Self-driving car discussion catch-all

Here is a thought exercise.

If, by eliminating the effects of distracted driving, drunk driving, inexperienced driving, elderly impaired driving, and irresponsible rice racer driving we were able to reduce the number of annual vehicle deaths from ~34,000 to 100, but that those 100 deaths were the result of computer outages or network failures. Would the price be unacceptable?

To me, it's worth it. Those 100 would have most likely died from the other reasons.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I'm saying it won't be possible in a way that everyone (various world, federal, state and city governments plus all the auto manufacturers) will agree on and which will ultimately be in the realm of affordability for consumers, at least when the industry in charge of it is laser focused on only the next quarter's results.

I think these are ultimately baseless assumptions.

The entire world doesn't have to fall in line with a single driving framework (it might any way I suppose), we don't have currently and auto manufacturers manage to sell in to different markets making the appropriate legally mandated changes for each market. In order to bring this to market and solve 80%+ of the problems they really only need to make this work one country at a time (and apparently Sweden is that choice).

With regards affordability just about every motoring advance starts off in prestige cars and slowly makes it way down the product line and out to the larger market as the costs of the hardware and manufacturing fall. Last time I looked computing was doing nothing other than getting cheaper and smaller. I'd put my money on that continuing.

The most likely path to great adoption is if self-driving cars really do cause fewer accidents because that will cause insurance companies to drop the premiums on those cars and that will greatly drive people to adopt them

Not at all if those numbers you pulled out of thin air are actually the result but I'm not at all convinced of that happening with the corporate structure under which cars are currently built and sold.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Not at all if those numbers you pulled out of thin air are actually the result but I'm not at all convinced of that happening with the corporate structure under which cars are currently built and sold.

I assume you are talking about the very same corporations that have managed to cut the motor vehicle fatality rate 57% since 1973.

Then yeah.

The insurance industry will always find a reason to keep premiums high but that's another discussion.

Not much more I can say without repeating myself. As I said, I think this is ultimately a great idea if done right and even as someone who loves driving, I'd give it up in a second if it worked out. But clearly many people have much greater faith than I do in the ability of an industry full of public companies to do what's in the actual public's best interest first. I am very curious to see how this test in Sweden works out. I hope it goes well.

It's worth noting that the years' worth of Google self-driving cars being used on live roads have built up some impressive safety statistics; far better than that of the human public during the same timeframe. And that's on scary California roadways with plenty of non-AI drivers for the computer drivers to contend with.

Two words: Sontaran Stratagem

IMAGE(http://westkarana.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/atmos.gif)

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

The next time your computer or your smartphone crashes on you randomly for no apparent reason when you were just doing normal, routine things, picture that same thing happening to your self-driving car when it's travelling at high speed in a heavy grid of other drivers and you don't notice because since it's a self-driving car, you were starting at your phone instead. That's the scenario that has to be avoided almost entirely. How is that accomplished within the current corporate automotive industry?

The short answer is "by doing things very differently from computers and smartphones".

The rude answer is "you're showing a very limited understanding of automotive electronic systems and your analogy doesn't hold."

The dismissive answer is "by doing things exactly as they have been for years with safety-critical smart functions such as brake assist"

The technical answer is "with redundancy, deterministic real-time operating systems, a rigorous approach to software development and a metric f*ckton of engineering."

You'll note that answers 1,3 and 4 are all saying the exact same thing.

I agree that's how you accomplish it. Note that never have I said this was impossible to do. I used the word "corporate" with specific intent. Car companies have to make continuous and ever-growing profits and at least to me and the number of recalls (which seem to be happening on various scales almost daily now) seem to indicate that at least some of the time, corners are being cut in the efforts of cost savings. I've no doubt self-driving cars can be created that are extremely safe. I don't presently trust Corporate America to uphold that as the primary goal when they fall short for a couple of quarters.

The short answer is "I know this can be done. I don't trust big business to do it right."

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I agree that's how you accomplish it. Note that never have I said this was impossible to do. I used the word "corporate" with specific intent. Car companies have to make continuous and ever-growing profits and at least to me, the number of recalls (which seem to be happening on various scales almost daily now) seem to indicate that at least some of the time, corners are being cut in the efforts of cost savings. I've no doubt self-driving cars can be created that are extremely safe. I don't presently trust Corporate America to uphold that as the primary goal when they fall short for a couple of quarters.

The short answer is "I know this can be done. I don't trust big business to do it right."

I don't generally trust "Corporate America" to eliminate preventable childhood diseases either, but with a good deal of government guidance they have come pretty damned close. It is mostly the the tin foil hat folks that keep messing it up.

Paleocon wrote:

I don't generally trust "Corporate America" to eliminate preventable childhood diseases either, but with a good deal of government guidance they have come pretty damned close.

Yep and that could be the case here too. But how good's the government been at providing much corporate guidance lately? Good at bailing them out of their misguided insanity perhaps.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

The short answer is "I know this can be done. I don't trust big business to do it right."

Why not?

Big Business has managed to sell us cars that mostly don't explode in giant fireballs for the last 20 years. Why is this any different?

Jonman wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

The short answer is "I know this can be done. I don't trust big business to do it right."

Why not?

Big Business has managed to sell us cars that mostly don't explode in giant fireballs for the last 20 years. Why is this any different?

and are at least 100% safer than those same 20 year old cars.

I plan to be an early adapter of self-driving cars. I am a terrible driver and have full confidence that they can create a car that drives better than me; a random walk generator might actually drive better than me. I would give up cars entirely today if it were an option.

Demyx wrote:

I plan to be an early adapter of self-driving cars. I am a terrible driver and have full confidence that they can create a car that drives better than me; a random walk generator might actually drive better than me. I would give up cars entirely today if it were an option.

I'm a pretty damn good driver, and I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

f*ck this, I wanna teleport to work.

Get on that one, Sweden.

Tanglebones wrote:
Demyx wrote:

I plan to be an early adapter of self-driving cars. I am a terrible driver and have full confidence that they can create a car that drives better than me; a random walk generator might actually drive better than me. I would give up cars entirely today if it were an option.

I'm a pretty damn good driver, and I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

I am a lot better than most and I would absolutely take the deal.

sometimesdee wrote:

There are Libertarians, and there are "libertarians." The "libertarians" are giving Libertarians a bad name.

Save the political bullshit for the proper forum.

Yes, there will be deaths by computer and mechanical malfunctions. But those will be less than the deaths (and damage) caused by human error that we see on a daily basis.

The biggest problems to implementing this in the US will be cultural. You'll have the people (not using any derogatory terms though I want to) who believe that they can do it better and that you'll need to take their steering wheel from their cold dead hands. Combine that with the media spin that will occur the second that there is an accident where a self-driving car injuries someone and you'll see why we can't ever have nice things.

The only way it will truly work is (at least on highways) is if we completely remove the human element. I just don't see that ever happening.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, there will be deaths by computer and mechanical malfunctions. But those will be less than the deaths (and damage) caused by human error that we see on a daily basis.

The biggest problems to implementing this in the US will be cultural. You'll have the people (not using any derogatory terms though I want to) who believe that they can do it better and that you'll need to take their steering wheel from their cold dead hands. Combine that with the media spin that will occur the second that there is an accident where a self-driving car injuries someone and you'll see why we can't ever have nice things.

The only way it will truly work is (at least on highways) is if we completely remove the human element. I just don't see that ever happening.

I don't think we need to necessarily remove the human element. Self driving cars actually do a lot better at collision avoidance of bad human drivers than human drivers do at avoiding other human drivers.

I do, however, suspect that once folks separate the insurance pool of self driving cars from manually driven cars, driving your own car will become much more expensive to do. I don't consider that a bad thing either. Folks who really really really think they are better at driving should necessarily need to put their money where their mouths are.

Paleocon wrote:

You would think. That said, the word "libertarian" is mostly just code for crazy Southerner with a gun fetish and a fear of a "new world order". So anything requiring the coordination of more than five people or so is immediately the subject of tin foil hat scrutiny.

IMAGE(http://rps.net/QS/Images/Smilies/raspberry.gif)

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

As someone who has had 3 cars from 3 different brands lemon out since 2008 (all of which were maintained at a bare minimum to the manufacturer's recommendations) and whose latest Certified Pre-Owned car has been in the shop for a month as of today, I strongly disagree with you. A friend of mine has also been a mechanic since he was a teenager and he refers to most modern cars as "plastic junk that's designed to break in 5 years because people want cars that are cheap but also have a killer stereo, power everything and heated seats." This guy's seen cars from the 80s to now, he knows what he's talking about.

You and your friend are incorrect.

- The average age of a vehicle on the road is over 11 years, which is a record. In fact, cars are now kept two years longer than just back in 2007. And that's the age of the vehicle, not the age of the original owner. So while the economy would play some part in it, it does not play a large part.
- Modern manufacturing techniques allow for a higher level of precision and modern materials offer increased durability. Everything from the precision of pistons being manufactured to the improvements in rust-proofing increases the average lifespan of a car. You'd he hard-pressed to find any part made in the 70s or 80s that is equal, never mind superior, to the parts made today.
- JD Power's Survey of new car owners has shown that cars are simply getting better. Owners of newer cars have fewer problems than they used to.

In short, either you are extremely unlucky when it comes to cars or you are doing something very wrong to your automobiles to go through 3 new autos in the last 5 years. Cars today are far more reliable and last far longer than in any point in history. They are a marvel of modern manufacturing techniques.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/au...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/06...

kazooka wrote:
jbavon wrote:

FYI: Gothenburg is not the Capital of Sweden.

Is it the capital of a Swedish province? It's not a tiny city at least.

Fixed this.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Personally, I won't trust me safety to an self-driving car full of computerised components built by the lowest bidder that could be both buggy and exploitable and which is also reliant on every other self-driving car by every other manufacturer also not being buggy and exploitable but I also accept that most people seem to be fine with it. But what happens when one of these things bugs out and kills someone in a collision? Car manufacturers have already been sued due to accidents resulting from failed equipment, what happens when their equipment is also responsible for driving the car?

Cheap design decisions? Buggy and exploitable? Reliant on others not to mess up? A significant incidence of bugging out and killing someone? That sounds a lot like the evolutionary "design" of the current non-computer drivers.

Nevin73 wrote:

Yes, there will be deaths by computer and mechanical malfunctions. But those will be less than the deaths (and damage) caused by human error that we see on a daily basis.

The biggest problems to implementing this in the US will be cultural. You'll have the people (not using any derogatory terms though I want to) who believe that they can do it better and that you'll need to take their steering wheel from their cold dead hands. Combine that with the media spin that will occur the second that there is an accident where a self-driving car injuries someone and you'll see why we can't ever have nice things.

That's just a general issue; people tend to fetishize their own competence. I'll refrain from a rant regarding driving, guns, or vaccination, but they all come from our ability to overemphasize how good we are at things.

Rational or not, I think people expect a level of perfection from automated systems that they do not expect from people doing the same task.

People will be slow to adopt self-driving cars and quick to abandon them any time there's an instance of something going wrong.

Granath wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

As someone who has had 3 cars from 3 different brands lemon out since 2008 (all of which were maintained at a bare minimum to the manufacturer's recommendations) and whose latest Certified Pre-Owned car has been in the shop for a month as of today, I strongly disagree with you. A friend of mine has also been a mechanic since he was a teenager and he refers to most modern cars as "plastic junk that's designed to break in 5 years because people want cars that are cheap but also have a killer stereo, power everything and heated seats." This guy's seen cars from the 80s to now, he knows what he's talking about.

You and your friend are incorrect.

- The average age of a vehicle on the road is over 11 years, which is a record. In fact, cars are now kept two years longer than just back in 2007. And that's the age of the vehicle, not the age of the original owner. So while the economy would play some part in it, it does not play a large part.
- Modern manufacturing techniques allow for a higher level of precision and modern materials offer increased durability. Everything from the precision of pistons being manufactured to the improvements in rust-proofing increases the average lifespan of a car. You'd he hard-pressed to find any part made in the 70s or 80s that is equal, never mind superior, to the parts made today.
- JD Power's Survey of new car owners has shown that cars are simply getting better. Owners of newer cars have fewer problems than they used to.

In short, either you are extremely unlucky when it comes to cars or you are doing something very wrong to your automobiles to go through 3 new autos in the last 5 years. Cars today are far more reliable and last far longer than in any point in history. They are a marvel of modern manufacturing techniques.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/au...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/06...

Pretty much this.

Cars made in the 1980's were lucky to make it to 90k miles without needing a major engine rebuild, new transmission, or worse. This was even true of high end vehicles.

Nowadays, if you can't get 150k out of even an entry level car, you pretty well suck at vehicle maintenance, driving or both.

Paleocon wrote:

I don't think we need to necessarily remove the human element. Self driving cars actually do a lot better at collision avoidance of bad human drivers than human drivers do at avoiding other human drivers.

I do, however, suspect that once folks separate the insurance pool of self driving cars from manually driven cars, driving your own car will become much more expensive to do. I don't consider that a bad thing either. Folks who really really really think they are better at driving should necessarily need to put their money where their mouths are.

I believe you're spot-on here. Once proven to work well, insurance premiums on fully automatic cars will plummet as compared to a manually controlled one. It will be simple economics that helps drive this forward.

I really really really think I am better at driving than most people. I've raced on the minor circuits. I've been trained professionally. I haven't had an accident that was my fault since 1991 (that one cost me $100 to give you an idea how minor it was) and I've driven about half a million miles or more during that time. I actually like driving! But even I know I have made mistakes behind the wheel. I've missed stop signs driving in unfamiliar areas. I've missed a car or two in my blind spot while changing lanes. And as I get older I know things aren't going to get better. Frankly I'd love to have the option of letting a computer drive for me as I slide past middle age. There are so many benefits - better traffic patterns and faster transportation, fewer accidents, fewer injuries, fewer deaths, more freedom for older people who shouldn't drive, more leisure time, more family time (Skype my wife/kids from the car as I'm coming home)... it's absolutely a no-brainer. Will I miss driving? Perhaps from time to time, but the benefits outweigh any negatives for virtually everyone.

Not having to deal with city parking = instawin.

I want to think I'm a better than average driver, but realistically I'm probably right in the middle of the bell curve. Depends upon what portion of the driving population actually pays attention to driving and avoids distractions like phones, food, etc (as that's what I think differentiates me from most of the drivers I see on the roads during my commute).

If I could switch to a self-driving car today I would in a heartbeat, because even with my intentional attentiveness while driving, I can't be as alert to my surroundings and conditions as Google's self-driving cars.