Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Much Will Autonomous Cars Really Help? (theconversation.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the huge-help-for-skynet dept.

An anonymous reader writes: An opinion piece at The Conversation questions the common belief that autonomous vehicles will easily solve a host of problems with road-based travel, including safety and traffic. "Assuming autonomous vehicles were one meter apart and traveling at 100 kilometers per hour (an aim that has been stated as the ultimate hope) this would mean around 25,000 people per hour could be taken down a freeway lane. While impressive, this movement capacity is only half that of a train. But getting to this capacity means 100% of vehicles are under control of a guidance system, with none under independent control. As soon as one car does this, the whole system would slow down considerably, as is seen on freeways now." The writer argues that a better role for autonomous cars might be to take passengers to and from hubs for public transportation.

11 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Too much hype about driverless cars by ickleberry · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We keep getting told driverless cars are crash-proof and theoretically perfect drivers or as close as you can possibly get to it but I'd say that's mostly hype. There will still be accidents, including fatal ones and I would think a worse, more catastrophic breed of accident will appear once they start having cars drive in very close formation.

    Safety standards will slip, there will be more of a drive to improve fuel efficiency and more risks taken. Redundant systems will eventually be scrapped to save costs and we'll be back to (or worse) than we are now. Above all the fact remains that we live in an imperfect world where sh1t doesn't always go according to plan. Moose will still jump infront of robo cars and get killed, as will children - you just can't stop a lump of metal traveling at 100kph in 0 time using software alone (and even if you could, doing so would kill the occupants)

    1. Re:Too much hype about driverless cars by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, it eliminates whole classes of cases for accidents. All those people who drive while they are drunk, or drive too fast because they are too late, or drive too fast because they like driving fast, or drive too fast because they don't know better, or etc. There are tons of accidents caused by older people who are too senile to drive a car. This can be helped by taking away their license, but staying at home surely isn't a good therapy for old people to stay healthy.

      Also, if all cars are driverless, they always know when faster cars can get before slower cars on a one lane per direction road.

      This won't solve all accidents, but it will certainly improve the situation.

    2. Re:Too much hype about driverless cars by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also choose my own level of risk tolerance.

      False. You're presuming to make that choice for anyone sharing the road with you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Too much hype about driverless cars by WarJolt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article suggests a new mode of driving only possible by driverless cars, but 1 meter apart is kinda ridiculous. A tire failure in any one of those cars could cause a pileup of unimaginable purportions. I'd settle for autonomous cars driving at human following distances because we know humans can do it. Even at human following distances autonomous cars can improve things because even the simplest actions on the road have huge unseen consequences from the drivers perspective. You can avoid the problem where a dumb driver can tap on his brakes for no good reason and sends ripples of break lights miles behind him/her. Sometimes I wonder how many of those drivers drive with two feet. One on the brake and one on the accelerator.

    4. Re:Too much hype about driverless cars by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it will cause a disastrous accident.

      Unlikely. It will almost certainly be less severe than if humans were driving. Humans typically take 1 second to 3.5 seconds to realize something is wrong, and transfer their foot from the accelerator to the brake. During that time, a car going 70mph will travel 100 feet or more ... before it even starts to brake. A self-driving car can begin braking in 10 milliseconds. With humans, the cars will begin braking in sequence, one after another. This can result in a chain reaction pileup, with the most severe accidents happening far back in the pack. SDCs will all brake simultaneously, with those further back having plenty of time to stop.

      Believe it or not, the engineers designing these things have actually thought about these issues, and done extensive testing. If 1 meter spacing wasn't safe, they wouldn't be doing it.

    5. Re: Too much hype about driverless cars by nukenerd · · Score: 1, Insightful
      [Regarding cars travelling packed together]

      Well the idea is it wouldn't since they would all hit the breaks at the same time, there should be almost no latency between the 4th car and the 10th

      Almost no latency? 4th and 10th !! Multiply that up - what about a thousand cars, or ten thousand, all in line in the rush-hour between say London and Reading (on the M4 motorway in the UK). One minor incident anywhere in those 40 miles (even a routine one like a car in the outer lane needing to get across the inner lanes to turn off) and every car in the entire line must slow or stop in exactly the same way. That's assuming nothing goes wrong (what could possibly?). It is going to be a very jerky journey because there is no cushioning as there is at present.

  2. The real purpose... by bullgod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... is getting back from the pub after I've had a skinful.

    1. Re:The real purpose... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, this (loosely) has been what I see as the most beneficial use of the technology - giving mobility back to people who can't / shouldn't drive.

      My mom still drives, and has her faculties. But, at 78, it's not a given that will continue for too many more years. I dread when we'll have to say "mom, you can't drive anymore... we're worried you're going to hurt someone or yourself". An autonomous car would go a long way in helping her maintain some independence, when she reaches that point.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  3. Re:"asphalt cheaper/more effective than rails" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By benefiting (mostly) rich white people instead of (mostly) poor minorities, it helps rake in campaign contributions from the Right People

    Your entire post was hilarious; but I especially loved this bit. You've obviously never ridden on an urban mass transit system of any kind.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  4. There is more than transportation time by godrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do not really believe that self driving cars will significantly reduce my transportation time. But I expect them to reduce the number of traffic accident. In a traffic jam, drivers can frustrated and bump in each other. I highly doubt self driving car would do that. Also, I do not care as much being in a traffic jam if I am not the one driving the car. Finally, if the car drive itself, then I can take more long distance trips easily: push the buttons, go to sleep, wake up in a different state.

    This is the real reason I loved riding public transportation so much when I was living in France. It might not be the fastest way of moving around. But it was definitely the way that was consuming the less of my attention time. Made me arrived at work after 30 minutes of playing the nintendo DS. Much better than after 20 minutes of dealing with traffic congestion.

  5. Re:"asphalt cheaper/more effective than rails" by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where do you live that politicians like rail? My politicians love cars, and have been actively removing rail at every chance.