Robots can get driver's license in Nevada

[Office_Shredder]

That's a situation where the robot driver could be superior to a human, because the robot driver has constant 360 degree vision and literally can't fail to notice the kid (barring sensor errors or something) whereas a human driver might not be as attentive

 

[MarcoD]

Say you're next to a baseball field for kids. A human driver could, possibly, slow down because he or she knows the situation. A baseball wouldn't track on the sensors, neither would a party moving behind other cars.

It's a trade-off. But I wouldn't let a robotic car drive very fast in suburbs.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

That's a situation where the robot driver could be superior to a human

[emphasis mine]

I most definitely agree, but mistakes will happen. Whether it's a manufacturing defect or an installation defect, there is always room for error.

What bothers me most about this is the fact that if I cut off a robot driver and it honks at me, will it be hurt when I flip it the bird in my rearview mirror?

Say you're next to a baseball field for kids. A human driver could, possibly, slow down because he or she knows the situation. A baseball wouldn't track on the sensors, neither would a party moving behind other cars.

The data would likely allow for the robot driver to "know" it was driving past a baseball field and it could slow down accordingly. It would also be limited by posted speed limits and wouldn;t have the urge to drive just a little faster than legally allowed.

 

[AlephZero]

It's a trade-off. But I wouldn't let a robotic car drive very fast in suburbs.

I expect it would be programmed to obey speed limits at all times - unlike most human drivers.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Considering that most of Nevada has a population density of less than 10 people per square mile (according to wikipedia), close encounters with kids playing with balls is probably not much of an issue.

In that environment, I expect a human could pass the driving test without ever meeting most hazard situations for real.

That's just an average. Ever been to Las Vegas, Reno? They're cities, just like cities everywhere. The cities are where the cars and darting kids are. Most visitors to Las Vegas arrive by air. When you're in the city, you're not even aware that the city is surrounded by endless miles of desert*. It's not relevant.

* Except when the wind blows sand into the city.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What bothers me most about this is the fact that if I cut off a robot driver and it honks at me, will it be hurt when I flip it the bird in my rearview mirror?

It doesn't come standard but should be an option in most mid-line sedans by 2020

 

[mheslep]

I can't remember exactly who said this (a top guy in GM perhaps?) but I read recently that in the last decade there has been a substantial development in the technology behind self-driving cars.
...

Indeed:

DARPA Grand Challenge—a raucous race for robotic, driverless vehicles sponsored by the Pentagon, which awards a $2 million purse to the winning team. Armed with artificial intelligence, laser-guided vision, GPS navigation, and 3-D mapping systems, the contenders are some of the world's most advanced robots. Yet even their formidable technology and mechanical prowess may not be enough to overcome the grueling 130-mile course through Nevada's desert terrain. From concept to construction to the final competition, "The Great Robot Race" delivers the absorbing inside story of clever engineers and their unyielding drive to create a champion, capturing the only aerial footage that exists of the Grand Challenge.

The engineering on the winning Stanford vehicle in particular was IMO exquisite.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/about.html

 

[ThomasT]

@ dipole,
Actually, I was just joking. Maybe I watch too much scifi.

I think it's a great idea to develop the technology, however I'm not sure why we need (or why there would ever be viable market for) robot cars and/or robot drivers. Aren't there enough people out of work already?

To comment on a few of your points:

We have machines that operate autonomously all the time ...

It's one thing to put a plane in the open sky on autopilot for a while, but auto traffic is another thing. Lots of variables.

... trains are capable of driving themselves ...

They're on a track.

... most of the technology and goods you own were probably built or assembled using robots at some stage of their manufacture...

Doing very limited, repetitive tasks.

If machines can offer a real improvement to human transportation by driving on roads autonomously, why is this a bad thing?

A big if. But assuming that acceptable robot driving technology is someday developed, who's going to be able to afford to buy it? Would it put a certain segment of the population out of work?

Is a robot really less trustworthy than some teenager who's texting/blaring music/chatting with friends/and being reckless all at the same time while driving? We allow them to drive, and in fact the number one cause of deaths among young people is car accidents.

This assumes that robot cars/drivers are going to be implemented on a massive scale wrt individual vehicles.

A simpler solution to the problem of teen driving is to raise the driving age.

 

[Gokul43201]

Would it put a certain segment of the population out of work?

If we'd bowed to the seemingly unpleasant ramifications of this question every time someone promoted a technological advancement, we'd probably be a population with a 100% employment rate, but everyone would be either hunting or gathering.

 

[ThomasT]

If we'd bowed to the seemingly unpleasant ramifications of this question every time someone promoted a technological advancement, we'd probably be a population with a 100% employment rate, but everyone would be either hunting or gathering.

You might be right about that. Anyway, I think they're a long way from putting taxi, bus, and truck drivers out of work. Just too many variables for robots to safely handle I think. But I might be wrong about that.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

We'll likely see robotic public servants first.

 

[wuliheron]

We'll likely see robotic public servants first.

The next republican candidate for president maybe?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

We'll likely see robotic public servants first.

Not if the public service unions have anything to say about it, and they do!

 

[ThomasT]

We'll likely see robotic public servants first.

Or just servants. Yeah, I can see that. But still, a niche market.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You might be right about that. Anyway, I think they're a long way from putting taxi, bus, and truck drivers out of work. Just too many variables for robots to safely handle I think. But I might be wrong about that.

There's also the question of whether or not it would create jobs. It's not a straight jump to self driving cars but the SARTRE project requires people to drive trucks all day up and down main highways. Also there may be the possibility for this to create jobs by making commuting far easier for people e.g if a fleet of public transport self-driving cars was put into operation in an area of http://www.poverty.org.uk/75/index.shtml. This will be aided by the increased speed that self-drive cars have the potential to travel at (IMO) thanks to all the cars driving as one block (no erratic driving slowing everyone down), cross roads replaced by smooth merging (cars turn into spaces made for them) and on major roads speed limits can be increased to whatever the cars can take without the risk of accidents.

We'll likely see robotic public servants first.

I would wager that this falls under a similar thing to AI: once we can do it we'll no longer call it a robot.

 

[ThomasT]

There's also the question of whether or not it would create jobs. It's not a straight jump to self driving cars but the SARTRE project requires people to drive trucks all day up and down main highways. Also there may be the possibility for this to create jobs by making commuting far easier for people ...

I don't think the inability to commute is a major factor wrt unemployment. But automation, outsourcing and offshoring certainly are.

Millions of jobs which were formerly done by American people are now done by computers, or robots, or foreign labor.

As far as I can tell, no matter how this is parsed, it doesn't seem to me to be a good thing. At least not for Americans.

 

[MarcoD]

There's also the question of whether or not it would create jobs. It's not a straight jump to self driving cars but the SARTRE project requires people to drive trucks all day up and down main highways.

This is most likely a solution to congestion; the fact that other drivers don't need to steer is only a benefit. Though I guess it may be interesting to see what happens if one of the other drivers falls asleep.

 

[Borg]

I like the idea of robotic cars and think that they will probably outperform humans - especially with regards to paying attention. In fact, I look forward to the day when a car automatically drives whenever the 'driver' is texting or talking on the phone.

With regards to rootX's post on the first page, I wouldn't be surprised that most people eventually wouldn't even know how to drive. I could easily see GenX-ers someday telling their grandchildren that they remember when cars didn't drive themselves.

 

[Office_Shredder]

And every action movie will include a scene where the automatic driver gets killed for some reason and the hero has to steer the car down an empty street at 25 mph

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think the inability to commute is a major factor wrt unemployment. But automation, outsourcing and offshoring certainly are.

Millions of jobs which were formerly done by American people are now done by computers, or robots, or foreign labor.

As far as I can tell, no matter how this is parsed, it doesn't seem to me to be a good thing. At least not for Americans.

The link I provided was not to do with the US. I appreciate that in the US the situation might be different due to distances however in the UK (which my link was talking about) increased access to transportation could be a huge boon for the poorest people. The population density of the UK is extremely high, there aren't many places that are less than an hours drive from a major town/city. The problem is getting people in areas of high unemployment to places where there are jobs. I'm not suggesting this as a solution to the unemployment problem at all, I'm suggesting that it could help however by giving everyone the chance to be a commuter and by speeding up commutes through far better coordination.

For the latter here's a great example: I got a lift to work this morning and we were stopped at some traffic lights. The driver was gazing out of the window and didn't realize the light had turned green. She quickly realized and drove off but not before a few seconds had passed leaving a gap between us and the next car that a couple of cars could fit in. That means that someone is going to get stuck at those lights who wouldn't have before and this kind of thing happens all the time. If cars could not only self-drive but share data with each other then they could move in a far more efficient and coordinated manner reducing fuel costs and travel times.

 

[ThomasT]

The link I provided was not to do with the US. I appreciate that in the US the situation might be different due to distances however in the UK (which my link was talking about) increased access to transportation could be a huge boon for the poorest people.

Ok. But you don't need robots for that. Just put more buses (I don't know what you call them in England) in service. Each bus can carry, what, about 50 or 60 people at a time -- with one driver. How are robot drivers going to make any difference at all?

I think this whole robot driver robot vehicle thing is just, well, sort of idiotic. But that's just my current opinion, and, of course, it could be quite wrong.

 

[Borg]

And every action movie will include a scene where the automatic driver gets killed for some reason and the hero has to steer the car down an empty street at 25 mph

It wouldn't be an action movie if you didn't at least put an unattended baby carriage at the end of the block.

For the latter here's a great example: I got a lift to work this morning and we were stopped at some traffic lights. The driver was gazing out of the window and didn't realize the light had turned green. She quickly realized and drove off but not before a few seconds had passed leaving a gap between us and the next car that a couple of cars could fit in. That means that someone is going to get stuck at those lights who wouldn't have before and this kind of thing happens all the time. If cars could not only self-drive but share data with each other then they could move in a far more efficient and coordinated manner reducing fuel costs and travel times.

I agree. A lot of congestion is due to driver inattentiveness and also inconsiderate behavior. I have often seen people who will drive in the left lane with the goal of cutting over to the right at the last possible moment so that they don't waste any of their precious time. Unfortunately, this causes all of the people behind to suddenly stop, which then leads to irregular accelerations, gaps and slower average speeds.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ok. But you don't need robots for that. Just put more buses (I don't know what you call them in England) in service. Each bus can carry, what, about 50 or 60 people at a time -- with one driver. How are robot drivers going to make any difference at all?

I think this whole robot driver robot vehicle thing is just, well, sort of idiotic. But that's just my current opinion, and, of course, it could be quite wrong.

If you mean this then yes we do call them buses and yup you are absolutely right better use of them and trains, trams etc are a must for a better public transport service. If self-driving cars came in this could substantially change public transport for the better e.g. smaller buses with variable (within limits) routes that can pick up and drop of people to different places on demand for a more flexible service. Also as has been stated self-driving cars could have far faster and more efficient traffic.

Lastly if self-driving cars were utilised as PRT you wouldn't need one per person, cars IRL probably spend 90% of there time stationary not servicing anyone. It's quite conceivable that one self-driving car could serve 50 people but in a faster, more convenient way. Problems of travel in peak time would have to be mitigated but I'm sure they could e.g. automatic car pooling.

Bare in mind that I'm not saying that nothing can be done without self-driving cars. But I'm saying that they could dramatically increase the capability and efficiency of public transport systems.

 

[jobyts]

Not sure if someone already mentioned this earlier.

In Nevada, if a pedestrian crosses the road in an unmarked area and a car hits him/her, the law favors the car driver. In California, the law always favor the pedestrian, regardless of whose fault it is.

 

[Pythagorean]

Easy lawsuit generator in Cali. Bring your own neck brace.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Everyone is talking about the risks/benefits of giving robots drivers' licenses, but that's not the reason the state is doing this. The state is broke. They just need the revenue. I think the next step will be robot marriage licenses, including for gay robot marriage (quickie divorces too).

EDIT: And where else can you get married by a (robotic?) Elvis impersonator?.

 

[Pythagorean]

when can I get married to a robot?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

when can I get married to a robot?

If it's ever allowed you'll have to get in line behind these guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqUhuXzHnYY

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If it's ever allowed you'll have to get in line behind these guys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqUhuXzHnYY

Wow! A real life Lars and the Real Girl!

 

[CaptFirePanda]

There's also the dude who married his http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/816601-man-marries-pillow and the other on who http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10404956-71.htmlfrom a Nintendo DS game.