Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AAA: 75% Of Drivers Say They Wouldn't Feel Safe In An Autonomous Vehicle (consumerist.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the asleep-at-the-wheel dept.

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.

60 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. 75% of American Horse Association riders say... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Response time is only a small part of the equation.
      2. It's not all about what YOU want.

    2. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't care if it takes twice as long to get anywhere ... as long as I can turn my brain off and do something else I'm happy.

      This is why I take transit to work.

      This, plus the fact that a lot of the people still driving seem to have turned their brains off as well.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you've watched too much sci-fi. Also, there is more to life than safety. Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.

    4. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Response time is only a small part of the equation.

      Actually, response time is a pretty big part of the equation. Even a one second faster response can avoid many accidents, and greatly reduce the severity of others. Only situational awareness is more important, and computers win there too.

    6. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes.

      I'd not trust an autonomous car if there were no manual override. Computers may be able to drive better than the average human but the human brain is less prone to a spontaneous crash from an errant cosmic ray flipping a bit when doing 110 km/h down the motorway.

    7. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not the point. This isn't about replacing cars with trains or living in rat warrens where overpriced crap is shipped in (by truck drivers no less). This is about replacing self driving cars with 'autonomous' ones. Just because you would be happy with 35Mph doesn't mean the rest of us should slow down and lose liberty because you want to be lazy. If you don't want to drive, pay someone to drive or move to the rat warren nearest you.

      There's a reason we still put humans behind the controls of already mostly automated vehicles. Even there, look what happens to airline pilots: they get bored, drink, fall asleep, and when something does go wrong they're not in a condition to deal with it. Same thing with train operators, and that solution only has to deal with a fixed path. Since ground-based free-roving is much more complex than air or track, I have strong doubts about these ever being safer. Maybe if/when quantum computing really takes off and sensor tech is better than it is now...

    8. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Being in the minority does not make one's position invalid.

    9. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by hawguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not the point. This isn't about replacing cars with trains or living in rat warrens where overpriced crap is shipped in (by truck drivers no less). This is about replacing self driving cars with 'autonomous' ones. Just because you would be happy with 35Mph doesn't mean the rest of us should slow down and lose liberty because you want to be lazy. If you don't want to drive, pay someone to drive or move to the rat warren nearest you.

      There's a reason we still put humans behind the controls of already mostly automated vehicles. Even there, look what happens to airline pilots: they get bored, drink, fall asleep, and when something does go wrong they're not in a condition to deal with it. Same thing with train operators, and that solution only has to deal with a fixed path. Since ground-based free-roving is much more complex than air or track, I have strong doubts about these ever being safer. Maybe if/when quantum computing really takes off and sensor tech is better than it is now...

      Your individual freedom ends just before my bumper, so if self-driving cars result in a significant decrease in accidents, I have little sympathy for your desire to be able to T-bone my car in an intersection and kill my family when you missed the stop sign because you sneezed.

      I said that *I* would be willing to buy a 35mph self driving car, I don't expect you to, but when self-driving cars can drive the speed limit on roads of all types (and perhaps even reduce congestion through better traffic management), then driving your own car will be a novelty that only a few holdouts like you will want.

      The media age of AAA members is 54 years old, in the 15 - 20 years before self driving cars reach that level of driving, most of those members will be too old to drive safely (and ironically, they'll be happy for the freedom afforded to them through self-driving cars)

    10. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      It's a matter of public health - if self driving cars will save lives, they should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be the anti-robot-cars movement, but they'll have to stay on private property with their old fashioned manually driving cars -- with steering wheels if you can imagine such a thing! How quaint!

      I have a suspicion that for 99 percent of the time, they will reduce accidents to a amazing minimum.

      That one percent is going to be a spectacular bloodbath. Might be interesting to watch a few thousand cars slam into each other at 80 miles per hour. Just don't think about the carnage.

      Let's say you have a computer controlling the car that is never ever going to fail. 100 percent reliable.

      So do we have any cars that are 100 percent reliable mechanically?

      I've been in 4 accidents that were the result of plain old mechanical failure - a driveshaft failure, a master cylinder freeze-up, a lower A arm failure, and a young lady behind me had a brake failure and slammed into me from behind.

      Any of those accidents coud have been very spectacular, and all of them would have happened in an autonomous vehicle as well.

      Now don't get me wrong - I really really want lane assist, tailgating radar, and a lot of other helping devices.

      But the concept of us getting into our car, enjoying our cappuccino, and updating our facebook page while the car delivers us to work, travelling sans traffic jams bumper to bumper at 80 miles per hour, sorry, not remotely practical.And very safe, until it isn't. And I wonder if the ethics questions have been ironed out. If Bambi walks onto the highway, will the car decide to sacrifice you and hit it full speed, in odrer to not have apileup behind you? There are probably multiple scenarios where you might have to die, so that others may live. If your brakes fail will it run you off the mountain rather than cause a chain reaction collision?

      Sometimes tech oriented people forget that the computer and the software is only part of the equation.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by LiENUS · · Score: 2

      Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.

      We've reached the point with modern vehicles that the government has more control over your car than you do. See things like onstar. You already need to purchase an older vehicle if you want control over your transport. Throwing self-driving cars into the mix doesn't change that very much at all. But self driving vehicles do open up personal transport to people who are otherwise incapable of operating a vehicle. Thereby offering the same liberty you enjoy now to a wider range of people.

    12. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      It's called risk acceptance and it happens in a free society. I imagine you could eliminate even more jobs by having a minder, a cell to return to after work, and to be disallowed travel at all. Hell, there'd even be a lot of new jobs created for minders.

      I'm really getting sick of all you cowards trying to reduce our liberties in the name of safety. Further, I've seen you quote Jefferson's quote about liberty and safety. I imagine you'll be unable or unwilling to admit the irony. It's okay, I'm used to it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      He's scared and needs someone to take away his liberties in order to make a safe space for him. I want to say, I can't be certain though, that I've seen them too quoting Franklin's statement on liberties and safety. The mental gymnastics required to hold these views are certainly worthy of a medal. No questions asked, they're well worth a medal. Ask 'em how they feel about back doors in encryption... Given that this system will require monitoring, ask 'em how they feel about data snooping.

      What really amuses me, and nobody has done it yet this thread, is someone often pipes up about how Google's car has gone so many miles while operating in autonomous mode without causing an accident. I've only timed it right a couple of times but my question is always, "And how many times would it have caused an action without human intervention?" That usually gets a derailing reply, a "fuck you," and it's "still just a prototype." Well, if they wanted to use those numbers, let's use them - let's use the real numbers.

      That said, I fully support the idea of autonomous vehicles as an option. Yes, human driving does mean that bad things will sometimes happen to otherwise good people. So be it. That's a risk we take for the sake of liberty. The thing is, when there's an accident - the fault is a human. When there's an accident with an AV, the fault is not with a human that's even in the vehicle or anywhere near the vehicle. People seem unwilling to grasp that or acknowledge it. Instead, they're wanting to discuss insurance rates.

      It's damned amusing. It's sad but all you can do is look at the absurdity and laugh. "I'm scared. Someone make the danger go away! Take away my liberty until I have no risks. I'm unwilling to accept the consequences that come with living in a society." It's not really insulting to say that they're fucking pathetic because that's a statement grounded in reality.

      The sniveling coward wants to take away you liberties because someone might poke an eye out. You know what? Maybe these cowards do need a place to live? Maybe they should have their own State or country or something. I say we send 'em to Somalia where they can have all the governance they want. Trust me, I've been to Somalia. It's not not like people claim. There is no lack of government. In fact, they're *over* governed.

      The best part is that there's someone out there (lots of them) who doesn't actually understand that statement and would argue against it. However, they're wrong. Somalians are governed far more than many, many other people. It's not a good government and it's sure as hell not a democracy or a representative government but they sure as hell have plenty of governance and government - complete with paperwork.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by hawguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy fuck dude. "Some people don't use their rights. They lead fulfilling lives. I'll decide what rights you have and how you use them - because I'm a coward."

      Wow, have built quite the strawman, haven't you? There's a big difference between your "rights" and letting a car drive for you. Driving isn't even a right, it's a privilege, tell a judge that takes away your license for DUI that he's violating your constitutional right to drive, and he'll laugh you out of the court.

      Again, why not just add, "Think of the children!!!" I sure as hell hope you don't have children. I'm sure as hell you'll find a way to keep justifying this to yourself. Now it's a matter of pride and it's not like you're going to actually stop wanting to take other people's ability to appreciate their freedoms. Never mind that this system can't work without it being monitored...

      I do have children, but don't worry, they are all grown up so I can't poison them with my crazy thinking anymore. Neither one has a car because they both live in World Class cities with adequate transit (NYC & Paris)

      I'm not going to change your mind, your ego is not willing to step aside. However, maybe you can consider not breeding or something. Unlike you, I won't force you to not breed. I'll just ask you nicely, for the sake of humanity.

      People are just not good drivers, surely you can admit to that? 30,000 driving deaths a year, 30% of them due to DUI alone. The driving fatality is falling and will fall even further as manufacturers add more automatic features like collision avoidance, blind spot checking, pedestrian warnings, lane keeping, etc. You won't even notice that you bought a self-driving car because it's not going to be a revolution, it's going to be a slow-evolution.

    15. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Encryption can be a matter of public health. Putting a back door into it might save lives. A back door should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be people who want to retain their liberties but they'll have to stay off the public infrastructure with their old fashioned rights - if you can imagine such a thing. How quaint!

      Yup. That's what you sound like. The only thing you skipped was "think of the children!"

      Show me 30,000 people killed a year by strong encryption - heck, show me 3 people killed a year by strong encryption.

    16. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by KGIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reaction time is nearly insignificant if you're driving properly and using situational awareness to ensure you don't need to rely on reaction time. You're on a public highway, drive like it.

      I'm reminded of a kid in here who posted a couple of weeks ago. He was happily pointing out that a good driver will always be hitting their brakes and turning sharply. That's the exact opposite of the truth.

      I kind of hate to do this but I'm going to do the whole appeal to authority thing. I've driven professionally. I was initially trained in that capacity by the US Government. I've since taken countless additional courses - and can drive most anything with wheels. I can even get a loaded double-clutching 21 speed dump up to speed and control it when it gets there. I've taken dozens (and dozens more) courses for on and off-track driving. I rally on an amateur circuit when I've time. I've spent about two weeks in Germany taking classroom instruction and then hiring a coach and renting exotics and done a pile of laps on Nurburgring. I can go on - and I will, if you want. I've even taken advanced asset protection courses, can parallel park a truck and trailer (with a water-bowl attached) - that'd be about 72' long, by the way which is shorter than some of what you see on the road but still pretty long. It was not a sleeper cab or anything. Like I said, I can go on...

      At any rate, the initial sentence isn't entirely accurate. Yes, reaction time is important but no - it shouldn't be. It's very seldom important if you're doing your job. In all but the rarest of rarest events, the primary reason for an accident is that someone was driving too fast for the conditions. (Before folks argue with that, reread it.) I dare say, I'm actually able to speak as an authoritative source on this. I'm not that binary, really. Reaction time is important but it needn't be (shouldn't be) nearly as important as you make it out to be - not if you're doing what you can to drive safely. Of course, it helps if others are also driving safely. What are the chances of that?

      And yes, I know you're not alone on the road but you can take many steps to mitigate risks. If you see someone driving like an idiot, move away from them. Be alert not just to the vehicles around you but to how they're driving. Keep a good margin of safety between you and the other vehicles and reaction time becomes less and less important.

      I do speed, don't get me wrong. I just save it for track day or a rally. I don't drive slow, not by any means. I have zero at-fault accidents on my record - I have been hit from the rear by an idiot in Boston. If you've driven in Boston, you'd understand that there are some really shitty drivers. I was stopped at a light and had been there for at least 30 seconds. I do have one speeding ticket but it has been off my record for a very long time. I got it in 1978 (I think?). I have zero moving violations. I have had three parking tickets, two of which were because someone else had borrowed my car, I'm still liable. The remaining one was mine. The sign was rather complicated including days of the week, hours, etc... It's my fault, I should have not parked there unless I understood the sign.

      So, no... Reaction time isn't really that important. It certainly shouldn't be and even if it is, due to circumstances beyond your control, there are ways to mitigate that and have more time to react and maneuver safely in the event of an emergency situation. You should ALWAYS have room and time to bring yourself to a complete stop without hitting any possible obstructions, regardless. That's your job as a driver. I'm well aware that others can make this a problem and that there are things beyond your control. It is not as binary as it could be and sometimes shit happens.

      It is incumbent on the driver to be in full control of their vehicle at all times. Full control means the ability to stop safely. If you're doing a panic stop, you're doing it wrong. (And, of course, there are exceptions to that. But it's generally true - even if

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are assuming that having the car drive for you is taking away your liberty, when that has yet to be illustrated. You still get to go to your chosen destination, only safer. You are arguing like the car will refuse to drive, or only drive to a re-education camp or something.

      How about the liberty of others to not be killed by some terribly-driving lunatic? It's not about being scared, but taking sensible steps to reduce avoidable death and destruction.

      While I don't always agree with you, usually you make reasoned arguments. This time it's just crude emotion - you might want to figure out if you are arguing with your heart or your brain.

    18. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Apparently, drivers aged 64-69 are statistically the safest drivers on the road. My guess is that they're in the sweet spot between reaction times, experience, and a reasonable awareness of their own mortality. Given that, you can likely infer that lightning fast reaction times are actually not hugely important in being a safe driver. My guess is that not rushing everywhere in such a damned hurry (why rush when you're retired?) and simply paying attention are the most important factors.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    19. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      There is also a case that strong encryption saves lives, so this is clearly not a comparable discussion. Humans are terrible drivers, and that some people enjoy a necessary inefficiency of the past shouldn't condemn tens of thousands of people to their deaths each year.

      Seriously - you are arguing from emotion. Just admit it. The thought of you not being able to drive scares you so much you are resorting to pathetic arguments and nebulous justifications to make the bad thoughts go away, something far below your usual, insightful arguments.

    20. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

      No one is disputing that America has a lot of cars, but I don't see how that relates to people moving to self-driving cars?

      TFA says most people don't want them. I understand this is a nerd forum, and nerds love technology even when it makes no sense, but you have to accept that a lot of people probably don't care for automated cars*.


      Note: I do some some value in a robot car for some people (old, young, drunk etc), but there's a whole lot more where people actually want to drive themselves.

    21. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by RoboJ1M · · Score: 2

      Other things self driving cars will do (apart from erode liberties apparently *laughs*)

      1) Automatically drive to where *you* are and pick you up.
      2) Drive you home if you're drunk.
      3) No parking in the centre of town? No problem, car drops you off and goes home
      4) Done shopping? Car picks you up, or collects the shopping.
      5) Taxis? Out of business.
      6) Uber? How about your car earns you money ferrying people about while your sat at your desk at work.
      7) Highway speeds? 200mph, manual drive cars are banned.

      I look forward to the day.

    22. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Any of those accidents coud have been very spectacular, and all of them would have happened in an autonomous vehicle as well.

      Yes, but the car might well be better at mitigating (or even avoiding!) the accidents than you are. Remember, driving aids kick in before you even know there is a problem. My 1997 Audi A8 is better at threshold braking than you are, or than I am, or in fact than anyone is, and it only has Bosch ABS 5.0. ABS 5.3 has a steering wheel sensor and "ESP", AKA active yaw control. Even if something falls off the car, it's still going to do a better job of correcting than you are. It's also going to do a better job of slowing the vehicle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      You can't be that retarded. That has to be trolling. It has to be.

      Yes, the guy pointing out that liberty has consequences and risks is the one arguing from emotion - not the guy who's saying, "OH NO! PEOPLE DIE! BAN IT!"

      You can't possibly be that stupid. Well, you can be. I have seen you say stupid shit before but this one's up there.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    24. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      You could drive in racetracks or other closed courses where people are willing to be put in that kind of risk. When you get on a shared interstate and are inches away from hurtling buckets of metal, I would certainly hope there would be some kind of automated safety control. Personally, I think it's pretty crazy that we have gone so long without really acknowledging how dangerous it is. If there is a safer way to do things and the only downside is not being able to drive on main roads, then we should go for it.

      There is a safer way, it's called walking but it's real slow and takes ages to get anywhere. I guess you could walk down to the cotton wool store then to somewhere you can wrap yourself up to insulate yourself from all the very many dangers this world poses.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    25. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Automotive computers have to be hardened against things like random bit flips. There are a number of ways of doing that, ranging from simply storing every variable twice in two different memory locations to having two identical computers that must agree with each other.

      We are getting to the point where a lot of this can be automated. CPUs that support dual, identical RAM banks with EEC correction. Dual sensors with error detection built in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      Nearly - once you have your license, you are licensed to drive. The clue is in the name.

    27. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by dave420 · · Score: 2

      This kind of proves my point. I was being civil, attempting to point out that your are undoing yourself very publicly, and you resort to thrashing around like a disgruntled toddler who has been threatened with their toys being taken away.

      You are arguing from emotion, not logic. This is why you are making no sense, using terrible arguments, being unusually rude, and arguing for an illogical position. It's OK - you are human - but it would help you massively to simply admit it. We can then get on to having an actual discussion like adults.

    28. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      6) Uber? How about your car earns you money ferrying people about while your sat at your desk at work.

      It'll be hilarious the first time somebody figures out how to hack the car to claim ownership.

      "Sir--Sir, please stop hotwiring me. I am calling the authorities."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    29. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by hey! · · Score: 2

      I think when we look back we'll see the near universal adoption of smartphones as a watershed event in the history of transportation. Yes, it's not all about what GP wants, but it's not all about what you think people ought to want, either.

      It's about what critical masses of people want, and what a lot of them seem to want is to spend as much time as possible with their noses glued to their mobile devices. This makes both autonomous cars and public transit a lot more desirable. My children are 17-20 years old, and their peers seem a lot less interested in getting a car and license than my generation was at that age, and I'd conjecture that's because they see driving not as independence, but as an interruption.

      Connected is the new desirable default state, everything else people do is an interruption. I personally think that's an unhealthy development; there are situations where our lives are enriched by mindfulness: eating, conversing, appreciating a piece of art. But driving, for the most part, isn't one of those things.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    30. Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... by youngatheart · · Score: 2

      This, plus the fact that a lot of the people still driving seem to have turned their brains off as well.

      I'm a freakin amazingly good driver if you look at my record or ride with me, but I know how often I've nearly been in a wreck. I know how many times I've done something stupid. I always check my blind spot, but not always before putting my signal on and starting to drift toward the lane I'm moving into, and I can recall all too clearly seeing someone there I was drifting toward, not once but twice (twice!!) in the last year.

      A month ago, I was exhausted but drove anyway.

      I'm a courteous, thoughtful, attentive, law abiding driver who has a good record, great reflexes, good habits and a healthy sense of mortality. But I'm also self aware enough to say, please, please, please get even people who think they are great drivers off the road. People suck at paying attention 100% of the time. People suck always remembering to follow laws. People kill each other by accident all the time and that sucks.

  2. Probably to be expected by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Pretty amazing 25% already by pjrc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Pretty amazing 25% already by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      You can make software that works but that costs money.. so if lawyers cost more than programmers hopefully everything will be fine.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Pretty amazing 25% already by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Christ if drivers in general knew what they were doing 95% of the time the roads would be safer. Your assumption is that there is an entire mile in one go where the car doesn't know what it's doing. Where as the reality is that in ever 100 seconds it might have a blip for 0.01 of a second which amounts to 1 mile in every 10,000. It's the same with human drivers, they make mistakes, a lot of mistakes, but the good thing is that they recover from those errors before something bad happens.

      For example I don't know a single person on the road who hasn't once gone "shit, they are stopping faster than I thought" and had to push hard on the brakes.

    3. Re:Pretty amazing 25% already by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For some reason, your comment (and many others) reminded me of Caveman Science Fiction. It's strange how many Luddites there are on Slashdot...

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Pretty amazing 25% already by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      I'll bet you that out of 10000 miles of driving there's at least one where any human driver will be tuned out. Hopefully not all at the same time.

  4. And 80% of Americans are better than average by drew_kime · · Score: 4, Funny

    And 80% of Americans are better than average drivers.

    --
    Nope, no sig
  5. 75% of any group fear any change or unknown by Bob_Who · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. It's about loss of control. by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's about loss of control. by Spudboy2003 · · Score: 2

      I suck at driving. I'd rather have Stevie Wonder drive me around town.

  7. Wrong question by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here are the right questions.

    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
  8. Re:Film at 11 by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2

    AAA (I have a "plus" membership which has extra goodies to make it worth while, esp, the 100 miles free towing) has bent over backwards to take care of me, including being willing to send a flat bed tow truck down from Georgia (I'm in N Fla about 90 miles from the border) for my antique Porsche. When I had a truck stolen, they offered to pay hotels, etc (I was camping, so I was good, but the offer was impressive) and when it was recovered they paid the towing and recovery costs.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  9. Re:Alternative title - people are conservative! by buck-yar · · Score: 2

    Its someone with an agenda manufacturing news.

  10. Re:Film at 11 by hawguy · · Score: 2

    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.

    Look at their demographics and their survey results make sense:

    http://www.aaapublishingnetwor...

    Median Age: 54
    69% of members are age 55+
    10% of members are age 18-34

    Older people are naturally going to reject new technology, my parents have never gotten an ATM card, when they need cash, they go to a bank and cash a check, like they always did. And they carry vast sums (in my eyes) of cash around with them -- dad has over $500 in his wallet (mostly in 100's tucked in a "hidden" picket), *and* he has another thousand hidden in his pickup *and* they have a safe at home with another $1000+.

  11. Re:They're right by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the professional human driver (or was that drivers) frequently override the autopilot? Don't they only drive in nice weather conditions? Are they still limiting themselves to pre-scanned roads? Are they still limiting themselves to low traffic conditions and slow speeds?

    Don't get me wrong -- these are all the right thing to do. From a safety perspective, from a liability perspective, from a PR nightmare. It may not be the true driving record, but it is definitely the right way to debug. I can't even begrudge them pretending it's a driving record -- in a little while they'll be better drivers than us, and convincing people to trust the autopilot will save lives.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  12. Re:They're right by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    For the distance driven by autonomous cars, human drivers would statistically have had a couple dozen crashes already. The self-driving cars have been involved in a few crashes, all due to failure of humans, and that number is statistically low. There's now just one incident where the driverless car may have been responsible (but from what I read about it, that's debatable).

    Concorde had only a very limited number of flights compared to other aircraft types and airplane crashes are extremely rare, so one incident has a big impact. Instead the autonomous vehicle is already many crashes behind on the average human driver, so to even catch up with humans it has to cause easily a dozen serious crashes in the next week or so.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Above average by edjs · · Score: 2

    Are they the same 75% of people who feel they have above average driving skills?

  15. AAA drivers don't feel safe driving their own cars by DogDude · · Score: 2

    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.
  16. Re:Film at 11 by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

    AAA (I have a "plus" membership which has extra goodies to make it worth while, esp, the 100 miles free towing)

    And then there's the Premier membership which includes one 200 mile tow along with up to three 100 mile tows per year. I don't know of any insurance-provided roadside assistance program that offers a comparable benefit. A single 200 mile tow would make up for several years' worth of membership fees.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  17. And 99% of those by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 2

    And 99% of those 75% would very likely subjectively classify themselves as "above average" or "excellent" drivers.

  18. Re:Same thing when Elevators were Invented by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

    That's because early elevators tended plummet to the ground when their cables snapped, crashing and killing people. It took Elisha Otis to invent a reliable failsafe mechanism in 1852, paving the way for the modern skyscraper.

    These days we don't even question that modern elevators are, statistically speaking, much safer than using the stairs.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  19. Re:AAA drivers don't feel safe driving their own c by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    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.'"
  20. In other news... by Torp · · Score: 2

    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.
  21. People do not like change by houghi · · Score: 2

    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.
  22. We asked this at the hackerspace/phrased wrong by Leslie43 · · Score: 2

    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.

  23. In related news... by cdrudge · · Score: 2

    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?

  24. This is actually pretty good by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

    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.
  25. Re:Film at 11 by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 2

    So, you have never encountered a road hazard? Or been in an accident? All it takes is a rock to hit your oil pan, or a bad pothole to damage your wheel, or snow/ice/debris on a road to send you into the ditch, or a deer that decides it wants to commit suicide.

    Sure - on AVERAGE people are better off just paying for the service when they need it, but that doesn't work if you have something unusual/expensive. For example, my AAA membership (Premier RV - and I drive a reliable car) includes being pulled out of a ditch by 2 tow trucks and 200 miles of towing. If you went into a steep ditch a ways from home/your preferred mechanic, that is going to cost you over $500 - and may head towards $1k.

    Since I've had a deer run in front of my car, and been sent into a ditch by ice (I was doing 15 MPH on a straight highway, and just started sliding sideways) I am more than happy to pay my $100/year to KNOW I am covered. Plus, I don't have to worry about finding a local towing company that wants to come out in the middle of the night. I call AAA and they handle everything else.

    --
    Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.