Slashdot Mirror
AAA: 75% Of Drivers Say They Wouldn't Feel Safe In An Autonomous Vehicle (consumerist.com)
kheldan writes: While technology companies and car manufacturers alike are rushing to test their own autonomous vehicles, the average American driver doesn't feel quite comfortable with the idea of riding in a driverless car just yet, according to the results of a recent AAA survey. AAA's survey of 1,800 drivers found that 75% of current drivers say they wouldn't feel safe in a self-driving vehicle. But it's worth noting that 60% of those surveyed said they would like access to some kind of self-driving feature, such as self-parking, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control or automatic emergency braking the next time they buy a new car.
They wouldn't feel safe in a mechanical beast.
Lets see, a computer with a sample rate of 1000 Hz always on, always watching 360 degrees or Grandma that hasn't had to renew her license since she started losing vision or a teenager trying to take a selfie.
I don't care if it takes twice as long to get anywhere (30 MPH max), as long as I can turn my brain off and do something else I'm happy.
When the automobile first arrived on the scene, many of the people who shouted "get a horse" in the wake of a "stink wagon" likely would have expressed a fear of going for a ride in one. We humans tend to be conservative that way; up to a point, it's a survival trait.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Well that's a pretty amazing endorsement of autonomous vehicles, if *already* 25% of the population is accepting of a new technology they haven't yet experienced.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Company that will be redundant in a world of autonomous cars produces survey that shows people won't accept the very thing that will make it redundant. Film at 11.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
In other news, after testing dozens of questions and figuring out how to phrase the results in a good light, company that relies on human drivers for its business model declares driverless cars to be bad and stuff according to small sample size survey. Also states "please don't leave, we literally don't know what else to do."
That 75% of people who use AAA wouldn't feel safe in an autonomous car. Also at 11, selection-bias and what means to you.
Tesla owners with Tesla's not-quite-autonomous cruise control really love it. The 75% will feel differently in 5 years, I predict.
The tech just isn't good enough yet.
Yet being the key word there.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
l wonder how many of those drivers make me feel unsafe when they are in control of the wheel.
And 80% of Americans are better than average drivers.
Nope, no sig
Did we really need an actuary to report these stats, or is this just the hard sell on new auto insurance products to cover your every fear. Clearly there is anxiety whenever a change is proposed. Its universally true, in general, and makes this information very mundane.
How many feel safe in a car driven by a stranger (taxi or otherwise)?
I know I personally feel safer when I'm driving my car at high speeds on the highway compared to riding with someone else driving.
I wouldn't feel safe in an autonomous vehicle, not yet. Yes, their current safety record is impressive, but it's fake. However, it won't be long before they're ready.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
In 1997 a late majority were uncomfortable with the idea of shopping with a credit card online. 20 years before that the majority were uncomfortable with using an ATM instead of seeing a person at the bank. I have no idea why anyone with a pulse would be surprised by this. Oh wait, I do. The person who wrote this story is stupid.
Imagine if you could cause someone's car to crash, killing them, and nobody would be the wiser - as trivially as popping the baked-in password in a network appliance.
Imagine you're Princess Diana.
Robotics and artificial intelligence have not evolved to the point to handle driving. Not even close.
Take translation for example. Try translating a Chinese document in Google and see if you can understand much beyond broad outlines (sometimes you don't even get that).
If Google cannot develop a system smart enough to handle a relatively simple task such as text translation adequately, it for sure cannot make a reliable autonomous vehicle. You are talking about a system that has to perform multiple pattern recognition, estimate probability of collision, watch out for pedestarians/other vehicles who simply break the rules, etc. All with perfect accuracy.
True, it is equipped with a few tools that are not at the disposal of your average driver, like radars and such, but that does not necessarily make the system more intelligent.
Wow they found a study done by a company that sells auto accident insurance that doesn't like a self driving future. Wow. Stop the presses. What next Pop makes you thin? Cigarettes are good for healthy lungs. Vodka to help babies sleep?
I have repeatedly stated that the best part of Self Driving Cars will be the war on them declared by the many parties that are going to lose big when they come. Insurance companies are going to lead the charge, but I can even see traffic cops realizing that their days are numbered. Even the companies that paint lines on the road are going to hire lobbyists before this is done.
Autonomous vehicles are already proven to be far safer than human-driven vehicles.
Would you feel safer if your 17 year old / 71 year old / relative./neighbor rode in a driverless car or a drove themselves.
Also, would you feel safer in a NYC cab driven by an immigrant or in a driverless car.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
There's a fundamental difference here to the oft-repeated horse and carriage comparison; for the first time in history this will be a shift removing the fundamental freedom of travel from control of the people on board. Self driving cars are essentially rolling jail cells, which can be used to convey human cargo to the destination chosen by the establishment.
As modern society finds new and creative ways to remove human rights, with basic freedoms of speech increasingly curtailed with family friendly excuses like 'offensive speech to others', 'hate speech', 'dangerous speech', etc.; removing the basic ability to travel to unapproved locations, and tracking precisely where every citizen is going, are logical next steps, and explains the government's quick embracing of these technologies instead of the much more cautious approach such a radical shift would justify.
These types of technologies are curiously advocated for by otherwise smart people who fail to see they are racing the world towards a dystopian doom. There's a line between technologies that empower humans, and technologies that enslave them; and this is it.
AAA: 75% Of Drivers Say They Wouldn't Feel Safe In An Autonomous Vehicle
Based on how unstable their devices and PCs are, can you really blame them?
If you've repeatedly said that then you've repeatedly shown how ignorant you are.
First of all, AAA is not an insurance company. They are a non-profit auto club that provides services such as roadside assistance, auto warranties to assist in repair costs, great maps and to represent drivers to industry groups and congressional lobbies. It's their mission to understand what drivers want, hence this survey. Autonomous vehicles will not change their funding or demand for their services one bit.
Neither will it change insurance companies. Insurance companies operate on a formula: if gross premiums - gross claims disbursements > 0, they profit. Regardless of any safety claims, autonomous vehicles cannot reduce accidents to 0, that is impossible. There will always be a need for insurance, and if the safety record of autonomous vehicles actually increases, decreasing claims disbursements, it'll only improve insurance company profits. Why would they want to stop that?
Auto manufacturers will just switch over next year's model to autonomous cars, and it makes no difference to them, they'll still sell more cars. Why would they care?
Who is left? No one gets hurt by autonomous vehicles. Your assessment of the industry is lacking in information.
As a buggy whip manufacturer I have been looking forward to this day for a long time. Without the inconvenience of manually operating a vehicle people will turn their attention other pursuits, namely vehicular fornication. We all know nothing spices up sexytime quite like a good sturdy buggy whip ;-)
My car insurance already includes the important part of what AAA offers: Roadside assistance.
Actually rather than the AA/CAA/AAA (*AA) being redundant it will surely be insurers who become unnecessary. If your car is being driven by some Google algorithm then how can you be liable for a crash? The car should probably come with insurance, at least while driven under the supplied algorithm. I would expect that the *AA will actually do better out of this because people will not get roadside assistance with their insurance and will need to purchase it separately.
Because Car Insurance companies will lose a shit load of capital.
This is the same group of people who feel safer having a bazillion guns despite the number of gun related deaths being orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the world.
Wow, clearly temper tantrums are a skill you've been practicing too! It's nice that your self worth is based on your driving skills but don't pin your immaturity on the rest of us, kiddo.
Pretty common for people to fear something they have no experience with, rather common human response really. Self driving cars will prove themselves over time like any other technology, polls are meaningless at this point since the technology is experimental. I'd also like to say.. why is AAA doing this poll anyway? They must know that with the tech being immature that their poll results can't be very accurate, so i guess they are just projecting the increasing acceptance of self driving cars by creating a benchmark... right. It's not that they have any fiscal interest in mechanical cars that break more, crash more and cost more. I think it's good people are skeptical, but I'm not sure what anyone would hope to get from such a poll when these cars still have years of R&D and testing before they are truly self driving in most real world situations.
They're only of average intelligence. Who cares what most people think? Kind of hard to argue with science.
Seriously, these fuckers decided to send someone, only to have the fucker turn around and leave about halfway to us. Thank you AAA for leaving two people out in the desert, stranded, and having to rely upon BLM/911 for an emergency evac because your driver's shit truck can't handle a little dirt washboard road maintained by the BLM (meanwhile my low-riding Taurus had no problems on the road whatsoever, until it kicked a rock up into the transmission oil pan.)
AAA is bullshit through and through, much like this survey.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
You bulieve in something and no amount of evidence will change that. Now, who is thinking and who is just stuck in their own beliefs?
"First of all, AAA is not an insurance company."
Really? Because it sure as fuck says "Proof of Insurance: Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club NAIC#: 15598" at the top of my AAA INSURANCE CARD.
FYI, NAIC is the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Instead the autonomous vehicle is already many crashes behind on the average human driver...
When purchasing such a car though the question I really want to know is not whether it is better than the average human driver but whether it is better than me. Being simply "better than average" does not inspire much confidence when you see what the "average" driver is like sometimes. Is it safer than 75% of people? 90%? 99? 99.999%? etc.
If it is only better than 75% of drivers I'm probably going to tell myself that I can drive better than it can. However if it is better than 99.999% of drivers even if I try hard I'm never really going to convince myself that I'm that good a driver. However to know to that degree of accuracy I expect that you still need higher statistics.
Considering how well Trump is doing I am suprised safety ranks in the concerns of the average American at all.
Driving is all about having absolute control over your vehicle. From the minute we get behind the wheel, we're taught that a moment's loss of control is fatal (with good reason).
For an experienced driver, surrendering that control is nightmare-inducing... For myself, the first time I used cruise control was unsettling - it felt like the car was getting out of hand - it took a while getting used to.
Surrendering control of the brake will be harder.. let alone the wheel itself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
TFA does not say that 25% feel safe, but that 75% do not. The other 25% contains undecided, and people who just don't care to answer polls as well as those who "feel" safe. The sample size is a whopping 1800 people in a specific geographic location, so you are not really getting a good sample in numbers that low. Was the criteria for the car was defined to all parties, such that it was 100% autonomous with no ability for human intervention, or partial like the Google car? Or more likely it was left open so that people could interpret the technology any way they like.
In fact if you actually bothered to read TFA you would see that in the tiny sample used only 20% claimed to feel "safe" in an autonomous car. Welcome to being manipulated, enjoy your stay.
What is that old quote by Mark Twain... lies.. damn lies, and statistics.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
How bad was it about 100 years ago when people had to trust their lives in mechanical vehicles instead of those trusty horses. Same logic really.
Are they the same 75% of people who feel they have above average driving skills?
They don't. That's why they're AAA members! You're asking people who self-select as scared or worried drivers if they'd be worried about a new paradigm? Wow. I'm surprised that 25% *didn't* piss themselves at the thought of autonomous vehices.
I don't respond to AC's.
The companies that paint the roads will be fine. The self-driving cars will have an easier time with painted lines on the road.
People were scared of elevators too when they were first invented and won't go on them.
I think the confusion comes in because AAA did not always offer insurance, and many people, myself included, are AAA members while not getting their car insurance through AAA. I use them for a yearly free towing emergency, International Drivers Licenses, and in bygone years to help map out vacation travel routes, although these days I've replaced that function with online map services.
I expect 75% of people didn't feel safe doing internet banking in 1996
42 hidden comments
Drivers (especially male) never feel safe in a vehicle driven by somebody else. Their legs keep twitching and they can barely restrain themselves from grabbing the wheel. I call it drivers' neurosis.
Give me a current (or pretty much any 80s+) car with 100% autonomous driving so i can sleep while the bucket gets me from A to B or an american muscle car with 0% autonomous driving, so i can enjoy driving from one place to another.
And 99% of those 75% would very likely subjectively classify themselves as "above average" or "excellent" drivers.
Yes conceptually it's a little bit safer with the consequence of denying one of life's pleasures but in reality you must be naiive to believe all the hype about how safe it is with absolutely no experience. I remember just before the movie "The dark knight" was released the IMDB rating was 10/10 with tens of thousands of votes when the general public hadn't seen it. The point is (young) people are very easily led by marketers before they have any experience of the reality.
I guess those people prefer a Bangladeshi Taxi-driver who doesn't understand a word they're saying.
I drive worse than a drunk Asian. This technology could save my life someday.
Uhm. Still wrong? His point was faster reflexes aren't nearly as important as recognizing a safety issue and what to do about it as you react.
I get that we're all super excited about new tech, and self driving cars sound pretty awesome, but there are entire industries that simply CANNOT rely on automated transportation. You might see some penetration in commuter traffic, but goods transport, towing, maintenance, police, fire, emt, ambulance, garbage trucks, equipment transport, earth moving vehicles, tow vehicles, and probably some I missed are all unlikely to be unmanned.
What are those Alcoholics Anonymous Association whining about this time...?
this is an excellent aspect to the discussion that few people articulate well, thank you
Thank you Dave Raggett
Just because they don't think it is safe doesn't mean they are automatically Luddites.
You are wrong to assume their opinions are irrational when you have no way to know.
Thank you Dave Raggett
"world of autonomous cars"
from a technical, coding perspective this is absolutely irrational
illiterate humans can do things the best AI researchers in the world cannot begin to program a computer to do: drive across town in aggressive traffic
AI goes slow. A commenter above said they would trade 30 mph MAX for the ability to zone out during car travel...that's a rational opinion at least.
For all the advancements in sensors and geo-spatial awareness, we still cannot begin to program algorithms that make continual life and death decisions based on interpretive cues of other human's probable behavior.
This tech's only practical application is in long haul trucking...it's not as 'cool' or TED-talk worthy as "world of autonomous cars" but it's accurate.
Thank you Dave Raggett
When AI makes the wrong decision it is still "human error".
This whole notion that "AI" can eliminate "human error" is fundamentally erroneous.
HUMANS PROGRAM THE COMPUTER
If an AI's driving algorithm makes the wrong decisions, it's because it was programmed wrong, or was incorrectly tested and evaluated.
Thank you Dave Raggett
thank you
from a technical, coding perspective AI isn't nearly as advanced or capable as the general consumer thinks
Thank you Dave Raggett
yeah, I bet this same 75% of people wouldn't feel safe flying in a jet airliner with no controls or pilot...stupid luddites
Thank you Dave Raggett
You've just outlined why autonmous cars are good. Most people aren't trained and have to rely on reaction time. Teenagers have high reaction time but teenagers also take a lot of risks. Autonmous cars would have BOTH, employing both safe driving practices and instantaneous reaction times. Humans get tired, old, impaired, need fuel, get distracted (face it many people still try to get away with drunk/texting while driving). I'm sure in time autonmous cars will get better, hell survey after survey, humans believe themselves to the the best drivers until they get into an accident. Driving has never been a right, though I do enjoy driving sometimes. But let's be reasonable here all the problems outlined with autonmous cars are the same with humans. Humans will never be able to react faster than a computer and will always have blind spots.
So, a tiny fraction of what roads are used for then...
And no, goods transport will be automated.
Fact of the matter is a computer will always be better an a monitoring duty than a human.
END of discussion.
I have to deal with asshole driver on the road, so after a few accidents, a truck pushing on the side, a car barreling from my left burning my right of way, 1 with a stop, 2 incidents of cars burning a red light because, "who cares it is night and what are the odds of somebody else on the intersection-----woooops". That's over 30 years. I have 2 sets of scars one on my hand one on my head, the rest I only got bruises. And that's pretty much enough to tell all driver to fuck off I would feel much better in an autonomous car, or if the other driver were forced into one. I am betting the 75% think they are "good" driver, you know the type, the one which decide which speed they can go and think speed limitation are speed trap (they are not if you respect the speed no matter how you feel DUH), or the one which think at night they can go much quicker even in city, despite the lower visibility and distance sight. The one which should be FORCED to get an autonomous car because in reality they are crappy drivers.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
well 75% of merkin drivers aren't safe in any vehicle but are probably safer in an autonomous vehicle. The other 25% are really dumb shits and ride Harleys by choice.
I'm a AAA member because I tend to drive beaters. I'm a plus member because I live in the sticks. I don't have AAA insurance because I'm not old yet (only seniors get halfway-decent rates from them, in spite of all their medicated driving) and because AAA is the insurance company you hope the other guy has, not you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Tesla has deployed a total of about 100,000 cars. For reference, AAA membership is 54,000,000 .
I'll take anecdotes from 100 people who actually have some relevant experience over survey results from 54 million people who don't.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
75% of drivers think they're in the top 10% of driving skills.
What worries me though is that no one mentions the famous Google self driving cars will only work in the small areas that they have pre mapped and pre recorded routes for. Self driving is just a marketing term for now.
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
People do not like change, unless they initiate it themselves.
News at 11.
There is a huge difference between "who wants change" and "who wants to change".
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The most sensible solution would be for car manufacturers to stop peddling the autonomous vehicle snake oil and instead put systems into vehicles which provide emergency braking, collision avoidance, skid control, fuel management (based on route etc.), parallel park, cruise / distance / lane tracking etc. into cars. Things that allow the humans to drive but provide benefit and safety to the experience.
We had this discussion at the local hackerspace and got only slightly better results, which I thought was surprising for people who thrive on technology.
However... When it was rephrased as: "If you could have an automous car, but it could only go 45mph and use special lanes in autonomous mode, would you want it?" Suddenly the numbers shot way up. Seems many don't trust mixing humans and autonomous, especially at high speed. As people starting thinking of the benefits to this, even at slower speeds, the numbers went up and up until all but the most staunch opponents were left and even they wavered.
This is not far off from how cars got accepted as well.
Automakers started pushing the idea that streets were meant for cars, not foot traffic or horses (look up the origins of jaywalking), once the public was convinced, it went from there. The same can very easily happen with autonomous vehicles.
They aren't very good at it. I'd be much more comfortable knowing that a computer, not some idiot who won't put their phone down, is in charge of all that momentum. What is it, 3 to 6*10^5 Joules? Trying to cross 4 lanes of traffic in a couple hundred feet because they were too busy texting to realize they were about to pass their exit? No thanks, put a computer in charge.
For good or evil, new technology functions equally well.
how about we ask other questions that may come with autonomous vehicles such as:
Would you feel safe riding in an autonomous vehicle that lacks security and is infested with malware?
Would you feel safe in a vehicle that completely shuts down in an emergency like a winter storm or a catastrophic complete road blockage and won't even try to drive you to safety?
How many years after autonomous cars are released before it turns suicidal terrorists into repeat offenders?
How many years will it be after autonomous cars gain popularity that a single hack causes more than one thousand humans to die?
Not only would I not feel safe riding in a self-driving vehicle, I wouldn't feel safe driving with one nearby. They'll probably be better than most humans, but I've worked too long in the tech industry to put that much trust in software.
The 85% who don't feel safe on the roads in manual driving?
In related news, a ABA (American Buggy Association) survey conducted soon after motorized buggies first started appearing showed that 75% of riders wouldn't feel safe riding in a buggy powered by an internal combustion engine.
You'd have to be crazy to deliberately sit on a device that was violently exploding thousands of times a minute. Why on earth would you want to put your self in such danger and get rid of the tried-and-true reliable horse?
Two words: Insurance Rates
I suspect, if autonomous cars really do eliminate driver error as a cause of accidents, insurance companies will respond.
You want to drive a non-autonomous car? Fine - go right ahead, but your increased risk relative to your autonomous auto peers means your auto insurance will cost $5000 a year.
I say we let the free market sort this out.
I think its premature to think self driving vehicles will be safer. You have the goal of being better then the driver, but we also know that technology can have a set of its own issues. From computer glitches, bad GPS locating, hackers, and just plain bad programming of the vehicle. As we saw with Google own vehicle, it cannot decide what to do with sandbags as a obstacle. I think we are a long way off in proving this concept not only can work but also make the roads safer. Even in aircraft and trains the auto pilots have proven to be less then optimal in some situations. So far I think the general public has yet to see much proof that self driving vehicles are trustworthy. Computers are also flawed because in the end they are programmed by humans.
Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes.
You should not draw deep conclusions from people that have a financial interest in their opinions. Of course pilots don't think they should be replaced with software. That doesn't really say anything out the merits of the idea.
Or they know that there are situations where you may have to be creative:
* https://jethead.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/flying-a-jet-in-the-los-angeles-storms-december-12-2014/
I trust my life to automated landing systems every time I fly in an airliner. This is decades-old tech now.
I'm all for a self-driving, car, really. And, for the record, I am a petrosexual, the scream of a v-12 or a wankel rotary is the best song there is. Sings like Sinatra, drinks like Deano!
The sad reality is that most drivers are ill-equipped to drive. Let them be shuttled around in their little autodriving cocoons.
What I would like is a hybrid system -- I will take full control and responsibility while the road is open, winding and plain old fun, but I will let Otto have it when the road is grid-like and traffic snail-like.
Best of both worlds! This isn't about retaining control, it's about enjoying the drive, a concept non-petrosexuals cannot and will not understand. Driving can be fun! That's why little underpowered sports cars are made! That's why little overpowered sports cars are made! Sadly, most people cannot even begin to comprehend the joys of driving.
As for driver aids, I'm all for it. Driver aids will help all, including myself. I will admit to nearly departing my lane while gawking at an interesting car to my left. I will admit being caught off-guard and braking at the very last moment. I will admit to starting a lane change without spending two seconds to look in the mirror to see if there's someone in my mirrors * Shit happens. Most crashes are pilot error, both up there, and down here!
* I firmly believe there is no such thing as blind spots, not when the seat and mirrors are properly set up. This is non-negotiable, it is trigonometry. A properly set-up car has no blind spots. But that won't help if the driver doesn't look in the goddamned mirrors in the first place. That's why I begrudgingly welcome driver aids.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Autopilot
Considering 100% of humans are at least in part scared of anything new. 25% acceptance years before this technology is ready is pretty good.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I repair my own vehicles. I'm cheap so I buy cars already past their last legs and get them running again. Sometimes the repairs don't hold. Then I call CAA, have the car towed home, and fix up what failed. No, regular maintenance doesn't tell you that your starter solenoid is going to fail tomorrow, and it won't tell you that the fuel pump is tired of living.
I suppose I've self-selected as "worried about my 15+ year old piece of shit breaking down" but I sure as hell am not scared of any sort of car. I just know that when a car is old and worn out passing safety only means the car is safe to drive when it actually will drive. Cue the joke about how you can pass a car without an engine or windshield so long as you wear a helmet.
I think it's really stupid to be asking these questions of people when they aren't even close to being world use yet. First let's make them work in every situation, in every climate in the world, and demonstrate that they are flawless, then release them commercially, then people will come around.
As the technology is right now, they are a long way from safe, people just call things as they see it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The autonomous car exists only to put people out of work.
Safety concerns are secondary. If even on the map.
When I read these threads on autonomous vehicles, I see a staggering amount of ignorance on just how brilliant the human mind is. There are so many subtle yet powerful thoughts that guide our actions when driving that people don't even realize.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Yes conceptually it's a little bit safer with the consequence of denying one of life's pleasures but in reality you must be naiive to believe all the hype about how safe it is with absolutely no experience. I remember just before the movie "The dark knight" was released the IMDB rating was 10/10 with tens of thousands of votes when the general public hadn't seen it. The point is (young) people are very easily led by marketers before they have any experience of the reality.
It's not just conceptually, it's basic facts. Drivers make about two incorrect decisions per mile, which averages 48 incorrect decisions per day, per driver. If a computer can cut this in half then we are way ahead.
If you were a programmer you'd understand why we don't have that much trust in computers.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Pull a trailer and get back to me.
You mean like this?
http://www.gizmag.com/daimlers...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Driving is a right, you slope headed, slack-jawed idiot. It's not an enumerated right but it is the right to be competitive in an economy where most people drive, and to travel throughout the county unimpeded. The right is only taken away when the courts go through due process, just like other rights, such as the right to liberty, the right to own firearms, or even the right to life.
As a society, we have developed the idea that some basic competency must be demonstrated in order to drive on public roads. I don't think it goes far enough, but just try and increase the required level of training, or implement mandatory vehicle inspections, and watch the poor folks come out and talk about their rights.
If the AAA surveyed it's members and did nothing to control for age of respondents, I am guessing that the results overemphasize the opinions of drivers over the age of 50. When I visit my local AAA office most of the customers look like they're over 50. From my experiences, it appears that older people are slower to embrace change and new technology. However, blind spot detection, parking assist, rear view cameras and lane departure warnings are all things that help older drivers to a great extent due to their slowing reaction time and decreasing general awareness.
moving goalposts
'better than human' is such a nebulous concept, if $Billions$ are on the line, Google will fudge a bit on "better than human"
throughout history, corporations have behaved this way and any suggestion otherwise is rejected
example: a Google AI car goes way too slow during agressive rush-hour and stops randomly because it is being too 'careful' causing drivers to rear-end the AI Google car...Google puts that as the fault of the "human driver" in their statistics, but from a coding perspective the problem is with Google's AI....however because of how accident liability works, most rear-end situations are legally the fault of the car behind, no matter how irrationally the car in front is driving
it's recorded as "human error" but clearly the problem is with the coding of the AI
this is exactly how Google will do the "as good as a human" paradigm and will cheat it if they have to
Thank you Dave Raggett
If 30,000 people died per annum in aircraft related incidents, we would never hear the end of it, but this is acceptable of driving in the US. What is the rate for aircraft deaths? Something like 2-3k for the whole frigging world? How many billions of dollars in externalities just from deaths alone could be mitigated if we had better licensing and qualification of drivers?
How many tens of billions of dollars would be saved from mere injuries, insurance and repair costs if the non fatal crash rate went down just ten percent? The economic costs from our current scheme are staggering because the scale is staggering, and that doesn't count the social costs of all the little Sues and Billys in the country losing a parent on their daily commute.
If we took one tenth of the money we all pay in insurance and applied it toward mandatory driver training, testing, inspection and licensure, we would be all the better for it.
I, as a programmer (and precisely because of that), wouldn't either.
Also, car mfrs will have to lean more on status/looks to sell performance brands, since the performance will be limited by the AI.
81% of robot cars felt unsafe with human drivers.
-Dave
I wouldn't feel safe either.
Look at my computer, for example. It crashes periodically and unpredictably. Microsoft Word may for example, be working fine one moment, and then crash the next, with no prior indication that it will do so. This may arise when I'm opening an unusual file, or doing an odd sequence of things at once. And this happens all the more with web browsers, as they struggle to cope with web sites which are incompatible with a defined set of standards.
Why would an autonomous car be any different? It may crash less frequently than my computer, and it may crash less frequently than me, but what makes me feel unsafe is the likely absence of any indicator that it is about to fail until it does.
Also, would you feel safer in a NYC cab driven by an immigrant or in a driverless car.
You racist fucker! If you ever get into my cab I will beat you with my sandal like the imperialist dog that you are.
"driving your own car will be a novelty that only a few holdouts like you will want"
This will eventually become a matter of practicality and insurance. If autonomous cars can go 100M miles/accident and humans average 2.3M miles/accident, then insurance for autonomous cars will be nearly nothing and insurance for manually driven cars will be $5000 a month if you can even find a company to insure you.
I don't know if/when autonomous will reach that level, but I feel there is a good chance they will be better than humans. They can see better, have much better reflexes, are never distracted, can communicate with the vehicle to know how good the brakes/tires/etc are, can communicate with other autonomous vehicles, and more.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
"If 30,000 people died per annum in aircraft related incidents, we would never hear the end of it"
yet we constantly hear that over half of all aircraft incidents are due to pilot error. Maybe testing every 3 years isn't enough. Let's do it bi-weekly.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
You have a computer monitor your toddler?
That's different? I guess it's not 'END of discussion' is it? Perhaps if you yell END a few more times.
It will take strong AI to make a real self driving car. We don't even know where to start.
Have a computer correctly identify 'children's toys' from images 100% of the time. Now make the computer not throw false positives for blowing grocery bags etc.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
People like you are the reason libertarians exist
I get it that for some people, possibly even the vast majority of people, driving is drudgery and a burden.
I am not one of those people. I like to operate machinery (which is what driving is) and regardless of whether it's a classic or modern car, a sports car, a truck of almost any size (I don't operate tractor-trailer rigs, but 3-axle trucks, buses, light trucks are fair game) or Skid-Steer, a Loader, a Skidder, a 4-wheeler, a snowmobile, a boat of almost any size and power appropriate for fresh water use, light aircraft ... I'm sure there's something I'm missing from the list, but you get the idea I'm sure.
I don't like being a passenger in the first place; I almost never can sleep in a vehicle if someone else is driving, and that includes operators I trust. Obviously everyone feels the same as I when it comes to my driving skill, but I really am a good, courteous driver with thousands of hours operating vehicles other than road-going units, let alone on public highways. Zero at-fault accidents over 40 years driving on public roads, and probably dozens of examples where I've driven out of danger (versus freezing and driving right into it) with no injuries to anyone although I don't fear sacrificing the vehicle to save injury or death.
To me a self-driving car involves two areas of anxiety ... one, I don't trust the thing in the first place, and two, I'm being robbed of an activity I enjoy, which makes objection #1 moot, as things turn out.
... I don't feel safe as a passenger with 75% of people I know behind the wheel. As a whole, humans are terrible drivers.
I would feel safer in almost any autonomous vehicle than one driven by 75% of the drivers in the US.
I just very briefly reviewed their site. A basic membership is $75 per year. If I need to get towed once a year, it probably would pay for itself. I really don't know how much a tow is these days - I haven't had to pay for one in about 20 years.
Sure, I can change my own tires if they go flat but some folks aren't comfortable doing that. Also, a few years back I had 3 flats at once. I only have one spare tire. Freak event, but for $6.25 a month I could just sit around and let someone else deal with it.
I have jumper cables and know how to jump-start my car, but I've been stuck trying to find someone available to give me a boost.
And it says they'll even delivery a battery and install it. I changed my own battery a few years back, which is not that impressive until I tell you the battery is inside the fender and you have to take the wheel off first. What a royal pain in the ass and I always get paranoid working on a car up on a jack. It's not really hard, but a lot of people would just say "Fuck it, I'm getting someone else to do this for me even if I have to pay for it."
It covers stupidity too....lock your keys in your car? Run out of gas?
There were other benefits as well including car rentals under certain circumstances. I actually thought it would be more expensive than it is.
I don't have AAA but I can understand why some people do.
How many % of passengers feel save being driven by those drivers?
75% of humans have losing control. Cars have been one of the most influential technology that has give humans freedom/mobility.
Duh. Study is preaching to the choir.
Humans love power and power corrupts.
artificial intelligences wouldn't feel safe driving with 75% of human drivers. me neither.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
If you are under the influence, falling asleep, using your phone, etc. , let "Jerry" your automatic car take the wheel.
Of course you would have to pay for an "Automatic Car" insurance in case Jerry makes a mistake. Did you forget to update Jerry, they you are to blame.
Did you permit automatic updates? Jerry starts to sell you stuff, including his latest upgrade.
You could also come to in the wrong town if there are any mapping errors . . nah, that never happens.
The robotic surgery cannot be compared to autonomous cars because, with surgery there is usually only one life involved (patient) but with autonomous cars, there are multiple lives involved in the form of other cars and drivers on the road. This is a stupid comparison.
We actually get tested every two years (biennial flight review), unless in the WINGS program for ongoing education which does require some practical exercises with a flight instructor.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I like driving. I have always owned standard transmission cars and trucks. I like driving long distances. So from that side, I wouldn't care much for a self driving vehicle. But I can also see where I would be interested in a self driving vehicle - when I have things I want to work on while going somewhere, say to a meeting. It would also be nice to be able to turn over driving responsibilities to the robot when we are driving through interesting scenery, or going through the wastelands of middle America, where it would be more interesting to read a book or play a computer game than to watch the freeway and flat, boring countryside while trying to stay awake and attentive.
You are missing the point. I'm not saying that a computer will not be a better driver on average than a human what I am saying is that it will not be a perfect driver either because it was programmed by a human. Therefore when the rare occasion occurs when the computer does something stupid I want manual controls so I can take over. I do not want to be sitting their helpless cursing some nameless programmer with my last breath because the car has suddenly switched to British locale and now thinks it has to drive on the left hand side of the road!
You are behind the times. Planes and trains have used autopilots for years.
As for me, I don't trust 75% of the other drivers.
You see statements criticizing AI hype **because** this is a tech site for tech people.
If you want air-headed, brainless hype coverage of AI, go to mainstream media.
Thank you Dave Raggett
if they think something demonstrably incorrect is correct, they are delusional or ignorant
you said it not me...
AI is not anywhere near capable of what you seem to think
they haven't even scratched the surface of several problems as well...besides the incapable AI, the won't work at all in the rain
Thank you Dave Raggett
get some liquid courage and enlist with the AA
One A less, no more fear and meet interesting people!