03-22-2016, 12:36 AM | #1 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Self-driving "smart" cars
...are a dumb idea.
Discuss.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
03-22-2016, 01:02 AM | #3 |
Caffeinated
|
Computers when programmed correctly have a lesser chance of failure than humans so they add safety, plus in a theoretical situation where all cars are self driving it seems logical to assume the lack of personalized driving styles would cut down on traffic.
You can argue it cuts down on what you as a human are allowed to have control over or that it's anti-fun but that matters not in the slightest in the face of public safety and potential increase in the work force efficiency and the consequential economic benefit
__________________
Life, but a series of paths and flows Down many one can go May yours run smoothly and be soft to your feet |
03-22-2016, 01:13 AM | #4 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Self-driving cars aren't a new idea. However, the real challenge was allowing them to avoid obstacles and react to situations, which is the whole thing about why adolescent and adult humans are the only ones who are allowed to drive cars.
The thing is that until self-driving cars outperform humans, there is no reason to even consider them as real options. If I can drive a car better than an AI, I will vehemently oppose the possibility of an AI taxi to drive my drunk ass home from the bar because I'd obviously be concerned about the ability of the self-driving car to protect me from danger. I'd love a self-driving car. It would be incredible and amazing...IF AI research and development wasn't so ass. It's one thing to analyze and play a game of Go, but quite another for an AI to recognize, identify, and act upon obstacles in real time, with the punishment for not doing so being death or grievous injury to everyone inside it. Google is doing a good job. Soon enough drunk driving will be over, permanently, with not much difference in the way the rest of society works (although hopefully soon we can install computerized traffic controllers to prevent further accidents).
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 02:03 AM | #5 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
One of the good things about self-driving cars is the potential for added infrastructure. Self-driving cards obviously do better among themselves than against other, manned vehicles. A human is unpredictable and prone to error, and that can cause serious injury. It might be a safer idea to have self-driving only roads. This would also cut down on the amount of time needed to get a working model in.
Unless we make self-driving cards mandatory and don't allow for any optional manual overrides, this won't end drunk driving. But it would, in theory, help to eliminate most cases of DUI.
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 05:05 AM | #6 |
Chiko Chiko Chi
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: To the world, to the world, to the world, to the world where you live
Posts: 1,834
|
Self-driving cars are a thing which I detest severely as UPN's self-proclaimed (as of now on UPN) revhead. Why do I detest them? Well, that is due to the fact that the idea in and of itself is quite a ridiculous one. Most people will be well aware that driving while being one of the best ways of getting around is actually more about the experience of driving and not just getting from A-B. Now, while some may argue that driving is 'tedious' there is a solution to that and that solution being that you should stop thinking of it that way. I mean, sure, maybe driving can be occasionally boring but as a person who is currently on their L's and has had several people be complete dicks on the road to me, I still thoroughly enjoy the sensation of the steering wheel between my hands and the feeling of using the brake, accelerator and clutch.
So, maybe that isn't good enough reasoning and the majority of that is complete and utter biased opinion. I'll admit that but there are still several reasons as to why this idea is beyond ridiculous and I'll start with the first and most important point. Some Drivers Are Unpredictable: As most who drive will know, you can never predict what people on the road are going to do due to difference in ability and concentration levels which are altered mainly by people deciding to talk on their mobile phone. Now, this is where a self-driving car would be a bad choice. Yes, the 'experts' and I use that term generously will tell us that the computer inside of these cars will be able to brake by themselves. Sure, okay, we might be saved from idiots but remember these are computers and what happens when computers become overloaded? They either lag or crash. What I'm saying is that the computer controlling the braking may become unresponsive and therefore make an accident potentially unavoidable. Now, I do have plenty more points to bring up but I'll just leave my mark as that for now.
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 05:59 AM | #7 |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
It's worth noting that we consider computers more than good enough to basically fly airplanes almost completely by themselves.
Computers have faster reaction times than humans. Period. If other human drivers are "unpredictable", then the clear solution is to ban human driving. Since that is clearly not feasible, then the best way to react to unpredictable situations is to react fast and react well: something best done by computers. Computers do not "lag or crash" when they are overloaded. The operating systems that you are familiar with might. But the computers that will drive cars will not be written in Windows. Secondly, computers do not get overloaded in this kind of a scenario. They will always be receiving the same amount of information. And anyway, it is beyond simple to have a backup solution which simply stops the car if the computer becomes unresponsive.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
03-22-2016, 07:28 AM | #8 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Currently the biggest issue with driverless cars is that they don't act like humans - they actually obey the law and drive in a way that people only ever do on their test. Accident rates for driverless cars are at present higher than that of normal cars, but that comes with two big caveats; one, exclusively minor accidents (generally being hit at low speeds from behind) and two, almost exclusively the human driving the other cars fault. Driverless cars struggle right now to deal with our bad driving habits (the fact that everyone speeds on the motorway, etc).
Iirc California requires that a human operator always been in a position to take over if necessary, which I feel is a good compromise whilst we phase in computer-driven cars.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
03-22-2016, 08:21 AM | #9 |
Double Dragon
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,776
|
>Chiko
I'll disagree with you. I drive because it's a convenient means of transportation from Point A to Point B. That's pretty much it. To me the experience of driving is really tedious. I guess it's a cool feeling to pick up friends and drive somewhere but it'd be nice if I didn't have to concentrate on the road and let my car drive for me so I could just talk to people, listen to music, read a book, or anything really. Trust me, I get where you're coming from because immediately after l got my driver's license I was like "Yeah so cool driving is awesome!" but now it's really become something that I do because it's convenient, not because it's cool or fun. >Concept Yeah I agree with you on California's law. It's a good policy to have while phasing in new tech
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 09:23 AM | #10 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
They aren't a dumb idea, and I'm not sure why you'd say they are, let alone lead the discussion with that. In fact of all of the millions of miles tested on self-driving cars so far, of all of the accidents that have occurred, only one was the fault of the self-driving car, and it happened when it sideswiped a bus because it incorrectly predicted the behavioral pattern it was expecting when locked in a somewhat difficult choice to make on a turn.
Incredibly minor. Literally every other self-driving car accident was the fault of the human involved. It's essentially already proven that self-driving cars are far safer than humans driving them, hell, 50 years from now we could potentially see self-driving cars being the only legal way to drive on the open road. Of course, it will take some time to get there, as they need to perfect the art of driving in the snow first. |
03-22-2016, 10:53 AM | #11 |
Caffeinated
|
@chiko
Your fun < public safety and efficiency
__________________
Life, but a series of paths and flows Down many one can go May yours run smoothly and be soft to your feet |
03-22-2016, 04:11 PM | #12 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
I worry that, in a world of computer-controlled cars, the network becomes a juicy target for cyber terrorism. My tech friends have all blown this off as easily solved, but the smartest friend I have had a rather chilling dismissal to share: "The number of deaths in the single largest terrorism event to date do not compare to the number of people who die in motor vehicular accidents in this country alone every year. Therefore, it's worth it [to switch to computer-controlled cars, even with Talon's fears about terrorists hijacking the cars to kill millions]." That may be how a purely logical being sees it, but I'm sorry: I just can't accept that we should embrace the possibility of a hacking that costs millions of people their lives with open arms.
Aside from that, I'm not disturbed by automated cars at all. I enjoy driving too, and I suffer pretty bad motion sickness unless I am the one in control of the steering wheel. (I can't be the passenger, which is what I'd have to be 100% of the time in a driverless world.) But despite these things, I think automated cars are neat and I am okay with a world in which they are the norm. Friends have suggested that recreational driving might be grandfather claused in for anyone born before the 21st century. (Arbitrary cutoff date.) And that what will happen is, you pay for it on your insurance. "Oh, sure, we'll let you drive yourself, Mr. Johnson. But your car insurance is going to cost you $600/mo instead of the $25/mo it costs everyone else who's signed up for automated driving." While this renders driving a rich man's luxury, and that's a shame for all who love to drive but won't be a part of the 21st century's aristocracy, it's still something I can easily see becoming our reality within 50 years. "If you want to selfishly put yours and others' lives at risk, sir, then we're going to have to ask you to pay for the privilege up front." Give it enough time and even this sort of grandfather clause will rub the new generation the wrong way. ("WHY SHOULD HE BE ALLOWED TO PAY HIS WAY TOWARDS MURDERING ME AND MY FRIENDS ON THE ROAD!? ") But at least for the next 30 to 50 years, people will be able to pay for the right to drive if they wish to.
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 05:09 PM | #13 | |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Quote:
The thing I like the most about self-driving cars is that they aren't blinded by headlights. I always worry I'm going to crash on dark nights without streetlights where every asshole on the road has their new BMW Hi-Beemz (tm) aimed directly at my eyes. Not only am I completely blind for the one second that that car drives past me, I'm functionally blind for a few more while my eyes rapidly adjust back to normal. I can't close my eyes for those damn beams (that would be even worse) and I can't focus on the road to make sure there's no wildlife or errant child crossing the road. AI won't have that problem.
__________________
|
|
03-22-2016, 05:15 PM | #14 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
They're kind of inevitable, like wearable technology or us running out of Scotch. It will definitely happen. No questions asked.
|
03-22-2016, 05:29 PM | #15 |
Volcano Badge
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,143
|
We're doing a project around "the future of driving" for one of my automotive clients at work, and one very distinct possibility is that in a driverless car world, people will eventually stop owning cars, and most/all cars on the road will be driverless taxis running on a subscription service.
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 06:08 PM | #16 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
A road network of exclusively driverless cars would likely perform better than one of exclusively manual cars, but a hybrid of the two would (with present technology) be worse than either - therein lies the hump to be overcome.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 03-22-2016 at 06:18 PM. |
||
03-22-2016, 11:03 PM | #17 |
Chiko Chiko Chi
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: To the world, to the world, to the world, to the world where you live
Posts: 1,834
|
Zelphon please, I already said that point was obsolete (At least, I meant to put it in there).
Anyway, I agree with your point wholeheartedly that the fun of one is incredibly unimportant compared to the lives of many. Especially when the Aus road toll is as bad as it currently is, though it has decreased a decent amount throughout the years. One of my biggest quips with this though is 'how will they deal with emergency vehicles which require traveling through a red light at high speeds, possibly 100kmh/62mph+'? Do not misunderstand me, I would welcome these but I'm just incredibly curious at how they would deal with situations such as the one above. Now, this is a good idea but what if they stopped whilst traveling on a highway, freeway or motorway? Would that not make them more of a potential danger?
__________________
|
03-22-2016, 11:30 PM | #18 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
RedLights.Ignore = True SpeedLimit.Ignore = True
__________________
Spoiler: show |
|
03-22-2016, 11:41 PM | #19 |
Chiko Chiko Chi
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: To the world, to the world, to the world, to the world where you live
Posts: 1,834
|
Well, thanks for that in all honesty.
As from Skype chat with editing: "I'm scared of accidents which are very unlikely to happen involving driverless-cars." If someone can prove to me (preferably by PM) that these worries are very unlikely to happen, I will rest my case.
__________________
|
03-23-2016, 01:26 AM | #20 |
Dominator of Bike Levels
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,321
|
One interesting thought I've had with smart cars is that if they did become the standard, you could likely raise the speed limit on highways considerably. You couldn't do it in residential areas because of pedestrian issues, but you could potentially cut a lot of time off of lone interstate road trips.
Beyond that, I can't wait for driverless cars, mostly because I'm the driver of the family and I'd love to be able to do... anything other than driving while I'm in the car.
__________________
The Kim Il Sung of ASB. |
03-23-2016, 08:59 AM | #22 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Quote:
... I'm disappointed you lot, for the most part, only focused on the safety. This is un-surprisingly the least controversial issue when it comes to self-driving cars. Computers following algorithms, on the whole, are going to be more accurate, precise about motions than humans. They're less adaptable and can't improvise as well, but once the subroutines become complex enough, self-driving cars can adapt to real-life conditions better than people. The bigger issue as I see of it, is that (1) we're not really going to be decreasing fatalities, relative to other options. Current cars with computers in them only have a limited ability to troubleshoot mechanical failures, and they can't do anything to prevent mechanical failures. So when something happens - the ignition won't stop, tires pop, the engine overheats during a crowded day on the Autoban - I'd argue computers would be little better than people. Additionally, the other major reason cars have such high collision rates is (2) there's more cars on the road than any other vehicle. One bus that holds 30 people is going to have a lower chance of getting in an accident than eight cars holding an average of 4 people. Trains have an even lower rate of collision, with most train collisions involving cars at train tracks, and trains are the closest analog to driver-less cars: such cars are basically cars on rails. So, you shouldn't be advocating for making every car self-driving. The more people on the road, the higher the chance of mechanical failures, the higher the chance of collisions. Invest in public transportation and design cities so commuting is no longer economically viable. That's better for the environment, and better for everyone all-around. Finally, on the economic side, (3) a lot of parties have invested in fleecing the driver. You pay car insurance companies for an event that might not happen. State governments, like California, actually need red light and other police-observed violations to fund state programs, because taxes aren't enough to pay for them all. Highway stores built along routes become destitute if GPS map routes change and divert traffic away from them, so business becomes rare. The financial impact of detonating the auto insurance industry - which is one of the most stable and consistent over the past 70 years - are unpredictable. Many, many big businesses rely on this stability for income. Warren Buffet, for example, gets most of the money he uses to buy companies from Geico's profits. 2008 saw the near destruction of several domestic American car companies (actually, only GM and Ford). It was sudden, but those companies are arguably less integral to the "automotive industrial complex" than insurance is. So your benefit for self-driving cars is, reduce human-error assisted collisions by some unknown amount and bomb several revenue streams for government and business. You *may* reduce those collisions by a significant amount, but I would argue encouraging public transport and cutting down on the need to drive will be more impactful, for less financial cost. This even ignores Talon's cyberterrorism argument, which is another kettle of fish. Which is the big thing with why I dislike the millennial technophilia - being plugged in all the time is bad.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
|
03-23-2016, 09:08 AM | #23 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
If America were to build public train lines on par with Japan's in terms of hours, route density (per unit area of land), safety, and cost ...
Just think about what it would do for all those pesky national tournaments (in any fandom, not just Pokémon) you can't attend because you weren't lucky enough to be born in the New York or Washington metro areas. Hop on the train for $40 round trip max, maybe even cheaper, and enjoy the train ride. ... But we return to the terrorism argument. It's difficult for terrorists to take out hundreds of lives via the current US highway system. It'd be very, very easy for them to wreak havoc if they targeted the train tracks. Hell, I'd argue the only reason we haven't seen more of it is because we are such a car-heavy, train-light society right now. If we were to invert it, we'd have to deal with the dangers of travel by train. You can inspect an airplane before every takeoff. You can't inspect thousands of miles of train tracks before every departure.
__________________
|
03-23-2016, 09:09 AM | #24 |
The Uncultured One
|
See, smartcars are the sort of thing I could see working, but only if there was one giant conversion. Having a mix of computer-driven and human-driven cars on the road would probably be catastrophically bad, and with computer-driven cars there's less of an issue of 'the car came out of nowhere', because there'll probably be tech built in so that the cars can identify where the cars around it are, which direction they're going and how fast they're travelling.
__________________
Spoiler: show |
03-23-2016, 09:36 AM | #25 | |
Foot, meet mouth.
|
Quote:
__________________
Spoiler: show |
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|