PDA

View Full Version : Do we really want driver-less cars?



Angela
19-12-16, 20:01
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/google-wants-driverless-cars-but-do-we.html?_r=0

LeBrok
19-12-16, 21:12
Do I sense a bit fear of the new?
Fatalities related to cars, per 100,000 of people in US, already plummeted to all time lowes. Now at 40% of the top in 70s. Some due to better driver education, but a lot due to better technology. Safer interior, better tires, brakes, suspension, 4 wheel drive and traction control, and now pedestrian detection system, collision avoidance, cameras, etc. Being sceptical to new technology by general population is nothing new. Do you remember resistance to seat belts or motorcycle helmets?

Angela
19-12-16, 22:30
For as long as it's possible I'll go with human driven taxis, anyway. It has nothing to do with fear; it has to do with liking the human contact. I like talking to new people, especially people from different cultures. I like just passing the time of day if I want. When I used to travel for work a lot, I became friendly with certain drivers for our local limo company, and would ask for them by name.

I also worry what these people will do for a living if taxis are driver-less. Right now it's a decent paying job even for people who don't own their own medallions. For those who do, they spent years saving for them, only for them to be worthless now?

In terms of personal usage, it would be fine with me. If someone else wants to drive, I'm thrilled usually. Then I can listen to my music or read or sleep. I do know some people who would hate it, but they're the kind of people who like to be in control at all times. Strangely, these are often the kind of people who don't much like flying, although they do it.

LeBrok
20-12-16, 02:54
The good side of automated cars is that no terrorist could drive them into the crowd anymore killing people.

Angela
20-12-16, 03:52
Well, they could just put a bomb in one, or mess with the program. You can do a lot of security around planes and airports. How could you secure all these driver-less cars? Heck, if you're good at hacking, you could program thousands of them to all just plow down the opposite lane into oncoming traffic. I think they're more dangerous from the standpoint of terrorism. Just as are those drones that amazon wants cluttering up the sky.

Sorry, but I always tend to think of this from a law enforcement angle and what "bad actors" of any kind would be able to do.

davef
20-12-16, 04:44
I would NOT put my safety in the hands (or circuits lol) of a dumb computer. I'm in that field and that thing on your lap that can whoop you in chess isn't as sophisticated as most would think....even with all the nlp and analytical libraries and what not that gives it "artificial intelligence" which is impressive and groundbreaking but I would trust my own human intuition first and foremost

LeBrok
20-12-16, 08:03
Well, they could just put a bomb in one, or mess with the program. You can do a lot of security around planes and airports. How could you secure all these driver-less cars? Heck, if you're good at hacking, you could program thousands of them to all just plow down the opposite lane into oncoming traffic. I think they're more dangerous from the standpoint of terrorism. Just as are those drones that amazon wants cluttering up the sky.

Sorry, but I always tend to think of this from a law enforcement angle and what "bad actors" of any kind would be able to do.It makes it more difficult. It is so much easier to take a truck and drive into a crowd than make explosives or smuggle them.

bicicleur
20-12-16, 08:18
Unless I can sit very comfortably and can do something usefull or very relaxing I prefer my own hands on the wheel.

bicicleur
20-12-16, 08:24
The good side of automated cars is that no terrorist could drive them into the crowd anymore killing people.

never heard of hacking?

LeBrok
20-12-16, 08:45
never heard of hacking?You are missing a point again. What is easier, hack a car or get in and drive it into a crowd?

bicicleur
20-12-16, 09:25
You are missing a point again. What is easier, hack a car or get in and drive it into a crowd?

I agree, but you should have formulated it that way then.

Luckily, most fanatic people are also rather stupid.
Or not? It is the smart fanatics that make stupid fanatics do suicide bombings or drive trucks into the crowd.

Anyway, as long as there are stupid fanatics, no need to hack cars or trucks.

LeBrok
20-12-16, 16:47
I agree, but you should have formulated it that way then.

Luckily, most fanatic people are also rather stupid.
Or not? It is the smart fanatics that make stupid fanatics do suicide bombings or drive trucks into the crowd.

Anyway, as long as there are stupid fanatics, no need to hack cars or trucks.
Good point, I'm surprised that they don't use cyber war yet hacking to our infrastructure like power plants or traffic lights. This has to say something about their general intellect.

bicicleur
21-12-16, 08:18
Good point, I'm surprised that they don't use cyber war yet hacking to our infrastructure like power plants or traffic lights. This has to say something about their general intellect.

from what is being told the Russians should be able to do that kind of stuff

luckily the Russians are just evil, but not fanatic

Joey D
21-12-16, 09:44
Driver-less cars? If it means I don't have to come across another a$$hole on the road - sign me up!

Given what most modern cars can already do, I can see it being a reality in the state capitals and larger cities within the next couple of decades.

The only thing slowing it down is an over-cautious and lengthy testing period (which is probably fair enough).

For those who only drive around the city, it makes sense that in the future you would rely on ordering a driver less car. At a minimum, it would mean that all those two and three car households would only need the one car (at the very most).

The other thing is that you end up reducing all car parking space by at least 80% within metropolitan areas, and you use that space for something more productive. Rather than having cars sitting around doing nothing for up to 20 hours per day, with the driverless car model, there are hardly any cars sitting around, they are all being utilised on the road, or momentarily waiting for the next order.

The future city will be completely transformed (for the better).

LeBrok
21-12-16, 17:29
Driver-less cars? If it means I don't have to come across another a$$hole on the road - sign me up!

Given what most modern cars can already do, I can see it being a reality in the state capitals and larger cities within the next couple of decades.

The only thing slowing it down is an over-cautious and lengthy testing period (which is probably fair enough).I think we will see first driverless taxis in some centers in 2 years. In 4 everybody will be able to buy one. In 10 half cars on roads will be driverless. In 20 years independent driving will be deemed dangerous, hampering traffic and illegal. Traffic will flow easier eliminating traffic jambs. We might never need new or bigger roads.


For those who only drive around the city, it makes sense that in the future you would rely on ordering a driver less car. At a minimum, it would mean that all those two and three car households would only need the one car (at the very most).Definitely fewer cars will be needed. I'm not sure if number of cars will drop dramatically, because people still need to drive to work and people having more time and money will love going places. We love our freedom to move around.
If driverless taxi price will be as low as bus ticket, this might be disruptive to mass commuting. People will chose taxi instead of a buss. Taxi will pick you up and bring you to the door. Driverless Taxi connected to app services, will easily pick up more passengers on the route to destination. AI is far more efficient crunching numbers in milliseconds to arrange more efficient transportation. Angela will still have someone to talk to. ;)


The other thing is that you end up reducing all car parking space by at least 80% within metropolitan areas, and you use that space for something more productive. Rather than having cars sitting around doing nothing for up to 20 hours per day, with the driverless car model, there are hardly any cars sitting around, they are all being utilised on the road, or momentarily waiting for the next order.That's right. Smart phone age makes everything more efficient and finds productivity without production. Without producing anything, except of software, Uber became biggest taxi company in the world, Airbnb became biggest hotel chain without building a single building. There are other services connecting empty spaces to people who want to use it for conferencing, office, storage or to help us reuse good items that we don't want anymore, kijiji or eBay.
These are all improvements of electronic age, extra and unconventional GDP which never finds its way to show in statistics, to show better economic growth. Smartphone is a powerful modern tool.

bicicleur
21-12-16, 18:00
sounds very nice indeed

I expect a lot of resistance though
from lobyists and from the taxman
at least, that's the way things go here in Europe nowadays

mobileacc200
22-12-16, 00:34
What if that car makes mistake where people will be injured. Who will answer for that??

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a40 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

LeBrok
22-12-16, 01:22
What if that car makes mistake where people will be injured. Who will answer for that??

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a40 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)
No different than today's problem with cars malfunctioning. Insurance will cover damages, and the car manufacturer might be sued for negligence.

Angela
22-12-16, 01:22
What if that car makes mistake where people will be injured. Who will answer for that??

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a40 using Eupedia Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698) It will be a whole new branch of tort law. Everybody will get sued, just like today: the owner, the manufacturer, the software creators, you name it.

I have no idea why people think there'll be less traffic. Everyone will want one, or they'll be getting cab rides everywhere. The only thing that makes a dent in traffic is mass transit.

mobileacc200
22-12-16, 01:31
It will be a whole new branch of tort law. Everybody will get sued, just like today: the owner, the manufacturer, the software creators, you name it.

I have no idea why people think there'll be less traffic. Everyone will want one, or they'll be getting cab rides everywhere. The only thing that makes a dent in traffic is mass transit.
I myself like bycicles [emoji41]

LeBrok
22-12-16, 02:04
I myself like bycicles [emoji41] Who pays when you make a mistake and hit a car? ;)

LeBrok
22-12-16, 02:19
I have no idea why people think there'll be less traffic. Everyone will want one, or they'll be getting cab rides everywhere. The only thing that makes a dent in traffic is mass transit.When people will stop going to work at the same time together the rush hour traffic will be gone. In the era of robots. Secondly, when people don't drive cars anymore, all cars can "stream" together moving traffic twice more efficiently, and eliminating most car accidents blocking traffic.
Otherwise people will be getting places all the time more than ever. We are very mobile creatures after all. However, number of cars per capita will fall (not in traffic) as same cars will be in use all the time, and not sitting in garages or parked by the curb like now. People will not own cars like today, they will be using automated taxis supplied by taxi companies or car manufacturers. Efficiency of use of every car will rise 10 fold at least.
I bet average care is in use not more than one or two hours a day. In new economy it will be in use almost 24/7.

Joey D
22-12-16, 02:46
I have no idea why people think there'll be less traffic. Everyone will want one, or they'll be getting cab rides everywhere. The only thing that makes a dent in traffic is mass transit.

I guess it depends on the system that gets set up (at the city level) and the acceptance of users.

One possibility is there will come a time when 95% of cars on the road are not only driver-less, but part of a centralised ordering system, i.e. we don't necessarily own them, we merely order them as required.

With an intelligent system, you get the ability to combine orders en route, so two people might be picked up from your street to go into the city at the same time, and if that sort of thing is happening often enough, you are reducing the number of cars.

Also, you no longer need cabs cruising the streets, because the driverless system dispenses with both cabs and even the need to own cars.

On top of all of that, the more intelligent the city-wide system, the more likely the driverless cars will pick out the most efficient route at that exact point in time, so ultimately, all traffic flows should be improved.

Lastly, because there is no need for parking spaces anymore, all thoroughfares that currently have parking spots on the street will no longer be needed, opening up an additional lane for the driverless cars to use.

mobileacc200
22-12-16, 02:54
Who pays when you make a mistake and hit a car? ;)
Nobody, I just keep going [emoji41]

New Englander
23-12-16, 21:07
They do not work in places wheres the weather is not PERFECT.

My Dad works for NOAA, hes telling me that the tracker systems would not work if the roads are not perfect.

Also, for all the people who say that Americans are dangerous drivers, and computers are safer, if the computer system ever fails you will have a worse accident that a person who bumps into the car in front of them.

We all saw the terror attack that just happened in Germany? That does not happen by accident due to normal human error. But with these crazy computers, who knows,. Also, HACKERS!

Joey D
24-12-16, 00:09
^ That's right, roads would have to all be uniform in terms of road markings, quality of construction, shoulders, etc., which is one reason why it will take a while to implement.

Having said that, modern cars already have have the capability to operate quasi independently on at least 90% of the roads in the city I live in (a fairly modern city it has to be said, built mostly since the 1970s).

Sile
24-12-16, 18:08
^ That's right, roads would have to all be uniform in terms of road markings, quality of construction, shoulders, etc., which is one reason why it will take a while to implement.

Having said that, modern cars already have have the capability to operate quasi independently on at least 90% of the roads in the city I live in (a fairly modern city it has to be said, built mostly since the 1970s).

And who do you think will be charged for accidents caused by glitches in these vehicles ..............the software company, the owner of the vehicle , or ........???

firetown
07-01-17, 17:16
I would say it will be easier for a terrorist organization to hack into enough vehicles to do damage the amount of idiots willing to do it themselves would be capable to.

LeBrok
07-01-17, 18:05
I would say it will be easier for a terrorist organization to hack into enough vehicles to do damage the amount of idiots willing to do it themselves would be capable to.It is not impossible to hack into US power grid, big internet providers, or US military drones to make substantial economical damage and human casualties. Did it ever happen that terrorists did that? And yet possibility exists for more than 10 years now. It means that it is very difficult to pull it off, or maybe even impossible with terrorists mentality and resources. Or maybe nerds don't want to be terrorists.

Angela
07-01-17, 18:16
I would say it will be easier for a terrorist organization to hack into enough vehicles to do damage the amount of idiots willing to do it themselves would be capable to.

There have been reports of attempts by Russian agents to hack into our electrical and water grids. A report just came out about it strenuously urging that our out of date security systems be updated. This would just be another area of vulnerability, with this one having the ability to create mass casualties on a national scale.

What really surprises me though is that there seems to be no concern for the social and personal disruption this would cause for working class people; this is one of the few high paying jobs left. In the past year, four out of five jobs added to the national economy have been part time ones, mostly low paying service jobs. This is what is causing so much unrest, and this technology would only make it worse. Karl Marx thought that the working class would destroy capitalism. It didn't, mainly because wages increased and safety concerns were met. I don't think people understand that we're at another cross roads here. And no, I don't think massive welfare payments are the answer. People want their self-respect, and that includes good paying jobs where they can support their own families.

When new technologies are introduced that are going to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, potentially introducing a great deal of social and perhaps ultimately political instability, some thought should be given to how to ameliorate those deleterious effects.

LeBrok
07-01-17, 18:53
What really surprises me though is that there seems to be no concern for the social and personal disruption this would cause for working class people; this is one of the few high paying jobs left. In the past year, four out of five jobs added to the national economy have been part time ones, mostly low paying service jobs. This is what is causing so much unrest, and this technology would only make it worse. Karl Marx thought that the working class would destroy capitalism. It didn't, mainly because wages increased and safety concerns were met. I don't think people understand that we're at another cross roads here. And no, I don't think massive welfare payments are the answer. People want their self-respect, and that includes good paying jobs where they can support their own families.
You singlehandedly made every housewife your enemy. ;)


When new technologies are introduced that are going to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, potentially introducing a great deal of social and perhaps ultimately political instability, some thought should be given to how to ameliorate those deleterious effects. I also think it is urgent issue, if not the most urgent of all. At the moment I don't see any other cure for this than guaranteed income payments. Otherwise we can see hungry mob attacking these few, which have jobs and rich factory owners and their factories, to get money and destroy robots.

Do you remember the story from 17th century France, when textile workers who lost their jobs, and were scared about their future, burned a factory with first automated textile weaving machines?

Angela
07-01-17, 19:01
[/B]
You singlehandedly made every housewife your enemy. ;)

I also think it is urgent issue, if not the most urgent of all. At the moment I don't see any other cure for this than guaranteed income payments. Otherwise we can see hungry mob attacking these few, which have jobs and rich factory owners and their factories, to get money and destroy robots.

Do you remember the story from 17th century France, when textile workers who lost their jobs, and were scared about their future, burned a factory with first automated textile weaving machines?

A society determines what activity gives status. If modern industrialized societies truly valued the work a "housewife and mother" does, they would make that clear, and women would get self respect from doing it. The reality is that only lip service is given to it.

Do you know what the head of my firm said to me when I passed on a promotion because I wanted to be home at a decent time to be with my children? "You're going to waste a fine mind to play with your kids?"

Luckily, I'm made of pretty stern stuff. I decide what is valuable; I decide how I should live my life so that I have respect for myself. Most people are more easily led. They believe what their society tells them: you are valuable only if you have a high paying or other high status job.

amenhotep
13-04-17, 18:54
it will have a huge benefit which is number of crashes and taken lives on road will be minimum if not zero

Sofie Tveit
27-11-19, 10:39
I am of the opinion that the driver less car tech will only benefit the humanity. With the help of self efficient(sufficient) computers at the wheel, the accidents will plummet.

Driver-less cars with sensors can eliminate the accidents that happens at night dues to driver falling asleep.

Autonomous cars can an addition in improving efficiency and living standard.