Self-Driving Cars: When will it become mainstream, and would you purchase one?

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
 
It's not my automated car or other automated cars on the road that would worry me. It's the manual cars with distracted drivers that would worry me. Until such a day that there are more automated cars than manual cars and the risk from riding in an automated car is lower than the risk of controlling the car myself, I will be controlling the car myself.
 
What if the data showed that automated cars handled "opposing" human drivers better than other humans did, regardless of perception?
 
The question is if the rate and severity of "automated vs. human" accidents is worse than that of "human vs. human" accidents. It might "feel" safer to be in charge when other humans are also on the road, but that feeling might be an illusion once we see the data.  
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
dirtynine said:
 
What if the data showed that automated cars handled "opposing" human drivers better than other humans did, regardless of perception?
 
The question is if the rate and severity of "automated vs. human" accidents is worse than that of "human vs. human" accidents. It might "feel" safer to be in charge when other humans are also on the road, but that feeling might be an illusion once we see the data.  
 
The day it's safer for an automated car to drive my family around than me, I'll gladly give up the wheel. Like I said, I hate driving anyway.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
jercra said:
Right now they only work when you can see lines on the road.  I'm not sure how or if that will be solved in the future but it's perfectly reasonable to auto pilot from Seattle to Vancouver and then you take the wheel for the rest of the journey.
I'm holding off on my purchase until the car can put its own damn chains on, thanks.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
interesting article on the ethical implications of programming cars here: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/.
 
Basically, the thesis is that cars at some point must be able to respond to unexpected events by being programmed to kill.  For example, if a car loses control in front of it on the highway, a car needs to know whether to avoid the accident and if so, to take a choice that could either involve harm to other traffic, pedestrians, or the occupants.  Choices that we as humans make in a split-second only because of our habits/reflexes.
 
I've always been interested in ethics, but this reminds me of those situations we used to discuss in middle school about what we would do if there were seven people in a boat but only enough food for 2 people.
 

notfar

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 17, 2008
2,410
Saying they will have to be programmed to minimize casualties sounds more accurate to me.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
notfar said:
Saying they will have to be programmed to minimize casualties sounds more accurate to me.
 
Article talked about this.  If the car is programmed to minimize casualties, it's probably means that the occupant will be "sacrificed."  Will people want to drive a car that might sacrifice the driver?  And will the programming be able to make a difference between how many potential victims there are and how many occupants there are in the car.
 
As the article notes, the very preliminary research is showing that while people agree with you that cars should be programmed to minimize the number of people affected, it went on to say, "[Participants] were not as confident that autonomous vehicles would be programmed that way in reality—and for a good reason: they actually wished others to cruise in utilitarian autonomous vehicles, more than they wanted to buy utilitarian autonomous vehicles themselves."
 
I.e., "People are in favor of cars that sacrifice the occupant to save other lives—as long they don’t have to drive one themselves".
 
Here's a picture that points out some of the situations that will need to be programmed into a car:
 
 

Gagliano

Ask me about my mollusks
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2001
5,812
Maine
Article talked about this.  If the car is programmed to minimize casualties, it's probably means that the occupant will be "sacrificed."  Will people want to drive a car that might sacrifice the driver?  And will the programming be able to make a difference between how many potential victims there are and how many occupants there are in the car.
 
As the article notes, the very preliminary research is showing that while people agree with you that cars should be programmed to minimize the number of people affected, it went on to say, "[Participants] were not as confident that autonomous vehicles would be programmed that way in reality—and for a good reason: they actually wished others to cruise in utilitarian autonomous vehicles, more than they wanted to buy utilitarian autonomous vehicles themselves."
 
I.e., "People are in favor of cars that sacrifice the occupant to save other lives—as long they don’t have to drive one themselves".
 
Here's a picture that points out some of the situations that will need to be programmed into a car:
 
I think this will be part of the major pushback in self-driving cars. Let's look at it this way- I've driven for 41 years and have never been in an accident with another car (I hit a deer once; if there was a Deer Court, it would have been suicide by car).

If I was put in a situation where I had to choose between running over a pedestrian and going over a cliff, this is how it would shake out in real life (just going by how I am as a person, I guess):

1. Is the pedestrian a child? I go over the cliff.
2. Some guy on a cell phone that steps in front of me? He's going down.
3. A guy on his bike who swerves in front of me? He's going down.

I'm sure there are people here who would sacrifice themselves in all three situations, but I'm just being honest from the emotional perspective: I'm not (except for a child). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe a self-driving car can represent me better than what I can do for myself already.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Byrdbrain said:
Here is an interesting article about how self driving cars could completely reshape the economy. 
 
http://zackkanter.com/2015/01/23/how-ubers-autonomous-cars-will-destroy-10-million-jobs-by-2025/
 
I think this is largely right.  One thing his timeline ignores, though, is government.  10-15 years may be a reasonable timeframe for fully-auto cars on the road, but I'd wager my last dollar that regulations will require things like like semi trucks to have a 'pilot' on board for years after its truly necessary.  Bold prediction: there will be human school bus drivers until after we're all dead and buried.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Gagliano said:
I think this will be part of the major pushback in self-driving cars. Let's look at it this way- I've driven for 41 years and have never been in an accident with another car (I hit a deer once; if there was a Deer Court, it would have been suicide by car).

If I was put in a situation where I had to choose between running over a pedestrian and going over a cliff, this is how it would shake out in real life (just going by how I am as a person, I guess):

1. Is the pedestrian a child? I go over the cliff.
2. Some guy on a cell phone that steps in front of me? He's going down.
3. A guy on his bike who swerves in front of me? He's going down.

I'm sure there are people here who would sacrifice themselves in all three situations, but I'm just being honest from the emotional perspective: I'm not (except for a child). I guess what I'm saying is that I don't believe a self-driving car can represent me better than what I can do for myself already.
 
I drove in California for 2 years and had two accidents, both of which were no fault of mine (both a car drove into mine while stationary at a pedestrian crossing- in use). The point I'm making here is it's not just about you.
The second point is that having a MUCH more observant and faster reacting system makes all of the above less likely. 
 
There are plenty of people who choose the less safe course for not only themselves but for other in other parts of life too, eg vaccinations. Couldn't this totally end up being that kind of debate? All the evidence says it's safer for everyone, but there are a few anecdotal cases that capture the imagination.
In some ways everyone driving smart auto cars is like mass immunization. 
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
Byrdbrain said:
Here is an interesting article about how self driving cars could completely reshape the economy. 
 
http://zackkanter.com/2015/01/23/how-ubers-autonomous-cars-will-destroy-10-million-jobs-by-2025/
He's spot on in his read for this emerging disruptive technology.  It amazes me there is so little coverage of something, less than 10 years away, that will cause so much change in our lives.  To be unskilled 10 years from now is a scary proposition.  Get your kids coding folks!
 

DukeSox

absence hasn't made the heart grow fonder
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
11,742
Coding?  It's a good chance in 20 years coding will be just as outsourced to India/China as everything else is today.  Even China is moving on.  Coding will be commoditized, the ideas behind what to code will not.  
 

Hambone

will post for drinks
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,822
What will the laws be like with this? If I'm in a self-driving car that runs a red light, do I get a ticket? What if I get in the back-seat of a self-driving Uber and get pulled over. Could I face DUI? 
 
How that plays out will be fascinating to me.
 

Gagliano

Ask me about my mollusks
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2001
5,812
Maine
I drove in California for 2 years and had two accidents, both of which were no fault of mine (both a car drove into mine while stationary at a pedestrian crossing- in use). The point I'm making here is it's not just about you.
The second point is that having a MUCH more observant and faster reacting system makes all of the above less likely.

There are plenty of people who choose the less safe course for not only themselves but for other in other parts of life too, eg vaccinations. Couldn't this totally end up being that kind of debate? All the evidence says it's safer for everyone, but there are a few anecdotal cases that capture the imagination.
In some ways everyone driving smart auto cars is like mass immunization.

Yes, I understand that automation is safer for everyone as a whole whether we are automating a French fry factory or automating cars. But, I just would like to know how the cars will be programmed- if it comes to a situation where either the other driver or me will most likely be killed, who does it save? What if a deer runs in front of me- does it save the deer and drive me into the ditch? Just curious how they will handle those situations on an individual level. Maybe there can be some kind of option where you can set it to "Hey, it's all about me!" and my car will be fully self preservationist.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,276
some news

Frank Mottek ‏@frankmottek 24m24 minutes ago
#Breaking @CA_DMV new draft regs say self-driving cars must have licensed driver behind wheel until technology proven safe @KNX1070


California regulators say self-driving cars of the future must have a licensed driver behind the wheel, at least until the technology is proven safe.


The state's Department of Motor Vehicles unveiled precedent-setting draft regulations Wednesday. They will help frame how regulators elsewhere give consumers access to the cars.

Though no manufacturer has said the cars are ready yet, the most aggressive suggest a model could be ready within a few years.

California's proposed rules will slow the public deployment of the cars. They are subject to public comment and will not be final for months.

The DMV has struggled with how to know the technology is safe — before letting it move beyond the current testing of prototypes on public roads. As a result, the regulations are nearly a year overdue.
http://bigstory.ap.org/82f4d608cbcd44a585ab6e7f35aee878
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
A working prototype Mercedes self-driving vehicle that really looks like it came from the future.

The segment focuses on how such a vehicle handles the interior and starts around 40 seconds mark:

 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish