SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-tell-them-about-motorcycles dept.
Like record companies at the dawn of online music file sharing, Allstate, Geico, State Farm, and others are grappling with innovations that could put a huge dent in their revenue. As carmakers automate more aspects of driving, accidents will likely plunge and car owners will need less coverage. Premiums consumers pay could drop as much as 60 percent in 15 years as self-driving cars hit the roads, says Donald Light, head of the North America property and casualty practice for Celent, a research firm. His message for insurers: "You have to be prepared to see that part of your business shrink, probably considerably."
Auto insurance has long been a lucrative business. The industry collected about $195 billion in premiums last year from U.S. drivers. New customers are the source of so much profit that Geico alone spends more than $1 billion a year on ads to pitch its policies with a talking lizard and other characters. Yet even Warren Buffett, whose company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns Geico, is talking about the long-term risks to the business model. "If you could come up with anything involved in driving that cut accidents by 30 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent, that would be wonderful," he said at a conference in March. "But we would not be holding a party at our insurance company."
The loss of revenue for the insurance industry gives me a sad.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 31 2015, @03:40PM
If the self-driving car proves to be safer in real-world conditions.
I'll guarantee you this includes the firmware. Have a look over the last 30 years of personal computers and tell me honestly that you believe a complex software (as the one to handle the road in any weather/traffic conditions) will be bug free and security hardened.
As sure as death and taxes, you won't catch me as an early adopter, thank you very much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday July 31 2015, @03:58PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by tempest on Friday July 31 2015, @04:51PM
If AI can't react to each other properly, then there's no way they can judge human drivers properly and that's going to be a prerequisite for a while. Eventually I imagine we'll have something like a Vehicle Communication Protocol, where two vehicles aware of each other communicate (via wireless or whatever), indicating status and intent, which would boost accuracy considerably compared to vague reactionary systems required now.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 31 2015, @05:05PM
If AI can't react to each other properly, then there's no way they can judge human drivers properly and that's going to be a prerequisite for a while.
Sorry to be nitpicky, but this is not true. The software being designed to deal with human drivers. If automated cars drive differently than humans then it has to be tested against the new behaviour. Either these companies will need to work with each other to iron this out before the production phase, or the rules of how to handle certain events will have to be regulated by a governing body.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by timbojones on Friday July 31 2015, @05:48PM
To the extent that automated cars will drive differently than humans, they will be more predictable with fewer outliers. Automated cars will not present entirely new driving strategies -- their strategies will be a subset of human driving strategies.
Automated driving software is being designed to deal not just with human drivers, but with human cyclists, pedestrians, streetcars, school buses, construction detours, falling trees, balls rolling into the street, birds swooping across the windshield, a woman in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck in circles in the middle of the street. They are being designed to deal with any moving or stationary road hazard of any size.
Other automated cars will present zero challenge and zero surprise.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 31 2015, @06:08PM
To the extent that automated cars will drive differently than humans, they will be more predictable with fewer outliers.
I don't think that's a safe assumption, especially when you factor in that robotic reaction time is different from human reaction time. That alone will deviate the behaviour enough to require extra rounds of testing. It'll likely mean more software updates during the life of each car as well.
Other automated cars will present zero challenge and zero surprise.
I hope you end up being correct, but I've heard similar arguments against sanitizing inputs on web-facing code.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2, Insightful) by timbojones on Friday July 31 2015, @07:15PM
True, but irrelevant. The car is still a car with a car's momentum and maneuverability. An automated driver needs to respond to a car swerving regardless of whether the human driver is reacting to something that happened a second ago, or another automated driver is reacting to something that happened a tenth of a second ago, or the car itself blew a tire just now.
(Score: 2) by tempest on Friday July 31 2015, @07:09PM
While I sort of agree that AI might drive differently than an average person, I don't think we'll really know until AI has a track record. But I think AI cars will be far more predictable, even if different than humans, because it's nearly impossible to group humans together as driving one way. Teenage punks, girls texting, drunks, old folks, and "normal drivers" all drive completely differently and inconsistently. Not accounting for random other factors, like the time my girlfriend smashed into a curb because there was a bee in her car. Computers are generally kept fairly simple, as in keeping it on the street between the lines obeying traffic rules and not hitting things. Unfortunately humans are often not concerned with these things like they should be and can't be expected to even act in their own safety.
I think you're very right about new protocols will be needed first. I'd guess that will eventually fall to a regulated body of some sort. Especially when these cars will have to decide how to weight human life and damage in scenarios where there is no "safe" option. Thus far I can't recall anyone stepping up to the plate to handle this yet, so I'm guessing we'll have to wait for a disaster to make news headlines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @09:29PM
I think that a communication protocol would not be necessary for safety but it would be beneficial for improving efficiency given the same degree of safety. Without such communication a car would have to be much more conservative assuming and planning for the worst case scenarios and taking the (less efficient) path that would be safe under multiple different possible scenarios because it doesn't know the intent, status, location, and orientation of surrounding cars. With such communication then cars can collectively coordinate the most efficient scenario and no longer have to assume the worst case scenarios (or take into account multiple possible scenarios) since they can plan for and hence know the scenario ahead of time.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday July 31 2015, @05:15PM
I can already imagine a new class of "pranks" - to hack into that protocol, stand on an overpass with a pocket transmitter, press the button, and watch the chaos down below as cars are advised of "intents" to cut each other off, suddenly brake, etc.
One would think that the protocol would have to be very robust if the vehicles are to trust each other. Not only the transmission must be cryptographically signed; the key must be in a tamper-proof storage that cannot be desoldered and used elsewhere. The vehicles probably also want to accompany their intents with something else that they know of but that is pretty hard for a prankster to collect - such as visible locations of nearby cars, for example.
One possibility is to use vehicles' cameras for purposes of optical communication. But currently the frame rate is abysmally low. There is also blocking of light by obstacles and rain/fog. Short range radio (in tens of GHz) will work within a hundred meters, and you don't need more than that anyway. But ultimately this is how it will be. Today drivers are just have to read subtle hints to predict intentions of other drivers. An autonomous car will just know ahead of time.
None of that will entirely eliminate accidents, though - a pedestrian can always jump into traffic.
(Score: 2) by tempest on Friday July 31 2015, @06:46PM
I don't think cars would communicate directly, although in an ideal non hostile world that would be easiest. Instead I'd guess we'd have something like the browser CA system, where cars register via the mothership authority and pass signed messages to the third party where they are signed and authenticated. Pulling the message computer out I think would be the biggest issue to worry about, but this seems like something that would be keyed to the engine, like transponder keys currently do with anti-theft systems.
It makes me cringe thinking about the privacy implications, but it seems like everyone can't throw that away fast enough these days, especially if they offer it via Twitter integration so people can see real time status updates like "I just started my car."
Assuming we're not all chipped by then too :-/
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday July 31 2015, @07:10PM
I'd guess we'd have something like the browser CA system, where cars register via the mothership authority and pass signed messages to the third party where they are signed and authenticated.
I don't think this will work at all. We do not have enough of wireless bandwidth. Usable frequency range is only somewhere from 1 to 3 GHz, and you need some small latency - which implies high data rate, and you need guaranteed service, and you do not want handoffs, and you don't want towers every 100 meters along highways - it's just too expensive and unreliable. On every morning there are 100 million cars on the road - what kind of a third party can receive that, let alone to forward to those who "subscribed" - and those subscriptions constantly change, as cars are moving and their areas of interest vary as well.
Compared to that, peer to peer networks are naturally self-organizing, as if a car hears another car it has a business to hear it. The latency is defined only by the packet length. Privacy is not affected because if you can hear a car you can also see it with your own eyes; the cars do not broadcast more than what will be obvious a few seconds later (like "I'm about to take this exit.")
The mesh also solves the problem of infrastructure. There is no way to cover the whole country with a network of towers. Most of the roads do not have any power whatsoever [google.com]. Cars on such a road will be able to communicate even better than in a city.
(Score: 2) by tempest on Friday July 31 2015, @07:25PM
I think you're right about the latency, but as for bandwidth I think the very first thing people will demand when having cars drive themselves will be internet access in their car. If we don't have the bandwidth now, it will likely come with growing demand. That assumes we use existing infrastructure, so maybe the cars will talk to receivers built into the roads themselves. Something like a smart highway that kept track of temperature, road conditions, traffic congestion as well as allowed nearby cars to talk to each other. It could be that once a car has authenticated with a section of road, it is allowed to message other vehicles directly. Like kerberos tickets. Obviously due to many factors not all roads would be covered, but cities and major highways could be. At other times the AI would default to the reactive mode used today.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday July 31 2015, @08:23PM
as for bandwidth I think the very first thing people will demand when having cars drive themselves will be internet access in their car
They can demand all they want, but Shannon's Law [wikipedia.org] will be a problem. It's like demanding that one could jump up and reach the Moon. Good luck with that.
Furthermore, there is NFW that the consumer's Internet access and the real time driving information would be sent over the same link.
maybe the cars will talk to receivers built into the roads themselves
You can go that way, but it will take time and money - and I don't think anyone has enough money to upgrade all the roads. I'd be happy if they just add a lane or two, forget the radios.
It could be that once a car has authenticated with a section of road, it is allowed to message other vehicles directly. Like kerberos tickets.
Authentication with the road is kinda pointless here, as the road does not do much, and it's unclear why it would be a trusted authority. It's much easier to give OEMs (Ford, Toyota, etc.) the CA keys, and tell them to sign keys of the vehicles that they make. With key revocation over the air, once per day, this should be both secure and sufficient. Then the cars can talk to each other on all roads, not only on upgraded ones. And outside of roads as well - plenty of construction and agricultural machinery operates there, and automatic functions there are even more important because the job is so repetitive, like plowing the field from here and until the Sun sets. Collisions with farm equipment are not all that rare either.
(Score: 2) by Francis on Friday July 31 2015, @06:07PM
A lot of it is surprisingly straightforward, the car keeps at least 2 seconds behind the next car as long as it can do so at a safe speed. The car needs to watch out for lane intrusions and slow or speed as appropriate. Which is a pretty limited number of reactions necessary to get along with other cars.
Obviously, the actual execution of it is difficult, but realistically, the things human drivers do that cause crashes are generally a lot more easily identified than one might imagine. The motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians are a much bigger problem though.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday July 31 2015, @05:55PM
I think it will have a lot more to do with not being able to judge the road itself. Until Machine-Intelligence-compatible roadways which are only driven by computers are built, they will have many of the same problems we do - faded lane paint with missing reflectors, erratic drivers, black ice, small debris in the road, pedestrians, etc.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by dcollins on Friday July 31 2015, @06:44PM
High Frequency Transportation, aka Flash Crash
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @04:06PM
I agree. But I do like the idea of a self driving car that keeps me from falling asleep at the wheel and keeps me on the road until it can get my attention.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 31 2015, @04:21PM
Would you consider a hooker keeping you awake by blowing you? No worries, it will be affordable.
Seriously, if passengers cars can do it on their own, the entire ground transportation sector can. Expect large unemployment and great price drops for other services.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @04:42PM
Clearly you have never been a commercial driver. Believe it or not, it does take skill; that undefinable thing which is very hard to replace except in incredibly controlled environments. I
suggest you take a look around at what commercial drivers actually have to do and you will see how improbable automating the majority of those tasks are. Fully automated software development would be an easier task as that would be a prerequisite for the analyzing, learning, adapting, and flawlessly applying new algorithms to novel problems that transport requires.
Sure you could automate long haul OTR behavior. But we already did that. It is called a train.
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Friday July 31 2015, @06:29PM
It doesn't need to be bug free. It just needs to be less buggy than using average repurposed thinking meat (that wants to get laid, and is rushing to avoid getting fired) wired to looking meat (that needs to blink constantly to stay wet since it was designed for ocean use, and only perceives a small subset of the spectrum in which other cars are mostly opaque, and can only look one direction at a time) wired to moving meat (which fatigues, is hungry and maybe effected by being drunk) to try to make safe decisions at 60 miles an hour. Humans are awful at situational awareness, reliable data processing, estimating the physics of potential courses of action, having fast reflexes, and retaining training data. Almost everything that goes into being a good driver is something that computers are better at.
Remember that if Google cars intentionally murder 20,000 people every year purely as a blood sacrifice tax, we'll still probably come out ahead vs. the 40,000 people we currently murder by letting meat be responsible for driving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @12:55AM
The original "If".
If— By Rudyard Kipling
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!