux that you compiled yourself? That's quite an achievement. It is possible to build a truly open source hardware, but it's not easy, and the end result is nowhere as good as a cheap MSI motherboard.
The issue is software freedom. In the case of trains and airplanes, the owners of those are being subjugated if they use proprietary software.
The owners of trains and airplanes see it as a business deal. You let me use your property for a fee; I add my services on top and resell. Profit. Subjugation is nowhere in this formula. The CEO of an airline does not worry about his company's abstract right to inspect source code. It's not necessary.
Harassment. Government thugs do that often.
Harassment is much easier to apply toward a driver, as humans *always* do something within any five minute interval that allows a following cop to stop you if he wants to. However imagine that he stops an automatic car. What can he say to you, a passenger? The car records everything, and if after review this stop ends up being not warranted, the big company behind the car (the manufacturer or the developer of control systems) may sue the police department. Regardless, the LEO cannot harass the passenger because there is no leverage of threat. "Hey, officer, what's up?" - "Your vehicle rolled through the stop sign." - "Hmm, I don't know anything about those signs, I'm not even a driver. Why don't you call Google, so that they can send an incident response team and capture all the data from the black box?" - "OK, you may go."
They are intolerable if they use proprietary software, DRM, and/or invade your privacy.
People give away their privacy to Facebook and Twitter every single day. Do you really expect them to even understand you when you climb onto your soap box and declare that the end is nigh? I protect my personal data, but most young people today do not. Will an automatic car be uploading its driving experience to the mothership that will allow Google to learn where I live and where I work and where I shop? Most likely that will be somewhat controlled; but even if it is not, those are not exactly secrets, and the government already knows all that if it cares. What it does not know, and cannot know, is where I walk to, and what I may buy for cash. If you want to keep your privacy, do not drive - no matter if your car is new or old. License plate readers will track you, and your choice of an "untrackable" vehicle will simply plant a big red flag into your dossier. If you want to play hide and seek with the system, at least choose a workable plan. Driving a regular car is not it, as every spook will be expecting you to do exactly that. Own a robot car and use it for 99% of your trips. When you feel the need to be invisible, leave the car at home. Ride a bicycle, push a stroller, take a bus, walk in disguise - and leave your cell phone somewhere else. Automated surveillance will not see you. It would require human watchers to follow you around - and if you are *that* important, "abandon hope all ye who enter here."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday July 26 2015, @12:27PM
It is possible to build a truly open source hardware
We're talking about Free Software, not "open source hardware". But yes, I prefer what you call "open source hardware".
and the end result is nowhere as good as a cheap MSI motherboard.
Wow, way to miss the point. Free Software is not about convenience and never has been; it's about freedom.
The owners of trains and airplanes see it as a business deal.
Then they are suckers for trading their freedoms for convenience and money.
However imagine that he stops an automatic car.
The goal is harassment by stopping the car; nothing else. Furthermore, the mere fact that the cops can stop the car without your permission and without you being able to change that is a sign that the software is not free, which is bad all by itself. Additionally, they could use one of the many privacy-violating anti-features that will be installed in the cars to violate their privacy without anyone knowing. The level of surveillance will just continue to increase.
People give away their privacy to Facebook and Twitter every single day.
And they should stop doing so. Your logic is terrible; just because they give away their privacy in one instance, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to make the problem worse. Lots of people also foolishly support mass surveillance, but we must fight that anyway. Even if you're not actively supporting privacy violations, you seem to have an attitude that says we should just give up; that's a bad idea.
I say again: Proprietary software is completely intolerable. The fact that lots of people use it without understanding this and how they're being subjugated by the elites is truly sad, and we must work to fix that.
Most likely that will be somewhat controlled; but even if it is not, those are not exactly secrets, and the government already knows all that if it cares.
Actually, no. The government doesn't have License Plate Readers in every city; far from it. Furthermore, license plate readers aren't absolutely everywhere and can't completely track you. Computerized cars with privacy-invading anti-features could, however, tell them where you go all the time.
License plate readers will track you, and your choice of an "untrackable" vehicle will simply plant a big red flag into your dossier.
Your attitude is completely unworkable, because it means we should all give up on privacy because doing otherwise will seem suspicious. But they're always going to collect your data *anyway*, and especially if you do nothing to try to protect your privacy. Furthermore, the more people who make attempts to protect their privacy, the thinner they will have to spread out; they can't attack everyone. People who try hard to protect their privacy even when they're not doing anything 'interesting' provide cover for those who do 'interesting' things (activists, whistleblowers, government dissidents, etc.). So if we want to have *any* chance of victory, we must not just give up. I sincerely hope that no one listens to your advice.
Besides, the main point is that we must entirely reject non-free software.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 26 2015, @10:44PM
The owners of trains and (commercial) airplanes only own them in order to make money with them. Freedom doesn't enter in the equation, unless if affects the bottom line.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday July 27 2015, @12:06AM
Freedom doesn't enter in the equation
That's a problem I realize exists, which is why I keep pointing it out.