Why self driving cars will eventually be banned

[fppilot 4,374]

Because like in MSFS if you fail to activate the turn into your driveway until after you pass the last intersection in the plan, they will turn you around and eventually take you back to where you started......

Edited December 21, 2020 by fppilot

[F737MAX 5,612]

20 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I'm just waiting for Elon Musk to finish one of these:

My favorite way to travel.

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Yes Rob. Trouble is it disintegrates the person on the pad and makes a COPY elsewhere. Might be out of the same atom's, but its still a copy.

And the original traveller dead as a door nail. Unfortunately our names aren't inscribed onto our atom's. A carbon atom from your body is no different to a carbon atom on the other side of the universe. An atom is an atom and once your atomic structure is dissembled you are dead sir.

You wouldn't get me stepping into the word not allowed thing. 🙂

  Precisely @martin-w!

I remember watching a programme some years ago on TV about the science of Star Trek.
The transporter was referred to by a scientist as the copy machine. Atomise the subject in one location and send the "code" to the destination to re-create a copy. The scientist was vey much of the same thinking that the original person would be very much dead.


As for road safety:

In the UK, the evidence is very clear - speed doesn't kill    /sarcasm


The interesting point of the table above is that where the human judgement requirement is greatest with regards to other vehicles and especially more vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motor cyclists and the pedestrians crossing them, the fatality rate is highest.

Accidents such as misjudging the time and space available for an overtaking manoeuvre into opposite direction traffic on a single carriageway or pulling out from a side junction set at 90° to the main road based on the give way (yield) rule explain a lot of the 51-60 mph incidents.
21 - 30 mph incidents are generally caused by pedestrians and pedal cyclists being hit by poor driving.

As much as I love driving, automation is clearly going to become mandatory.
Petrol heads will have to rely on track days or laps like at the Nordschleife to get their kick from human-controlled driving.

[Dominique_K 10,150]

8 hours ago, F737NG said:

 

As much as I love driving, automation is clearly going to become mandatory.

It is a sure sign of this day and age that it seems only natural to imagine a future when routine activities  of our daily life will be regulated, mandatory or forbidden. That our betters higher up will know what is best for us. The ultimate nanny State. 

I do not say that this dystopian world will happen, hopefully not, only that the mood today is to see it at our horizon. 

 

[martin-w 3,238]

12 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I would just note that decades after aircraft autopilots became common, aircraft still have working manual controls, and its still not suggested that pilots go take a nap without another pilot watching over things.....

 

 

True enough, but world wide 1.3 MILLION people are killed in cars. That's quite frankly staggering, not to mention abhorent. Clearly humans controlling cars themselves isn't working.

Compare that to 287 fatalities in planes last year.

So we could say, unequivocally, that human beings are garbage at driving safely. 

So if human beings are garbage at driving safely, and near future automation looks like its going to be responsible for far fewer fatalities... isnt that a good thing?

 

Edit: We should also remember that modern aircraft do indeed have a considerable degree of automation, not to mention flight envelope protection in many aircraft. 

Essentially, with only a few hundred deaths in aircraft, full blown autonomy isn't required but with millions of deaths in cars, there's an argument it is.

Edited December 21, 2020 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,238]

14 hours ago, speedyTC said:

 

Regarding the AI conundrum, "Kill the driver or the kids" I'd suggest that a human being in control in that kind of situation would not be much better than a dumb algorithm flipping an imaginary coin. I think that we are currently in a situation of "six of one and half a dozen of the other".

 

I think a human in that situation, with a split second to act, would save his/her own life. Probably instinctively, as a reflex, without even thinking.

[HighBypass 2,339]

@F737NG that hard evidence of 60% whilst travelling at 21-30 flies in the face of the UK wanting 20 mph limits everywhere because there is apparently an 80% chance of living if struck by a vehicle at that speed. What they fail to realise is that one can pay less attention when going slow... because "no-one's going to die"   (further sarcasm if anyone hadn't realised). Mind you that 60% also includes jaywalking peds and is further exacerbated by road sharing schemes in urban centres: No traffic lights, indistinct pavement/road boundaries - no kerbs. Indistinct boundaries is yet another parameter added to the beleaguering list which AI will have to cope with. Specific example - Fishergate in Preston. 

[birdguy 3,943]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

True enough, but world wide 1.3 MILLION people are killed in cars.

We seem to be able to live with all the pandemics that have plagued us periodically that have killed over a million people a year like the current one that has killed 1.7 million world wide and still counting.

Noel

[martin-w 3,238]

43 minutes ago, birdguy said:

We seem to be able to live with all the pandemics that have plagued us periodically that have killed over a million people a year like the current one that has killed 1.7 million world wide and still counting.

Noel

 

Well no, we don't live with the pandemics, we take as much action as we can muster, social distancing lockdowns, create vaccines, etc. We do everything we can We've been locking down and social distancing since the 5th century bc. 

When it comes to 1.3 million people its EVERY YEAR, not occasionally. In the same way we deal with pandemics, we should also be doing everything we can to prevent road deaths. If that includes more autonomous driving so be it.

Do you advocate we do nothing to mitigate the loss of 1.3 million human beings every year? 

[HiFlyer 9,362]

14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Do you advocate we do nothing to mitigate the loss of 1.3 million human beings every year?

We already do quite a lot: Driver training, mandatory eye exams, licensing only after proficiency testing, fines, possible loss of license for driving irresponsibly, watchful troopers on the roads, and even possible imprisonment.

Then there are the various safety laws, speed limits......

And other mitigations: Seat belts, air bags, roll cages....

To me it's debatable whether above and beyond all that, people can really be forced even by law into accepting handing over control of their vehicles to a computer until a very high level of trust is established, and I don't see that happening for quite some time, early adopters notwithstanding.

In the meanwhile, people prematurely doing stunts like those in the posted video, especially as these vehicles become more ubiquitous and the numbers of accidents rise..

Well, I can imagine quite a bit of pushback occuring, and the whole thing ending up in court, with industry lobbyists buying congress critters to force this on us, while regular folks make clear their strong reservations.

In a perfect world, this would all be a home run, but in the actual world where people live, with rutted roads, snow, pedestrians darting across roads, falling trees, suicidal deer, and probably pages of things I could think up to stymy or abuse these "AI" and sensor systems, plus humanity's worldwide love of driving, I just don't see automated vehicles becoming mandatory for decades, if ever.

[birdguy 3,943]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Do you advocate we do nothing to mitigate the loss of 1.3 million human beings every year?

Of course not.  But as HiFlyer just said we are doing everything we can to reduce highway deaths.

We do what we can to reduce gun violence deaths short of outlawing guns.  We do what e can to reduce accidental deaths of all kinds without sterilizing the cause of those deaths.

This brave new world of mandatory driverless cars is something I will not live long enough to see.  And from there what?  Outlawing dangerous recreational activities like rock climbing and sky diving because some people die?

What is an acceptable death rate for every activity we engage in before it is outlawed?

How about recreational flying?  Whenever I flew a Cessna 152 or a Cherokee or an Aztec or a Mooney I and any people who were with me were at risk.  And people die in light plane accidents every year.  What is an acceptable death rate before the things we enjoy doing become illegal? 

Noel 

 

Edited December 21, 2020 by birdguy

[martin-w 3,238]

42 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

We already do quite a lot: Driver training, mandatory eye exams, licensing only after proficiency testing, fines, possible loss of license for driving irresponsibly, watchful troopers on the roads, and even possible imprisonment.

Then there are the various safety laws, speed limits......

And other mitigations: Seat belts, air bags, roll cages....

 

 

Correct, but those measures are not preventing 1.3 million deaths every single year. And of course, we will still continue to add to those safety measure already implemented. And one of the additional safety measures, a safety measure that could diminish the number of deaths tremendously is..... autonomous vehicles. 

Clearly the above measures you mention are not enough. The roads are still killing 1.3 million people. 

 

Quote

To me it's debatable whether above and beyond all that, people can really be forced even by law into accepting handing over control of their vehicles to a computer until a very high level of trust is established, and I don't see that happening for quite some time, early adopters notwithstanding.

 

The trust you mention will be manifest. The capabilities required of the systems will be manifest. And of course, nobody is saying this will happen next week. But it will come to pass. Might not be across the board, but I do feel that the majority of the traffic on the road will be autonomous sooner than you think. 

 

Quote

 

In the meanwhile, people prematurely doing stunts like those in the posted video, especially as these vehicles become more ubiquitous and the numbers of accidents rise..

Well, I can imagine quite a bit of pushback occuring, and the whole thing ending up in court, with industry lobbyists buying congress critters to force this on us, while regular folks make clear their strong reservations.

 

 

As I said earlier, something needs to be done about the individuals who are currently abusing the semi-autonomous system we have currently. Clearly touching the steering wheel every few seconds isn't a big incentive to use the system properly. Tesla and whoever else manufactures systems like this need to implement a different method of insuring compliance. Be that video cameras watching the driver or some other method. 

We have to understand, I think, that the systems we have currently are half way there, they are not fully autonomous. They are semi autonomous. I also think that the number of people who are abusing the system are in the minority. And I wouldn't mind betting that some are simulating this to make videos and get clicks on YouTube. 

 

Quote

In a perfect world, this would all be a home run, but in the actual world where people live, with rutted roads, snow, pedestrians darting across roads, falling trees, suicidal deer, and probably pages of things I could think up to stymy or abuse these "AI" and sensor systems, plus humanity's worldwide love of driving, I just don't see automated vehicles becoming mandatory for decades, if ever.

 

I hate to use this word, its a bit confrontational and I apologise for that, but I believe that statement is nonsense! I wont at all be decades before the capabilities are manifest. You are vastly underestimating the advancement in technology and indeed the capabilities of the systems we have in the lab, right now. 

Sometimes we have to put our own bias aside and be impartial. 🙂

[bobbyjack 61]

It is difficult for me to imagine AI cars being mandatory.  

While the cost of them will come down over time, It will always be prohibitive for many. Hopefully in this future, mass transit will also be massively improved. 

Most people I know who don't like the idea of driverless cars are people who enjoy driving. They also don't like being in a car that someone else is driving. In that case, it make sense that they don't like AI cars.  

Anything man has ever invented has been both used and abused. We can embrace new tech or not. 

[martin-w 3,238]

25 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Of course not.  But as HiFlyer just said we are doing everything we can to reduce highway deaths.

We do what we can to reduce gun violence deaths short of outlawing guns.  We do what e can to reduce accidental deaths of all kinds without sterilizing the cause of those deaths.

 

 

 

No we aren't doing everything we can Noel. The very topic of conversation here is "autonomous vehicles". And autonomous vehicles will indeed save countess lives. This is one of the reasons its being developed. It's one of the reasons millions of dollars is being invested in it world wide. 

Guns aren't a good example. I'm pretty sure a lot more would be done in that respect if it wasn't for the System you have in the US of legalised bribery. With politicians receiving millions of dollars from the NRA. But that's an entirely different topic and a huge can of worms we perhaps shouldn't open. 

Guess what? I like driving too. But I am fully prepared to give up, or perhaps reduce significantly, my enjoyment of driving if it can save millions of human beings lives. Are you? 🙂 

 

Quote

And from there what?  Outlawing dangerous recreational activities like rock climbing and sky diving because some people die?

 

I don't think any authority has suggested making all vehicles autonomous by law. Some here have speculated that it may indeed come to pass. But that's pure speculation. But if 1.3 million people were dying every year "rock climbing" maybe there would be justification for that. 

The point is that 1.3 million human beings is s HUGE number of people to die needlessly. Now consider the relatives and loved ones who also suffer as a result and you can multiply the suffering by a factor of 5 or more. We are talking about immense human suffering here... not a trivial thing. I'm no mathematician, so maybe you could calculate for me how many 911's that is every single year?

 

I think for quite a few years to come we will see autonomous vehicles with a manual mode for those who wish to take control. But I see it in the medium terms working very much like "flight envelope protection" we see in fly by wire aircraft. By that I mean that in manual mode, while you are having fun driving manually, the systems on board are monitoring what you are doing, and if you are about to kill yourself, wreck the vehicle or kill a pedestrian in intervenes. Would that satisfy you enthusiasts?

Edited December 21, 2020 by martin-w

[HiFlyer 9,362]

19 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Sometimes we have to put our own bias aside and be impartial. 🙂

And sometimes not.

Also, from my perspective, I could easily claim bias from the other side of the equation.

There are clearly many people who would benefit, and absolutely intend to benefit by releasing this new technology. Trade magazines flood us with feel good articles trumpeting the "manifest" inevitability of the upcoming driverless revolution, while mentally counting the billions in profit they anticipate if they can edge us into acceptance.

Already, relevant legislatures are being eased into the idea of removing/reducing accident liability for manufacturers whose vehicles cause injury or death due to faults/malfunctions and whatever, knowing full well that as these things eventually build a real-life record of running over stuff, people, given the opportunity, will sue with great prejudice.

Meanwhile, right now, the testing of these vehicles is left to the companies themselves (lovely) as long as they adhere to general regulated standards heavily influenced by the industry itself. And we all know how well that goes, historically.

Right now, if you ask the government a question such as: If a vehicle is driving itself, who is liable if the vehicle crashes? How is the vehicle insured?

The NHTSA will respond with handwaving: These are among many important questions beyond the technical considerations that policymakers are working to address before automated vehicles are made available. We are still many years from fully automated vehicles becoming available to the public.

Meanwhile: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2020/08/aaa-finds-active-driving-assistance-systems-do-less-to-assist-drivers-and-more-to-interfere/

AAA’s 2020 automated vehicle survey found that only one in ten drivers (12%) would trust riding in a self-driving car.

I'm going to be one of those people for quite some time, and no sort of "manifest" destiny is going to get me into one of these vehicles in autonomous mode except as a lark, with me watching it like a hawk, and feeling quite lucky leaving the vehicle with all my giblets intact.

Heck, my young niece, who won't let anyone at all drive her vehicles with her in them (control issues) would have an absolute cow, just thinking about this.

I'm not that bad, but I have a lifetime of experience with fancy computerized gadgets suffering odd failures at random intervals. Enough experience that I look upon such technology with (I feel) very appropriate wariness, especially when lives are on the line.

 

[HiFlyer 9,362]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

The best way to take life on, is doing your best to understand it.

I don't accept the argument, It assumes many things about me with no evidence except my disagreement with you on this issue, and attempts to conflate this disagreement with fear of technology, lack of understanding, and even anti-vaxxing, of all things.

Nope.