• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Do we really want driver-less cars?

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?
 
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.
 
The good side of automated cars is that no terrorist could drive them into the crowd anymore killing people.
 
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.
 
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
 
Angela said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Unless I can sit very comfortably and can do something usefull or very relaxing I prefer my own hands on the wheel.
 
LeBrok said:
You are missing a point again. What is easier, hack a car or get in and drive it into a crowd?
Click to expand...

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.
 
bicicleur said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LeBrok said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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).
 
Joey D said:
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).
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 said:
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
Click to expand...
No different than today's problem with cars malfunctioning. Insurance will cover damages, and the car manufacturer might be sued for negligence.
 
mobileacc200 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Angela said:
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.
Click to expand...
I myself like bycicles [emoji41]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top