Driverless Cars- Scariest Thing Ever?

[Noofly]

Am I the only one completely freaked out by the thought of driverless cars? I can't even bear it when DH uses the self parking gadget on his car. How am I going to cope in a world of robot cars?

(lighthearted in that yes, I will obviously cope, but am I alone in thinking Eeek?!?!?)

Funny the mention of aeroplanes... When that plane landed on the Hudson River it was a quick thinking human being, not automated technology that saved everybody.

Human beings programme computers. Just saying. It's the many complicated network of complicated inter-dependent systems that I have doubts about, so many places for something to go wrong, and how good are the backup systems? The level of complication will kick up a lot, so more opportunities for something to go wrong. Anyone know yet why that GoogleCar crashed into the bus?

It's a bit unnerving for me, being a lollipop lady

The thing is Worral can make eye contact, or observe if a driver is paying attention. How would you know whether a driverless car had observed a person in the road? Maybe the D-less cars can be fitted with external people tracking indicators.

No more lollipop ladies needed, Worra. You'd be a 'lady of leisure'.

Let's compare the two options. One is a driver that only watches the road, has lightening fast reflexes, never drinks, never uses a phone, is never in a bad mood, doesn't get angry, never gets tired, mind never wanders, doesn't get distracted by passengers, doesn't get a thrill from driving fast, never shows off and is never inexperienced. The other is a human. Give me the computer every time. You might be the safest driver in the world but it is everyone else that is the problem.
As for the sun spot issue it could have a failsafe that if it loses gps it can use stored maps to come to a gentle, managed stop.

I want to know how low down the censors are, that lets the car know something/someone is in the road.

Would it know if a cat had just shot out in front of it?

Can't wait. It will be so much more efficient than humans driving. Also, I live in a built up area and about 30% of of drivers appear to be on their phone whilst driving. I'd rather take my chances with the computers.

And where would it go from there?

I have concerns about the complicated, interdependent systems that a PP mentioned. You wouldn't be starting from new with limitless funds - as some designers seem to have a brief to do - but trying to integrate a new technology with an elderly and already creaking system which is focussed on human-driven cars.

Just consider what it would take - as it's already been mentioned - to integrate/retrofit every school crossing/zebra crossing throughout the UK - and to parents' and lawyers' satisfaction - to enable them to 'talk' to cars. (Having all cars designed to 'see' people in appropriate circumstances and react correctly would bring its own problems.)

It may happen but I think it's going to be appallingly complicated and lengthy.

And that's where the value judgements would come in, Worra. They would be able to design to stop a car in the event of eg a cat crossing, but who is to say they would wish to?

IT can't keep our banks free of glitches. Testing isn't perfect and until each update goes live you won't know if there is a problem.

Having had two near misses yesterday because of wanky drivers (thinking talking on phone whilst driving around the corner in a hill on the wrong side of the road), I can't wait.

Would a car that could not slow down in time therefore change course and crash itself, killing the occupant if that was the only option rather than plough into a crowd of pedestrians?

I'm not sure why we think a computer would apply any different standards than a human driver would? Obviously they could be programmed to, but why would it cross anyone's mind to do that? The first responsibility of any agent (pedestrian, driver, pilot, whatever...) is their own safety and that of their passengers. Why do we assume a computer should meet some standard that isn't required of humans?

If a car would take such extreme evasive actions as to risk even small injuries to a passenger, rather than hit a pedestrian, some pedestrians (teenage boys, I predict) would take that as licence to just randomly run into the road whenever they felt like, confident that cars would avoid them at all costs. I think it's quite important that computer-driven cars are programmed to hit reckless pedestrians rather than risk any injury to their occupants. The pedestrians have a choice in what is happening, the car passengers don't.

My car has one of those parking gadgets. I have never yet had the nerve to try it - I can't get my head around the car parking itself.

I can appreciate gadgets that would make a car keep a safe distance from others on a motorway for example, or not letting it hit a solid object (eg wall, car, person) - but not sure I would cope with the whole self driving car thing.

It will never happen.

1. There are people out there who actually like driving their car.those people will not be in the market for having the ability to drive taken away from them.

1. The infrastructure changes needed to make a truely driverless society will be prohibitively expensive. Who is going to fund them? Besides which, see point1 re people who don't want to be driverless.

1. The question of liability is complex. It will not be possible to have a driverless car which avoids every possibility. There will still be cats/dogs/toddlers who run out into the roads without looking.When they are hit by a car (and if a car is going fast enough no senser is going to enable it to stop fast enough to avoid killing a toddler) who will be liable for that toddler's death?

And the only way a driverless car could be considered safer than a driven one is if all cars were driverless. We're simply not even close to a society where that will happen.

To the poster who said that it will give the visually impaired greater freedom, I disagree. I believe that even if the technology is implemented into cars in order to have the driverless capability, there will still be the need for someone to be able to take over the car in the event of an emergency, and that won't change. Plus the added issue of liability affects more greatly someone with no sight. Imagine my scenario above where the car hits a toddler and kills him. the car may stop at that point, if it has a sighted person inside, they will be able to stop it manually if it doesn't stop of its own accord, if the driver is blind, they will have no way of knowing A, that they have potentially just run over and killed someone's child, B, what it is they've hit if they are aware that they've hit something, and C, no way of being able to stop the car safely. If it doesn't stop itself.

I am aware that some people with VI believe that driverless cars will bring greater independence, although opinion is divided on whether that should be allowed. I'm in the no camp, and have been flamed on here for daring to say so. But given that this cannot possibly be a 100% non visual ability, it is not ok to give independence at the expense of other people's safety.

The pressure to allow driverless cars will grow and grow especially with an aging population. The potential economic benefits are immense.

How far away do you think we are from this? I was debating with my dad about this the other day. He said it won't be in the next 50 years but I disagree.

But what are they, Boom, and how do they rank in terms of the other matters society needs to attend to quickly in terms of resource consumption? (Take just ('just' - Hah!) the replacement of our elderly (and nearly dead) sewage system as one example. )

I'm not sure why we think a computer would apply any different standards than a human driver would? Obviously they could be programmed to, but why would it cross anyone's mind to do that? The first responsibility of any agent (pedestrian, driver, pilot, whatever...) is their own safety and that of their passengers. Why do we assume a computer should meet some standard that isn't required of humans?

Because computers and artificial intelligence can apply different standards than humans and could interpret any rules of protecting people that are programmed into them in purely logical ways that we could find horrifying.

I don't see how it would be the case that individual 'agents'/cars could be merely responsible for their safety as now, because surely for a driverless car system to even work it has to be properly networked and connected.

These issues are being considered seriously already, there's lots of stuff online about it and it's very intetesting I think, one example is:

www.technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/

They will not work where we live, the lanes touch your vehicle on both sides at all times.

I suspect that there may be the odd town/city that decides to try it out, zary, but wider? I think your father is being optimistic.

Volkswagen isn't a systemfailure though so not compatible, the software worked exactly as it should have done and that was to cheat the system.

Well quite. Who would be the ultimate arbiter for the aims of software design for any driverless cars?

Can't wait. Sick of shit, careless drivers. Bring it on.

IT can't keep our banks free of glitches

That's down to legacy code and underfunding/of shoring, no one wants to touch or invest in the legacy system because largely they work OK, I can charge up to 5k a day just for getting out of bed and rebooting certain legacy systems in the city because they thought they could save on costs and of shore it all to India.

Biggest cause of accidents (more than 65%) is driver error or reaction.

A computer can't be blinded by the sun. (because you can utilise other sensors and have cameras at lots of different places)
A compter can't fail to look properly (again multiple different sensors and able to 'see' more than a driver
A computer won't be checking its text messages
A computer won't be eating a sandwich or drinking a coffee and driving one handed
A computer will have access to a database filled with millions of different driving scenarios
A computer doesn't drink and drive - or drive when too tired.

Bring it on (is what I say)