SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A new report from AAA reveals that the majority of U.S. drivers seek autonomous technologies in their next vehicle, but they continue to fear the fully self-driving car. Despite the prospect that autonomous vehicles will be safer, more efficient and more convenient than their human-driven counterparts, three-quarters of U.S. drivers report feeling afraid to ride in a self-driving car, and only 10 percent report that they'd actually feel safer sharing the roads with driverless vehicles. As automakers press forward in the development of autonomous vehicles, AAA urges the gradual, safe introduction of these technologies to ensure that American drivers are informed, prepared and comfortable with this shift in mobility.
"A great race towards autonomy is underway and companies are vying to introduce the first driverless cars to our roadways," said Greg Brannon, AAA's director of Automotive Engineering and Industry Relations. "However, while U.S. drivers are eager to buy vehicles equipped with autonomous technology, they continue to fear a fully self-driving vehicle."
n 2016, a AAA survey found that three-quarters of Americans reported feeling afraid to ride in a self-driving car. One year later, a new AAA survey found that fear is unchanged. While the majority are afraid to ride in a fully self-driving vehicle, the latest survey also found that the majority (59%) of Americans are keen to have autonomous features in their next vehicle. This marked contrast suggests that American drivers are ready embrace autonomous technology, but they are not yet ready to give up full control.
"U.S. drivers may experience the driver assistance technologies in their cars today and feel they don't work consistently enough to replace a human driver – and they're correct," continued Brannon. "While these technologies will continue to improve over time, it's important that consumers understand that today's systems require your eyes on the road and your hands on the wheel."
Source: http://newsroom.aaa.com/2017/03/americans-feel-unsafe-sharing-road-fully-self-driving-cars/
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Monday March 13 2017, @12:18PM (3 children)
That well known parametric , object measure:
"This feels like it could be 10g?".
"The feeling is women are less intelligent than men"
"The feeling is computers are the devils work".
Not sure that feelings are news...
(Score: 3, Informative) by fadrian on Monday March 13 2017, @12:34PM
Not sure that feelings are news...
They are if a large number of your potential customers share them against your product. Unless your product isn't news...
That is all.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Monday March 13 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
Not so much feelings as beliefs. Beliefs drive actions. Beliefs by large numbers drive large-scale actions. The news is that consumer beliefs may delay the acceptance of a new technology, however beneficial it may seem.
I myself don't believe self-drivers are ready for the road. That belief is based on an appreciation of the nature and complexity of situational analysis required of a driver, human or machine. I'll grant that others' skepticism may be based on ludditism or superstition. Nevertheless, factors in the acceptance or otherwise of driverless cars may be considered news.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @03:55PM
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday March 13 2017, @12:25PM
Everything has bugs, especially complex systems like self driving cars. Let Arizona drivers work the bugs out for a few years before letting them into California.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 13 2017, @12:39PM (1 child)
Come on, don't be afraid. It's not like CIA will kill the lot of you, they aren't that many of them.
True, some may die because of CIA or some hackers pilfering CIA tools, but the great majority of you will survive... some years more.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:17PM
We must accept some invasion of privacy and potential security risks for king and country!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ewk on Monday March 13 2017, @12:55PM (5 children)
I guess that depends on how that autonomous technology is told to behave...
1) to protect the meatbags inside the vehicle to its maximum ability (even at the cost of sacrificing some meatbags outside the vehicle), or
2) (in case of mishap) minimize the damage to the total of meatbags in- and outside the particular vehicle (perhaps even at the cost of sacrificing some/all of the meatbags inside that vehicle).
I know (as meatbag inside MY vehcile) I'd prefer number 1.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 13 2017, @03:44PM (1 child)
Yup. There is no circumstance that would ever cause me to enter a vehicle that did not put my life above all others. Any sacrifices of my life should be decided by myself and nobody/nothing else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by ewk on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:16AM
"Any sacrifices of my life should be decided by myself and nobody/nothing else."
Yeah... that's kind of the way our civilization manifested itself.
Decisions instead of instinct.
And some decisions imply sacrifice. Other don't.
If you don't like that, it does not make it any less truthful.
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @04:03PM (2 children)
Yay, the trolley problem.
The most interesting assumption is that the car is going to immediately know the age, career, marital status, etc of every meatbag anywhere near it, including that infant that's riding in one of the vehicles' passenger seats it can't see.
Some predictions. Ok, folks. The trolley problem is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. Stop masturbating to it already. The car is going to be driving more carefully than you even knew was possible (maintaining *gasp* FOLLOWING DISTANCE!! and *gasp* DRIVING A SAFE SPEED FOR CONDITIONS), and even then why would somebody program a car to risk its occupants over some theoretical meatbag count we can't even be sure is complete?
Yeah, yeah, yeah I know what it is. You think this is that episode of star trek where people walk into death booths as casualties of a wargame. Evil liberals are going to force you into a car that's going to kill you and call you racist if you don't like it. Blablabla
(Score: 1) by ewk on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:22AM (1 child)
"The most interesting assumption is that the car is going to immediately know the age, career, marital status, etc of every meatbag anywhere near it, including that infant that's riding in one of the vehicles' passenger seats it can't see."
Some other prediction (ooh... this can become a fun game):
Welcome to the world of big data and the mandatory chip in your brain.
The mothership KNOWS all of the above and makes the decision for your trolley.
Have a happy ride...
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @04:28PM
Actually, courtesy of big data tracking everyone everywhere, the computers will use your kids' brain GPS/accelerometer implant to know that they're about to cross the street in front of the car.
The car will know to stop before it's even got visual on the kid.
To learn from what almost happened, the kid will get one hit from the implant shock collar.
The car's external billboards will then play an ad trumpeting how its advanced safety features saved another injury, just in case passerbys missed it. All passerbys will be logged as having seen the event, and follow-up advertising for the car will be broadcast to them for the next three years, and any time they say the words "new car".
Everyone will be safe in the best of all possible worlds.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @12:56PM
America feels unsafe
Could have just put a full stop there and let it be. That sentence works on more than one level.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:04PM
Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @01:29PM (4 children)
You can't trust American drivers. Men point at women, women point at men, older people blame kids, and kids blame old people - but fact is, Americans can't pay attention to the road. We have a huge population of ADHD people, licensed to drive.
In recent weeks, I have had a greater number of people than usual trying to drive in my lane, instead of the oncoming lane. WTF are people DOING, why can't they keep their own car in their own lane?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday March 13 2017, @02:21PM
I'd wager phones. Little over a year ago I watched a young girl plow into an older man crossing the street at night on christmas eve. He was in serious pain and a passer by and myself had to move him out of the street following the 911 dispatchers orders. I could have sworn I saw the white glow of a screen in her hand just as she turned into him. Told the cop that but there wasn't much proof. She did get a hefty summons for reckless driving. Also see lots of swerving cars and once you pass them you see they have a fucking phone in their hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:41PM
Indeed, American drivers are so bad that the authorities in the US decided to make walking on the side of the street illegal for safety reasons.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by snufu on Monday March 13 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)
I feel much safer near autonomous cars then those with a primate behind the wheel. Ten minutes on any freeway and you will see numerous dangerous actions by humans that autonomous vehicles would never do. Speeding? Never happen. Cutting off and weaving while speeding? Never happen. Tailgating? Never happen. Texting? Never happen. Sleeping? Never happen. General road rage? Never happen.
Road traffic accidents in the U.S.: 32,000 people killed per year, 2.6 million injured per year. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm [cdc.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @07:18PM
Yes, but most of that is predictable and there's somebody that's responsible. An AI car isn't predictable using the usual patterns and we don't have a good record of holding computer companies responsible for anything.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday March 13 2017, @01:35PM (2 children)
On the one hand: If people see a self-driving car, and don't quite trust it, maybe they won't do stupid, unpredictable things. Things they shouldn't do anyway, but sometimes they count on other drivers to save their bacon.
On the other hand: It's a given that some people (read: young guys) will see what they can provoke a self-driving car to do. That's likely to be unpleasant.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 13 2017, @01:54PM
Mainly a self-correcting problem.
Granted, there may be some collateral damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @03:58PM
On the other hand: It's a given that some people (read: young guys) will see what they can provoke a self-driving car to do. That's likely to be unpleasant.
Sooner or later they will likely be doing that on video. It's not that hard to transmit in near real time video of a crime from a self-driving car to the police. Cue the CIA talk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:23PM (4 children)
See, I'm the reverse.
I look forward to everybody else riding in automated cars because that means I can fuck with them - tailgate, cut them off, etc - without having to worry that the driver will decide to get revenge. Cathartic road rage for me, forced docility for them. Car-tharsis!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @02:56PM (2 children)
Meanwhile the people in autonomous cars will not even notice your asshole behavior because they no longer need to drive and thus will be too busy reading the news or watching cat memes on youtube while on their way to work. Who are the winners now huh? Idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @07:48PM
Who says the passengers are the target?
Have you never banged on an inanimate object out of anger?
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Monday March 13 2017, @10:43PM
the people in autonomous cars will not even notice your asshole behavior because they no longer need to drive
They will notice because their SD car will slam its brakes on and swerve because the GP above has cut it up. They will too when it slams its brakes on and swerves because kids are running out in front of it playing chicken to explore its limits.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @03:18PM
And thanks to lidar, various cameras, and wireless communication technologies built into the cars you'll be off the road like you should have been all along.
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday March 13 2017, @03:14PM (2 children)
Lets redo this study and include people from places like Washington and New Jersey. I definitly dont feel safe sharing a road with people from there, but fortunately they are required to brand themselves with their state so I know to put some extra distance between me and them. Labeling the robot cars would serve the same purpose, although I admit I fear robot cars less than people from Washington. At least a robot car can be predicted based on reading about how it performes judgements. Washington cars follow no logic.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 13 2017, @05:51PM
I drive all over the country. A lot. As in I passed 1 Million Miles a couple of years ago. I find Massholes to be the worst on the road. NYC drivers are rude and aggressive, but at least they are in control of their car when doing it. Seattle drivers are the most courteous and pleasant but for fucks sake,if it says 60 you can do 60! Some slow laid back fuckers there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @07:21PM
Washington drivers are fine unless you're one of those morons that refers to the capital as Washington. Certainly not anywhere near as dangerous as drivers from California, NY or MA.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by donkeyhotay on Monday March 13 2017, @03:52PM
In the future, protesters, anarchists, et al, won't have to block freeways in large numbers in order to shut down traffic. They will simply place cardboard shoeboxes in the road, and the self-driving cars will refuse to move forward because of the "obstruction". Just one of the many examples where self-driving cars are unable to handle the "exceptions" to what happens on the road in real life.
I'm not saying self-driving cars are impossible. I'm just saying that this future is further out than many people imagine.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 13 2017, @05:30PM (9 children)
The facts are there, and automated cars are far far far FAR safer than your average driver, and better than even the best human drivers.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Monday March 13 2017, @05:54PM (5 children)
automated cars are far far far FAR safer
Until a hacker turns a million of them into a botnet that can slaughter not only their trapped and powerless occupants but dozens of other innocents per car.
In several decades of working with computers I have never encountered software I would rely on with my life. The work is just too sloppy. Always. We all know the reasons: incompetent people getting hired, managers rushing things through without testing, corporations with a single focus on the next quarterly report.
Is there even one reason to think this will be any different?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Nobuddy on Monday March 13 2017, @08:33PM (4 children)
" I have never encountered software I would rely on with my life."
so you drive pre-1981 cars only, eh?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Monday March 13 2017, @09:30PM (3 children)
And of course never enter a commercial airplane. Or a modern train. Or a hospital.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:26PM (2 children)
Yeah, yuk it up infants. You confuse being compelled to use something with trusting it.
Or, perhaps, since you are compelled to pay taxes, you now trust the government?
(BTW I prefer a manual transmission to an automatic, because I am smarter than the machine. I take stairs instead of elevators because stairs have never trapped me. They could, but I understand the threat model and can easily verify their safety. More than one airplane has dropped out of "auto pilot" leaving the crew to -- unsuccessfully -- diagnose the situation in the seconds preceding mass casualties. Hospitals are a cesspool of unsecured devices and desktops so don't point to that as a shining example. In short, eat your words and GFYS.)
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)
I don't know about you, but I don't feel compelled to enter an airplane. And yes, I trust it, as long as it belongs to an airline I trust. As I do with the car and the train.
And yes, in rare circumstances, something goes wrong with them. But it's rare enough that I don't expect it to happen while I'm inside.
Correction: Because you think you are smarter than the machine.
Elevators have never trapped me either.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Justin Case on Tuesday March 14 2017, @09:58PM
Correction: Because you think you are smarter than the machine.
Correction: The machine does not know it is currently 20 degrees outside, the road was plowed two hours ago, it's dark and a bit foggy, the traffic looks a little jittery because we have a lot of folks who aren't familiar with this weather, we're about to cross a bridge that looks like it may have some black ice on it, and now would be a really bad time to upshift or downshift and put the car into a spin.
So it appears that I not only know more than the machine, but possibly more about this matter than you as well.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @07:54PM (2 children)
The facts are there, and automated cars are far far far FAR safer than your average driver, and better than even the best human drivers.
That is not even remotely close to being provable.
For one thing, the number of automated miles isn't enough of a sample to be statistically valid.
And of the miles that have been driven, they were all easy miles, the same kind of driving that regular drivers excel at too.
Even if you relax the definition of automated to mean semi-automated like the Tesla system you still have to compare like-to-like - Tesla are $70K+ cars, so if you want to compare their accident rates you need to look at the rate for other similarly priced cars. Turns out that people who drive $70K+ cars have much lower accident rates than the average population because (a) they are not impulsive teenagers and (b) their cars are well maintained.
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Monday March 13 2017, @09:38PM (1 child)
For one thing, the number of automated miles isn't enough of a sample to be statistically valid.
Would you like to give a ballpark number for how many miles you think are needed to be statistically valid?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @04:22AM
Google turned up this report on a Rand study,
https://phys.org/news/2016-04-autonomous-vehicles-test-driven-miles-safety.html [phys.org]
Although the total number of crashes, injuries and fatalities from human drivers is high, the rate of these failures is low in comparison with the number of miles that people drive. Americans drive nearly 3 trillion miles every year, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In 2013, there were 2.3 million injuries reported, which is a failure rate of 77 injuries per 100 million miles driven. The related 32,719 fatalities correspond to a failure rate of about 1 fatality per 100 million miles driven.
"The most autonomous miles any developer has logged are about 1.3 million, and that took several years. This is important data, but it does not come close to the level of driving that is needed to calculate safety rates," said Susan M. Paddock, co-author of the study and senior statistician at RAND. "Even if autonomous vehicle fleets are driven 10 million miles, one still would not be able to draw statistical conclusions about safety and reliability."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-autonomous-vehicles-test-driven-miles-safety.html#jCp [phys.org]
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:28AM (3 children)
The other day I there was a car moving slowly (the speed limit where everyone is doing 50 in a 30) on the street in front of my office. So I crossed and the car came to a stop 75 meters away.
It was the self driving Uber. Apparently it is the only safe driver on this road.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @04:36PM (2 children)
That's why they put big signs on them.
To warn people it's about to do things too safely compared to our expectation of human drivers.
Make an "undercover" self-driving car, and it will get rear-end weekly.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)
There are no big signs on it, it looks just like a regular SUV or sedan. Though it does have the laser detection spinny thing on top and cameras, so when it is up close you can tell what it is.
The sensor roof thing is dark colored, so if it is against a dark background it is hard to tell at a distance. (Though aparently they have white cars, I haven't seen any of those yet.)
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/57d88a30077dccda0b8b5981-1200/uber-driverless-car.jpg [businessinsider.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:27PM
Maybe it's "won't play nice" Uber, or that particular picture you chose, but they all pretty much have markings on all sides (look at the doors) with the company name and often "Self-driving car".
And the giant sensor array on the top, which you'd need to be pretty clueless to miss as you're about to rear-end it.
My point was that hiding all that behind tinted windows would result in lots of crashes, since people don't anticipate careful driving.