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.
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.
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 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.
Because in no small number of jurisdictions, it's required by law, if you own a vehicle and it is actually being used on public roads.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
No. Google's statements about their self-driving cars are just PR announcements. 300k miles without an accident (or whatever it is). No indication of driving conditions rain, snow, etc. Do the human drivers turn off the autopilot when they know they're approaching a situation it doesn't handle well? A good idea for safety, but a bad one for testing the cars. The truth is, we just don't know how good they are.
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
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?"
you would want to insure the vehicle... or not, against theft or vandalism.
True, but we know that human drivers slaughter vast numbers of humans every year.
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").
Actually, we trust computers all the time, and you do too. I don't check the result of the computer's computation of the square root of 75.354, I don't check the sum on my sales slip, I just check if it lists the right items. But I don't add it up myself, I trust the cashier machine to be ok. (And I still have a pretty good idea how much the contents of my shopping cart will cost anyway.)
I won't hesitate to hand over control of my car to the car's computer, as soon as it is feasible. I wouldn't even ask for a lower insurance. Getting rid of tedious work is reason enough.
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.
Well, right now people hand over their keys to a family member they believe could kill them, just to get out of having to be the one doing the shopping. So yeah; I can see people giving up safety for convenience and price; it happens all the time.
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.
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!
Ooh, I know what would be more efficient AND I don't have to pay the full insurance: a bus!
Computer-generated ad hoc bus routes to satisfy immediate requirements wouldn't be hard, if you're not such a prissy little bitch that you can't cope with changing vehicles once or twice on long journeys.
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
What I do know is that Google's Sat Nav sometimes tells me to drive off the side of a bridge onto the highway that runs underneath it. All the other Sat Navs I've tested such as Tom Tom and Garmin have the same problem.
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.
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.).
The title of the slashdot summary is "Most Drivers Would Hand Keys Over To Computer If It Meant Lower Insurance Rates". If you're riding in a bus then unless you are employed by the bus company, you generally aren't the driver, and then this wouldn't have applied to you in the first place.
If you're outside of the very demographic that the article is even talking about, as indicated by the second word in the title, what difference does it make to the point of the article whether you pay insurance or not?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
http://www.faucetdirect.com/toto-ms990cgr-neorest-one-piece-elongated-1-2-gpf-toilet-bidet-with-cyclone-flush-system-and-sanagloss-automatic-open-close/p184621?source=gg-gba-pla_184621____12480320723&s_kwcid=PTC!pla!!!38964395723!g!!12480320723&gclid=CPWGzqq70boCFbFxQgodeyYAZw
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And now, with a self-driving car, you can have that bridge-turning experience you've always wanted but could never convince yourself to act on. Let the suicidal rejoice!
[redacted joke about Ted Kennedy]
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
The question didn't offer a comprehensive, cost-effective bus system as alternative, did it?
I don't know about where you live, but in many parts of the UK, local or state-managed bus services were undercut by private national providers being given permissive operating licenses a long time ago; the latter then boosted prices way beyond original fares, while maintaining their new regulated monopolies. If the state is going to go about removing restrictions from road transport, it would do better to allow at-cost public transport (already tested as workable) rather than allow driverless cars.
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.
What I do know is that Google's Sat Nav sometimes tells me to drive off the side of a bridge onto the highway that runs underneath it. All the other Sat Navs I've tested such as Tom Tom and Garmin have the same problem.
Which is why so many of the people surveyed said they would watch scenery go by... Screaming all the way.
You and me, both. The only thing I let my car do is run on cruise control, and even then only for the (too) long stretches of Indiana. I love the feeling of rowing my own gears. It provides a nice reminder that driving is not a video game. I absolutely hate that cars are trying to insulate their occupants more and more from the fact that driving can be dangerous if not done with great care.
"osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
These percentages are almost certainly independent:
(75% said yes)
(64% said no).
This is perfectly sensible. Some number of people (in the range of 11% - 36%) answered yes to both Q1 and to Q2. Presumably these people thought that some factor other than decision-making made them a better driver than the computers.
Make love, not sigs
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.
There wasn't a question imposed... it was talking about drivers. If you don't drive, then why in the world would the fact that you don't pay for insurance even be relevant?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"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!
The assumption (correct or not) is that if someone were willing to set aside their keys to use a bus on a regular basis, they would be doing so already. A large part of the problem is that many (most?) cities in the US simply do not have good public transportation available. For example, I could not take a bus to work if I wanted to.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
True, but we know that human drivers slaughter vast numbers of humans every year.
Aw man, you've put me in the position of having to argue against an argument in favor of autonomous cars thanks to your bad use of math in an argument.
It doesn't matter if humans kill a lot of people on the road if Google's cars are worse. Without accurately knowing the risks of both methods of driving a car, we can't make a fair comparison. With a small sample set only publicly spoken for by a biased party, we can't yet make that assessment. That's the GP's argument. It doesn't matter what we know about humans if we don't know anything about the alternative.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
There is a zero percent chance that Google didn't vet this idea with an army of lawyers who specialize in protecting companies from liability, long before building their first prototype.
But by all means, continue to spout armchair-lawyer bullshit that ignores the fact that they've already been greenlighted in three states (Nevada, Florida, California).
And no, the fact that they're currently "only" approved for testing doesn't undercut the point. If you were right, they wouldn't have even gotten that far.
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.
I would guess the 64% and the 75% are both from the same 100%, just not correlated in any (apparent) way.
Okay... wow, did I completely misread that. No wonder it didn't make any sense. (and I even reread it several times)
I read that 75% as talking about what the title was saying... that most people would let their car do the driving.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
But one reason for driving is that public transport is inaccessible.
And one reason public transport is inaccessible (in the UK, at least) is because of the de facto collusion of local government authorities with private transport companies, artificially restricting availability of public transport.
If you're going to relax restrictions on transport, surely it's better to relax restrictions on public rather than individual transport? That gives the person wanting to get from A to B way more advantages than merely not having to pay attention to the road.
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.
It's not just blindly following maps with GPS, you know.
*Nav system*: Ok, now turn left here to get onto the highway.
*Vehicle Guidance*: Um, when I look to the left, there's an obstuction in the way. It goes on for at least 4 or 5 car lengths. Could be a railing or a wall or something. I can't see an intersection anywhere?
*Nav system*: Shit. Keep going and I'll re-route. I'll beep and let the passenger know that something's up.
*Vehicle Guidance*: Fuck me, Nav system, you had ONE JOB. Now we have to deal with the passenger who's probably on Slashdot as we speak posting about his crappy self-driving car wanting to drive him off a bridge.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
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.
The really awful drivers are still going to think they're such hot shit that they choose to drive manually, you know.
Actually, we trust computers all the time, and you do too. I don't check the result of the computer's computation of the square root of 75.354, I don't check the sum on my sales slip,
If your life depended on the sum on your sales slip being correct, I bet you'd be checking it every time.
I won't hesitate to hand over control of my car to the car's computer, as soon as it is feasible. I wouldn't even ask for a lower insurance. Getting rid of tedious work is reason enough.
Why aren't you using taxis to get around today? If getting rid of tedious work is worth paying for a new car, why isn't paying a taxi driver to get rid of the tedious work sufficient reason to spend money on that?
Saving $280 a year is not something I would base such a decision on... at that rate it would take more than the rest of my life to recover in savings what I spent on the new self-driving car.
Getting rid of tedious work is reason enough.
Amen to that. Speaking of which, who loves driving their kids to school? The first time I actually had a need for anti-lock brakes (glare ice, downhill T intersection, cliff over the top bar of the T), I was very glad a computer was running my brakes.
I'd have my car bring the kids to school, bring them to my office in the next town over after school (the bus doesn't go there, which complicates logistics - they've wanted an autopilot for years) and during the day it would go to Home Depot, the grocery store, and run various other errands for me. Crikey, I could get another 20% of my waking day out of such a thing. There might even be a boom in home catering once the delivery driver cost is factored out.
One thing I would want was reliable cell service, so they could make a call from the car if there was a problem. We don't have that here, and it might be a deal killer.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
Phase 1: Private testing: IE what google is in now Compile data of every accident or near accident that the drivers saved themselves from by going manual.
Phase 2: Limited beta... IE google gives out 100 cars in the way they do with glass right now, slowly expand until about 5,000 cars are out for a year.
Phase 3: Public beta: This will technically be called release, but this timeframe is really going to be all about collecting massive amount of data, and waiting until autonomous cars are down to about 1% of humans
Phase 4: When we hit actual safety. Manual drive mode will be removed and outlawed. Software updates will become part of the safety inspections required on cars yearly. accident fatalities will drop into the hundreds.
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:[.]
True, but we know that human drivers slaughter vast numbers of humans every year.
False: we know that a certain percentage of human drivers slaughter another percantage of humans, in the vast majority of cases exactly once (is highly improbable that a human driver which caused an accident resulting in deaths will be permitted to go free and cause yet other such accidents).
What we don't know: how prone is an "automatic software driver" to bugs resulting in deadly accidents (even if some data exists).
Would worth pondering a while on: if a version of the said soft/firm-ware is installed on a line of cars, it's like having the clones of the same driver doing the driving for many cars in the same time.
Add to the above:
* To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.
* “A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila.” Mitch Ratcliffe.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
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.
Phase 4: When we hit actual safety. Manual drive mode will be removed and outlawed. Software updates will become part of the safety inspections required on cars yearly.
What yearly safety inspections? They'll be done weekly.... automatically, by computer, when you go to fill up your tank.
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.
Um, when I look to the left, there's an obstuction in the way. It goes on for at least 4 or 5 car lengths. Could be a railing or a wall or something. I can't see an intersection anywhere?
What if there is no railing (maybe someone else drove trough there and made a hole)?
...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.
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
Phase 4: When we hit actual safety. Manual drive mode will be removed and outlawed. Software updates will become part of the safety inspections required on cars yearly.
What yearly safety inspections? They'll be done weekly.... automatically, by computer, when you go to fill up your tank.
Exactly, weekly... you know, during your weekly mileage tax assesment.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Solution: Auto-drive cars don't give control back to you. They'd be programed to bring the car to a safe halt, not hand over control to a human, especially with little to no notice.
In the scenario you're giving, the car should have already cut speed due to the the rain, and should be plotting a route to get off the road while avoiding collisions due to it's safety margins being exceeded.
If it's calculated that it can't prevent collision entirely it should be using a decision tree that guides it to the hopefully least damaging collision.
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
Moderately serious answer:
- Most bridge railings are pretty tough. Tough enough to withstand a vehicle that's trying to go slow enough to fit into what it thinks is a narrow driveway at a 90 degree angle.
- I presume this kind of problem only shows up when you're crossing major routes, so with 'normal' river crossings, there's no desire from the nav system to turn at that point.
- Not sure if the GoogleCar can sense the ground... if their LADARs are angled down a bit, they'd be able to see the void in front of them. I thought at some stage I saw a scan set that showed they could see the ground.
- It'd only take one car falling off a bridge to get the map updated pronto. Just think, you could be providing a valuable service to your fellow motorists! Report bridge accidents and get valuable GooglePoints(tm) :-P
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
I think the sudden, massive drop might trigger some alarms... Or do you think they've not thought of that?
I found an article dated 2012 that said, "There are still many problems to solve. Google in a recent blog said it needs to build its ability to self-drive when snow covers road markings. The same would hold for fog and heavy rain. Not to mention highways with worn-out pavement markers. Negative terrain (a cliff next to a mountain road) remains difficult to sense. It’s much harder to drive on city streets and deal with cars pulling out of driveways, bicyclists, pedestrians jaywalking, traffic lights, and road restriction signs (no left turn 4-6pm)." (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134262-self-driving-google-cars-300000-miles-0-crashes-if-only-your-pc-was-as-stable) Can't find the blog post, though.
I felt bad for the man who had no signature, until I met a man who had no comment.
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.
"will drop into the hundreds".
We all wish this, but ya cannae change the laws of physics.
People who run in front of a self-driving car are still going to get injured. Mechanical faults are still going to happen. Obstructions on the road are going to suddenly appear, or remain invisible until it's too late. Finally, of course, every sufficiently complex software product always has bugs - if you think a hundred million deployments will identify them all, see Windows.
Perhaps even time enough to ask themselves why they have arranged their entire lives around the conceit of working far away from home.
My car is so much better than a bus:
I'm not going to get beaten and robbed by a passenger in my car.
I can play any song I want as loud as I want in my car.
I can smoke, drink, and sing in my car.
I am not going to have a crazed gunman tromp thru the aisle of my car and shoot 50 people.
I can control the temperature of my car
I will not be prohibited from carrying a personal protection weapon in my car
I'm not going to go deviating all over H's half acre picking up and dropping off passengers.
I can stop halfway home in my car, and buy 50 lbs of groceries
I can arrive at work with 50 lbs of crap such as mechanics tools without lugging them - they're in the trunk.
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.
Ignoring your paranoid "SOMEONE WILL PROBABLY KILL ME IN A BUS" nonsense, I agree that there are advantages to cars. It's just that for many people they're irrelevant. It would help if some buses had better luggage space, too.
Hence why I still expect the average being somewhere in the 500-1,000 range. That is fatalities not just accidents. The deaths per year right now is about 30k... right off the bat half of that can be cut out if DUI and road rage were eliminated, Then we are left with pedestrian fault and driver fault. Pedestrian fault will obviously be unchanged. Driver fault I would still imagine being 1/4th as often. I mean lets face it, which happens more often, Windows crashing while you write an excel spreadsheet, or a human making an error on adding manually? Maybe I am overestimating, maybe something like 5,000 is a more reasonable estimate... no matter what I would say at bare minimun, 20,000 lives a year will be saved.
or recharge your battery, or I suppose wirelessly over the celphone network. I'm estimating stage 4 being a good 15-30 years away. I would say 10 years is extremely optimistic, and IMO within 20 years... we won't likely have much if any gas left.
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'.
I would certainly like it to be so, but so far it's based all purely on conjecture, as there's not one bit of independent empirical evidence that driverless cars are safer.
That's a bidet. It doesn't actually wipe your bottom.
If you can invent a machine that can reliably, safely and efficiently wipe adult bottoms then there are a lot of adult care homes looking to become your customers.
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
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.
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.
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?
“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.
There might even be a boom in home catering once the delivery driver cost is factored out.
Excellent thought! I just had a vision of driverless cars all lined up in the drive through lanes as people send their car out to pick up some mid-party munchies...better than having their drunk asses in the drivers seats! Add a remote speaker/mic system, a drop-down shelf/drink tray for the attendant to place the order in, and some form of contact-free payment system: boom! Who cares how long the lines are, since you can keep partying while you wait?
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
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
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.