Do you feel safer with self-driving cars on the road?

[Orodruin]

Making decisions is all about probability and, yes, not paying attention when driving across a seldomly crossed zebra crossing is NOT a mistake, from my point of view.

This is just silly. Lions do not cause tens of thousands of deaths in the US every year. Besides, regardless of whether you consider it a mistake or not, it is actions like that that cause accidents and autonomous cars will not make them to the same extent as human drivers. (Add to that the limited cognitive abilities of humans, such as only beig able to see in one direction at a time.)

No lives are ever saved. The best you can do is extend one. On the greater scheme of things, I still fail to see what improvement it does to a form of life, human race or any other.

Cute. Let's stop using medicine and surgery, it does not save lives anyway. Would you accept your doctor saying ”this cyst will kill you if left untreated, but you will die from something else otherwise so we wont”. Now who is the cynic here?

 

[256bits]

It's really the «Bring on autonomous cars ASAP!» comment that bothers me. I don't believe it is the Holy Grail. I'm not even sure the problem it supposes to solve is that big of a problem. Most people don't make bad decisions when behind the wheel. It is even far from being a major cause of death for the human race. Statistics, right

That's the problem isn't it.

 

[OCR]

A mother and her 11 month old child were t-boned and killed at an intersection a couple blocks from me yesterday.

The obvious point being made was that it would not have happened if the car was autonomous.

The obvious point being made is not obvious at all...
Unless, what you actually meant was...

It would not have happened if the mother's car was autonomous, and could have recognize the fact...

It was a drunk driver going 70 through a red in a 35mph road.

... and would have stopped her car, before the intersection collision.

Yes...

Would a machine allow that?

Both... a drunk driver going 70 through a red in a 35mph road, and stopping another car before an intersection collision, even if a light were green...

Every body seems to be obsessed with the drunk driver here, but remember... it's a "two-way street".

 

[OCR]

Brilliant... .

Star Trek - Season 4 Ep 5 "Remember Me"

Tesla, what was that noise?
Explosive decomposition of passenger compartment and passenger.
Cause?
Design Flaw: there appears to be no structure above the mirrors.

 

[Orodruin]

Every body seems to be obsessed with the drunk driver here, but remember... it's a "two-way street".

I believe you are wrong. It would have been sufficient for the drunk's car to be autonomous. Replacing that car would have been sufficient to avoid the accident. Of course, if you replace all cars by autonomous ones, also the mother's would have been.

What would happen if you just replaced the mother's car is a different question. Would the car be able to avoid the collision? I believe the answer to that is that it would be more likely to avoid the collision than a human driver. Autonomous cars are taught to recognise and act on threats that are out of the ordinary (such as a driver running a red light) as well as obeying traffic rules themselves. The advantage in favour of the autonomous car comes from its ability to perceive the entire traffic situation, not just what they happen to be looking at.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think some here are in danger of committing the Nirvana fallacy - throwing out the whole solution because it is not perfect.

There are surely some specious scenarios that an automated system won't be able to handle. Some of these scenarios won't be handled much better by humans.

But the key is that the vast majority of accidents that have been occurring in real life situations are avoidable by an automated system better than by a human.

OK, granted that has yet to be born out by statistics, but still, let's not make the mistake of being penny-wise but pound-foolish when it comes to accidents averted and lives saved.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd also argue that is is not so much about people making "mistakes"; it is more properly that the accepted pace of driving has exceeded our reaction-times.

As everyone is aware, at 70mph, a car covers 100 feet every second. Add to that perception delay, decision and reaction delay.

There's no way humans can avoid fatal accidents at this pace - even if they make no mistakes. AIs can.

 

[QuantumQuest]

I voted "yes". I would like very much to vote "no", if there was a single chance that people would eventually start to respect the driving rules and take the right decisions at the right time when driving and so not let the technology take the power off our hands. But as we all know, this is impossible. Emotions are a great thing that we all humans have but - at least in most cases, not when it comes to driving. Talking specifically about my country, I think that there is a whole bunch of things to be done in order for the driving habits to get at a decent level. I'm a motorcyclist and I really have seen many poor decisions on the road for over thirty five years. Of course, I'm not perfect too - nobody is, but I can frankly say that I respect the rules and as I am in a way more vulnerable position comparing to a car, I always try to foresee what the next car's driver or the one behind me is intending to do and a whole lot of other "what if" things. So, I think that self driving cars would be a really important thing but - as has been already mentioned several times in the thread, there's a lot of work to be done in order to make me feel safer. But I believe that this time will definitely come.

 

[DaveC426913]

... if there was a single chance that people would eventually start to respect the driving rules and take the right decisions at the right time when driving...

Problem is, it's worse than that.

The skill required for driving will only go up, as speeds increase, traffic gets ever heavier, and more roads are laid.
So, even if drivers suddenly started operating at required levels today, it's a losing battle, as it's a moving target.
It is already exceeding our current abilities, and its only going to require more each passing year.I'm a die-hard driver. So I'm a dinosaur. But I do see a day when traffic will ease, as more and more personal cars are replaced on our roads with a combination of automated cars, bicycles and better mass transit solutions (such as taxi-like services).

 

[Stavros Kiri]

No, I haven't. That's just silly. Why would I choose to do something more boring if there was something less boring and more enjoyable I could do? I don't go thinking to myself: "Hmm...should a watch a movie right now or not turn on the TV and stare at the blank screen?"

I think he* probably means that it is an inclination (tedency) from our inside (or something, etc.), if we are kind of saturated and we find more and more things boring ...

* I am referring to @jack action

(

Have you noticed that the more we find things boring, the more we find the things we replaced them with, boring as well?

)

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Really. As @Greg Bernhardt said earlier, I can't wait for the time when I don't have to do the mind-numbing task of driving to and from work in traffic for an hour+ a day. I'd much rather be taking a nap, watching TV, reading a book, using PF, etc.

... using PF ...

+ time is valuable, although driving is good too, but traffic jams etc. are just a waste of time! ...
Autonomous cars are perfect for time-overlapping, taking care of tasks and business, as well as science and PF, while driving, ... We'll have more PF posts then! ...

 

[ISamson]

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-self-driving-cars-future-mobility-disabled.html

However driverless might be good for disabled people.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-self-driving-cars-future-mobility-disabled.html

However driverless might be good for disabled people.

The way humans make mistakes and cause accidents, we all act like disabled sometimes! ... (e.g. when very tired or exhausted) [Of course humans and humanity keep improving! - we are a good promising species! ...]
So good for everyone too(?) ...

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Really big news and we have a PF member working on the AI at Waymo! Awesome!

Waymo makes history testing on public roads with no one at the wheel
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/fully-driverless-cars-are-here/

 

[BillTre]

Good thing the company isn't Wham-O!

 

[WWGD]

Sorry if this is OT and a new post could be made, but, is safety the only issue one should consider re self-driving cars? No one seems to want to bring the ugly side that comes with the glamour of "disrupting" : the people who end up displaced. What about taxi drivers, bus drivers, etc?

 

[nsaspook]

It's the truck drivers fault by law but if a human driver did what the Driverless Shuttle did we would call him a brainless deer in the headlights idiot from not listening to the passengers screaming for him to avoid the backing truck.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/driverless-shuttle-hit-by-truck_us_5a0371bfe4b03deac08af3db

Passengers onboard the vehicle confirmed that the shuttle did stop ― but in the path of the truck.

“The shuttle just stayed still and we were like, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s going to hit us, it’s going to hit us!’ and then, it hit us!” passenger Jenny Wong told KSNV. “And the shuttle didn’t have the ability to move back, either. Like, the shuttle just stayed still.”

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No one seems to want to bring the ugly side that comes with the glamour of "disrupting" : the people who end up displaced. What about taxi drivers, bus drivers, etc?

I am always confused by this sentiment. Every new innovation threatens the old way. Do we stop progressing?

 

[Spinnor]

I am always confused by this sentiment. Every new innovation threatens the old way. Do we stop progressing?

Yes, but now jobs are being disrupted at an ever increasing rate. This will not be the same scale of job disruption as in the past. I see the potential for a serious crap storm in the near future if steps are not taken.

 

[jack action]

Sorry if this is OT and a new post could be made, but, is safety the only issue one should consider re self-driving cars? No one seems to want to bring the ugly side that comes with the glamour of "disrupting" : the people who end up displaced. What about taxi drivers, bus drivers, etc?

The fact that a taxi driver won't be able to drive a taxi anymore only means he will have more time to find a cure for cancer or increase the efficiency of solar panels.

If a person lives, it must create a demand for something. If there is a demand, there is work. That is why technology or immigration will never create a job shortage. Ever.

But I'll admit that it can be difficult to change old habits and break a well established routine.

 

[russ_watters]

I am always confused by this sentiment. Every new innovation threatens the old way. Do we stop progressing?

Agreed. I think the fact that the job losses are specific and complete adds visibility that makes the downside seem worse -- as opposed to, say, loss of secretarial jobs to PCs, which was a fraction of a larger pool. But I don't consider the disruption worse if it eliminates 10 million out of 10 million jobs vs 10 million out of 50 million (made up numbers for illustration). It's still 10 million people who need to find new jobs.

...The one caveat I'd put on that though is if it is 10 out of 50, you may have a chance to keep your job via good performance, whereas if it is 10 out of 10, you will lose your job no matter how good you are at it. But when it comes to unskilled labor, there isn't really such a thing as "being good at it".

There is ongoing debate in the US about job skills: in an open thread right now, a user is arguing we need more higher education including a degree above phd. On the other end is Mike Rowe who in effect is arguing fewer people should be going to college and more getting skilled blue collar work. I think there is room for a nuanced view of both (more blue collar and more usable bacherlors degrees).

As a society, the USA tends to look at the issue backwards for some reason. What the USA needs less of is non-skilled jobs like taxi drivers, burger flippers and WalMart greeters. We shouldn't bemoan the loss of these jobs, we should celebrate it! The real problem is that these jobs are "needed" at all: there are better-skilled jobs available for the taking, but there are 25 million(!) adults who lack even a high school diploma to go after something better. That's the real problem we should be focusing on (or not? Who's fault is that anyway?).

Holding back progress in order to provide unskilled work to people who haven't held-up their end of the bargain isn't something I favor: and I think more automation will help that by providing a kick to those who need it.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but now jobs are being disrupted at an ever increasing rate. This will not be the same scale of job disruption as in the past. I see the potential for a serious crap storm in the near future if steps are not taken.

Do you have any references/statistics for the current state of distruption? I hear a lot of people predicting increasing future disruption (as they have - incorrectly - since the start of the industrial revolution), but I don't think I've ever seen evidence of a current problem. An awful lot of people came out of the "Great Recession" pessimistic, believing "this one will be different", but despite a slow recovery we're now pretty much back to where we were during the over-inflated '90s; with a lower unemployment rate than ever in the 2000s (since 2000 itself). There are some caveats to that (part time workers and demographics shifting toward retiring baby-boomers), but I don't see anything in the data that suggests an automation-caused unemployment problem.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

I am always confused by this sentiment. Every new innovation threatens the old way. Do we stop progressing?

It might be that the final goal is to even, eventually, virtually replace humans in difficult, risky, heavy or routine jobs with machines, robots and A.I. ... and allow humans (in a better future society) to enjoy the benefits and life as it is, or have time to pursue other more advanced and higher level quests ...
I'm OK with that! ...

People loosing jobs is an issue of course (in the transitive states of society), but no transition is easy ...
Plus more jobs are always created, as said by others.

 

[WWGD]

I am always confused by this sentiment. Every new innovation threatens the old way. Do we stop progressing?

There is a difference between incremental progress and its extreme version of disruption. Plenty of room in-between.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is a difference between incremental progress and its extreme version of disruption. Plenty of room in-between.

So you are advocating that US regulators should somehow step in and slow US autonomous car research in public/private companies to give taxi drivers time to learn new skills?

 

[WWGD]

So you are advocating that US regulators should somehow step in and slow US autonomous car research in public/private companies to give taxi drivers time to learn new skills?

No, nothing nearly that radical. Just that the effects of disrupting be considered, and not just the glamorous aspect of it.
It is relatively easy to adapt to incremental changes, though not so much so to change careers when disruption happens. That's all (folks).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, nothing nearly that radical. Just that the effects of disrupting be considered, and not just the glamorous aspect of it.
It is relatively easy to adapt to incremental changes, though not so much so to change careers when disruption happens. That's all (folks).

I hear you and I think they are being considered. A Google search reveals that, but the problem is that the market does not accept "unnecessary" incremental steps. The market wants the best and cutting edge all the time when it's possible. Thus regulators would be needed to enforce incrementalism. The problem with that is then the US market suffers when other countries don't follow suit and advance past.

 

[WWGD]

The fact that a taxi driver won't be able to drive a taxi anymore only means he will have more time to find a cure for cancer or increase the efficiency of solar panels.

If a person lives, it must create a demand for something. If there is a demand, there is work. That is why technology or immigration will never create a job shortage. Ever.

But I'll admit that it can be difficult to change old habits and break a well established routine.

How many taxi drivers have degrees and/or advanced knowledge of (Solar) engineering, biotech? EDIT I am not saying it is impossible to make the transition but that something must be made to facilitate it, it is not likely to happen without special programs.

 

[Stavros Kiri]

How many taxi drivers have degrees and/or advanced knowledge of (Solar) engineering, biotech? EDIT I am not saying it is impossible to make the transition but that something must be made to facilitate it, it is not likely to happen without special programs.

Most have some knowledge to repair or maintain cars. E.g. they can contribute to self-driving car maintainance, an important issue, IMO.

 

[WWGD]

Most have some knowledge to repair or maintain cars. E.g. they can contribute to self-driving car maintainance, an important issue, IMO.

True, good point, although many modern cars have become too complicated, computerized, requiring very specialized knowledge which older cars did not require. Besides, today remaining up-to-date and improving one's education is much easier by just having an internet connection.

 

[jack action]

How many taxi drivers have degrees and/or advanced knowledge of (Solar) engineering, biotech? EDIT I am not saying it is impossible to make the transition but that something must be made to facilitate it, it is not likely to happen without special programs.

To me, it is the ultimate goal that everyone can possesses such skill. But, in the mean time, getting a diploma for a job like driving a vehicle doesn't take more than a year or two. I'm pretty sure the change over from where we are now to a fully driverless society will take more time than that.

Transitioning from a career to another is not that uncommon, even without having a complete disappearance of a profession. Heck, I've seen a TV show not long ago about a very popular porn star who became a landscaper. If she can do that, I think a taxi driver can develop another useful skill as well.

 

[WWGD]

To me, it is the ultimate goal that everyone can possesses such skill. But, in the mean time, getting a diploma for a job like driving a vehicle doesn't take more than a year or two. I'm pretty sure the change over from where we are now to a fully driverless society will take more time than that.

Transitioning from a career to another is not that uncommon, even without having a complete disappearance of a profession. Heck, I've seen a TV show not long ago about a very popular porn star who became a landscaper. If she can do that, I think a taxi driver can develop another useful skill as well.

Not quite; I have been trying to transition into a porn star for years, without any success. Maybe my name " Mr Softy" did not help much ;).

 

[Stavros Kiri]

I've seen a TV show not long ago about a very popular porn star who became a landscaper.

Porn stars and "landscapes" are not that unrelated! ... (x2 way ...)

 

[ISamson]

Do you feel safer with self-driving cars on the road?

No. How do I know that the computer for the car has been properly programmed without bugs and not hacked. I am an important person (), I don't want to be murdered by a hacked computer - taxi driver!

 

[Stavros Kiri]

Do you feel safer with self-driving cars on the road?

No. How do I know that the computer for the car has been properly programmed without bugs and not hacked. I am an important person (), I don't want to be murdered by a hacked computer - taxi driver!

Security is always an issue, but I think they are ambitious that it keeps improving radically ...