robotvoice

Am I the only one who thinks "driveless" cars are retarded?

luder_5555

I think that the biggest issue will be with the accidents that will still happen. What's worse is that in accident situations where one car was driverless and the other had a human driver, will the blame automatically go to the human driver since the auto car is "perfect"?

Also, any accident would almost automatically end in a lawsuit against the manufacturer. And with the apparent inability to make high end electrical systems in cars reliable, how can we assume that these systems would work reliably?

I am all for lowering traffic accidents and fatalities, but we could do that simply with making a license harder to obtain in the first place.

PsykotiK

do you really think a licences or not has stopped anyone from driving?

Mr.E.G.

Are you seriously asking this? Not breaking you balls, I just can't imagine that you don't know the answer. If someone is injured because some system fails then the manufacturer will be liable, the same as if your toaster toaster explodes or any other type of defective product claim. That's nothing new.

Before you all start in talking out your asses about how that's not fair, etc, consider that there will be considerably less injuries and therefore considerably less lawsuits if you take the drivers out of the equation, since human error is clearly the leading factor in car accidents. The manufacturers who feel that they are capable to weather the liability storm by virtue of their confidence in their ability to build a safe product will build an autonomous car and, by and large, car-related personal injuries will decrease. For those of you who question whether or not a manufacturer would want to weather the liability shit storm, let me preempt by saying that they already do. In a product liability claim against a car manufacturer on the basis that a vehicle failed to meet accepted standards (for instance, roof crush standards) or that some safety system failed (for example, and airbag failure) the actions of the driver are essentially a non-factor (varies by state, of course), so not much would change... except the fact that less lawsuits would probably occur altogether. In other words, manufacturer are already held liable for system failures even when the system was activated through driver error. With autonomous cars, they'd be liable for system failures, but I would put my money on a well designed system over the average driver any day of the week.

Mr.E.G.

I was just about to touch on that. I think that the worst case scenario is having both kinds of cars on the road. That will be a nightmare. I too agree that driving should be limited to fewer people who have greater skills.

NuncoStr8

What happens when it snow covers the lines on the road? How do they deal with ice, especially the ice on a curve that human drivers can see coming up but an autonomous system wouldn't? How do they deal with an animal running into the roadway? Or debris in the road? Heavy fog? White-out snowstorms? How will it cope with a gravel road? The roads in my city generally have no lines so any system dependent on lane markers would be useless for the bulk of the people who live here. What happens when the painted lines on the road are missing over a newly resurfaced section?

Using tax dollars to obsessively maintain paint on road surfaces so a company can sell cars that requires painted lines to function safely is just dumb.

Just because 25% of accidents may be caused by inattentive drivers does not ensure that total acident rates would decline if human drivers are removed from the equation. Of that 25%, how many accidents occurred on roads that had no distinct lane markers? How many of those accidents were caused by circumstances/conditions that would also defeat the driverless car systems but are easily handled by an attentive driver?

Humans are remarkably effective drivers. One can build a system that mimics the behavior and logic patterns of a human under controlled conditions, but traffic isn't always a logical pattern and nature plays havok on any assumptions about conditions.

I think one has to be incredibly dense to think this idea will ever be practical, much less safer than a human driver. Yes, it can be made to work under certain circumstances, but the potential safety issues are not insignificant.

NuncoStr8

Um.... I was under the impression that only 25% of the accidents were caused by inattentive drivers. That means that 75% of the accidents are caused by something other than inattentive driving. The extent of human error as a cause is not assumed to be 100%, but rather a much lower percentage. We don't even know the number of accidents caused by inattentive drivers that took place on roads not usable by the automatic driving systems. That could well be a low number, meaning the sum contribution of a perfect driverless car to reduced accident rates would be quite minor.

How many accidents are avoided as a result of the human capacity to adapt and react to unforseen situations? I know it's popular to claim all other drivers are dangerously incompetent, but the reality is most drivers are highly capable.

Mr.E.G.

Inattentive drivers represent only one type of scenario where human error causes an accident. I completely agree with you that human beings avoid more accidents than they cause; I didn't figure that was even worth pointing it since it's completely obvious.

Additionally, yes, MOST drivers are competent, but the competent drivers aren't typically the drivers who are causing accidents. You're really just stating the obvious here. Most people don't cause accidents period, much less due to inattention. But of the people who are in accidents, by and large human error is to blame, be it through inattention or otherwise.

Lastly, I agree with you that a driverless system has some big challenges and I agree that it will be a long time before a driverless system will solve as many problems as it creates, but it seems to me that it is inevitable.

Ludedude

If by "a while" you mean a week from now, then you'd be right.

http://singularityhub.com/2012/02/22...er-is-a-robot/

Skynet is real, the robots are becoming self aware.

NuncoStr8

My point was that if we wished to avoid "talking out your ass" we best not assume that "there will be considerably less injuries and therefore considerably less lawsuits if you take the drivers out of the equation." Since human error is definitely *not* "clearly the leading factor in car accidents." It may be, but I didn't see that provided by the OP's graphic.

What was claimed was that "inattentive driving" accounted for only 25% of accidents and only 16% of fatalities. That leaves 75% of accidents and 84% of fatalities caused by something other than not paying attention. Weather factors account for many accidents where I live, and is the second leading cause of accidents in the US. Alcohol is the leading cause of accidents in the US, therefore improved public transportation and taxis would seem to offer more promise than driverless cars.

Over half of the fatalities in 2010 weren't wearing a seatbelt. One might assert that if everyone wore a seatbelt, fatalities could be reduced by half, which is much more significant than the 16% we'd assume a perfect driverless car system would produce. I don't believe that it's that simple, but it's clear money would be better spent encouraging seat belt use than promoting driverless cars if safety was ever really the main concern of these companies.

The fact is that Google and the other companies promoting driverless car technologies hope to make money selling expensive systems that don't really offer much in the way of improved safety compared to better car designs and improvements in seat belt usage.