4 ms·

> urged companies to explain the benefits of automated vehicles to a skeptical public. As a "tech guy" myself I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism

by alexc05 10y ago

> urged companies to explain the benefits of automated vehicles to a skeptical public. As a "tech guy" myself I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles. I know it is generally a good idea to be skeptical even as a "devil's advocate" but to my mind, there are so many upsides that it is hard to connect with me?

ThomPete 10y ago
Well 12million jobs in the transportation sector is a pretty good reason to be sceptic if cars get automated.
- always_good 10y ago
  Acknowledging that it's unfortunate to be shifted out of a job is different from being skeptical.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Well it's not just about that though. With that many in the sector its going to have huge economic consequences for the country.
rodgerd 10y ago
"Currently very rich people have a lot invested in idustries that will be threatened by this model. Why should we let you exist?" See also: support for coal industry.
taf2 10y ago
I generally agree with your position. But it would be made stronger if you included examples of how it would provide upsides. For example, fewer deaths due to accidents. Take for example at least one prominent person who likely would still alive today if all cars were self driving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr. How many countless other lives could have had an impact if only they didnt suffer a similar fate... Next would be how to measure the impact into real numbers like GDP.
jonlucc 10y ago
Well the first weekend of Uber's cars in San Francisco and they had to pull the project because it ran a red light very close to a pedestrian. It only takes a couple videos like that for people to be swayed against statistical information.
rdtsc 10y ago
Driving robots among us who can "decide" to kill has the maximum PR potential for fear and loathing. It is a bit like terrorism, it is a lot unsafer to step in a wet shower in the morning or well, drive to work, than say getting killed by a terrorist yet look at the wars, waste, money, time spent talking about it.
- stale2002 10y ago
  They don't decide to kill anyone. The trolley problem would never happen in real life. In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    > They don't decide to kill anyone. Now we just have to convince everyone of that.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      We don't have to convince everyone. We just have to convince a couple states or countries. These states can be the test run of the technology, and the data they get will prove things to be safer.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    > In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place. Traveling at 50mph on an interstate in dense, almost no-visibility fog. Slamming on the breaks is going to create a 50-car pileup with at least two or three fatalities. You might say it's not safe to be driving that fast in those conditions, and you're probably right, but everyone else is, and driving significantly below the going rate is equally dangerous.
102193012 10y ago
I'm a skeptic. Even if self-driving vehicles work perfectly, most people desperately want to drive. For many, driving is the only time during the day where they are alone and are in charge. There is a huge psychological element to why cars are so popular. [Personally I hate cars altogether and only use public transport.]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
The skepticism enters when we question whether they actually be able to deliver. If companies are actually far less able to build a self-driving car than the image they like to project then the dangers enter. Also: Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans. Cars which can self drive in some situations but not others will be abused by lazy humans. Self-driving cars will drive differently than people and thus kill people in accidents which would not have occurred had there been a human driver. There is no such thing as "mostly autonomous." Humans will not be able to take over and drive at their normal skill level within short time frames. There has to yet, been no apples to apples comparison of human drivers and autonomous vehicles. Until we get that, why should we let companies use our public roads as their testbed? When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads.
- lodi 10y ago
  > Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans. All data that I've seen so far supports the conclusion that self-driving cars are already much, much safer than humans. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is- http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is- ridiculously-safe > When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads. How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    The problem is there is no apples to apples comparison. Self-driving cars currently only handle the most basic, easy conditions so they have great safety statistics. Unfortunately, there is no accident data for humans which is confined to this type of driving. In fact, humans are probably quite good at driving on flat, straight roads with clearly demarcated road lines and the such. Most human accidents will almost certainly take place in conditions in which even Elon Musk would not suggest you test your Tesla's autonomous features. >How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios. If they are so ingenious as to build a self-driving car, you are telling me they can't think of a way to actually do an apples to apples test? Or is it that they don't want to prove their cars are safer? Or is it that they don't want to pay to prove their cars are safer?
ars 10y ago
> I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles. I don't have trouble being skeptical, in fact. I don't believe it will ever work for city streets. Here's why: The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to do that, and we don't have computers that reliable. The numbers: The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13). It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high. Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the numbers for fatalities then it's 99.99999%. I.e. 99.99999% of the time, as whole across all [US] humans, people drive in a way that does not cause a fatality. That's the bar computers have to cross in order to save any lives at all.
majormajor 10y ago
Here's a bitterly cynical contrarian view: hope you really really really like getting bombarded with ads even more now that you don't have to pay attention to the road! Marketing opportunities abound! Or, hope you don't mind shelling out for the "ad free experience" every trip. Here's a less bitter contrarian view: Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation. The reasons I expect this to happen: * People will likely put up with longer commutes if they don't have to pay attention the whole time. * The amount of cars on the road for a given level of congestion will probably increase due to more efficient cross-vehicle coordination and faster reaction times. * I expect most consumers will still prefer to own rather than perpetually rent their vehicle (the average age of cars on the road right now is 11.5 years - that's quite a few years of not making payments compared to being a perpetual Uber-rider), especially given the convenience in family situations (keeping stuff in the car all the time to entertain the kids, keeping the back seats covered to protect from the dog fur and claws, etc). So those plausible resulting conditions seem likely to lead to less centralized cities, reinforcing a future of inefficiently using a bunch of energy to move small numbers of people individually in cars vs in a denser, older-style urban rail system.
- stale2002 10y ago
  The city problem is easy to solve. Build more houses and apartments. Cars gave nothing to do with it. The problem is that 10s of millions of people would live in the city if they could, but the government does let them, by putting so many limits on house building.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development" Cities don't have rights. Why are you equating "good for cities" with absolute good? "and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation." What you call "inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation" other people call "living the lifestyle they want, having a nice yard, and being able to raise their kids away from the dirt, crime, and horrible schools found in the cities". Efficiency is not the end goal of human life. If we were really after maximum efficiency, we could have everyone sleep in bunks (maybe even hot-bunk it with three shifts) and eat all their meals in communal chow halls. But we don't. Why is that, do you suppose?
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Why are so many people blind to the potential pitfalls of self-driving cars? Considering traditional automakers previous behavior when dealing with defects, this huge rush to get cars connected so that they can hoover up as much data on you and your driving as possible, their general culture of secrecy, a reticence to launch bug bounties and the general closed source nature of their code, you are not at all worried about terrorists or, much more likely, mischief makers hacking your car (or a fleet of the same model with the same vulnerability) for the lulz? I've said this before, but I'm definitely not getting Mk. 1 of a self-driving car and most likely will never get one unless they open source the code.

by alexc05 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

Well 12million jobs in the transportation sector is a pretty good reason to be sceptic if cars get automated.

always_good 10y ago
Acknowledging that it's unfortunate to be shifted out of a job is different from being skeptical.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  Well it's not just about that though. With that many in the sector its going to have huge economic consequences for the country.

rodgerd 10y ago

"Currently very rich people have a lot invested in idustries that will be threatened by this model. Why should we let you exist?" See also: support for coal industry.

taf2 10y ago

I generally agree with your position. But it would be made stronger if you included examples of how it would provide upsides. For example, fewer deaths due to accidents. Take for example at least one prominent person who likely would still alive today if all cars were self driving https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr. How many countless other lives could have had an impact if only they didnt suffer a similar fate... Next would be how to measure the impact into real numbers like GDP.

jonlucc 10y ago

Well the first weekend of Uber's cars in San Francisco and they had to pull the project because it ran a red light very close to a pedestrian. It only takes a couple videos like that for people to be swayed against statistical information.

rdtsc 10y ago

Driving robots among us who can "decide" to kill has the maximum PR potential for fear and loathing. It is a bit like terrorism, it is a lot unsafer to step in a wet shower in the morning or well, drive to work, than say getting killed by a terrorist yet look at the wars, waste, money, time spent talking about it.

stale2002 10y ago
They don't decide to kill anyone. The trolley problem would never happen in real life. In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > They don't decide to kill anyone. Now we just have to convince everyone of that.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    We don't have to convince everyone. We just have to convince a couple states or countries. These states can be the test run of the technology, and the data they get will prove things to be safer.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  > In all situations, the safe thing to do in an emergency is to slam on the breaks, and do avoidance, maybe. As well as don't get into these emergency situations in the first place. Traveling at 50mph on an interstate in dense, almost no-visibility fog. Slamming on the breaks is going to create a 50-car pileup with at least two or three fatalities. You might say it's not safe to be driving that fast in those conditions, and you're probably right, but everyone else is, and driving significantly below the going rate is equally dangerous.

102193012 10y ago

I'm a skeptic. Even if self-driving vehicles work perfectly, most people desperately want to drive. For many, driving is the only time during the day where they are alone and are in charge. There is a huge psychological element to why cars are so popular. [Personally I hate cars altogether and only use public transport.]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

The skepticism enters when we question whether they actually be able to deliver. If companies are actually far less able to build a self-driving car than the image they like to project then the dangers enter. Also: Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans. Cars which can self drive in some situations but not others will be abused by lazy humans. Self-driving cars will drive differently than people and thus kill people in accidents which would not have occurred had there been a human driver. There is no such thing as "mostly autonomous." Humans will not be able to take over and drive at their normal skill level within short time frames. There has to yet, been no apples to apples comparison of human drivers and autonomous vehicles. Until we get that, why should we let companies use our public roads as their testbed? When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads.

lodi 10y ago
> Self-driving cars won't start out safer than humans. All data that I've seen so far supports the conclusion that self-driving cars are already much, much safer than humans. http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is- http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/googles-self-driving-car-is- ridiculously-safe > When Tesla or any other company can prove to me that their cars are safer than human-driven vehicles, I won't oppose them on my roads. How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  The problem is there is no apples to apples comparison. Self-driving cars currently only handle the most basic, easy conditions so they have great safety statistics. Unfortunately, there is no accident data for humans which is confined to this type of driving. In fact, humans are probably quite good at driving on flat, straight roads with clearly demarcated road lines and the such. Most human accidents will almost certainly take place in conditions in which even Elon Musk would not suggest you test your Tesla's autonomous features. >How can they be expected to prove their safety record to you without driving hundreds of millions of miles on public roads? They're already provably safer than humans in artificial "test course" scenarios. If they are so ingenious as to build a self-driving car, you are telling me they can't think of a way to actually do an apples to apples test? Or is it that they don't want to prove their cars are safer? Or is it that they don't want to pay to prove their cars are safer?

ars 10y ago

> I have trouble fathoming a position of skepticism around the benefits of self-driving vehicles. I don't have trouble being skeptical, in fact. I don't believe it will ever work for city streets. Here's why: The computer would have to be 99.99999% reliable to do that, and we don't have computers that reliable. The numbers: The accident rate is around 74 per 100 million miles (and fatalities is 1.13). It's unclear exactly how to turn that into a percentage, but no matter how you do it it's quite high. Say an accident takes 5 minutes, and people drive 30 miles/hour. Then that works out to 99.999% for humans. If you use the numbers for fatalities then it's 99.99999%. I.e. 99.99999% of the time, as whole across all [US] humans, people drive in a way that does not cause a fatality. That's the bar computers have to cross in order to save any lives at all.

majormajor 10y ago

Here's a bitterly cynical contrarian view: hope you really really really like getting bombarded with ads even more now that you don't have to pay attention to the road! Marketing opportunities abound! Or, hope you don't mind shelling out for the "ad free experience" every trip. Here's a less bitter contrarian view: Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation. The reasons I expect this to happen: * People will likely put up with longer commutes if they don't have to pay attention the whole time. * The amount of cars on the road for a given level of congestion will probably increase due to more efficient cross-vehicle coordination and faster reaction times. * I expect most consumers will still prefer to own rather than perpetually rent their vehicle (the average age of cars on the road right now is 11.5 years - that's quite a few years of not making payments compared to being a perpetual Uber-rider), especially given the convenience in family situations (keeping stuff in the car all the time to entertain the kids, keeping the back seats covered to protect from the dog fur and claws, etc). So those plausible resulting conditions seem likely to lead to less centralized cities, reinforcing a future of inefficiently using a bunch of energy to move small numbers of people individually in cars vs in a denser, older-style urban rail system.

stale2002 10y ago
The city problem is easy to solve. Build more houses and apartments. Cars gave nothing to do with it. The problem is that 10s of millions of people would live in the city if they could, but the government does let them, by putting so many limits on house building.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
"Self-driving vehicles will be bad for American city development" Cities don't have rights. Why are you equating "good for cities" with absolute good? "and reinforce existing patterns of inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation." What you call "inefficiency, waste, and self-segregation" other people call "living the lifestyle they want, having a nice yard, and being able to raise their kids away from the dirt, crime, and horrible schools found in the cities". Efficiency is not the end goal of human life. If we were really after maximum efficiency, we could have everyone sleep in bunks (maybe even hot-bunk it with three shifts) and eat all their meals in communal chow halls. But we don't. Why is that, do you suppose?

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

Why are so many people blind to the potential pitfalls of self-driving cars? Considering traditional automakers previous behavior when dealing with defects, this huge rush to get cars connected so that they can hoover up as much data on you and your driving as possible, their general culture of secrecy, a reticence to launch bug bounties and the general closed source nature of their code, you are not at all worried about terrorists or, much more likely, mischief makers hacking your car (or a fleet of the same model with the same vulnerability) for the lulz? I've said this before, but I'm definitely not getting Mk. 1 of a self-driving car and most likely will never get one unless they open source the code.