12 ms·

Forget self-driving car anxiety: In the early days human drivers were the fear

116 points by samclemens 10y ago

overcast 10y ago
In the current days, human drivers are the fear.
jackarbitrage 10y ago
I started getting scared of autonomous cars when that guy accidentally got sent to the libertarian island on Silicon Valley
beautifulfreak 10y ago
He really should have credited the Reddit photo colorizer whose image he uses. He credits Getty for the others. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ex763/auto_wreck_in_washington_dc_1921_colorized_by_me/ https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ex763/auto_wreck_in_...
- jessaustin 10y ago
  I struggle to imagine what sort of wreck would result in the rear (chained) tire ending up under the front of the car like that? This wouldn't be the only staged aspect of this picture: why is some random dude sitting in the driver's seat?
cooper12 10y ago
Time and time again history has shown that you can't just retrofit old laws to stuff that's "similar enough". Because the new technology is never the exact same. Computers are not telegraphs. Email is not postal mail. Cars are not horse-drawn carriages... Law reuse is harmful because it loses nuanced differences in how these technologies operate and are used. I really think a lot of problems are linked to that, such as with drug laws. I would say we need a reform but that would require changing the DNA of the judicial systems, and like this article notes, ingrained prejudices.
- fossuser 10y ago
  I think our legal system does change over time with case law and interpretations of existing laws in new mediums. Though this does have the unfortunate consequence of lagging behind which can sometimes be severe.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    The problem is that often this case law is created looking at similar cases as precedent. Instead we should be creating new laws from scratch or else like you said we'll always be playing catchup while areas with more reasonable/reactive laws prosper. However that's antithetical to how current American law works though so it would require changing the whole DNA of the system.
supercoder 10y ago
How can a computer ever be as intelligent as my alcohol soaked brain
M_Grey 10y ago
The problem is still human drivers, and it will remain so as long they're blended imperfectly with autonomous systems. I don't know how much clearer this issue can be, but humans suck at driving. We're just no good at maintain a constant vigil in those circumstances; we evolved to use time like that to power down the hungry brain.
- makecheck 10y ago
  I don’t think the main human behavioral problems are limited to cars. The things that frustrate me most during driving are equally present when running on a trail, waiting for a subway train or observing cyclists, for instance. They are: 1. Not knowing where the heck you are and what you are doing. Many people seem utterly unaware of themselves and the effect that their actions have on others. 2. Refusing to either speed up or move out of the way (doesn’t really matter which of those you do but if you refuse to do both then you will become a huge obstacle, whether it’s a sidewalk or a road). 3. Believing you are better at multitasking than you really are. If you’re blocking a sidewalk, you’re exhibiting poor “driving” in a walking scenario. If you’re blocking the entrance to the doors, you’re exhibiting poor “driving” in a train station. If you’re prioritizing your texting and interfering with me, you’re exhibiting poor “driving” in just about any situation (driving or walking or social for that matter). Automation is not required to fix the biggest frustrations with driving: rather, human beings need to start paying a lot more attention EVERYWHERE in life and being a lot more reasonable to one another.
  - AznHisoka 10y ago
    the difference is that the former fristration can lead to injuries and serious accidents. the latter is just a minor inconvenience.
  - lsc 10y ago
    The real problem is people who think that being slightly inconvenienced, say, by someone moving slower than they are on a sidewalk is somehow comparable to a driver who takes risks with the lives of everyone else around them in order to get to work a few minutes sooner.
cperciva 10y ago
now we're worried about people driving with the aid of a second (artificial) intelligence To the contrary, I haven't heard anyone complain about collision-avoidance systems; the paranoia comes in when the possibility of cars being driven by a single (artificial) intelligence is discussed.
dev_throw 10y ago
Human drivers are still dangerous. Every year, around a million people worldwide are killed due to automobile accidents. [1] Meanwhile, in the United States alone, there are around 5 million vehicle crashes annually.[2] Although automobile safety has increased, I am curious as to whether our accidents per-capita has stayed the same. Also, we have to consider the interaction effects between decisions taken by human drivers and self-driving algorithms. I have a feeling that they might be deleterious initially, but should be able to improve after some iteration. [1] https://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics https://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safe... [2] pdf: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812006 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- exabrial 10y ago
  I was going to say, "were the fear?" Try driving a motorcycle in traffic in the USA! People are downright homicidal.
  - nxc18 10y ago
    I'm a big fan of the 'look twice, save a life concept' but motorcyclists can be more adequately described as suicidal than the typical driver can be described homicidal. I've been in a few situations where I had to work very hard to not kill/injure someone because a motor cyclist was being completely reckless. It is super annoying to have motorcyclist squeeze around you on both sides on a one lane ramp merging info traffic. Or a motorcycle sitting in my blind spot without even the decency to stay near the center of the lane. Its not really different from any other driver, except the complete absurdity of driving among cars at car speed with literally no safety mechanism beside plastic wrapping your head should demand a heightened level of defensive driving.
    - mathw 10y ago
      I've frequently seen motorcyclists acting like they're suicidal (just not quite deliberately riding under the front of that lorry), drivers acting like they think they're invincible, cyclists acting like nobody else on the road is actually there so they don't need to bother trying to avoid being run over by them, and pedestrians who think the traffic will just magically avoid them when they run across the road in the dark while dressed all in black. There are terrible people in control of all vehicles.
ayanray 10y ago
What I worry about is how can we define accountability. At least you could sue a person if you got into a car accident and got injured (happened to several people I know). Suing a huge corporation and getting bullied around, settling for less, etc. sounds possible, but can happen too with people vs people. How do you even make a case when you likely don't understand what actually happened or could even prove what happened (crypto, copyright laws)? I'm all for reducing risk, but machines will make mistakes and I don't know what happens next.
- revelation 10y ago
  History seems to have shown the opposite, in transport. Trains are engineered to absurdly high safety standards and every time there is a crash, it's widely publicized and an in-depth investigation is required along with suggestions for systemic changes to prevent repeat events, and the companies are required to pay large settlements: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499592760/amtrak-reaches-265-million-settlement-over-deadly-philadelphia-crash http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499592760/... At the same time, trains are vastly safer than personal cars. Yet when a driver kills someone, police can barely be bothered to attend the scene and rush to excuse the driver and let traffic flow again. The safety standards on vehicles are such that billions are spent on engine development yet we tell people to watch out for the "blind spot" in that trucks mirror contraption. We're soon going to have autonomous driving AI yet trucks are roaming city streets that are unsafe by design and regularly claiming lifes. I don't see Volvo and MAN settling with anyone over that.
  - userbinator 10y ago
    At the same time, trains are vastly safer than personal cars. Most likely because trains essentially only travel in one dimension almost all the time, along a very well-defined path.
    - revelation 10y ago
      That's the point. For their base (and empirical) level of risk, there are huge binders of safety regulations for trains. Yet cars, which pose a vastly higher risk, are basically unregulated and safety is commonly ignored for what are peripheral concerns.
jlgaddis 10y ago
I put thousands of miles a year on a big, loud, Harley-Davidson motorcycle. I've been in two wrecks. The last one left me with several broken bones and the inability to walk for a few months, although I did gain the amazing ability to set off metal detectors everywhere! Human drivers are my worst fear.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  Your big loud bike can actually be pretty hard to hear when the windows are up and music is playing. It's gotten to the point where I keep my windows rolled down and my music low when traffic is heavy enough for lots of bikes to be lane splitting, because otherwise it's almost impossible to know they're coming.
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    Lane splitting is just crazy, in my opinion. It's not legal where I live (midwest US) but I see people doing it every time I'm in California. I don't think I'd do it even if it were legal.
    - lucaspiller 10y ago
      You just need to get used to it. I live in Rome, Italy and everytime the light goes green there are usually a few bikes around you that will rush off, so you know to properly check around you before you move. Here even cars split lanes, and its mostly not a problem.
    - ollie87 10y ago
      It's actually a lot safer in places that are more congested and have a lot of stop-start traffic. For example, here in the UK, if you sit at the back of a queue of traffic on a motorcycle a truck might not see you and rear-end you. Getting rear-ended by a truck isn't great on a car, but on a bike? Not good. Instead if you filter and split lanes and get to the front of the queue of traffic you're not only safer but also out of the way of that wave of traffic, since you're on two wheels and can accelerate away much faster than the rest of the traffic. This then allows you to have a buffer behind you.
mlinksva 10y ago
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236825193_Street_Rivals_Jaywalking_and_the_Invention_of_the_Motor_Age_Street https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236825193_Street_Ri... is a good telling of struggle between human drivers (and driving clubs, and car dealers) and other humans for the streets, or http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-... covers the same material. To ensure computer drivers behave better than human drivers, re-legalize walking in the street. Also, ban human drivers.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  I think human drivers would do just fine if the streets didn't separate out pedestrians, bikes and cars. The problem is they fall into certain modes of thinking where they're only focused on the other cars. The only times I've been hit (and it's been three times), has been a driver making a left or right turn, seeing no cars coming from the relevant direction(s) and jamming down on the accelerator only to realize there was a pedestrian in their way.
  - laurieg 10y ago
    Many small streets in Japan mix pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles [1]. They may have a white line to indicate the difference between pavement(sidewalk) and road but it's really just a suggestion in practice. Cars on these roads tend to be more cautious and aware of all over road users. Pedestrians are also more aware of there surroundings because there is no illusion of safety that curbs can sometimes give. [1] http://nomano.shiwaza.com/tnoma/blog/archives/20060601/m/dsc00913.jpg http://nomano.shiwaza.com/tnoma/blog/archives/20060601/m/dsc...
    - glandium 10y ago
      The picture you linked is by no means a "small street" by Japanese standards. Small streets in Japan don't have a line in the middle, and most of them aren't large enough to have two cars crossing each other without effort.
bottled_poe 10y ago
Not everyone drives equally safely. For many drivers, switching from manual to a self-driving car will increase their probability of a collision. Maybe in the future this will not be the case, but until self driving cars are proven safer than the most cautionary drivers, some people will increase their risk by switching.
upofadown 10y ago
The punitive laws were a reaction to a clear and present danger. Cars were hitting and killing people (particularly children). The eventual solution was for pedestrians to stay off of the streets. Parents were made responsible for keeping their children off the streets. It is interesting to note that at least one of these laws seems to be returning. Reducing residential speed limits to 30 km/h is a trend now and is done to increase pedestrian safty. Driverless cars will of course also be so restricted. If it turns out that driverless cars are actually safer for pedestrians then pedestrians will return to the streets. Then "The motor-car is not to be made as useful as it should be.." will be an issue again.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  >> If it turns out that driverless cars are actually safer for pedestrians then pedestrians will return to the streets. To the tiny residential streets, maybe, but they never really left those. I walk my dog on the street in my neighborhood (no sidewalks). The bane of our walks are the stealthy electric things. With those around you are much safer at night when you can see their lights around corners. We will never see pedestrians taking back the main roads. The separation of pedestrians and cars is more efficient for both. Our cities would grind to a halt if every truck and ambulance was suddenly stuck to a walking pace due to pedestrians out for a stroll. Motorcycles and bicycles also aren't going anywhere, not for decades. Telling those groups to give roads back to pedestrians, to put away their favorite two-wheeled toys and stick to a walking pace ... Bring a helmet when you tell them it's all over.
sshine 10y ago
Just this morning on my bicycle ride to work, I was nearly run down by a taxi making a blind entry into a large road and doored by a 10-year-old. The fear of cars is not "old school" but very much real. This is not to mention the aggression that drivers go and build up in their small bubbles. I am always prepared to get off my bike and take them up on their threatening offers. I look forward to less aggressive, more responsive computer-controlled vehicles.
- Tomte 10y ago
  Looks like you're just as aggressive, waiting for someone to finally "offer" threats. Cyclist are no angels, either. I always find it fascinating how they clamor for at least a meter space next to them when cars are passing, but when traffic is slow (not standing still – that's a different story), mere centimeters to my side mirrors are enough to pass cars themselves. I think a drastic re-education of traffic participants would be necessary: de-emphasize small, inadvertant and temporary infractions and punish vindictive and deliberately dangerous behaviour much more aggressively.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    If a cyclist hits anyone, that person is unlikely to suffer serious injury, and extremely unlikely to die. If a car traveling 40 mph or faster hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the person hit will almost certainly die. The two are really not comparable. If we replaced all the drivers on the road with still-fallible but conscientious/polite human drivers who always followed traffic laws, always drove the speed limit, were effective at looking for and stopping for obstructions in the road (e.g. pedestrians crossing the street), followed at a safe distance, and adjusted their speed and following distance to match road conditions, the death rate from traffic collisions would drop dramatically. If we replaced all the cyclists with perfect riders, the death rate from traffic collisions would change only marginally.
    - Tomte 10y ago
      That's fantasy land. You're just trying to absolve cyclists from any wrongdoing. A cyclist that passes a slow car with, say, 30 km/h and brushes into the car may very well die. It's exactly symmetrical to the situation of a car passing a slow cyclist with 30 km/h. Furthermore, dying isn't everything that should be avoided. Injuries and material damage are also bad. Further-furthermore, aggressive and careless cyclists can also kill a pedestrian. Not as easily as a car can, but still. As a pedestrian my number one danger are cyclists. Cars and pedestrians are quite predictable in their movements. Cars especially don't sneak up on you without any noise and then pass you on a random side, while you're walking around.
gens 10y ago
I know a little bit about AI and the things it needs to drive, and i know horses well. There is no comparison, a horse is much smarter then any AI i seen [0]. Look at the traffic closely and observe all the edge cases and all the details that an AI couldn't handle properly. Like potholes, paint, animals and people coming from beyond cars parked on the street, works on the road, a dust cloud, a gravel road with big puddles, and idk what else. On top of that the thing is that going over 40kmh is not driving, it's ballistics. So far i have seen that a car can be driven by an AI from A to B in good conditions, but i have not seen it drive in more difficult conditions (some are common in my city). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6kIPi11sl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6kIPi11sl8
- edblarney 10y ago
  I suggest in many ways you are right. BUT - cars will eventually be better than horses. Why? Because they have a) the tech is very specifically geared to do things related to driving and driving only b) it's not inclined to 'emotions' or 'spooking' and finally c) it has tech the horse cannot have - it will be able to see further out, communicate with other cars 'real time', it will be able to make crazy probabilistic calculations in real-time with respect to 'what best to do in a negative scenario'. I think it will take a long, long time to get through those corner cases, and probably a few disasters between now and then, but in 20 years maybe it will be crazy safe.
edblarney 10y ago
Eventually - maybe in 20 years - humans won't be even allowed to drive. I'll bet they even ban hobbyist driving - like those who 'still have old cars' and want to drive on those 'old car roads'. Statistically too dangerous. Far more dangerous than anything else we really do - certainly more than smoking. And when it's no longer a 'necessity' ... Do you remember those movies before the 1960's when they get in cars and they don't even have seat-belts - and we 'gasp' ... 'OMG' ... I think our grandchildren will gasp when we tell them we drove cars. They will think we were crazy and uncivilized, we'll call them wimps. You'll want to teach your grandson to drive, your daughter in law will be upset and call you a crazy old man :)
- gambiting 10y ago
  "Eventually - maybe in 20 years - humans won't be even allowed to drive." I don't see that happening for a century. Unless you subsidize the cost of purchase of a new car for everyone who has a car now, and associated costs of owning a new vehicle. Where I'm from(Poland) the average age of a car is 16 years. Buying a new car, even if it's something very cheap like a Fiat Panda, is still a huge deal. Why would you care about what purchasing power is like in Poland you ask? Well, because at the moment I can drive my car literally around the world, without modifying it an inch. If some countries start banning manual cars, then suddenly you can't cross certain borders anymore - that's almost idiotic. If the ban of manual cars is going to happen, it will need to happen almost worldwide at the same time, and that's absolutely, definitely, completely not happening in the next 20 years. I actually think your example with cars without seatbelts is great, because it illustrates what will happen with manually-driven cars - instead of banning them, they will eventually become so rare there will be no need to ban them, just like you can still drive your 1950 car without seat belts or airbags.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    + There will be EU wide standards for 'self driving' just as there will be a 'North American' one. + They will make them cheap. The AI is software, it's a commodity, and the parts (i.e. LIDAR) will be cheap by then. + In 20 years you won't likely be able to drive your old car in France, and no offence - they will probably mock the Polish for still having 'real cars' :). But you're right - 20 years is too soon. 20 years to 'almost everyone in driverless cars'. 30 years to banning humans. 45 years to banning them even from driving hobby cars. Add 15 years for East Europe and Russia. Add 30 years for poor places.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
Human drivers are still a fear for me. It seems that it's every other day that I read about people being killed in the streets by cars. Just this weekend a driver mowed down six cyclists. One is dead. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-cyclists-accident-1.3839054 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-cycl... I think the concerns of these 19th century legislators were warranted and we made a massive mistake in promoting cars as the default form of transportation for everyone. We've unnecessarily exposed ourselves to an incredible amount of danger when there has always been other safer transportation solutions possible. It's not too late to reign things in. Autonomous cars will help, but solutions exist today and there's no reason to not start working on making the streets safer right now. Cities need to limit speeds to 25 mph like NYC has so that crashes, when they do occur, are less likely to be fatal. Cities also need to provide more transportation alternatives such as public transit and protected bike lanes so that city staff can create smaller and safer roads without affecting people's ability to travel.

116 points by samclemens 10y ago

In the current days, human drivers are the fear.

I started getting scared of autonomous cars when that guy accidentally got sent to the libertarian island on Silicon Valley

beautifulfreak 10y ago

He really should have credited the Reddit photo colorizer whose image he uses. He credits Getty for the others. https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ex763/auto_wreck_in_washington_dc_1921_colorized_by_me/ https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ex763/auto_wreck_in_...

jessaustin 10y ago
I struggle to imagine what sort of wreck would result in the rear (chained) tire ending up under the front of the car like that? This wouldn't be the only staged aspect of this picture: why is some random dude sitting in the driver's seat?

cooper12 10y ago

Time and time again history has shown that you can't just retrofit old laws to stuff that's "similar enough". Because the new technology is never the exact same. Computers are not telegraphs. Email is not postal mail. Cars are not horse-drawn carriages... Law reuse is harmful because it loses nuanced differences in how these technologies operate and are used. I really think a lot of problems are linked to that, such as with drug laws. I would say we need a reform but that would require changing the DNA of the judicial systems, and like this article notes, ingrained prejudices.

fossuser 10y ago
I think our legal system does change over time with case law and interpretations of existing laws in new mediums. Though this does have the unfortunate consequence of lagging behind which can sometimes be severe.
- cooper12 10y ago
  The problem is that often this case law is created looking at similar cases as precedent. Instead we should be creating new laws from scratch or else like you said we'll always be playing catchup while areas with more reasonable/reactive laws prosper. However that's antithetical to how current American law works though so it would require changing the whole DNA of the system.

supercoder 10y ago

How can a computer ever be as intelligent as my alcohol soaked brain

M_Grey 10y ago

The problem is still human drivers, and it will remain so as long they're blended imperfectly with autonomous systems. I don't know how much clearer this issue can be, but humans suck at driving. We're just no good at maintain a constant vigil in those circumstances; we evolved to use time like that to power down the hungry brain.

makecheck 10y ago
I don’t think the main human behavioral problems are limited to cars. The things that frustrate me most during driving are equally present when running on a trail, waiting for a subway train or observing cyclists, for instance. They are: 1. Not knowing where the heck you are and what you are doing. Many people seem utterly unaware of themselves and the effect that their actions have on others. 2. Refusing to either speed up or move out of the way (doesn’t really matter which of those you do but if you refuse to do both then you will become a huge obstacle, whether it’s a sidewalk or a road). 3. Believing you are better at multitasking than you really are. If you’re blocking a sidewalk, you’re exhibiting poor “driving” in a walking scenario. If you’re blocking the entrance to the doors, you’re exhibiting poor “driving” in a train station. If you’re prioritizing your texting and interfering with me, you’re exhibiting poor “driving” in just about any situation (driving or walking or social for that matter). Automation is not required to fix the biggest frustrations with driving: rather, human beings need to start paying a lot more attention EVERYWHERE in life and being a lot more reasonable to one another.
- AznHisoka 10y ago
  the difference is that the former fristration can lead to injuries and serious accidents. the latter is just a minor inconvenience.
- lsc 10y ago
  The real problem is people who think that being slightly inconvenienced, say, by someone moving slower than they are on a sidewalk is somehow comparable to a driver who takes risks with the lives of everyone else around them in order to get to work a few minutes sooner.

cperciva 10y ago

now we're worried about people driving with the aid of a second (artificial) intelligence To the contrary, I haven't heard anyone complain about collision-avoidance systems; the paranoia comes in when the possibility of cars being driven by a single (artificial) intelligence is discussed.

dev_throw 10y ago

Human drivers are still dangerous. Every year, around a million people worldwide are killed due to automobile accidents. [1] Meanwhile, in the United States alone, there are around 5 million vehicle crashes annually.[2] Although automobile safety has increased, I am curious as to whether our accidents per-capita has stayed the same. Also, we have to consider the interaction effects between decisions taken by human drivers and self-driving algorithms. I have a feeling that they might be deleterious initially, but should be able to improve after some iteration. [1] https://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics https://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safe... [2] pdf: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812006 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

exabrial 10y ago
I was going to say, "were the fear?" Try driving a motorcycle in traffic in the USA! People are downright homicidal.
- nxc18 10y ago
  I'm a big fan of the 'look twice, save a life concept' but motorcyclists can be more adequately described as suicidal than the typical driver can be described homicidal. I've been in a few situations where I had to work very hard to not kill/injure someone because a motor cyclist was being completely reckless. It is super annoying to have motorcyclist squeeze around you on both sides on a one lane ramp merging info traffic. Or a motorcycle sitting in my blind spot without even the decency to stay near the center of the lane. Its not really different from any other driver, except the complete absurdity of driving among cars at car speed with literally no safety mechanism beside plastic wrapping your head should demand a heightened level of defensive driving.
  - mathw 10y ago
    I've frequently seen motorcyclists acting like they're suicidal (just not quite deliberately riding under the front of that lorry), drivers acting like they think they're invincible, cyclists acting like nobody else on the road is actually there so they don't need to bother trying to avoid being run over by them, and pedestrians who think the traffic will just magically avoid them when they run across the road in the dark while dressed all in black. There are terrible people in control of all vehicles.

ayanray 10y ago

What I worry about is how can we define accountability. At least you could sue a person if you got into a car accident and got injured (happened to several people I know). Suing a huge corporation and getting bullied around, settling for less, etc. sounds possible, but can happen too with people vs people. How do you even make a case when you likely don't understand what actually happened or could even prove what happened (crypto, copyright laws)? I'm all for reducing risk, but machines will make mistakes and I don't know what happens next.

revelation 10y ago
History seems to have shown the opposite, in transport. Trains are engineered to absurdly high safety standards and every time there is a crash, it's widely publicized and an in-depth investigation is required along with suggestions for systemic changes to prevent repeat events, and the companies are required to pay large settlements: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499592760/amtrak-reaches-265-million-settlement-over-deadly-philadelphia-crash http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/27/499592760/... At the same time, trains are vastly safer than personal cars. Yet when a driver kills someone, police can barely be bothered to attend the scene and rush to excuse the driver and let traffic flow again. The safety standards on vehicles are such that billions are spent on engine development yet we tell people to watch out for the "blind spot" in that trucks mirror contraption. We're soon going to have autonomous driving AI yet trucks are roaming city streets that are unsafe by design and regularly claiming lifes. I don't see Volvo and MAN settling with anyone over that.
- userbinator 10y ago
  At the same time, trains are vastly safer than personal cars. Most likely because trains essentially only travel in one dimension almost all the time, along a very well-defined path.
  - revelation 10y ago
    That's the point. For their base (and empirical) level of risk, there are huge binders of safety regulations for trains. Yet cars, which pose a vastly higher risk, are basically unregulated and safety is commonly ignored for what are peripheral concerns.

jlgaddis 10y ago

I put thousands of miles a year on a big, loud, Harley-Davidson motorcycle. I've been in two wrecks. The last one left me with several broken bones and the inability to walk for a few months, although I did gain the amazing ability to set off metal detectors everywhere! Human drivers are my worst fear.

jdavis703 10y ago
Your big loud bike can actually be pretty hard to hear when the windows are up and music is playing. It's gotten to the point where I keep my windows rolled down and my music low when traffic is heavy enough for lots of bikes to be lane splitting, because otherwise it's almost impossible to know they're coming.
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  Lane splitting is just crazy, in my opinion. It's not legal where I live (midwest US) but I see people doing it every time I'm in California. I don't think I'd do it even if it were legal.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    You just need to get used to it. I live in Rome, Italy and everytime the light goes green there are usually a few bikes around you that will rush off, so you know to properly check around you before you move. Here even cars split lanes, and its mostly not a problem.
  - ollie87 10y ago
    It's actually a lot safer in places that are more congested and have a lot of stop-start traffic. For example, here in the UK, if you sit at the back of a queue of traffic on a motorcycle a truck might not see you and rear-end you. Getting rear-ended by a truck isn't great on a car, but on a bike? Not good. Instead if you filter and split lanes and get to the front of the queue of traffic you're not only safer but also out of the way of that wave of traffic, since you're on two wheels and can accelerate away much faster than the rest of the traffic. This then allows you to have a buffer behind you.

mlinksva 10y ago

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236825193_Street_Rivals_Jaywalking_and_the_Invention_of_the_Motor_Age_Street https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236825193_Street_Ri... is a good telling of struggle between human drivers (and driving clubs, and car dealers) and other humans for the streets, or http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-... covers the same material. To ensure computer drivers behave better than human drivers, re-legalize walking in the street. Also, ban human drivers.

jdavis703 10y ago
I think human drivers would do just fine if the streets didn't separate out pedestrians, bikes and cars. The problem is they fall into certain modes of thinking where they're only focused on the other cars. The only times I've been hit (and it's been three times), has been a driver making a left or right turn, seeing no cars coming from the relevant direction(s) and jamming down on the accelerator only to realize there was a pedestrian in their way.
- laurieg 10y ago
  Many small streets in Japan mix pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles [1]. They may have a white line to indicate the difference between pavement(sidewalk) and road but it's really just a suggestion in practice. Cars on these roads tend to be more cautious and aware of all over road users. Pedestrians are also more aware of there surroundings because there is no illusion of safety that curbs can sometimes give. [1] http://nomano.shiwaza.com/tnoma/blog/archives/20060601/m/dsc00913.jpg http://nomano.shiwaza.com/tnoma/blog/archives/20060601/m/dsc...
  - glandium 10y ago
    The picture you linked is by no means a "small street" by Japanese standards. Small streets in Japan don't have a line in the middle, and most of them aren't large enough to have two cars crossing each other without effort.

bottled_poe 10y ago

Not everyone drives equally safely. For many drivers, switching from manual to a self-driving car will increase their probability of a collision. Maybe in the future this will not be the case, but until self driving cars are proven safer than the most cautionary drivers, some people will increase their risk by switching.

upofadown 10y ago

The punitive laws were a reaction to a clear and present danger. Cars were hitting and killing people (particularly children). The eventual solution was for pedestrians to stay off of the streets. Parents were made responsible for keeping their children off the streets. It is interesting to note that at least one of these laws seems to be returning. Reducing residential speed limits to 30 km/h is a trend now and is done to increase pedestrian safty. Driverless cars will of course also be so restricted. If it turns out that driverless cars are actually safer for pedestrians then pedestrians will return to the streets. Then "The motor-car is not to be made as useful as it should be.." will be an issue again.

sandworm101 10y ago
>> If it turns out that driverless cars are actually safer for pedestrians then pedestrians will return to the streets. To the tiny residential streets, maybe, but they never really left those. I walk my dog on the street in my neighborhood (no sidewalks). The bane of our walks are the stealthy electric things. With those around you are much safer at night when you can see their lights around corners. We will never see pedestrians taking back the main roads. The separation of pedestrians and cars is more efficient for both. Our cities would grind to a halt if every truck and ambulance was suddenly stuck to a walking pace due to pedestrians out for a stroll. Motorcycles and bicycles also aren't going anywhere, not for decades. Telling those groups to give roads back to pedestrians, to put away their favorite two-wheeled toys and stick to a walking pace ... Bring a helmet when you tell them it's all over.

sshine 10y ago

Just this morning on my bicycle ride to work, I was nearly run down by a taxi making a blind entry into a large road and doored by a 10-year-old. The fear of cars is not "old school" but very much real. This is not to mention the aggression that drivers go and build up in their small bubbles. I am always prepared to get off my bike and take them up on their threatening offers. I look forward to less aggressive, more responsive computer-controlled vehicles.

Tomte 10y ago
Looks like you're just as aggressive, waiting for someone to finally "offer" threats. Cyclist are no angels, either. I always find it fascinating how they clamor for at least a meter space next to them when cars are passing, but when traffic is slow (not standing still – that's a different story), mere centimeters to my side mirrors are enough to pass cars themselves. I think a drastic re-education of traffic participants would be necessary: de-emphasize small, inadvertant and temporary infractions and punish vindictive and deliberately dangerous behaviour much more aggressively.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  If a cyclist hits anyone, that person is unlikely to suffer serious injury, and extremely unlikely to die. If a car traveling 40 mph or faster hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the person hit will almost certainly die. The two are really not comparable. If we replaced all the drivers on the road with still-fallible but conscientious/polite human drivers who always followed traffic laws, always drove the speed limit, were effective at looking for and stopping for obstructions in the road (e.g. pedestrians crossing the street), followed at a safe distance, and adjusted their speed and following distance to match road conditions, the death rate from traffic collisions would drop dramatically. If we replaced all the cyclists with perfect riders, the death rate from traffic collisions would change only marginally.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    That's fantasy land. You're just trying to absolve cyclists from any wrongdoing. A cyclist that passes a slow car with, say, 30 km/h and brushes into the car may very well die. It's exactly symmetrical to the situation of a car passing a slow cyclist with 30 km/h. Furthermore, dying isn't everything that should be avoided. Injuries and material damage are also bad. Further-furthermore, aggressive and careless cyclists can also kill a pedestrian. Not as easily as a car can, but still. As a pedestrian my number one danger are cyclists. Cars and pedestrians are quite predictable in their movements. Cars especially don't sneak up on you without any noise and then pass you on a random side, while you're walking around.

gens 10y ago

I know a little bit about AI and the things it needs to drive, and i know horses well. There is no comparison, a horse is much smarter then any AI i seen [0]. Look at the traffic closely and observe all the edge cases and all the details that an AI couldn't handle properly. Like potholes, paint, animals and people coming from beyond cars parked on the street, works on the road, a dust cloud, a gravel road with big puddles, and idk what else. On top of that the thing is that going over 40kmh is not driving, it's ballistics. So far i have seen that a car can be driven by an AI from A to B in good conditions, but i have not seen it drive in more difficult conditions (some are common in my city). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6kIPi11sl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6kIPi11sl8

edblarney 10y ago
I suggest in many ways you are right. BUT - cars will eventually be better than horses. Why? Because they have a) the tech is very specifically geared to do things related to driving and driving only b) it's not inclined to 'emotions' or 'spooking' and finally c) it has tech the horse cannot have - it will be able to see further out, communicate with other cars 'real time', it will be able to make crazy probabilistic calculations in real-time with respect to 'what best to do in a negative scenario'. I think it will take a long, long time to get through those corner cases, and probably a few disasters between now and then, but in 20 years maybe it will be crazy safe.

edblarney 10y ago

Eventually - maybe in 20 years - humans won't be even allowed to drive. I'll bet they even ban hobbyist driving - like those who 'still have old cars' and want to drive on those 'old car roads'. Statistically too dangerous. Far more dangerous than anything else we really do - certainly more than smoking. And when it's no longer a 'necessity' ... Do you remember those movies before the 1960's when they get in cars and they don't even have seat-belts - and we 'gasp' ... 'OMG' ... I think our grandchildren will gasp when we tell them we drove cars. They will think we were crazy and uncivilized, we'll call them wimps. You'll want to teach your grandson to drive, your daughter in law will be upset and call you a crazy old man :)

gambiting 10y ago
"Eventually - maybe in 20 years - humans won't be even allowed to drive." I don't see that happening for a century. Unless you subsidize the cost of purchase of a new car for everyone who has a car now, and associated costs of owning a new vehicle. Where I'm from(Poland) the average age of a car is 16 years. Buying a new car, even if it's something very cheap like a Fiat Panda, is still a huge deal. Why would you care about what purchasing power is like in Poland you ask? Well, because at the moment I can drive my car literally around the world, without modifying it an inch. If some countries start banning manual cars, then suddenly you can't cross certain borders anymore - that's almost idiotic. If the ban of manual cars is going to happen, it will need to happen almost worldwide at the same time, and that's absolutely, definitely, completely not happening in the next 20 years. I actually think your example with cars without seatbelts is great, because it illustrates what will happen with manually-driven cars - instead of banning them, they will eventually become so rare there will be no need to ban them, just like you can still drive your 1950 car without seat belts or airbags.
- edblarney 10y ago
  + There will be EU wide standards for 'self driving' just as there will be a 'North American' one. + They will make them cheap. The AI is software, it's a commodity, and the parts (i.e. LIDAR) will be cheap by then. + In 20 years you won't likely be able to drive your old car in France, and no offence - they will probably mock the Polish for still having 'real cars' :). But you're right - 20 years is too soon. 20 years to 'almost everyone in driverless cars'. 30 years to banning humans. 45 years to banning them even from driving hobby cars. Add 15 years for East Europe and Russia. Add 30 years for poor places.

Tiktaalik 10y ago

Human drivers are still a fear for me. It seems that it's every other day that I read about people being killed in the streets by cars. Just this weekend a driver mowed down six cyclists. One is dead. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-cyclists-accident-1.3839054 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/richmond-cycl... I think the concerns of these 19th century legislators were warranted and we made a massive mistake in promoting cars as the default form of transportation for everyone. We've unnecessarily exposed ourselves to an incredible amount of danger when there has always been other safer transportation solutions possible. It's not too late to reign things in. Autonomous cars will help, but solutions exist today and there's no reason to not start working on making the streets safer right now. Cities need to limit speeds to 25 mph like NYC has so that crashes, when they do occur, are less likely to be fatal. Cities also need to provide more transportation alternatives such as public transit and protected bike lanes so that city staff can create smaller and safer roads without affecting people's ability to travel.