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?!?!?)

My father has parkinsons and can no longer drive. He still works, but it has become incredibly difficult (he only spends two days at the office a week, and when he's there it means my mother or I have to give up a day to take him - it may only be a one hour commute there, but that's four hours of driving a day for us). His mind is fine, he's not safe to drive because of the stiffness and tremors. He would love a driverless car as it means he'd be able to work properly again and mum would be able to take a full time job herself.

I'm ambivalent about them, but I think overall they'll be a good thing if they can get them going.

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

Unless your trying to infer some sky net system or that someone could add some mod to the software that makes a 10tonne truck suddenly go on a rampage I'm not sure where your heading, they will be held to the same restrictions that all modern cars are.

Driverless cars are the future, it will be safer for everyone on the road, pedestrians/cyclists even the odd cat scarpering across the road.

There is inevitably a reaction of the scared of the unknown as with any technoligal advancement that shouldn't mean we should shelve it, the talk of job losses is something to be weary about and that introduces the argument for a basic income as automation is going to have a bigger encroach on more than just unskilled work and many middle class professions are going to be hit further down the line, however I doubt that many of the driverless cars are going to be like Johnny5 style cabs (Unfortunetly), they will still require a qualified driver behind the wheel if not for just reassurance purposes.

With the job losses, well along with the argument that we should maybe look at a basic income as not everyone can become a software dev, there is a side argument that with fully driverless vehicles there is no need for drink drive laws so pubs/leasure facilities could see an upsurge which would put more demand on Brewers who need to invest in new infrastructure which requires builders plumbers etc, also some areas of the infrastructure network could be redesigned once driverless vehicles take of so that is more jobs coming into the market.

As I said previously, I don't know how it will pan out so I wasn't trying to imply anything like that. However, all modern cars assume a driver presence to make the 'command decisions'. Without ultimate driver control, I suspect there might be a frighteningly large number of grey areas which would require some sort of determination.

Unless, of course, people are talking simply about 'more of the same' ie facilities that you could use if you wished?

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.

A lot of people will be attracted by the fact that a driverless car might cost far less. It will be in use for far more of each day, so the cost of depreciating while parked will be hugely reduced. (I am assuming people will mostly not own cars, instead we will have driverless Uber. Cheaper than current Uber because no driver needs to be paid.)

2. 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.

Eh? I think your inference that cars that need expensive infrastructure won't happen is correct. Where I differ is that I would interpret this to mean the cars are being designed to not need expensive infrastructure. Not sure what expensive infrastructure you are assuming they will need. (I know little about driverless technology, so it is entirely possible you know something I don't though.)

3. 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

Driverless cars will kill people, but less often than current drivers do. Struggling to see a problem here that would cause anyone to want to delay their arrival. With regard to liability, I read something that suggested that the UK government will allow cars on the road as soon as the manufacturers want to put them there, as long as they are insured. So liability for running over a toddler will be between an insurer and the victims family/representatives, in roughly the same way it would be now if the driver were human. (I suppose the one difference is that there will be virtually no likelihood of criminal prosecution. It's not logically impossible for the manufacturer to have been negligent in designing the car, but in the real world there's just no likelihood of a successful prosecution. The manufacturers have every incentive not to be negligent.)

Cozie expected economic benefits include, but are not limited to: fewer injuries and deaths, less property damage, less traffic congestion (because cars can be automated to smooth traffic flows and because of fewer accidents), greater autonomy for some groups of people, more efficient taxiing, haulage and delivery services, greater productivity for people who frequently travel by car for work and better use of town centre car park space.

These all require autonomous, not just driverless, cars. Driverless cars which require a human driver to be able to take over are more likely to increase accidents and overall cost, though many people will probably still like them.

There's potential for big environmental benefits if attitudes to car owning change with the advent of autonomous cars. But personally I don't think that would happen with out strong government coercion of some sort.

I'm not sure there's a comparison to things like sewer systems. Sewer systems require centralized investment, one way or another. Autonomous cars require some legislative changes, but the investment can be piecemeal and from private sources chasing potential profit, those two things don't really compete directly for funding against each other in our economies. We would be better comparing them to our consumption of other private, non essential goods, like movies, computers, fashion, foreign holidays etc.

At the moment, a driver is responsible for the consequences of an accident. If a child/animal runs into the road, the driver can 'choose' to hit the child/animal or swerve into on-coming traffic.
Many people will make a different choice on whether it is a child or animal and some would choose to protect themselves, so how is the car designed to work?
Are manufacturers prepared to be sued by the injured people in the on-coming car when the accident was caused by a child? The cheapest option is to run down the child - is this what drivers want?
Additionally, in a mixed scenario (some driven, some driverless), driven cars can/aill become more reckless, cut in, ignore priority as they know the driverless cars will avoid them.

Better than what we have now which is a load of alcoholic, coked up speed freaks who watch porn on laptops while smoking or drinking. I live near the M6 motorway and it's chaos every day.

this is worth a read

Why would anyone want to be in a computer controlled car when there are such think as hackers.

Maybe you should link to the article as it doesn't annihilate any encouraging thoughts, it's the first one, and although the bus driver was not to blame there was an element of the bus using his position 'Being bigger' that would usually make us humans give position.

There is two points to be made on this, the ai technology can be modified to be more flexible when positions like this arise and learn from this one mistake and two once the bus is driverless there will be no bullying in the first place.

As for hackers, that's a different and somewhat scaremongering line, 'hackers' can already unlock and drive away in your modern car with nothing more than a wifi connection and or a cable into your ecu, doesn't mean you hear about any such instances happening.

At the moment, a driver is responsible for the consequences of an accident. If a child/animal runs into the road, the driver can 'choose' to hit the child/animal or swerve into on-coming traffic.

I don't see any problem with cars being programmed to hit anything they can't avoid by braking. I certainly don't think hitting an oncoming car is an option we need to preserve.

If there is an option to use the other side of the road without hitting anything, then I guess driverless could use that more reliably than a human would.

Additionally, in a mixed scenario (some driven, some driverless), driven cars can/aill become more reckless, cut in, ignore priority as they know the driverless cars will avoid them.

I think this is a valid concern. Perhaps it will be mitigated if the driverless cars immediately email video footage of such driving to the police and the other drivers insurer, every time it happens.

The scenario I've previously imagined is idiots nonchalantly striding into the road in full expectation that cars will emergency brake for them. I have experienced this once as a human driver, they were looking right at me so knew what they were doing. Once I'd come to the stop they walked very slowly, laughing to themselves. (I want to be clear here: these people weren't just wanting to cross the road. They were deliberately playing a game with drivers.) I imagine the idiots would have far more confidence in computer drivers, and it would happen a lot more often. I guess even pedestrians can/should be prosecuted by the police if they do this. (It it's not currently an offense, maybe it will need to be.)

So they reckon driverless cars will be safer???
I wonder if motor insurance will drop?
Silly me, of course not.

I imagine it would drop yes, once the majority of cars are driverless I would imagine that the insurance companies will have one last squeeze on the last of the standard drivers as they would be now considered more risk.

Once we have 100% driverless cars then I imagine car ownership would change drastically and a new insurance policy will have to come into place, but yeah in short there will be no premiums for young drivers etc in the future.

Theoretician You may not have a problem, but many people will prefer to swerve and hit the car than run over and kill a toddler.

Theoretician

That's the age old ethics problem.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

TL;DR, car takes choice which causes least harm. It's not "deciding to kill someone" as much as "ranking the obstacles ahead for hazard and harm potential, and picking the least-worst option".
Besides which, people forget that these (incredibly rare) situations already occur with human drivers, who are morally disgusting by comparison - they usually either panic and hit everything, or value their own lives over everyone else. Anything the computer does will be an improvement over the excessive death toll on our roads today.

It would certainly be a leap of faith, says she who has never even used cruise control or park assist.

There are already driverless trains though, if you think of systems such as the Docklands Light Railway in London.

Aeroplanes cruise their programmed routes mostly on autopilot and I understand some are equipped for automatic landings although many pilots probably prefer to land manually. Perhaps in some ways they could already be likened to flying computers.

I think driverless cars will come. They might be something I really have to see and experience though in order to gain faith in them and really understand how it is all supposed to work. Doubtlessly, there will also be glitches along the way as with anything else.

They might be a boon for some people - e.g. those with disabilities and/or medical conditions which preclude them from driving. Currently, I have a seriously fractured arm in a cast and find myself in that position at the moment, albeit temporarily. I cannot drive for the next few weeks, but a fully automatic car might allow me more freedom.

So, mixed feelings from me.

Driverless cars = best thing ever IMO

if everyone had to purchase a driverless car in the future.....think of the lives that can saved from drunk drivers, distracted drivers, driver error, high speed chases and just plain dumbass speeding, tailgating morons. Think of the savings in health care, about how many police officers could be freed up from fender benders. It could be really glorious If we embraced it and dedicated ourselves to perfecting it

Back to economic benefits, these could be huge, if we are the first country to legalize and regulate them, we'll pretty much have a monopoly on their production until the rest of the world catches up. Why build elsewhere when the only country you can sell them in is the UK?

That'd be a huge boost for us when the world does catch up, in the meantime there'll be factories creating for our domestic market which will be significant on its own, this coupled with the appropriate R&D and all other associated services it moves us into an ermeging market that would easily mitigate the ~300,000 driver job loses.

Being the first mover in this market would give us a huge advantage.

I am so excited, my husband and I are both visually impaired so unable to drive. This will be so amazing for us.

Better than about 50% of the people who are allowed on the road nowadays.

So if a collision became inevitable in a fully networked driverless car system would the system 'decide' who to sacrifice and who to save, and based on what? The greater good, I guess it would have to be?

That sort of situation would be governed by the 3 laws of driverless cars.

I think I'm going to recommend strongly that the family youngsters go into law. I can almost see the suits massing on the horizon already.

i wouldnt mind a driverless taxi though, i mean you could just give monopoly money and they wouldnt know the difference

well my DB is a coach driver so that'd be him out of a job. plus all the hgv, taxi, buses, delivery drivers. also all the thousands of people employed by car insurance companies that presumably would be surplus to requirements.

i doubt working on a factory assembly line would replicate the wages of a class 1 HGV or hazchem driver, justanotherlurker. it wouldn't match my DBs wages and he is "only" psv

Cozietosie

You could do, but Google / Microsoft etc are cash rich companies with billions in the bank. They can just put down a huge slush fund and cover claims themselves. It'll be part of the marketing and a win win because self driving cars will be safer, once the first couple come to court and the driverless cars have multiple camera angles plus all on board data against someone else's word and a dash cam I don't think there will be this flood of suits that people like to imagine.

I would suggest something in IT for job security and longevity