Who would own a driverless car?

[Tobolsk]

Not a AIBU but a spin off from another thread on here.

I would have a driverless car only if:

1. I could drive it manually when I wanted to.
   
2. I could legally send it to pick up people, drive its self home or drive my drunk bum home.
   
3. It looked like a normal car. The Google car looks like a woodlouse

[coconuttella]

But if you want a commute you can read a book on or relax on, get the train??

Most commutes can't readily be done by train... Not everyone works in a city centre and lives near a train station. Surely you must be able to see that! I could commute by train but it would involve travelling into London, getting on a tube, and travelling out again. Even with a hellish M25, the car is far, far quicker and much less expensive.

If you would use driver less cars like taxis, why not get an actual taxi?!?! You'd still have to pay for the driver less taxi?*

What do think constitutes a huge component of a taxi's cost?... the driver of course! Take that out of the equation and prices would plummet.

[EmmaWoodlouse]

I'd rather have a driverless car than one I had to drive myself (I hate driving and haven't done it for years), but I'd rather use public transport than either.

[Hygellig]

I'd love a driverless car! I could just get in, tell it where to go, and sit back and relax. That's assuming the technology would all work smoothly, which I am less sure about.

I would still prefer to get the train for long intercity journeys.

[lalalalyra]

For people like my DD (narcolepsy & other conditions) I really hope driverless cars become a thing as without medical finds she'll likely never drive. The idea of her having the freedom to pop into her car and go places would be wonderful.

[Orlantina]

If the driverless car has an accident, who is to blame?

Should the company who makes the car have to pay the insurance?

[ToastDemon]

The sooner the better. Over 90% of accidents are caused by human error. I look forward to the day cars all stick to the speed limit and are not piloted by some twat on their phone.

[Orlantina]

Have you seen I Robot where the car gets hacked and tries to kill him by driving him off the road?

Just saying......

[upperlimit]

Driverless cars will be awesome. I was thinking about this last weekend when the kids were up at the crack of dawn and imagining how I could put them all in the car and just shout "Take them to Grandma's". Then I realised that by the time the technology will be up and running for the plebs I will be the Grandma and can only hope there will be a return to sender option.

[WorraLiberty]

As a lollipop lady, I'm really quite worried about them

[WeirdAndPissedOff]

They have loads of potential, and it would be fantastic to just hop in your car and be driven around! (Like a cheap taxi that is always parked ready for you).
But the risk of errors scares me.
Even once we get to a point where they can reliably account for other driver's mistakes, animals/people darting across the road (and lollipop men/ladies!), road closures, potholes, we still have the risk of general computer errors.

It's become a bit of a running joke that SatNavs will tell you to turn right onto the train track, left on top the river, 2nd left into a field etc - presumably the pathfinder on the driverless vehicle will work in a similar way? And the thought of a computer-system wide crash or hack would be terrifying.

[Tobolsk]

So far a resounding yes to the driverless car.

Do people believe that this will. Be a country wide solution or a city only?

[coconuttella]

The tipping point is when it can be demonstrated that computer error is substantially lower than human error. People will struggle to trust them at first, but once we've normalised it, this will disappear.

How far are we away from this. I understand technology has taken some big leaps forwards recently in this area. My kids are 9 and 6.... will they ever need to take a driving test?

[AliciaMayEmory]

If the driverless car has an accident, who is to blame?
Engineering driverless vehicles is DH's field of work and the ethics around accidents and various driving/decision making scenarios is a huge topic that needs considerable thought​ and attention.

For example, imagine the driverless car was approaching a zebra crossing and a child darts out. There isn't enough time to break and not hit the child, and the available choices are (1) hit the child, or (2) swerve and hit a wall, potentially saving the child but killing the driver. Which on these is the lesser of the two evils as you would have to programme in the most desirable outcome. No one wants to kill a pedestrian, but who will buy a car programmed to sacrifice the driver in such a scenario?

The technology of making cars driverless is the easy bit, it's all the other things that us a humans would have to decide in the event of something going wrong that is the difficult part.

Having said all that, DH is very in favour of driverless vehicles and cannot wait for a time when we can hop in the car, put in our destination and have a little snooze or read the paper whilst travelling!

[fruitlovingmonkey]

Not anytime soon.
My car's parking sensors sometimes don't beep until the last minute. It also has sensors that tell if you are too close to an object in front whilst driving and these occasionally beep for no reason.
I know driverless cars are slightly more advanced but there was that fatality when the car drove into a white lorry. I don't trust the technology.

[Orlantina]

No one wants to kill a pedestrian, but who will buy a car programmed to sacrifice the driver in such a scenario

Spock?

[MargaretCabbage]

I can't wait. I've had a ridiculous number of driving lessons and I'm still not great. I've always thought cars are quite scary and dangerous because of the drivers. I get by with public transport but I waste so much time travelling to stops and stations and waiting.

I've always imagined that the future would be pod cars that you could summon, so weird that it may actually be happening.

[user1471545174]

They can only work if everyone on the road has one.

The train has already been invented.

[frenchknitting]

Alicia - I read somewhere that the vast majority of people can agree that saving the child is the right thing to do, and that is how driverless cars should be programmed. But that most people asked then went on to say that they wouldn't actually buy such a car. I think these sorts of ethical issues will be a big impediment to driverless cars.

My big problem with the idea of a fleet of driverless cars as taxi's instead of ownership is the question of where I would stash all my emergency stuff. E.g. the spare clothes for the potty training toddler, the extra nappies for the baby just in case I run out in the changing bag, the snacks and sticker books for meltdowns​ on the journey, the tissues, beach toys, bird seed (!) and all the other crap in my car "just in case". I wouldn't want to carry it all around. I do survive when using public transport... But i do prefer to have a car for this reason. I bet I'm not the only person who would be reluctant to give that up.

[Firesuit]

I imagine them like a subscription service - sign up to a level of service on a per month/year basis and get a certain level of mileage/size of car whenever you request it via an app

I kind of hope that they will be priced like this, because it would solve the main problem of car sharing for me, the marginal cost of a journey. Currently I own a car, and in my head it costs nothing to make a short journey, as most of the costs are fixed overheads. I now do low mileage, usually drive weekends only, and live centrally in a city, so would be a perfect candiate for a car club. But I know I wouldn't pay £13 to rent a car for two hours to go to Asda, whereas I do regularly use my own car for that. Even though using a car club would save me money, on average over a year, as an alternative to owning, the behavioural finance issues in consuming car services that way make it unattractive to me.

Unfortunately, I don't think the subscription idea makes sense. A subscription service can't be cheaper than a taxi service that charges a market price for time of day, because it would make a loss. So, if it can't charge market prices, it can only be more expensive. Which would mean canny users would prefer a pay-as-you-go service.

[wasonthelist]

I enjoy driving but look forward to driverless cars - I would love being on the motorway not having to concentrate so hard watching for all the crazy things people do.

OP I don't really think having some land 30 miles away and using a 4x4 or pickup to get wood from it is an "off grid lifestyle" - living off grid would be doing it using horses or something surely? You sound very much on grid to me - not least as you must need to visit a filling station?

[wasonthelist]

No one wants to kill a pedestrian, but who will buy a car programmed to sacrifice the driver in such a scenario

In reality surely the likelihood of it being an either/or is infinitesimally small in any case? and I'm not at all sure I trust myself to weigh the odds any better than a computer. Computers can already brake better (ABS) and keep the car stable (Automatic stability) than any human.

[Firesuit]

For example, imagine the driverless car was approaching a zebra crossing and a child darts out. There isn't enough time to break and not hit the child, and the available choices are (1) hit the child, or (2) swerve and hit a wall, potentially saving the child but killing the driver.

I found a good article a while ago that explained why this and many other so-called ethical issue were non-issues. I will link if/when I can find it again.

In the meantime, I think this example is an obvious non-issue. There's no reason to think a driverless car should handle this any differently than a human driver would. Why presume a driverless car should be neutral about who it kills?

People only think there's an issue because they want to be philosophical. Probably all the so-called problems vanish if you just assume the car should do what a human driver would choose.

www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2015/09/13/ethics-wont-be-a-big-problem-for-driverless-cars/#4525c81c5334

Wait, this is the article I was thinking of

www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=774#ethical-judgements

In the problem quoted above, there is no obligation for the car to make an ethically correct decision. It must simply refrain from doing some unethical or illegal. So the car is perfecly within its rights to preserve the lives of its passengers (to whom it has special responsibility) at the expense of anyone else.

[wasonthelist]

On a similar note - I would prefer pilotless planes. When they (very rarely) use autoland it's a smoother landing. Pilots are only flying to keep their skills current - there is actually no need for them at all.

People cite emergencies but in most emergencies computers can make at least as good a decision now - often better than humans.

[Tobolsk]

wasonthelist

We have just concerted the truck to run using a gasifier system so we are no longer relient on fuel.

frenchknitting

I am in the same situation, my truck is full of spairs and emergency items. I have also fitted it with a winch which I use in bad weather.

As for the insurance increases. In the USA some states such as New Hampshire car insurance is not a legal requirement