Slashdot Mirror


Concern Mounts Over Self-Driving Cars Taking Away Freedom

Lucas123 writes "Opinions in the blogosphere are building and run the gamut on self-driving automobile technology, but a survey supports the trend that most don't want their driving independence usurped by cameras, sensors and an onboard computer. The survey of British drivers last year commissioned by Bosch, a Germany-based supplier of automotive components, found that most would not buy a self-driving car. Only 29% of respondents said thay would consider buying a driverless car and only 21% said they would feel safe as a passenger in a self-driving car. David Alexander, an analyst at Navigant Research, pointed out that while driving yourself is often preferable, there's a lot of "grunt" driving that would be better handled by a computer. Navigant recently released a report stating that by 2035, 95 million autonomous cars will be sold every year."

86 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm in.

    I would pay a lot of money to be able to drive distracted, asleep, or inebriated legally. Right now none of those are legal and one isn't even possible.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    1. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Count me in as well. I do not actually like driving. That's a lot of wasted time for me. I'd rather do so many more things during that driving time. I could read all my commute time. Or even play need for speed! :)

    2. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by DutchUncle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... and while incapable (my wife had a cast on her right ankle for multiple months), and while incapacitated (elder relatives are OK in sunlight but not in rain or darkness).

      As another poster noted: As long as I can take manual control when I want to. But for law enforcement: It needs a mode that is PROVABLY un-take-controllable so that we can show we KNEW we were sleepy, inebriated, incapable, etc. and "handed over the keys".

    3. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Just sit in the passenger seat. If it doesn't need you to drive, it definitely doesn't need you in the driver's seat.

    4. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      But us Americans want to look in control. Even if we're not. That's why we elect politicians.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technically most of the bottom quarter think they are in the top half.

    6. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by ImdatS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In fact, I wouldn't call it only 29%, but rather already 29%.

      The reason is that the discussion about driverless cars is so new/recent that I wouldn't even have expected that many people saying that they would consider buying a driverless car.

      My dream transport-solution is: (a) not owning a car at all; (b) call a car anytime I need one; (c) getting driven (automatically) to any place I want; (d) I pay for the time I use the car and can leave it anywhere in the country (obviously, in a village/town/city or so).

      If we had a system like that and everybody would use it, it could be the solution to most of our traffic problems, including congestion (cars can communicate information faster and react faster than humans), parking problems, and more. Most of the time, cars are just parked somewhere and standing idle anyway.

      So, yes, count me in...

    7. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by coyote_oww · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Me too. People are not actually reading about the vehicles. They are reacting to what they think the vehicle will be like, rather than what they actually do.

      My mom is approaching the point when we're going to have to take away the keys. She's fine for most things, she's just a bit indecisive, hesitant, and, well, wobbly when driving. Taking away the keys means she needs to live with someone, be given rides everywhere etc. Completely unnecessary when the technology exists *RIGHT NOW* to enable her to remain independent. Not allowing/adopting this seem just cruel to me.

      Guys! YOU CAN TURN AUTO-DRIVE OFF!!!!

    8. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by s.petry · · Score: 2, Informative

      Until your car reports to the police that you are sleeping, distracted, or inebriated while inside the vehicle. Your car then nicely pulls over and won't let you out until they police arrive. Even better (and more likely) as you head to that rally supporting the first amendment, your car simply refuses to go and takes you to the local strip mall.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.

      It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.

    10. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My dream transport-solution is: (a) not owning a car at all; (b) call a car anytime I need one; (c) getting driven (automatically) to any place I want; (d) I pay for the time I use the car and can leave it anywhere in the country (obviously, in a village/town/city or so).

      So, a taxi then.

    11. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by EmperorArthur · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You win all the US internets for today.

      Now please assume the party escort submission position. The GlaDos (definitely not the NSA) is warming up the.... I mean is baking you a cake.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    12. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by ImdatS · · Score: 2

      And on another note: taxis (with their drivers) don't communicate traffic-data to each other. Self-driving cars could do that and optimize the route. Then, of course, if I could also personalize the route with things like "please use scenic route", "use fast route", "use a county road", etc - it would be perfect...

    13. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Count me in as well. I do not actually like driving. That's a lot of wasted time for me. I'd rather do so many more things during that driving time. I could read all my commute time. Or even play need for speed! :)

      As long as it has a manual mode, I'd be fine with having autonomous mode available.
      As I progress more in my geezerhood I will probably yearn more for autonomous mode and less for manual.

      I like driving, but I like it least in the places I would also distrust an automated car, so I'm conflicted
      right there. (Traffic jams) Call me when autonomous cars can totally de-snarl bumper to bumper stop and
      go traffic, such that when the light changes every single car in the queue moves forward in unison.

      Till then, there are some roads that just beg to be driven, and they are not that uncommon.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    14. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by HangingChad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm in.

      If driverless cars were available today I would buy one tomorrow.

      You could work, read, screw...seriously think about all the lost time you'd get back to do things that are far more interesting.

      I can't relate to people who wouldn't want a self-driving car.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    15. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by kqs · · Score: 2

      This is just ridiculous FUD / trolling at this point. No one would buy a car that would do this. There's no market for it.

      But in my bizarro-universe, the EVIL GOVERNMENT will force you do buy this, thus conclusively proving that (1) the government is evil and that (2) self-driving cars will destroy your freedoms and take away your guns.

    16. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hey, I don't care if someone wants a self-driving car.

      As long as it doesn't hinder, re prohibit MY ability to buy and drive manual cars on the road.

      I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.

      I like to drive...I buy cars that are FUN to drive.

      So, as long as I can continue to drive myself (and I'm sure others do feel this way too)...I'm cool with self driving cars.

      I don't want "Johnny Cabs" to become the mandated only option.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    17. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by jandrese · · Score: 2

      I don't know, when I'm in taxis they seem to communicate quite a bit with each other, although the method of communication appears to rely entirely on shouted insults and rude hand gestures.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    18. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then, of course, if I could also personalize the route with things like "please use scenic route", "use fast route", "use a county road", etc - it would be perfect...

      "Please accelerate out of the corners." "Please leave 40 feet of tracks when departing from the present intersection." "Please drop it into second and turn sideways in the next corner." [Vehicle reply] "I'm sorry; I can't do that for you, Dave. Unless you assist by pulling the e-brake at 3...2...1...now."

    19. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by gameboyhippo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That isn't how statistics work. The one accident in 250k is an aggregate of a lot of data. It doesn't mean that it is expected that after you get to 250k and beyond you're more likely to get into an accident.

      To demonstrate if I threw a perfectly balanced die 600 times, statistically I should roll a one 100 times. However if I have actually rolled the die 500 times and have not gotten a 1 (highly unlikely but possible) it would be absurd for me to believe that I would likely get a one the next 100 time. No, for the next 100 rolls I should expect to get about 16 or 17 ones.

      For more information, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

    20. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by smylingsam · · Score: 2

      Im Disabled and have never driven. your vision is mine. To me I am eying driver-less cars, once they are ready, with joyous abandon I can barely contain.

      Now what was my cars r00t password again? Or am I stuck with Windows Touch for vehicles 2024 Bob edition? I do not mind running it in vbox it's gui is better then kde plasma roadside any how :>

    21. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by dunng808 · · Score: 2

      Where I live we have a leash law. When you take your dog beyond your property it must be on a leash. But many people have small lots, or live in high-rises. People wanted dogs to have a bit of freedom, so the city built dog parks. Inside a large, fenced-in area a dog can run around free, just like they could always do when I was a boy. The dogs are happy, their owners are happy.

      I foresee the day, not too far off, when all cars on city streets must be computer controlled. Folks who want to enjoy driving will trailer a car to a track.

      BTW, I disagree with the post's use of "self-driving." If a self-made computer is one I built myself, then a self-driving car is one I drive myself. But where do we draw the line? Shifting gears? In my grandparents day, ignition advance was manual. No electric starter. So do the new crop of self-braking, accident avoiding cars still self-driven? They are certainly not autonomous.

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    22. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by sjames · · Score: 2

      And for some people, a breathalyzer. Car: You are shitfasted, I'll drive.

    23. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

      ObamaCar

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    24. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by icebike · · Score: 2

      When you can sit in the back seat and say "drive to destination" then for all practical purposes its autonomous.
      I'm pretty sure we wouldn't accept vehicles that decide where we should go and just stop at some random destination.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    25. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by CCarrot · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.

      I like to drive...I buy cars that are FUN to drive.

      But...but...manual transmissions ARE the fun ones to drive! Automatics are boring: press pedal 1 to go, press pedal 2 to stop, put the shift lever in the 'P' spot when you're stopped...yawn...

      That being said, automatics are easier for everyday running around in a city. Easier...but still not as fun. Driving a standard gives you a much more visceral connection to your wheels, and even in a little Corolla can make you feel like a race car driver on a straightaway. In a Shelby...mmmm... :)

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    26. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by Dr+Max · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree i wouldn't want it to be the only option but being able to sleep on a commute to work, or have the car pick me up and take me home from the pub is a pretty damn awesome feature. Problem with the article's survey is, people are idiots, if you asked people back at the start of 2007 if they wanted a smartphone they would also say they don't need one, fast forward a couple of years however.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    27. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.

      It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.

      Hmmm...I would think this would be an automatic reaction for most cars upon hitting an object...doing so ahead of time would be rather pointless, although it would keep the body shops happy :)

      The word you're looking for is 'braking' ;o)

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    28. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by sahonen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell and I can't wait for it to be illegal to operate a vehicle manually on public roadways so I can spend my commuting time doing more interesting things.

      You'll always be free to do your driving for fun on private roads and tracks, but keep your "fun" off the roads that I have to share with you.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    29. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Another driver thingk he's better then everyone else.

      Shocking.
      300,000 miles? noob.
      I am also above average at driving, just like everyone else.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Never own a manual transmission? someone take this guy's sports cars away.

      And they will probably go away in your life time, and that's a good thing overall.
      Just so you know, I have raced, love muscle cars, I have taken several driving course to learn a variety of skill sets.
      I love driving so much I'm GLAD when my wife asks me to go to the store.

      That era is passing. Just like horse drawn carriages.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Stop dictating what other people consider fun.
      Jeez, a Fun Nazi.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    32. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by Rhacman · · Score: 2

      And neither should any of those things ever be legal. This is yet another risk of have self-driving cars; the false assumption that what you describe are safe uses of such a vehicle. There will ALWAYS be situations where the automation software can't cope with a particular scenario and you have to take the wheel in a split second. Commercial aircraft can already take-off, fly, and land themselves but this does not replace the need for sober alert pilots to take over in the case of an emergency. A appropriate use of a smart car would be more akin to cruise control. You still need to be continuously alert and ready at the wheel, the cruise control just relieves the effort of continually adjusting to maintain your speed.

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
    33. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by geekoid · · Score: 2

      It adds an hour to each side of my commute, and it saves me exactly no money.

      "compared to the expense of a car/gas/maintenance it could almost be considered steeling"
      um, no. In fact when I calculated it last year, its was 5 cents more a day to take the bus.

      You're just reiterating the lies put out be various Bus Companies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by khallow · · Score: 2

      If routine commuting is "fun," then you're doing it wrong. Driving safely and efficiently is, and should be, boring as hell

      When driving, fun can be very dangerous, but not necessarily so. You are always engaged in a fun activity and that makes you a safer driver (though other factors can more than counter that). Boring always is dangerous since you are thus subject to complacency and drifting of attention.

    35. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er, isn't bumper to bumper stop and go traffic one of the things autonomous cars would be best at? It's pretty easy to figure out what to do in that situation. Every car moving forward in unison at a stoplight won't happen until all the cars are automated, but the automated cars will certainly be able to accelerate just as quickly as a human when the car in front of them starts moving forward.

      The reasonably legitimate concerns i've heard involve dealing with unexpected situations. You can see there's stopped traffic up ahead but the person in front of you isn't slowing down, you're on residential streets and a you see a ball bounce out between two parked cars and expect a child to follow shortly, etc.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    36. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by s.petry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I really don't consider a simple hypothetical scenario that closely matches very recent events "hysterical".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    37. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Speaking of the NSA, doesn't anyone remember the beginning of Stranger in a Strange Land? Ben gets in an auto-cab (yes I know it flew), and before he realized what happened, it was locked and he was whisked off to the authorities and a windowless cell with some bullies.

      Do we really want to hand the State Police/TSA/NSA/ATF/FBI that power? Or the power to take control of the car of someone unliked by the authorities and have it crash, due to 'equipment failure'?

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    38. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by mysidia · · Score: 2

      That isn't how statistics work. The one accident in 250k is an aggregate of a lot of data. It doesn't mean that it is expected that after you get to 250k and beyond you're more likely to get into an accident.

      If you have driven 300K miles, you are more likely to have gotten into at least one accident having driven that many miles than if you had driven 250K miles.

      Arguably; your probability of an accident per mile driven is nonuniform and nonindependent; miles driven in a parking lot have a lower weight --- if your driveway is longer than other people's, then you might drive more miles with lower expectation of an accident.

      When you are experienced and have driven less than 10000 miles in your life; I would argue, that you are more likely to get into an accident in those 10000 miles than the next 10000 miles.

      I would also argue that miles driven in heavy traffic or bad weather are miles that you are more likely to have an accident in --- you could have driven 100K miles in ideal conditions, and gotten no accident, by driving less safely than the guy who drove 50K miles in horrid conditions, but got into an accident.

      I do not recommend accident-free miles as a metric of driver quality.

      I would argue, that a large number of miles driven suggests you are a better driver than the bottom 1/3rd, because of the road experience you got, having driven all those miles.

      The more hazardous the conditions you drove more miles under with no accidents, and the more of those miles that were driven on congested high-speed roadways and bumper-to-bumper traffic, and other miles where accidents are most likely to occur -- the better a driver you are.

    39. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by kilodelta · · Score: 2

      I'm right there with you. Imagine the benefits of autonomous vehicles - no more DUI, no more distracted driving, a reduction in car accidents, etc. Of course since the cars will obey posted limits, etc. there will be a downside - you don't need traffic police as much.

      Then of course there are the other benefits. Your car could drop you off at a location, go park itself in a cheap lot or structure, then come and get you when you call it. No more circling around looking for a parking spot. That would benefit in time saving and fuel saving.

    40. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by devman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He won't have to, insurance companies will do that for him. If self driving cars prove to be safer than manual cars insurance will adjust premiums according to risk.

    41. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by tibit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The car made especially for you should also come with manual ignition advance, manual choke/mixture ratio adjustment, a manual fuel flow valve with a dial pressure readout and, let's not forget a rheostat to regulate the alternator output. Probably also the manual braking force distribution lever. And an SRS button, of course.

      What is so hard is that if you actually do measurements, humans are nominally piss poor at a whole lot of of manual things that relate to driving cars. The feeling of being in control and the car doing "what they want" trumps the reality that we're really bad at all that.

      Just so that you know, it's quite possible to fly a statically unstable plane. I've had the opportunity on a simulator to deal with a pitch-and-yaw-unstable flying wing. It was done in a preliminary study of biofeedback for training "hard" control scenarios. The biofeedback was auditory, generated digitally in real time with a very small latency (1ms). After about a dozen hours I could actually take off and fly somewhat straight in it. Others who logged a couple man months could pretty much fly it like one would fly a regular plane - looking at the recording of the flight path, it looked "normal". Then you'd look at the stick deflections and you'd go "what the fuck?". The question is: do we really want to do what a hundred dollars worth of high-rel controller hardware, running about 10^5x more expensive software, can do for you?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    42. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There will ALWAYS be situations where the automation software can't cope with a particular scenario and you have to take the wheel in a split second.

      That will never be a viable option. It simply doesn't work that way. It's well known from aviation and industrial control rooms that if the human is out of the loop, it takes much, much longer than a "split second" for the human to get back into the loop. Sometimes entire minutes are not enough, I kid you not.

      The automation software has capacity to "see ahead", so to speak, and can and should get the vehicle into a safe state when it looks like a handover is inevitable. The split second taking over of a wheel is your fantasy, it's basically impossible unless you're paying full attention the entire time - at that point you might as well drive the car anyway, why bother with automation. If you pay any less attention than you would if you actually drove the car, there'll be no split-second handovers. I'm serious. You simply have zero clue what you're talking about.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    43. Re: As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by Reapy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my ideal world cars can talk to streets and other cars for congestion reports, routing, and local avoidance. Having a manual driver in that process would fuck everything up since there is one X factor in the swarm that isn't responding.

      Still that is a long way off, I imagine self drive will begin like ski lifts, drive into a zone, control is taken, moved along a highway, then as you exit a slow ramp with some warning bells as you resume control of the car.

      Either way seems to be an infrastructure nightmare but damn would be nice when it is in place. Hopefully i can see something like this when I'm just getting old enough to not drive myself.

    44. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by mjwx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've never owned anything but 2x seat sports cars, I've never owned a manual transmission.

      If you've never owned a manual, you've never owned a sports car.

      You've already given up most of the control you have over your vehicle, I fail to see why you'd be hesitant to give up the rest.

      Automatics certainly aren't fun cars.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    45. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Some cars already do work that way. They have automatic breaking when the car senses that you will hit something in front of you.

      It would make no sense for it to work the other way round. A human's reaction time is far too slow to intervene when (s)he thinks the car computer will do something bad.

      Actually a human is faster.

      It's just that most humans are dumber.

      Auto-braking systems kick in when you're about to hit something, a human can pick up on something they could potentially hit and avoid it completely (erm... This is called defensive driving).

      People who feel they need systems to compensate for their lack of driving ability need to go hand in their license. All they do is coddle bad drivers into thinking they're better than they really are (and this is when they start taking even more stupid risks).

      Also this system does not account for what is behind you. If you're being tailgated but a 2 tonne mum-tank and the auto-braking system kicks in, that mum tank is still going to plow you into the pedestrian and you'll have a far worse injury from the impact to your car.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    46. Re:As soon as the smart car counts as the driver by golodh · · Score: 3, Insightful
      @Obfuscant

      So you think that automatic cars will be more susceptible to rear-end collisions than human-driven cars?

      Sorry, but no.

      First off, automatic cars can apply the brakes very much quicker than humans (they can respond in milliseconds rather than in seconds), and they continuously monitor the distance to the car in front of them and the rate and acceleration of closing. This means that, given certain common physics and certain standardised car parameters (such as maximum permitted acceleration), the cars will work out the safe following distance for their speed and (importantly) stick to it at all times.

      Phrased differently: avoiding rear-end collisions is a technical problem with a technical solution in terms of continuously calculating a safe following distance for the current speed and adjusting your driving to stick to that.

      The problem is that you must actually compute that solution very quickly and adhere to it for it to do any good. Humans can generally (unless ill, drunk, tired, distracted, vision impaired, or whatever) do the calculations and keep a safe distance, but they WON'T. They get bored, are in a hurry, in an emotional state, or plain like taking risks. So they have a lot of accidents. Automatons can do the calculations too, and they will never be in a hurry and will not take risks (unless programmed to) and simply stick to the solution plus a safety margin. Their accident ratio will be much smaller than that of the average human, and they will have their behaviour adjusted if it turns out to be less-than-safe.

      Secondly, there are developments that let cars communicate with the car ahead and behind (and even beyond the line of sight), and exchange parameters such as maximum deceleration and current manouevre (cruising, accelerating, decelerating, desired speed). This information is then shared throughout a platoon (i.e. group of cars driving closely behind each other). Cars that can't safely drive in the platoon will automatically drop out and increase their distance. It's like a peer-to-peer traffic control system, and it works very well in traffic simulations.

      So, in summary, the objection you raise concerns a technical problem with a technical solution, and isn't an obstacle.

  2. Amusing scenario... by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Driving a manually operated car through a hoard of autonomous cars. Splitting two lanes, step on the gas. The autonomous cars detect your car impinging on their lane, so they move out of the way, and the sea of autonomous cars parts like a wave in front of you.

    They'll need a lot of algorithms to deal with the unexpected, and people who deliberately want to mess with them, heh.

    1. Re:Amusing scenario... by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Driving a manually operated car through a hoard of autonomous cars. Splitting two lanes, step on the gas. The autonomous cars detect your car impinging on their lane, so they move out of the way, and the sea of autonomous cars parts like a wave in front of you.

      They'll need a lot of algorithms to deal with the unexpected, and people who deliberately want to mess with them, heh.

      That kind of driving would be dangerous and illegal; whether you can do it without a crash or not. I'd assume that driverless cars would have cameras to gather evidence in case of an accident, because the passengers might not be paying attention, so you'd probably have a dozen videos being sent to the police, enough for a conviction.

    2. Re:Amusing scenario... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      I live in California where it is perfectly legal for motorcycles to do this, and a motorcycle would have the exact same effect on traffic.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:Amusing scenario... by clem.dickey · · Score: 2

      This is like vaccinations. If you are the sole anti-social person, no problem. But if you run into (pun intended) a like-minded person, they become your moderator.

    4. Re:Amusing scenario... by phoebus1553 · · Score: 2

      I believe that the Google algorithm is taking lane-splitting motorcycles into account. If you watch the video from their engineers they definitely are aware and working on it, I can't remember the solution though.

      --
      ----- - The beatings will continue until morale improves
  3. In by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love driving. Everything about it, but even I want it. Better driving from everyone. Safer, better traffic, and you can play board games with the family while driving down the road.
    All around awesome.

    I wouldn't feel safe. I know I would be safer, but at first it would feel dangerous. That's from years of driving and being driven.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. I completely agree. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't want to give up my driving freedom. Having seen how the rest of you drive, though, I want all of you to give up your driving freedom because I swear, I'd drive better sleepy, drunk, and texting all at the same time than some of you.

    Giving up driving is a price I'm willing to pay if I don't have to risk my life on your competence behind the wheel.

    1. Re:I completely agree. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll freely admit that I've made major mistakes behind the wheel, and I'm just lucky not to have encountered another car. I've missed red lights and stop signs. I've been fixated on a dangerous swerving driver only to ignore my blind spot. I've been so busy looking left that I missed a pedestrian crossing from the left. Shit happens. I'm human. I have no doubt that computers will someday drive more safely.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:I completely agree. by swilver · · Score: 2

      Same here. And what's worse, those are only the mistakes you know you made... :)

  5. Safety by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that self-driving cars are already greatly safer than those driven by humans. If such a car doesn't cooperate with government surveillance, it doesn't degrade your freedom -- and as an useful tool, actually improves it. You can do whatever you want when travelling...

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Safety by DutchUncle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If such a car doesn't cooperate with government surveillance, it doesn't degrade your freedom . .

      "If". Such a small word, to express so much hope.

  6. Premature Panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Despite this technology not existing yet, it scares the shit outta me!

    Can you imagine my self-driving car crashing? Next I would be loaded into a self-driving ambulance and taken to an automated hospital where a self-operating robot might cut off the wrong leg. I'll be right back, my Roomba is stuck in the corner again.

  7. Can't wait for self-driving cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are people who have medical or other reasons which make it so they can't drive. For them a self-driving car gives a huge amount of freedom: freedom to get yourself from point A to point B without relying on favors or public transit or taxis.

  8. Insurance companies... by babymac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just wait until insurance companies start requiring automated driving. That is likely to be decades away, but I think they will be a big factor in the push toward driverless vehicles. The irony of this is that ultimately the need for auto insurance will decline dramatically once accident rates plummet. At that point I think we're likely to see auto insurance become the domain of the auto manufacturers rather than the auto owners.

    --
    "War makes me sad." - Me
    1. Re:Insurance companies... by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the biggest driver (no pun intended) will be people themselves. Think about it, do you buy cars where you have to brace yourself or do you choose the model with the automatically deploying air bags? do you buy the car with all manual brakes or the one with ABS? do you buy the car with manual headlights or the one with AUTO setting? Do you buy the car with manual radio tuning buttons or the one with SEEK forward and backward functions?

      Ditto for newer features. If you ever driven a car with radar activated collision warning (and if no response breaking) you would never go back to one without one.

      People will surrender their "freedom" (which in this case is a bullshit choice of term) for the safety of a car that drives himself, just like you, along with the rest of us, sacrificed the "freedom" of your ice box for a fridge that turns itself on and off. Come to think of it, that is the complete opposite of "sacrificing freedom" we actually stopped the slavery of having to feed an ice box by having a machine take over.

      Same goes for an automatically driven car. Al you are surrendering is your mechanical input to the machine. You are no longer a cog in the driving system. Yay for (real) freedom!

    2. Re:Insurance companies... by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 2

      I think the changes to our society would be even greater. There wouldn't be any need for most people to own a car. Once it scales up it would be much more cost effective to just summon one with your pocket / wrist computer that would take you where you want to go for a fee.

    3. Re:Insurance companies... by MooseTick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "As long as insurance is required by the government, there is no reason for the rates to drop, even if they never have to pay out a dime."

      Your own sentence proves your wrong. Ig GEIKO, Allstate, or someone else charges you $2000 a year and never needs to pay out, someone else will start a new insurance company that only charges $200, knowing they won't ever have to pay out.

  9. The future of driverless cars looks like a bus by dj245 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I had a truly self-driving car, I would rent it out 23/7. My own personal taxi company. After all, I only need my car for about an hour a day on average. Maybe RelayRides will expand to accommodate this business model- I block out times when I need my car, and when someone books it for a ride, it drives off, takes them where they want to go, then comes back and parks in my spot. Or maybe I decide that since I only need a car for an hour a day, I personally don't need a car at all, and can rent one from the pool of public cars if I need to go somewhere.

    We might not have flying cars, but the driverless car is now a legal problem, not a problem of unreasonable expense or technological ability. We have the technology to build them now, and mass-produced, probably for less than $60,000 a piece. We also have systems for issuing commands remotely over the internet ("car, come here") and systems for renting of personal vehicles (Relayrides, GetAround, Lyft). It is only a matter of time before someone ties them all together and forces the law to change, or the law changes and the floodgates open.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:The future of driverless cars looks like a bus by babymac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Expect to see a lot of competition and lobbying from local taxi authorities to prevent you from doing exactly this. They will argue that it's not safe for individuals to rent their cars out in this way - and to some extent they will have a point. Plus, when your fancy new car comes home with vomit (or worse) all over the interior you're going to be really angry.

      --
      "War makes me sad." - Me
    2. Re:The future of driverless cars looks like a bus by coyote_oww · · Score: 2

      More taxi than bus. But why buy, when an automated car is essentially a taxi with a computer driver. Just pay for the rides you need, maybe with a cell-phone-like "minutes" or "miles" monthly plan.

  10. Self-driving cars are liberating by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's mass transit without the masses. Imagine your own personal bus, taxi or train. Mass transit is good for many people because it enables travel without so much stress... or at least without the same type of stress and certainly less danger. But among the problems of mass transit is the crowding and congestion which often accompanies more dense populated areas.

    I think having HOV lanes replaced with "Automated" lanes, self driving cars are likely to take you anywhere you need to go, respond to traffic problems by dynamically re-routing and generally even out the flow of traffic all over. Even if a driver decides not to participate in the use of self-driving cars, when there are enough self-driving cars, it will likely benefit the non-participants as well.

    One caveat is the fact that non-participants will see it as a license to be an even bigger asshole than they were to "other drivers." They would be bigger because they would drive rudely around machines which would, ostensibly, not be offended... (the passengers might though... imagine cutting off a self-driving car and how it might respond)

    There are probably a lot of scary scenarios which I haven't considered, but I recall batman movies and the self-driving batmobile and how that could be really useful. A car that will let you get out at your destination then drive away to park somewhere? Awesome... especially if you can notify your car that you are waiting to be picked up and have it arrive in a few moments. There's a lot of awesome there... and some scary.

  11. Machines are better, let them drive by silviuc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Humans are simply not built for monotonous, repetitive activities. Driving is one of those. If you look at the main cause of accidents there is rarely faults in the machinery it's humans that are either sleepy, drunk or just plain dumb. I really do want to see smart roads and smart cars.

    Ugh we really need to learn to let machines do the jobs that we simply can't do well in a consistent manner.

  12. Overcoming the Fear of the New by organgtool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This reminds me of when the internet was new and my relatives were amazed when I told them I did most of my Christmas shopping online. They couldn't believe that I trusted web sites on the internet with my credit card number and they said they had absolutely no interest in doing that. The very next year, most of those same relatives were raving about how convenient it was to shop at home and not fight car and foot traffic to buy gifts. The point is, people fear new things that they don't understand, but once they see the benefits and convenience of new technologies, it usually isn't long before they consider life without that technology as primitive.

  13. Self-driving cars CREATE liberty for some folks. by Drewdad · · Score: 2

    If you can drive, for whatever reason, it seems to me that a self-driving car would be a godsend. Folks with visual impairment, seizure illnesses, physical challenges, etc. are suddenly able to go wherever they want.

  14. Sure by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    I'm willing to get a driverless car........once it's been tested. A lot. Not before.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. Re:useless Idea by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2

    Of course it's going to happen. Especially in crowded traffic. In those circumstances I'd much rather my life depend on something with a reaction time that will make the moving cars seem almost stationary.

    Here's how this should play out:

    1) Smart people with lots of money start developing these (happening now)
    2) In real life trials, they work, and are statistically safer than human drivers (looks promising...)
    3) In time, they're indisputably a lot safer than human drivers (we'll see, but I think this will happen).

    Once you get to 3, not switching to driverless cars becomes rather dumb.

  16. like digital cameras by MooseTick · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of when digital cameras started becoming mainstream. A lot of people poo pooed them and said they would never replace real cameras. They had to be able to feel and hold pictures. Well, we see how Poloroid and Kodak fared. A similar attitude was had when automatic transmissions first appeared. People wanted the freedom to shift when they wanted and not when some mechanism decided it should be done.

      I expect driverless cars to follow a similar path. Once available, they will slowly be adopted and then a tidal wave. There will always be the Jenny McCarthys of the world who have some freak incident and blame technology on their woes, but 99% of those who can afford a driverless car will use them 99% of the time.

  17. Driving Freedom Never Existed by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Driving is a privilege, that you have to earn, and comes with a thousand point list of rules and regulations.

    You can only drive when they want, where they want, and how they want. So were is there any freedom to loose?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  18. People will hate it until they try it. by CmdrPorno · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You wouldn't believe how many people I know were dead set against satellite navigation systems, how they would be forced on us, etc. Every one of those people now owns one, by their own choice.

    I think people have a similar visceral reaction to autonomous vehicles, but once they experience not having to deal with the stress of everyday driving, will change their opinion.

    --
    Sent from my iPhone
  19. Re:Not until.... by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

    While you have a point, I'd note that for people stuck in rush hour traffic, the average speed is usually lower then the posted speed limit anyway.

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  20. freedom? by Xicor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the freedom to be stupid and cause accidents/deaths? or the freedom to speed at ridiculous speeds(i like this one)? or even the freedom to keep score while running over grandmothers?

  21. Re:Freedom? by interval1066 · · Score: 2

    I agree with this. While I would love a care that will just go where I tell it, I would like to have the option of driving it myself as well. I can't see manufacturers taking that option away, as long as they even pay lip service to giving the consumers what they want, unless the Government tells them otherwise. Too bad they seem to be so ready to jump when the Gov. tells them.

    But that's crazy talk, right? What are they going to do, tell us to buy insurance too?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  22. The loss of end-user control by guanxi · · Score: 2

    It's interesting to watch tech trends change. End-user control used to be a priority; the Internet was built around it. With the rise of widespread connectivity, centrally controlled services have become much simpler and more popular. You don't update the OS on your phone, someone does it for you.

    You lose the benefits of end-user control, which include more privacy, freedom (as in speech), openness and innovation. Who will track where you self-driving car takes you? On your iPhone, you only can use apps that Apple approves. Facebook was built on open technologies that emphasized end-user control; it allowed them to create something that the creators of the Internet technologies didn't envision and didn't have to approve; what will be built on Facebook?

    I'm not against centralized services completely, and many of these issues could be mitigated if the service providers were motivated to do it, but I am concerned that it's a serious trade-off that's being made without discussion.

  23. Re:Not until.... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2

    As long as the self driving car only slavishly follows the ridiculously low speed limits in most of the northeast it will be more hazard to other drivers than benefit, and it will also be slower.

    Lots of slower drivers now who do less than the posted limit. My work commute is about 50 miles of rural interstate in Colorado. Posted speed limit is 75 mph. Lots of cars in the slow lane doing less than that and the worst thing is when one of them isn't quite willing to go as slow as the others and gets in the fast lane and S-L-O-W-L-Y passes the other.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  24. No, there's a specific freedom in mind here... by danaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've missed the point here. They do have a specific "freedom" in mind here:

    The freedom to break the rules of the road.

    The people talking about self-driving cars taking away their "freedom" are afraid they'll no longer be able to drive 75 mph in a 55 mph zone, or run that red light, or tailgate that person who's got the sheer audacity to drive a few miles an hour under the speed limit when they need to get home to watch the game so close they leave paint on their bumper...!

    In other words, they're afraid that if everyone's got self-driving cars, they won't be allowed to be assholes anymore.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  25. Save me from bad drivers by PoconoPCDoctor · · Score: 2

    We are a long way from jumping in the car, saying "work," and then reading or taking a nap on the way. We accept about 30 thousand deaths a year in the USA as normal. If the real bugs could be worked out, this number would go down.

    --
    "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
  26. Digital HyperMiler by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    I also want to be able to drag a slider on the console that lets me optimize between trip duration and fuel efficiency. You could enable drivers very easily to radically cut their fuel consumption.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  27. This is shameful by Mike+Frett · · Score: 2

    Man you guys are living in ignorance city. I had the displeasure of working at a car lot for far too long. You guys just THINK Cars are safe, we had recalls all the time about things catching on fire or brakes failing and nobody knows about this except the owners who receive the letter in the mail to come get something important replaced. The manufacturer isn't going to tell you they knew about the issues and released a potentially dangerous product with potentially deadly flaws.

    You actually think self driving Cars are going to be our savior? Then ignorance city fits you very well.

    To the other guys who think Manual Transmissions are going away, no. Manual Transmissions are released with some of the cheaper model cars and sports cars as optional and are sold in limited quantity, have been for many years now since automatic engulfed us. But if you want it, you have to specifically ask for it. And by all means, you don't have to read a word I say, just wait for the bad things to happen when the time comes. Car crashes from computer error will become normal, just like stuck gas petals. Life will go on and nothing will change, just like it does now.

    Isn't it something? How things so terrible, become the normal and acceptable. And nothing will ever change until people stop rationalizing things. Buckle up kiddies. That's actually or was, an inside joke once because of the number of early seatbelt failures.

    1. Re:This is shameful by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      With proper oversight I am not worried... if everybody must have them as well. My robo car is not going to spot some idiot on their cell driving in the next lane and avoid them as well as I do. Take away all the people who can't drive responsibly or lost the capacity (elderly) and that would make me feel much safer. At least a defect would result in investigations and lawsuits to create a permanent solution; idiot drivers have no fault insurance and a slim chance of changing their ways (tickets don't help.)