Slashdot Mirror
Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates
Lucas123 writes "Most drivers would consider buying an autonomous vehicle if it meant their insurance rates would be reduced by 80%, a new survey of 2,000 licensed drivers found. Oddly enough, the survey by the online consumer insurance site Car insurance.com also showed that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer. Another 64% said computers were not capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers. And 75% would not trust a driverless car to take their children to school. The survey also asked what commuters would be doing if a computer handled the driving: More than one-in-four would text/talk with friends; 21% would read; 10% would sleep; 8% would watch movies; 7% would play games; and 7% would work. The rest of those surveyed said they'd just watch the scenery blow by."
If car auto-pilot is like auto-correct, we're all going to die in really funny ways. No matter what the results of this survey say.
Sent from my ENIAC
lol... please... if everyone on the road had a robot driving the car, we wouldnt have need for car insurance. also, it isnt the insurance that would get me to have a robotic car, but the fact that i can play video games while it drives me places.
Hell, I'd almost pay higher premiums for the computer to do the driving.
Free Martian Whores!
You mean people will choose to save money while increasing their overall safety if statistically proven? Holy shit.. Next thing you will tell me is people will take medicine to save their lives. Crazy times we are living in these days.
... how insurance companies are gonna try and make up the difference.
And the ridiculous rationale they're gonna present for doing so.
Wasn't there a post on slashdot a while back about a study that showed computers (google cars) were actually better drivers than humans?
Another 64% said computers were not capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers.
That's right. Based on my observations of human drivers (not to mention traffic fatality statistics and the nightly "single vehicle accident" reports), the quality would consistently be better. Don't mod me funny, please. I'm not joking.
Sod the insurance rates, I'd buy one if they were available and affordable anyway (as long as they offered astatistically comparable accident rate to the average). I drive 640 miles a week in 2 x 5 hour stints. It's tiring, and boring, and I'd rather sleep or read or do any of those other things. Actually, probably sleep as I could set off last thing at night and have the car drive me to work. I don't see any difference trusting it with me or with my children, but my children's school is less than 50 yards from my house so I don't really have that to worry about. To be honest I'm all for driverless cars, I just can't see why if given the option you would want to drive yourself (unless for sports purposes, in which case you probably want to be on a track in a special purpose sports car). Autonomous cars have the potential to be transformative in the same way the internet was, and I reckon they will be over about the same timescale (20-25 years).
Car insurance.com also showed that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer.
Is there actually a space in their URL?
Anyway...
Car%20Insurance.com also showed that nearly 75% of respondents are wrong about their driving skills.
Why the hell do they think Im gonna pay insurance?
Fuck that. I know what enterprise software looks like. I will stick to driving my own car.
Think of what most people do every day in a car... They get into it, sit in a traffic jam for hours as their lives waste away. Having a computer-driven car would be the best of both worlds - the convenience of not having to drive yourself or pay attention to the road, coupled with the convenience of because able to go directly from point A to point B at your convenience. I too would opt for this convenience if it was a mature enough technology.
Quite frankly, I would not object to this, provided we have a choice of purchasing it. (There would be privacy issues I'd like to see addressed prior to buying, and if I don't like what I see, I'd prefer to not be forced into it.)
If I could hand over the driving to the computer when I'm doing a long-distance drive, ESPECIALLY when driving on a major highway that goes through a metropolitan area like Washington DC, I would be all over that. If for no other reason that a computer will not succumb to "Brake Light Accordion Games", where the idiot ahead of me rides with their left foot on the brake.
I hate drivers that do that. They cause all the drivers behind them to step on their brakes, which causes a ripple-effect all they way back, resulting in a 3-mile stretch of highway where traffic is moving at a snail's pace, but there are no obstructions of any kind.
That reason alone is more than sufficient reason to turn driving over to a computer. I could hop on to the I-95 auto-drive lane and say, "Self-drive off. Destination Boston, Massachusetts." And just go to sleep for the duration of most of the drive.
Heck, if it's a Tesla, I could set it up to automatically drive into a SwapStation to change out the battery without even waking me up!
[End Of Line]
This seems to me to be a completely rational point of view:
- I think I am a better driver than a computer.
- I think insurance companies are not going to reduce my premiums if I let a computer drive my car, because I'm a safer driver than a computer would be.
- You say they'll reduce my premiums by 80%? Well, maybe I was wrong, and I'll actually trust the computer to drive. After all, insurance companies aren't going to reduce my premiums by 80% unless the risk from claims is reduced by at least that much.
I am such a control freak I don't want automatic transmission. My next car I am going to get will have no ABS(or at least disabled). Traction control just gives you false sense of security, making you drive faster and ending up in worse situations when you push the limits of the TC.
Do I *want* a robot car? No. Do I think they are safer? Eventually maybe. Do I think they will be inevitable? Yup, the I Robot/Minority Report highways are in our future. Do I like that idea? Not for me, but I can see the overall appeal.
I hate driving in traffic. If I could just sit there and let a computer do it for me while I surf the web or something, I'd be a lot happier.
I want robot cars because I am pretty sure that one will not pull out backwards from an angled-in spot WITHOUT LOOKING BACK or start forward at a red light BEFORE MAKING SURE THE CAR IN FRONT OF YOU IS MOVING or sideswipe a parked car in Brooklyn at 3 am going 80 MILES AN HOUR ON A TINY ONE WAY STREET.
Thanks for listening to these true stories. I have to go call the body shop to see if my car is ready.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
As if the insurance would be dropped by so much! 10% at best. Actually I wouldn't even be surprised if they increased the insurance instead.
Why would a human pay to insure a car that they're not driving? Either I'm driving, and am accountable for my actions, or the computer is driving, and is accountable for it's actions.
I never have been able to get my mind around the need for autonomous vehicles anywhere, with the exception of Disney World. In 3rd world countries, they have gone to the end of this debate, and ended it with single-driver buses, or single-driver rail cars, or drive yourself.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
The question will actually be more like "would you keep driving manually if it meant 80% higher insurance rates?"
Emphasis mine.
Uhmmm... *ANOTHER* 64%???? So people above and beyond the 75% that was just mentioned previously? Wouldn't that make... oh... 139%?
Or do you mean 64% of those remaining?
If the latter, one is compelled to wonder what the reason for the remaining 36% not wanting to hand over their driving to a robot was.
Or do you mean 64% of all respondents (which doesn't make sense in context)? But that would mean that nearly half of people who don't even trust a computer to drive would still hand over the driving to a robot that they believe could kill them, just to get lower insurance rates. That's an interesting notion as well.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I can't image the pile of jello humanity would turn into if we let the computers drive our cars, what next wiping our butts?
I love to drive and I want to drive my car.
computerized autos need to be put on a computerized track. It would produce a transportation system that would be 5x faster at 1/10 the energy with no accidents and be able to work in all weather conditions. It would then be almost sustainable.
I actually enjoy driving - you can take this sort of thing and fuck off.
You mean people will choose to save money while increasing their overall safety if statistically proven?
You seem to have missed the part in which most people were of the belief that they would be decreasing their overall safety in exchange for more money. That's what it means when 75% believe that they would be better drivers for their children than an autonomous car and yet 75% would still take the money.
At the most extreme disjoint of the two sets, that means that 50% of people believe that letting a car drive their children to school would put them at higher risk, and yet they'd do it anyway for money. At least 2/3 of all the people who said yes, and it's likely more because there have to be at least some people who think it would be safer and who wouldn't do it in spite of the money for other unknown reasons.
That's kind of horrifying, actually, regardless of what you think about auto-drive.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
People don't get insurance for public transit, why should they pay for insurance if they're not driving? That's the most conservative capitalist crap I've ever heard. I like driving too, but if it meant I didn't have to pay ANY insurance, I'd give up on it.
While I love to drive, most driving is pretty boring. And with the paranoia around drinking, it is just no fun to go out anymore. I would gladly crawl into the vehicle and tell the computer to take me home. Whether I watched the scenery or snoozed or nuzzled my wife depends upon the moment. But I would gladly scream down the Autobahn at multiples of the speed limit or drift through twisting rural corners -- this stuff is fun. But going to get groceries... zzzzz. And if there is a discount on my insurance to do this - bonus!
insurance rates would be reduced by 80%
Pollsters failed to quantify the opinions of drivers when asked whether they expect to receive an 80% reduction in rates by adopting automated vehicles; respondents were unable to breathe due to convulsive laughter.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Save money on my car insurance and have an electronic chauffeur? Shut up and take my money!
I can't wait for the day when driving "manually" will be viewed as archaic as doing your laundry in a basin or washing your dishes by hand. I'm more than happy to turn over menial tasks to a machine and I can hardly think of anything quite as tedious and boring as the daily commute and trips to and from the supermarket.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
What I am most worried about is that it would look at the road with 1/2 an inch of snow on it and decide that driving is not safe today. Or worse, we are driving in winter weather and it pulls off to the shoulder and parks because the snow is too thick.
Yes, many people can not drive in winter conditions, but I don't want to wait on the side of the road for two days for the road surface to clear
I love driving in general but I hate driving to work in the morning traffic. If I could push a button and have the car drive itself while I troll slashdot, it would make the commute much easier.
Prepare to be modded down by people who do one or two things very well but have no clue about the rest of the world.
You mean 400% higher. If X is 20% of Y, then Y is 500% of X.
How about if the car lets me drive and lets me decide whether I want it to keep me from doing dangerous things (tailgating, backing into objects, changing lanes into other cars, ramming the car in front of me while I adjust the radio, etc.).
In my experience driving in Houston, that's due to highway engineers who have conflicting goals: freeways to get people where they want to go as fast as possible + surface streets where they want you to go as slow as possible. I can look out my office window here and see an exit ramp about 10 car lengths from the stop light with dozens of cars stopped up the ramp and onto the interstate, waiting to go through the red light. Of course,there's some kindergarten dropout who is too important to wait in the back of the line so the car is stopped in the next lane of traffic with its blinker on, knowing some sad sack is going to let them cut in line. But now I'm rambling...
Sadly in Texas there is a minimum you must pay regardless of how much of a risk you are. For example, if you fit within the age group least likely to have an accident, have never had a ticket, have never been in an accident, and never drive outside of the state, you will never be able to reduce your rate to below $35/mo. The only way to pay no insurance is to have a $250k bond, or own a fleet of 25 vehicles, or own a farm and the vehicle is used for "husbandry". The second bit is from back when the law was 6701 so has probably changed. That being said, if the state forced the insurance companies to reduce that to $5/mo I'm all in.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer.
Yes, and a similar proportion in a different poll stated they believed they were safer than than average drivers.
This poll has all sorts of cognitive bias problems.
People sue Honda because their 1992 Accord did not have air bags and if it did, they would not have been hurt. Look at all of that cases with uncontrolled acceleration, in front of a sympathetic jury, the big company is going to lose even if it was your fault by pushing the gas instead of the brake.
There is NO WAY IN HELL automatic driving cars are going to be on our roads. No company can afford to stay in business after a few "accidents" that happen for what ever reason and they get sued.
So how often does the auto pilot get rebooted mid-drive? What if someone installs a rootkit? Will I need to run an anti-virus tool on my car?
Sure I believe that the car is safer driving itself . . . until someone exploits it and crashes me head-on into a tractor-trailer at 90 mph.
I'd rather drive myself.
Oddly enough, the survey by the online consumer insurance site Car insurance.com also showed that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer. Another 64% said computers were not capable of the same quality of decision-making as human drivers. And 75% would not trust a driverless car to take their children to school.
Something like Most Drivers Are Not Ready To Hand The Keys Over To A Computer would've been more appropriate.
johnny cab now fire free
...what commuters would be doing if a computer handled the driving: More than one-in-four would text/talk with friends; 21% would read; 10% would sleep; 8% would watch movies; 7% would play games; and 7% would work. The rest of those surveyed said they'd just watch the scenery blow by."
So essentially the same as what most of them are doing now, based on casual observations.
"The survey also asked what commuters would be doing if a computer handled the driving:"
Yes, if only there were some way to put a person in a moving vehicle, without having them actually drive it, and observe them. Clearly that's impossible, so let's pose this hypothetical question.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
If the computer is driving, I call SHOTGUN!
rewriting history since 2109
If all the cars on the road are driverless then the car companies will probably start giving away full liability as part of the purchase. They will have a full record of any accident with all the cameras and whatnot plus an active interest in analyzing any accident so as to upgrade their software to prevent it from happening again. Plus driverless cars will basically stop causing accidents pushing the laws to eliminate the fundamentally homicidal act of driving a manual car. All that will be left to insure will be fire/theft/trees falling so your car will need about as much insurance as your woodshed. This does not bode well for the car insurance industry as even theft will be significantly reduced if the cars are heavily computerized.
But the other factor will be that for many urban people cheaper and driverless taxis will reduce car ownership. It probably won't eliminate it but a two or three car family might drop to a single car.
Personally my limited driving pretty well justifies switching to all taxis right now so if taxis plummeted in price then it would be a no brainer.
The question of driverless cars is not even a when; now I wonder how long before the last person gets a automobile driver's license in North America?
Not only would I have a robotic car if my insurance rates went down 80%--I'd gladly pay double the insurance to have a robotic car. All the wasted time driving--would love to not have to physically do the driving!
For those of us who enjoy driving good cars on good roads, the feeling of freedom that we get and the pleasurable sensations that we feel when we are driving well is not something easily replicated. The frustration that we feel when we are commuting in heavy traffic and like someone else posted earlier, the inconveniences of having to leave a car in a car park overnight after a bit of drinking have caused me to rethink this whole autonomous car idea. I can see the benefits of the technology having useful applications. The thing that worries me though is the thought of my car no longer being in my or my personal on board computer's control any longer. If the system has value to me as a self navigating device with some jelly in it, it has value to someone else as a self navigating device. It's kind of clear to me that anything easily networkable is just as easily hi jackable.
I don't see what's so surprising. I would wager that aside from the car enthusiast community, the reason most people own a car is to get from point A to point B. And if you can do it cheaper, then most would be all for it. Secondly, the idea of using AI to drive cars is still in its infancy and it's completely reasonable to think that a human can do a better job of driving. And lastly, what else would people be doing other than texting/talking/sleeping/enjoying the scenery? The ride essentially becomes the exact same as a bus, plane or train ride.
I am fascinated that 75% of respondents think they could drive a car better than a computer. Personally I suffer from the Inverse Dunning-Kruger effect: I sincerely hope that a majority of people drive better than I!
I can't wait for the self-driving car. Though I suspect the Google self-driving cars will be free, but if I want to drive to a restaurant it will just "happen" to drive by McDonald's and will offer me a coupon.
Most people are fucktardedly stupid and make stupid decisions about important things.
So far as I'm concerned, this technology won't be ready for "prime time" for at least 20 years, and I for one will not consider it until a few hundred thousand other people beta-test it for me.
Before anyone lumps me in with the bad drivers: I'd be dead if I were, I've logged hundreds of thousands more miles over the course of my life on motorcycles than driving cars; If I was a fuck-up, I'd be dead, or at least maimed. I'm still 100% original equipment.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
An insurance company would never do that. An insurance company would increase its rates on everyone, then provide a small discount to those who have self driving cars. It's just like the scam they pulled when they were allowed to set rates based upon credit scores. Only people with perfect credit got to keep the same rates, everyone else got a rate increase.
What a bunch of bullshit. Insurance companies aren't interested in lowering your insurance rates. If that was the case they woudln't be spennding 5 billion in adds all over the place to convince you 15 mins could save you 15%
electronically limited engine speed, ABS, stability assist systems, FLIR cameras mounted in high end luxury sedans, adaptive headlights, lane change warning systems, automatic parallel parking computer controlled airbags and seatbelt pretensioners as well as adaptive predictive braking in the event of imminent collision have all been introduced and vastly improved the safety of automobiles.
the hillarious truth though is car insurance routinely increases every year without fail. We have Progressive with 'snapshot' technology to rate and view your driving patterns and habits, yet it only claims at most a 15% discount so long as you let them invade your privacy and promise to drive like a geriatric. Snapshit is designed as a tool for the insurance company to more accurately calculate its liabilities and predict their resultant quarterly earnings.
car insurance is also premised on ludicrous multiplier factors like being married. I cant get legally married in my state as a gay man, so all i get is a half-hearted apology from the agent and a rate hike. did I maintain auto insurance for the past 2 years? no, but not out of any intent to defraud. I lived in san francisco for 2 years and didnt need a car so hence, no insurance and another condescending giggle from the agent. maddeningly enough, some states allow insurance "discounts" for customer loyalty, a concept thats wholly divorced from the original purpose of insurance. finally do i rent or own a home? im renting a place so clearly im a more dangerous driver? whatever. did I bundle my insurance with multiple vehicles? no? looks like more expensive insurance then
the truth is ive owned two cars in my state out of transportation need. one was a brand new 2013 Acura TL, the other a 2001 Crown Victoria. I bought the crown victoria and traded in the acura because it makes absolutely no difference to the insurance company. that despite having no accidents for over a decade, both cars cost the same to insure for me. So to think that somehow insurance companies are just going to take a huge revenue loss just because my car gets more computerized is a fucking joke. Private, loosely regulated automotive insurance is at best, a fucking joke. for 90% of americans that do need a car for work, it isnt even an option so insurance companies can enjoy gouging you for whatever they like. and my crown victoria? i can just get liability insurance because one year of full-coverage insurance is more than the car is worth to replace.
Good people go to bed earlier.
On the way back from my grocery store, there is a stretch of road in a curve which has some worn out parts which make a lot of bumps. They are slight right of center in the left turning curve. The usual position people would drive in this curve would hit the bumps. If you drive through this curve slightly to the right (outside of the curve) you will miss the bumps. I remembered to do this after hitting those bumps maybe 10 to 20 times. Now I never hit the because I always drive slightly to the outside on this road. You cannot see this in the road until it is too late. You cannot seem them at all at night. That's why learning about them is the only way to avoid them. So can a computer learn them? Would it even know to avoid them on the 2nd pass?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
are auto-driven, why should I have insurance?
I told them I'd spend 100 minutes to save 100%. They didn't want to go along with that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Just so I don't have to drive. I'm that lazy.
Sure, I'll hand over the keys to software licensed and sold WITHOUT WARRANTY, or EVEN FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, and CONTAINING KNOWN DEFECTS, where my only remedy is a refund of the cost of the software.
Sorry that the virtual machine "crashed" killing the driver and everyone in the car. Here is your refund of 99.99 for the "car.driver.java.app". We fixed the race condtion in "car.driver.java.app.crash.prevention", we added a new easter egg where if you unbuckle your belts at the same time the radio will play safety dance.
Don't worry, we named a few variables after the dead folks. We're all good, it's fixed in the next service pack, you can have that on the house.
Good luck suing us, we are just programmers after all, not real engineers.
Saving $280 a year is not something I would base such a decision on... at that rate it would take more than the rest of my life to recover in savings what I spent on the new self-driving car.
I'd like to see all these people sterilized for the good of the gene-pool...
Too stupid and lazy ..
Just f'in sad.
I just want skynet for a chauffeur.
I see driver errors nearly every day in my city of 350,000. Mostly they are about following too closely and entering an intersection and turning left or right without due regard to oncoming traffic. Two of my friends always used to make me nervous as hell because I felt they drove too close to the car in front. No issues now cuz neither of them drive any more since they crashed their cars.. I think autonomous driving makes a heckuva lot of sense. The accidents I've seen have been all caused by simple human error and bad driving habits. Remove that element and I'm sure most accidents will go away. Insurance for self-driving will necessarily sky-rocket.
Ontario has no-fault insurance as the standard car insurance now. That means that if you're injured in a car accident, if you get a note from a doctor saying you need something, you get it pretty much right away, and the insurance companies sort out the liability between themselves
Many states in the US are defined as "no fault", however it doesn't mean what you just described. In the US, "no fault" means that a law enforcement officer will assign fault in the accident, and then the rates of everyone involved will go up. In contrast, in states that are not currently "no fault", a law enforcement officer will assign fault in the accident, and then the rates of everyone involved will go up. See the difference?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Cars can't get drunk. I would be watching the scenery blow by with a beer in my hand. And not in a goddamn paper bag.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
What if I could get to all the boring places much faster, and also have a car for "getting away"?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
...get car sick.
I think I'd have to experience it to really make a call.
What I do know is that I do enjoy driving when it isn't absolutely infuriating. So I guess I'd opt for the car you can take out of auto pilot and pay the full 100% insurance rate.
I'm hoping driver less cars free me from the need to own The damned things.
I would spend the time hacking away at my car while it is driving.
That's probably true when the person is rested and alert. But computers win because they make decisions consistently over time, don't get drunk, don't get tired, don't get angry, don't eat, don't get sick and don't break up with their girlfriends, all factors that hurt human decision making, and that are probably involved in causing most accidents.
You failed basic economics? Of course, insurance companies aren't interested in lowering your bills, but they are interested in competing for your business. So, the companies that spend "five billion in adds [sic]" that they can save you 15% are the companies that don't have your business and want it, and they are getting it by telling you that you can get a better price from them. It's called a market economy, and it does lower your insurance rates, not because the companies "are interested in it", but because competition forces them to. See, the beauty of market economies is that they force companies to do things that they don't want to do, and they do this much more effectively than any regulation or other scheme could.
There are over 1 million car accidents per day on US roads. If we can reduce them by even a mere fraction it will save so many lives!! Isn't that alone worth it?
Sick sick people. So willing to give up their individual autonomy and control. They've been backed into a corner by insurance and are willing to go with the dictates. New World Order... Here we come! I hope you're ready for the numbnuts you're going to inherit?!?
...are ready for prime time I hope to be retired, own a beach home, and be enjoying life running around on a sail boat....
I expect that it will take about 25 years before they have most of the bugs worked out and a significant adoption rate.
I would love to sleep instead. (No public transportation in these parts. As if I would sleep with my backpack/computer open to the public.)
Recently there was some forum/conference about self driving cars and issues they will face to be accepted (sorry I don't have time to look up the link). Anyway the scenario was this: Car is self driving, a driving rain (or some other severe weather condition hits), and the car realizes it cannot handle the situation and turns the driving back to you just as the car is approaching a major intersection at a fairly high speed. You haven't driven all day (or maybe for days or weeks), and now you have to drive. Who has the liability in that case if something goes wrong? Note this is similar to what some airline pilots are already facing. Hours of autopilot and then moments of direct control under stressful situations.
Also, I haven't seen any articles about how well these self driving cars do in the snow? Anybody know?
But, until I'm too old and decrepit to actually drive MYSELF anywhere, I'm more sure of my ability to drive a car than that of a computer.
It's a simple trust issue. We're still seeing issues where computer systems in cars, THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH AN AUTODRIVER, are fouling up because they're hitting corner cases and multi-system interoperability issues the developers never planned for. And the result? We see dead people!
As such, this is supposed to inspire enough confidence in me to hand over driving duties?
Guess again.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'd say that you're much like most people. If most people would prefer to let something else drive in exchange for reduced costs, they'd all take cabs, buses and trains.
The reason is not necessarily they would prefer to drive, but often they don't want to deal with other people. Riding in a bus or on a train can be OK but can also be awful.
Taxis are a special case, for most people they cost more, not less, than driving. But in someplace like NYC where parking and owning a car can be horribly expensive, lots of people do take cabs because it is cheaper and there's only other other person to deal with...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My **car** insurance couldn't get much lower...an 80% discount wouldn't be a statistically significant incentive for me to buy/upgrade to a driverless car.
I have a national brand of car insurance and it costs me $46.00 every 6 months. I even have a DUI on my record.
Upgrading to a driverless car would at least cost in the low $10^5.
Given that disparity in significant figures ($10^5 cost for $10^1 savings) this offer wouldn't enter anyone's radar screen.
These driverless cars aren't going anywhere, but I have no idea who will use them beyond a few rich dudes in a few areas.
Just like with the Tesla...biz owners today have no concept of stuff that Henry Ford understood and popularized...
Google & Tesla *both* need a Model T version of their cars. Something super basic that the masses will buy.
Thank you Dave Raggett
*snerk* - But, more seriously, I figure that self-driving cars will get into different accidents than human drivers; of which 'distraction' is up there. I figre they'll get into accidents few humans would get into, but be excellent at preventing accidents via 'fast twich' reactions that are far faster than any human.
Back on the survey - I think that it ends up asking two different questions. 'Would you do/let X happen with an autodrive car' allows the respondant to make their own assessment as to the capabilities of the system. 'Would you buy an autodrive car if it drops your insurance premiums 80%' implies that the system is 5X less likely to be in an accident, and engages different parts of the brain - the math side, not the animal 'keep yourself safe' side.
By the way - the 'watch the scenery go by' crowd would be 'less than 1 out of 5' by my figuring, since 'more than 1/4' implies >25%. Personally I'd be voting for 'all of the above'.
I don't read AC A human right
... an insurance company would accept to lower their rate by 80%?
Don't forget that even if the financial cost($) is cheaper, there are other expenses. People have listed 'having to be around others' but I personally really don't care. What I do care about in my situation is the time. In order to take the bus to work I'd have to leave an hour earlier and get home ~1.5 hours later. The price of which is about equal to my marginal cost for just driving there.
Given that I value personal time between home and work at around $10/hour, it becomes a fool's bargain. As expensive as my vehicle is, I value the time and freedom it gives me much higher.
My valuations, roughly speaking:
Personal time, allowed to do what I want, away from home: $10/hour.
Personal time, at home: $20/hour
Time spent driving: $0-5/hour
Time spent outside during winter, not playing: $-10/hour.
I don't read AC A human right
that ever occurred, if only I live long enough to see auto insurance go out of business because there are no wrecks or so few that they go under.
Fat pig bastards need to be slaughtered.
The point where at first they are all happy for all the profit then the politicians are forced to unwind the you have to have insurance give away to business.
Then the poof gone.
I have a burning haltered of these fat pigs in case you did not know.
The fucking I took when they did this and took away no fault.
You have to pay per month what I use to pay per year before this law that laid the ground work to force health care on you. On insurance forced on you is like another.
In auto insurance there was nothing wrong with it in the first place If you were worried about an uninsured motorist you could get uninsured motorist protection in your policy.
And if you had no insurance and got in a wreck you had to buy a new car guess what people drove a little safer now they just say so what I am insured.
I drive my automobile for no reason, like Berry said, crusin' and playin' the radio, with no particular place to go ... I enjoy using the clutch, the gears, the smell of unburn lead gasoline, the roar of a old engine.
True, in a sense, but they are *very* interested in reducing cost of claims. If they can do that, then rates get competed down reasonably quickly.
[FUCK BETA]
The real question is, will the autonomous vehicle industry be able to weather the endless deluge of 'ANOTHER COMPUTER-CONTROLLED CAR CRASHES' that will happen once these vehicles hit the showrooms. The news hate to report anything important and they will be all over this like flies all over shit.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
A person can be smart. People are stupid.
there are plenty of (to me) autonomous vehicles out there. for example, trains. i am not responsible if the train i am riding in hits something. explain to me why i would be responsible if the autonomous car that i bougth hits something? clearly, it is the company that designed the algorithms that is responsible.
liability: why there will be no autonomous cars anytime soon.
Perhaps even time enough to ask themselves why they have arranged their entire lives around the conceit of working far away from home.
The speed limit is (the laughable) 55 mph, the traffic is doing the (routine) 80. What speed does the autonomous car drive? If 55, it won't get a ticket but will probably get hit in the rear and you'll get killed. If 80, they'll probably wake you up from the back seat and give you a ticket.
I'm not sure who I trust more...current drivers or future auto-pilot programmers. We have a hard enough time with bugs, exploits, and black hats in existing software let alone some new emerging technology. Do we want to open ourselves up to attack or possible mass malfunction? Who's to say Joe "Doesn't know **** about coding" Blow down the street hasn't opened up his car's system and tampered with it in order to get to work faster and cause problems for the rest of us? Existing drivers can be influenced by many external or internal factors as well, and may be very unpredictable. They might have a good/bad day and drive better or worse. Drivers may allow themselves to be distracted by any number of things, or even fall asleep. We also have to deal with intoxicated drivers. Humans are fallible creatures. I guess either way you end up trusting your life to someone or something which is out of your control. Computers may be more predictable MOST of the time, but if a bug crops up which affects everyone in a horrible way, we're all screwed. What if something went awry with the code which controls breaking or avoiding collisions? Wrecks everywhere! The difference being if a person fails, it is just that one person. If a mass produced system fails, it could be many.
We asked 1000 people, "if you had the option of buying a non-existent product, of unspecified quality, that you will hand responsibility for your life to, in return for cheaper car insurance, would you do it?" If said auto-car was made by JML, then I'd have to say 'no'. If it was made by Google, then I might say yes, after seeing it perform - and then, perhaps only if there were enough others on the road to have something of a 'critical mass'.
You hop in your car to rush your wife to the hospital delivery room:
*error.wav* "I'm sorry, this vehicle is unavailable for use. Your insurance has lapsed due to premium non-payment. Starting circuit disabled. State DMV and local TSA office notified. Attempting to bypass ignition switch, or failing to pay premium and renewal fees, plus penalties, will subject you to civil liablility and criminal prosecution. Please proceed to assigned insurance navigator to renew your coverage, immediately. Re-registration maybe requred, Service subject to 1 week delay for investigation of non-payment and additional background checks. Your mileage may vary. Please visit the AmeriDrive.GOV website for additional details and restrictions. This vehicle will now power down completely, and will require reactivation by a certified technician prior to any further use. Please exit immediately; doors will lock in 5...4..3.. "
I got yer "People's Car", Mr. Hitler.
I love driving. The pull of g-forces as I accelerate through a curve. The satisfaction of getting my line just absolutely perfect along a technical a stretch of road. The roar of the engine when I downshift to accelerate. The moment the light turns green, and getting that almost-loss-of-traction launch. The strangely smooth sailing over a gravel road.
I enjoy my commute to work. I'm fortunate in that I don't sit in traffic, except for the occasional stoplight, but cover about 18 miles in about 30 minutes. I generally enjoy every chance I get behind the wheel. But, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer of me. We have automatic transmissions and ABS and GPS and all these luxuries that take the driving out of driving. And people enjoy them.
One day, self-driving cars will be a common sight. And I will have adapted my driving to taking advantage of being able to recognize and anticipate the behavior of self-driving vehicles. And then self-driving cars will become the standard. And just like it's so difficult to find a manual transmission sedan in America today, other things that matter to a "real" driver will become more difficult or time-consuming or frustrating.
And then, sometime after that, it'll be a lost art, relegated to closed courses. And those of us who still care will recall fond memories as we carefully put the SCCA decal on the rear bumper of our self-driving car and look forward to the next weekend getaway where we can take our antique out for a spin.
This is no more than a lamentation - a rarity on /. with its straightforward language - so please take it at face-value. I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm just saying that I think this is how it's going to happen, at least from my perspective, and that it makes me sad.
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. - John 14:6 NLT
After the first raft of thousands of deaths the insurance rate will not just go up but likley dounle and triple.
Oh and whats the maintenance costs on such systems ?? More than is being save assuming they can ever be made to work and everyone isnt limited to 10 mph
If the computer can drive my car and I can replace my steering wheel with the equivilant of a laptop, I'll be one happy person.
Will I need to run an anti-virus tool on my car?
You're life will depend on Norton Antivirus.....no reason to worry.
I could see letting the car drive on a long stretch of road and then pull over at a designated mile marker to await further commands.
You think truck companies will still have drivers when computers start driving?
Anyway all other modes of transport are computer driven some without humam watching over them from the inside.
If you get to text and drive, a cop gets 2 screens write a ticket and drive then by god i shall play Quake 3 arena and drive.
if they try to push that retarted obdII thing on you just get a laptop and record engine data of you driving 35 all the time. hook it up how you like then do donuts in front of a walmart or something..........you've got safe driving data Dont WORRY!
Most Drivers are mostly people and most people are mostly idiots.
I don't really see private ownership of autonomous vehicles working out. Maybe for a little while cruise control could take over control of the car, but that would be about the extent that people would use it. Where autonomous vehicles are leading us would be a world where car manufacturers run pick up and drop off services. You request a car, it shows up, it takes you where you tell it to, and then it drives off to pick up somebody else. The need for personal insurance at that point would be some sort of need around how good of a passenger you are. Are you somebody who makes a mess in the car, or not?
I like the idea in some regards, but I live in a part of the world that occasionally experiences some real weather. So there's not much point if the car can't self-drive in snow, sleet, or even monsoon-like rain.
If half the people out there had self-drivng cars, it seems like the very thing that would make the bad weather 10X worse when driving. Until there's AI systems that can cope with it, I have a feeling automated cars will have this tendency to leave people stuck like chuck once it gets a bet wet or sloppy outside. So then you'll have a lot of very inexperienced drivers suddenly having to drive themselves because the computer in their car gave up. (And it's already bad enough when I visit relatives or friends in southern states where everybody panics at a half-inch of snow on the ground. Meh.) It seems like something that'll be messy.
At least if you drive often and are experienced, you can still manage to eke that car home 50 miles in a blizzard. Risky, but often much more rewarding than camping at work with other irritable people while the lounge vending machines have gone empty. Those that can't cope and give up will certainly be enjoying the stale crackers (only thing left in the vending machine), that flickering florescent light, and that cold vent, while I kick back and take a hot bath after getting home and then lounge somewhere nice and cozy while having a decent dinner followed flopping on an actual bed at night.
So as neat as it is, I figure it's going to be much like convertables. A lot less popular where there's a good chance of snow during at least 4 months out of the year. (And if enough people trade experience for convenience, it may even raise insurance costs in northern climes.)
Robot cars sound neat and everything for a 20-something Google employee, but they are both impractical and undesirable for the rest of us for several reasons.
For you maybe? I am 45 and I see this as a seriously cool idea. I could see the benefit for senior citizens who have limited mobility. Most of the accidents I have been in or caused was caused by distraction. Computers do not waver in their distraction. We humans though ... SQUIRREL!!!!
For people in the country, it doesn't make sense, and for people in the city, there are usually buses and trains already.
For people who drive on the interstate it makes sense. As you have known rules and the list is fairly short however the speeds are fairly high.
Driving on other road conditions is a skill you learn. Why could you not teach those skills in a rule set to a computer? Just 'because'? /snark For example slamming breaks on ice is a bad idea. But you could feather the breaks (bad idea for anti locks btw). Easy enough for a computer to detect the road is still moving and the tires have 100% stopped causing the anti locks to kick in. Oh wait thats what computers do NOW on just about every car out there.
If you can hit say the 90% rate of people using it then you would be way better off. Sure weather happens but there are *many* conditions where it is nice and sunny or light rain. Would you say dont bother with that because I cant drive when the sleet is going sideways (which rarely happens)?
Driving on snow and ice is easy if you are skilled at it, and often must take into account your judgment of road conditions several hundred feet in front of the vehicle's current condition.
Are you saying your eyes are better than thermal sensors and acoustic ranging and a 4k camera at 240hz? I dont know about you but I can say my eyes are not that good.
If you for some reason think this will not happen is very short sighted. Right now today, drivers for long haul trucks are only allowed to drive 11 hours per day. Then must take breaks where the truck is 100% stopped every few days. If you think companies like walmart, werrner, amazon, jbhunt, usps would not jump all over the idea of 24 hour truck roll you are dreaming. They could literally double their capacity of shipping with the same size fleet.
Instead of throwing your hands up and saying 'its impossible' (which you are close to saying if you dont think so go re-read what you wrote). Be a bit more positive and figure out how to overcome those issues. You might learn something or at the very least come up with something cool.
“Faster, Faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/257768-faster-faster-until-the-thrill-of-speed-overcomes-the-fear
If you have a lower history of traffic violations and a lower insurance claims record than a robot, you should pay less, and vice versa.
We already have vehicles that we can read, program, text, play games while being driven around. They're called public buses.
Rest assuredly that if all cars tomorrow came with 100% perfect automatic computer drive, that the first thing most places would do is enact laws against using that 100% perfect automatic computer drive without paying attention to the road. That means anything, taking a nap, adjusting the stereo, etc, would be enough to get you a fat ticket. They'd have so many people to nail that they'd have to devise a method (similar to tolls) where everyone they 'tagged' with a camera (think mounted to a rifle stock) got a ticket in the mail. They'd just sit around and do this all day instead of try to catch speeders anymore. The first year would see thousands of Americans in jail for not paying their multi-million dollar fines.
news for you pal, thats solidly middle class...unless you only have one income, kids, car payment, house payment...**then** you're more towards "lower middle/working class" on that income
i know the Virginian suburbs of Fairfax County well...your prefab McMansion and SUV don't mean you're rich
wake up and smell the financial crisis...you are not as rich as you think you are....and the truly rich have **100x more than you**...more than you'll make in 20 years...that's today's income disparity
bah! I swear...people blame the poor for bad mortgages but its the really the suburban "keeping up with the Jones" mentality that caused those bad mortages
Thank you Dave Raggett
sorry if I misunderstood...
about Google Car and Tesla...I agree that communters would definitely want the option to put the car on 'autopilot'...or to have a 'Tesla' electric...
what I think we disagree on is if those two things are (or will be) available and affordable for people who are not independently wealthy
we can probably find common ground, but I guess my greater point that I think most people don't "get" is that Google or Tesla could/should be competing with GM, Ford, etc...
i feel like we are capable of doing alot better....businesspeople are so limited in their thinking, IMHO
Thank you Dave Raggett
Got an even better solution: ban automatic transmissions.
My mother is 50. She's the type who "rode the brake" all the time.
Mom got a TDI. With a stick. She's never had one before.
Sure, the learning curve was steep. But she doesn't ride that brake anymore and she sure as hell doesn't linger around at stop lights any more.
If she, with two knee surgeries can do, then everyone can do it. (Even the guys with prosthetic legs)
These are the same people that like automatic transmissions, automatic headlights, doors that automatically lock, all of the other supposedly helpful features on our modern cars. They can keep ll of these "conveniences", give me cars that I can drive and enjoy, and control.
In other words, people will give up something they have (free time or autonomy) for pay.
My God. This crucial insight could completely revitalize the study of economics.
You let computers drive you to and from places, you surrender your individuality, freedom. Clearly most people out there shouldn't be driving. However for the rest of us, where's your sense of life? You're in control. Otherwise, you're just like baggage in the back. Might as well take a bus.
I still dig that chick in the 1984 superbowl apple commercial. One in the hot red shorts. Otherwise, we're those masses of people listening to the dictator on the screen... Telling us what to do, like telling us all to by specific health insurance and so on.
I wonder when we will get them since I don't drive due to my disabilities. Probably after I am dead. I don't even trust computers due to bugs as a SQA tester/analyst. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Hmmm...those numbers don't look that far off from what I see from non-autonomous car drivers.