Being forced to follow nominal traffic laws is a tradeoff most people would be willing to make for the safety and convenience of self driving cars. People who want better can certainly lobby for relaxed traffic laws (or driving algorithms) for self-driving cars. I'd have no issue with software that let the self-driving car speed up to 10% over the nominal limit while coasting down a hill (but then I'd also let them go 100 mph if I get to make all the rules). Of course, there are other ways to go: e.g. regenerative braking.
Do you drive across country rather than fly commercially? You have no chance of landing that plane, but you need to be in control so you'd subject yourself and your family to a much riskier journey just so you can feel like you are in control?
I'm sure recent high end cars do handle this much better than the constant up and down shifting that old crappy automatics were known for. My 2014 Audi seems fine in that regard, although I'm sure it is not faultless.
Many self driving cars won't have this problem at all, e.g. electric cars that have a single gear. High end automatics also shift quietly and efficiently so it's not a big deal.
However, the main point is that a car that is smart enough to navigate a complicated city environment can certainly find the optimal speed, gear, mode, etc. for driving on a hill. It really looks desperate when people have to find these niche cases to prove the superiority of human over computer drivers.
The whole premise of the OP is ridiculous. If Google and Uber are financially responsible for all crashes then they also have a monopoly on every industry associated with automobiles (including manufacturing, shipping, insurance, taxis, bussing, etc.) That multi trillion dollar empire can easily afford the trillion in supposed accident liability.
"Insurance" will either be included with the car, offered by the car manufacturer, or offered by a third party. Perhaps some combination of these. It's not something the average person will have to think about, just leave it to the accountants and actuaries.
Absolutely not. I'd take a self-driving car that is ten times safer than a human over that 1 in 10 chance I'd be able to save myself from an idiot taxi driver. If you had any sense, you would too.
The existing model is incredibly inefficient and not compatible with modern technology. The idea of having a restaurant have its own parking lot, next to a bank that has ITs own parking lot,... all not allowing anyone but their own customers, even though they are empty most of the time (and completely full at another). God forbid you should park at one, do some banking and try to go eat.
It's not like every space needs to have a sensor. But if there is this huge demand for self-driving cars to park you can bet automated parking lots will spring up (or that stupid old bank parking lot will rent out its spaces at night,...).
The idea that someone will have their car drive all the way home, spending $10 worth of "gas" is ludicrous. Most parking problems are in small areas. Driving even a few blocks away is almost certain to open up cheap parking the vast majority of the time. Regardless, if it's cheaper to drive all the way home, then that's exactly what the car should do. If space is more valuable than energy, then that's what we should conserve. Faux environmentalists like fluffer are just clueless.
What kind of bad action movie are you living in? Do you seriously think you (or your mom or your child) is going to vault into the front seat (assuming there isn't a glass partition) to steer and brake that taxi to safety. Absurd.
You wonder about a self driving car because you think the tens of thousands of engineers working on the technology would never think to consider how to efficiently drive on a hilly road?
Considering how many threads on self-driving cars you've been in, it's amazing that you can still pull off being so ridiculously clueless on the topic.
There are an almost endless number of solutions to the fake problems you're imagining, but you can't bother to think up even one? Pathetic.
The guy spreading FUD about self-driving cars accuses others of shilling. Really?
That you are ignorant on the topic and have no imagination does not mean that what you describe are real problems, let alone unsolvable ones. The number of times people just randomly veer off to a passing store is negligible, and I'm guess that if you're the kind of person whose mind is wandering like that and makes snap decisions you are probably a lot more likely to get in accidents. I don't know what car you drive, but telling your car to go to that Starbucks on the left will be quick AND safe.
As for parking, first you should appreciate that when we have full self driving there will be a lot fewer cars manufactured and fewer on the roads. In most cases cars will just drop off the passenger and then wait for their next fare. In the minority of cases, where the car is owned by the passenger, the car can wait, can double park, can drive three blocks away, whatever. There will be fewer parking lots wasting space and there will be far fewer people just driving in circles looking for the closest space, wasting energy and clogging the roads. A self driving car parking lot (for the few cases) will also be much more efficiently packed and easier to navigate (like current valet parking lots). Your fears are simply ridiculous in their ignorance.
So you're willing to let millions of people die because you are worried about what people think?
The right time to deploy autonomous vehicles is in fact BEFORE they are better than the average human driver, for two reasons. First, they will typically be replacing drivers who are worse than average. Second, by deploying them early they will mature faster and be safer sooner. The end result being more lives are saved.
Being afraid of a bad reputation because of a few accidents is cowardly and short-sighted. This might be the craven approach of a technology company trying to make a long term profit, but should not be public policy and those who know better should fight delays at every opportunity.
If you are just labels to a Bell curve then, sure, that works for everything, but it is meaningless. You've not contradicted the idea that most human drivers, by the standards we would like for operating as 2 or 3 ton vehicle, are terrible. Most will get into several significant accidents in their lifetime.
You are also completely wrong about a self driving car not finding the center line being like a stone cold drunk. That car may have little clue where the line is, but it will STILL not just run over a pedestrian or crash into another car or a fast moving tree. It also will be able to safely just stop, if it gets too confused, unlike those thousands of drunks.
Where you are correct is that one fatal accident for an autonomous car will be magnified by the press and the luddites. People are idiots. That is a reason to educate them, not to fear technology or needlessly delay its lifesaving potential.
How many idiotic things does the human playing that video game do that the computer would easily avoid? How many times does that human back up over a ledge or blow himself up with a rocket straight into a wall?
Your analogy fails to prove whatever point your trying to make. A bot controlled player would kick your ass 99 to 1 at whatever game you're imagining, but you will surely gloat over how superior you are when you get that 1 kill/point.
There could be various levels of "fake" driving, from the toddler scenario I mentioned all the way up to full, but monitored control. The latter being comparable to a driving instructor who is giving corrective feedback and having the ability to take emergency corrective action. People wouldn't be licensed to drive until they passed so many hours of relatively error free driving. The huge advantage of this method is that it can teach proper and consistent driving, rather than pass on incorrect and dangerous information from driver to driver (e.g. merge as soon as possible when you see a lane closing sign).
But honestly, I don't think that will be necessary because self-driving as anything but sport will simply go away. The rare situations you describe are handled poorly (or not at all) by most human drivers. If you get stuck in the mud or run into an impossibly complex construction zone, you (or your car) will call a professional to get you out (or it will be done by remote control thousands of miles away).
Better yet, you treat them like smaller kids and let them pretend to drive the car (a la Maggie Simpson), and the car itself will validate their driving ability.
A fleet of self-driving cars will also recognize or remember the icy spots, transitions or generally unsafe stretches of road. It will also react to the other cars on the road far better, e.g. noticing that other cars ahead of it took that icy turn very slowly (or didn't and wiped out).
Not just that, but a well trained self-driving car will react much faster and be able to save itself, or at least minimize damage, far better than a good human driver, let alone the average schmuck driving in the snow.
Removing all controls is not a requirement of level 5. It is sufficient that the controls never need to be used by a human under normal driving conditions.
His point is perfectly clear and consistent. Are you even trying to understand it? Apparently you have the hardware to comprehend it, but your software needs an upgrade.
How about that we are animals who have evolved to have some empathy and sacrifice for fellow man (at least those whose DNA is close to ours) and that we are smart enough to know that cooperation is a better long term strategy than winner take all competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Being forced to follow nominal traffic laws is a tradeoff most people would be willing to make for the safety and convenience of self driving cars. People who want better can certainly lobby for relaxed traffic laws (or driving algorithms) for self-driving cars. I'd have no issue with software that let the self-driving car speed up to 10% over the nominal limit while coasting down a hill (but then I'd also let them go 100 mph if I get to make all the rules). Of course, there are other ways to go: e.g. regenerative braking.
Do you drive across country rather than fly commercially? You have no chance of landing that plane, but you need to be in control so you'd subject yourself and your family to a much riskier journey just so you can feel like you are in control?
I'm sure recent high end cars do handle this much better than the constant up and down shifting that old crappy automatics were known for. My 2014 Audi seems fine in that regard, although I'm sure it is not faultless.
Many self driving cars won't have this problem at all, e.g. electric cars that have a single gear. High end automatics also shift quietly and efficiently so it's not a big deal.
However, the main point is that a car that is smart enough to navigate a complicated city environment can certainly find the optimal speed, gear, mode, etc. for driving on a hill. It really looks desperate when people have to find these niche cases to prove the superiority of human over computer drivers.
The whole premise of the OP is ridiculous. If Google and Uber are financially responsible for all crashes then they also have a monopoly on every industry associated with automobiles (including manufacturing, shipping, insurance, taxis, bussing, etc.) That multi trillion dollar empire can easily afford the trillion in supposed accident liability.
"Insurance" will either be included with the car, offered by the car manufacturer, or offered by a third party. Perhaps some combination of these. It's not something the average person will have to think about, just leave it to the accountants and actuaries.
Absolutely not. I'd take a self-driving car that is ten times safer than a human over that 1 in 10 chance I'd be able to save myself from an idiot taxi driver. If you had any sense, you would too.
Exactly, that is one of many options.
The existing model is incredibly inefficient and not compatible with modern technology. The idea of having a restaurant have its own parking lot, next to a bank that has ITs own parking lot,... all not allowing anyone but their own customers, even though they are empty most of the time (and completely full at another). God forbid you should park at one, do some banking and try to go eat.
It's not like every space needs to have a sensor. But if there is this huge demand for self-driving cars to park you can bet automated parking lots will spring up (or that stupid old bank parking lot will rent out its spaces at night, ...).
The idea that someone will have their car drive all the way home, spending $10 worth of "gas" is ludicrous. Most parking problems are in small areas. Driving even a few blocks away is almost certain to open up cheap parking the vast majority of the time. Regardless, if it's cheaper to drive all the way home, then that's exactly what the car should do. If space is more valuable than energy, then that's what we should conserve. Faux environmentalists like fluffer are just clueless.
Does this drivel make sense in your own head? What's that like?
What kind of bad action movie are you living in? Do you seriously think you (or your mom or your child) is going to vault into the front seat (assuming there isn't a glass partition) to steer and brake that taxi to safety. Absurd.
You wonder about a self driving car because you think the tens of thousands of engineers working on the technology would never think to consider how to efficiently drive on a hilly road?
Considering how many threads on self-driving cars you've been in, it's amazing that you can still pull off being so ridiculously clueless on the topic.
There are an almost endless number of solutions to the fake problems you're imagining, but you can't bother to think up even one? Pathetic.
The guy spreading FUD about self-driving cars accuses others of shilling. Really?
That you are ignorant on the topic and have no imagination does not mean that what you describe are real problems, let alone unsolvable ones. The number of times people just randomly veer off to a passing store is negligible, and I'm guess that if you're the kind of person whose mind is wandering like that and makes snap decisions you are probably a lot more likely to get in accidents. I don't know what car you drive, but telling your car to go to that Starbucks on the left will be quick AND safe.
As for parking, first you should appreciate that when we have full self driving there will be a lot fewer cars manufactured and fewer on the roads. In most cases cars will just drop off the passenger and then wait for their next fare. In the minority of cases, where the car is owned by the passenger, the car can wait, can double park, can drive three blocks away, whatever. There will be fewer parking lots wasting space and there will be far fewer people just driving in circles looking for the closest space, wasting energy and clogging the roads. A self driving car parking lot (for the few cases) will also be much more efficiently packed and easier to navigate (like current valet parking lots). Your fears are simply ridiculous in their ignorance.
Yet you take taxis and buses, let your kids or other loved ones be driven by others, etc.
So you're willing to let millions of people die because you are worried about what people think?
The right time to deploy autonomous vehicles is in fact BEFORE they are better than the average human driver, for two reasons. First, they will typically be replacing drivers who are worse than average. Second, by deploying them early they will mature faster and be safer sooner. The end result being more lives are saved.
Being afraid of a bad reputation because of a few accidents is cowardly and short-sighted. This might be the craven approach of a technology company trying to make a long term profit, but should not be public policy and those who know better should fight delays at every opportunity.
If you are just labels to a Bell curve then, sure, that works for everything, but it is meaningless. You've not contradicted the idea that most human drivers, by the standards we would like for operating as 2 or 3 ton vehicle, are terrible. Most will get into several significant accidents in their lifetime.
You are also completely wrong about a self driving car not finding the center line being like a stone cold drunk. That car may have little clue where the line is, but it will STILL not just run over a pedestrian or crash into another car or a fast moving tree. It also will be able to safely just stop, if it gets too confused, unlike those thousands of drunks.
Where you are correct is that one fatal accident for an autonomous car will be magnified by the press and the luddites. People are idiots. That is a reason to educate them, not to fear technology or needlessly delay its lifesaving potential.
How many idiotic things does the human playing that video game do that the computer would easily avoid? How many times does that human back up over a ledge or blow himself up with a rocket straight into a wall?
Your analogy fails to prove whatever point your trying to make. A bot controlled player would kick your ass 99 to 1 at whatever game you're imagining, but you will surely gloat over how superior you are when you get that 1 kill/point.
There could be various levels of "fake" driving, from the toddler scenario I mentioned all the way up to full, but monitored control. The latter being comparable to a driving instructor who is giving corrective feedback and having the ability to take emergency corrective action. People wouldn't be licensed to drive until they passed so many hours of relatively error free driving. The huge advantage of this method is that it can teach proper and consistent driving, rather than pass on incorrect and dangerous information from driver to driver (e.g. merge as soon as possible when you see a lane closing sign).
But honestly, I don't think that will be necessary because self-driving as anything but sport will simply go away. The rare situations you describe are handled poorly (or not at all) by most human drivers. If you get stuck in the mud or run into an impossibly complex construction zone, you (or your car) will call a professional to get you out (or it will be done by remote control thousands of miles away).
It certainly won't be worse than the status quo.
Better yet, you treat them like smaller kids and let them pretend to drive the car (a la Maggie Simpson), and the car itself will validate their driving ability.
A fleet of self-driving cars will also recognize or remember the icy spots, transitions or generally unsafe stretches of road. It will also react to the other cars on the road far better, e.g. noticing that other cars ahead of it took that icy turn very slowly (or didn't and wiped out).
Not just that, but a well trained self-driving car will react much faster and be able to save itself, or at least minimize damage, far better than a good human driver, let alone the average schmuck driving in the snow.
Removing all controls is not a requirement of level 5. It is sufficient that the controls never need to be used by a human under normal driving conditions.
You have no idea how any of this stuff works, do you?
His point is perfectly clear and consistent. Are you even trying to understand it? Apparently you have the hardware to comprehend it, but your software needs an upgrade.
Compassion and cooperation also exist and evolution has demonstrated those capacities to be a better long term strategy as I said.
Your understanding of evolution is flawed, Your reference to the term "selfish gene" or complete ignorance of it demonstrates that.
Regardless, the fact that you had to qualify your statement with "not always the best strategy" proves my point.
How about that we are animals who have evolved to have some empathy and sacrifice for fellow man (at least those whose DNA is close to ours) and that we are smart enough to know that cooperation is a better long term strategy than winner take all competition.