5 ms·

Many regulations are of questionable validity, but do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Would robotic drivers be better at thing

by dexwiz 10y ago

Many regulations are of questionable validity, but do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Would robotic drivers be better at things like merging, keeping distance, not over correcting? Yes. But people will still want to intervene when it doing something dumb like driving into a pond, or gets stuck on a median and cannot figure out how to get off. Driverless cars will probably not be magic pods that whisk you around. It's still a vehicle that needs to navigate terrain. And roads are not perfect everywhere.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over Yes. I regularly fly in planes, which I have no control over, and which spend most of their time on autopilot. I also regularly deal with machines that do their jobs far better than I could, and I feel no desire to take over and do those jobs worse. Why should that answer change when the stakes get higher and the cost of a mistake goes up? (That doesn't mean I want to beta-test an experimental driverless car; it does mean I'm eager for a non-experimental one.) > But people will still want to intervene when it doing something dumb like driving into a pond, or gets stuck on a median and cannot figure out how to get off. A vehicle that did any of those things would be considered broken in a deadly way. The solution isn't to hand people broken vehicles that they sometimes need to take over from; the solution is to not call a car driverless until it handles those situations (generally by not getting into such situations in the first place). > Driverless cars will probably not be magic pods that whisk you around. Yet.
- pyre 10y ago
  > Yes. I regularly fly in planes, which I have no control over, and which spend most of their time on autopilot. Those planes with their auto-pilot system still have a means for the pilots to intervene. That's not quite the same as being in a vehicle for which no human has the possibility of intervening. (It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that it is.)
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    First, those pilots are heavily trained and certified, far more than car drivers. And second, far more accidents occur due to humans than due to mechanical failure (and of "mechanical failure", only a subset of those involve incorrect autopilot, though I haven't found that broken out). http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm puts total human causes at 67% (53% of which is pilot error), and mechanical failure at 20%. Some accidents also occur specifically when pilots ignore/override the automatic systems; I'd be interested to see statistics on that, too, but I haven't found any.
    - pyre 10y ago
      Do you have statistics on the number of times that the pilot has to take control because the auto-pilot is unable to cope or is doing the wrong thing? Focusing just human-caused accidents vs. machine-caused accidents ignores this.
      - sokoloff 10y ago
        I don't have the stats, but I have a bit over 1000 hours as a pilot of light aircraft. "What's it doing now?" is a common question in the industry, and the subject of this excellent American Airlines training seminar video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10&t=21m41s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10&t=21m41s (The whole video is good, but that's the specific automation confusion question.)
- erobbins 10y ago
  I really hate this association of aircraft and car autopilots. Aircraft operate in essentially empty space, and barring major mechanical failure the pilots typically have tens of seconds up to many minutes to act to avoid disaster. In a car you often have less than a second to react, and certainly never more than 4-5. Aircraft hardware and software is tested, retested, tested again, and certified. Auto hardware and software is pushed out the door with reckless disregard for reliability. There is really no comparison.
  - mc32 10y ago
    People forget planes, the kinds with sophisticated autopilot, don't come out with a new model revision every two to three years. Their cycles are very long, decades long.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Autolanding doesn't have the empty space, yet the first autolanding of a commercial flight with passengers aboard was done in '65.
    - jerf 10y ago
      Errr... yes it does. A runway is empty space. There are no other planes on it, it's a straight, well-maintained stretch of pavement, kept clear of ice and snow, with clear markings. Those are conditions so easy that non-self-driving cars can manage to navigate them for non-trivial periods of time without hitting anything! The Mythbusters have had a couple of cars go entirely out of control a couple times under those circumstances and the damage was a fence, once, IIRC.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        There's more to landing than taxiing on the runway, like approaching the ground at a minimum of 250 km/h while getting hit by winds, often with very little visibility.
        10y ago
fwefeefew 10y ago
> but do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Yes, it would almost definitely be safer than a lot of drivers I've been in the car with, if not all of them. And it's be far less nerve-wracking than with some drivers.
raldi 10y ago
> do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Do you ever ride in taxis? Or as a passenger in any car? How is that situation any different?

by dexwiz 10y ago

JoshTriplett 10y ago

> do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over Yes. I regularly fly in planes, which I have no control over, and which spend most of their time on autopilot. I also regularly deal with machines that do their jobs far better than I could, and I feel no desire to take over and do those jobs worse. Why should that answer change when the stakes get higher and the cost of a mistake goes up? (That doesn't mean I want to beta-test an experimental driverless car; it does mean I'm eager for a non-experimental one.) > But people will still want to intervene when it doing something dumb like driving into a pond, or gets stuck on a median and cannot figure out how to get off. A vehicle that did any of those things would be considered broken in a deadly way. The solution isn't to hand people broken vehicles that they sometimes need to take over from; the solution is to not call a car driverless until it handles those situations (generally by not getting into such situations in the first place). > Driverless cars will probably not be magic pods that whisk you around. Yet.

pyre 10y ago
> Yes. I regularly fly in planes, which I have no control over, and which spend most of their time on autopilot. Those planes with their auto-pilot system still have a means for the pilots to intervene. That's not quite the same as being in a vehicle for which no human has the possibility of intervening. (It's also a bit disingenuous to imply that it is.)
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  First, those pilots are heavily trained and certified, far more than car drivers. And second, far more accidents occur due to humans than due to mechanical failure (and of "mechanical failure", only a subset of those involve incorrect autopilot, though I haven't found that broken out). http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm puts total human causes at 67% (53% of which is pilot error), and mechanical failure at 20%. Some accidents also occur specifically when pilots ignore/override the automatic systems; I'd be interested to see statistics on that, too, but I haven't found any.
  - pyre 10y ago
    Do you have statistics on the number of times that the pilot has to take control because the auto-pilot is unable to cope or is doing the wrong thing? Focusing just human-caused accidents vs. machine-caused accidents ignores this.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      I don't have the stats, but I have a bit over 1000 hours as a pilot of light aircraft. "What's it doing now?" is a common question in the industry, and the subject of this excellent American Airlines training seminar video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10&t=21m41s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10&t=21m41s (The whole video is good, but that's the specific automation confusion question.)
erobbins 10y ago
I really hate this association of aircraft and car autopilots. Aircraft operate in essentially empty space, and barring major mechanical failure the pilots typically have tens of seconds up to many minutes to act to avoid disaster. In a car you often have less than a second to react, and certainly never more than 4-5. Aircraft hardware and software is tested, retested, tested again, and certified. Auto hardware and software is pushed out the door with reckless disregard for reliability. There is really no comparison.
- mc32 10y ago
  People forget planes, the kinds with sophisticated autopilot, don't come out with a new model revision every two to three years. Their cycles are very long, decades long.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Autolanding doesn't have the empty space, yet the first autolanding of a commercial flight with passengers aboard was done in '65.
  - jerf 10y ago
    Errr... yes it does. A runway is empty space. There are no other planes on it, it's a straight, well-maintained stretch of pavement, kept clear of ice and snow, with clear markings. Those are conditions so easy that non-self-driving cars can manage to navigate them for non-trivial periods of time without hitting anything! The Mythbusters have had a couple of cars go entirely out of control a couple times under those circumstances and the damage was a fence, once, IIRC.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      There's more to landing than taxiing on the runway, like approaching the ground at a minimum of 250 km/h while getting hit by winds, often with very little visibility.
      - 10y ago

fwefeefew 10y ago

> but do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Yes, it would almost definitely be safer than a lot of drivers I've been in the car with, if not all of them. And it's be far less nerve-wracking than with some drivers.

raldi 10y ago

> do you really want to be in a machine that you have no control over? Do you ever ride in taxis? Or as a passenger in any car? How is that situation any different?