4 ms·

Does anyone care that regulatory realities will prevent driverless cars from ever carrying human passengers? Planes and trains have been driving themselves for

Does anyone care that regulatory realities will prevent driverless cars from ever carrying human passengers? Planes and trains have been driving themselves for many years but they still have human pilots. The human need for somebody to blame is stronger than market forces trying to eliminate human drivers

BillinghamJ 9y ago
Do you have anything meaningful to back up your point? Any sources? Anyone else who agrees?
- andai 9y ago
  I agree!
- mrbabbage 9y ago
  On the train point, humans have operated fully automatic rail systems for nearly fifty years (the London Underground Victoria Line opened in 1968; BART in San Francisco is similarly automated and open in 1972). The first unattended train to my knowledge, the Vancouver SkyTrain, didn't open til 1985, or 17 years later. My interpretation: it took a while—17 years—for people to warm up to driverless trains on fixed routes with no at-grade intersections.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Also in Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12tb1p_NEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12tb1p_NEM
  - adolph 9y ago
    Also Dallas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFW_Skylink https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFW_Skylink
  - linkregister 9y ago
    Who is the person who sits at the front of the BART train? That isn't the operator?
    - pvg 9y ago
      It is. What they spend most of their time operating are the doors, though.
      - gyc 9y ago
        Although it wasn't that long ago when BART workers went on strike, replacement workers (former BART operators) stepped in to operate the trains, and then promptly ran over and killed two workers performing track maintenance.
        pvg 9y ago
        It also didn't really have anything to do with the train operators. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Responds-to-NTSB-Report-on-Accident-That-Killed-2-Workers-299797051.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Responds-to-NTSB-R...
- shouldbworking 9y ago
  There's not really studies on the subject. The need for a human to be in control of machines that carry other humans seems to be an innate human trait from my perspective. Humans have proven themselves to be mentally flexible by, for example, training themselves not to have a fear of snakes which is believed to be an innate fear of primates, speculatively including humans. This means humans could possibly overcome the fear of being in a fast moving vehicle without human control, but I would argue that the self discipline needed to train our entire population not to fear these vehicles would be enough of an obstacle that they will never be realized. There's also the human factor at play. For a long while humans and robots will be sharing the road, and as soon as human drivers learn that the robots will avoid collisions at all costs they will start abusing machine controlled vehicles. A human will reach a point where they say "Well, fuck it just run into me then" but it would be unethical to program a machine with the same logic. Other humans know they can't fuck with people too much or they risk a confrontation. I think its an open question how nice society will be to participant unable to retaliate. A more realistic path for self driving vehicles is special segregated lanes on highways. This is already done for HOV vehicles so much of the infastructure and design is already in place. Self driving transports would use these lanes connect between hubs where the vehicles are brought under human control for the short and more chaotic final leg to their destination. This could be workable with our current highways and without scaring the hell out of anyone, but it means that much of the research towards these vehicles is currently misguided. Sorry for posting a short and hollow response originally. I have been accused of doing so on the site before but my reasoning is to try to avoid giant walls of text like this. You're right in implying.l that such short and zany sounding answers don't add much to the discussion
  - yourapostasy 9y ago
    > I think its an open question how nice society will be to participant unable to retaliate. I suspect that the initial implied liability carried by the first batch of commercially sold self-driving vehicles will lead to extensive sensor logs and 360° dash cam recordings. In the event a human driver tries to game a self-driving vehicle and it causes an accident, the extensive data logging will supply far more than traffic courts and insurance companies have ordinarily dealt with before, and likely lead to new legal precedents. If the LIDAR data logging shows a human driver recklessly accelerated towards the self-driving car (presumably thinking it would get out of the way) and the path of least damage correctly chosen was to stay put because of merging cars on either side, then most attorneys and insurance companies will find it hard to challenge sub-second LIDAR data that can be reconstructed to overlay data on the video log. One potential development out of this push for self-driving vehicles that might catch us by surprise is ubiquitous, extensive data logging in vehicles, both human- and computer-driven. In order to sell the tech at a mass scale, all sorts of sensors must sell much cheaper than even today, and they won't necessarily be limited to only computer-driven cars. Like cell phone cameras made solid-state cameras and storing large amounts of photos and videos cheaper than the mass market imagined possible only 30 years ago, and now people are putting those camera sub-assemblies to use outside of cell phones.
throwaway91111 9y ago
The electorate need
espes 9y ago
Planes and trains still have human pilots because they're very cheap in comparison to operational costs.
anuragojha 9y ago
> human need for somebody to blame is stronger than market forces ... Human need for convenience is even greater than the human need to complain.
kavok 9y ago
What about security concerns? I assume self driving cars could be made to remotely shut down or report tampering. With high profile terrorist attacks using vehicles it will become attractive for safety.
- andai 9y ago
  Wait, you mean self-driving / remote control is good for security? > "We can disable the ignition but not while you're driving," Melanie Boudreau, a spokesperson at IMETRIK, a Canadian maker of starter interrupt devices that run around $100 each, told Fortune. "We don't want to kill you."
- jacquesm 9y ago
  You can also reverse that: A self driving vehicle is actually more usable for a terrorist attack because it doesn't require you to sacrifice the driver and all the gear for full remote control is already on board. It's basically a software issue to turn it into a remotely guided inertial weapon.
Steko 9y ago
They said the same thing about elevators.
tux1968 9y ago
Metro train system here in Vancouver has no human pilots and has been operating for 31 years.
- shouldbworking 9y ago
  witchcraft is illegal here in the states

BillinghamJ 9y ago

Do you have anything meaningful to back up your point? Any sources? Anyone else who agrees?

andai 9y ago
I agree!
mrbabbage 9y ago
On the train point, humans have operated fully automatic rail systems for nearly fifty years (the London Underground Victoria Line opened in 1968; BART in San Francisco is similarly automated and open in 1972). The first unattended train to my knowledge, the Vancouver SkyTrain, didn't open til 1985, or 17 years later. My interpretation: it took a while—17 years—for people to warm up to driverless trains on fixed routes with no at-grade intersections.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Also in Japan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12tb1p_NEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m12tb1p_NEM
- adolph 9y ago
  Also Dallas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFW_Skylink https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFW_Skylink
- linkregister 9y ago
  Who is the person who sits at the front of the BART train? That isn't the operator?
  - pvg 9y ago
    It is. What they spend most of their time operating are the doors, though.
    - gyc 9y ago
      Although it wasn't that long ago when BART workers went on strike, replacement workers (former BART operators) stepped in to operate the trains, and then promptly ran over and killed two workers performing track maintenance.
      - pvg 9y ago
        It also didn't really have anything to do with the train operators. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Responds-to-NTSB-Report-on-Accident-That-Killed-2-Workers-299797051.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/BART-Responds-to-NTSB-R...
shouldbworking 9y ago
There's not really studies on the subject. The need for a human to be in control of machines that carry other humans seems to be an innate human trait from my perspective. Humans have proven themselves to be mentally flexible by, for example, training themselves not to have a fear of snakes which is believed to be an innate fear of primates, speculatively including humans. This means humans could possibly overcome the fear of being in a fast moving vehicle without human control, but I would argue that the self discipline needed to train our entire population not to fear these vehicles would be enough of an obstacle that they will never be realized. There's also the human factor at play. For a long while humans and robots will be sharing the road, and as soon as human drivers learn that the robots will avoid collisions at all costs they will start abusing machine controlled vehicles. A human will reach a point where they say "Well, fuck it just run into me then" but it would be unethical to program a machine with the same logic. Other humans know they can't fuck with people too much or they risk a confrontation. I think its an open question how nice society will be to participant unable to retaliate. A more realistic path for self driving vehicles is special segregated lanes on highways. This is already done for HOV vehicles so much of the infastructure and design is already in place. Self driving transports would use these lanes connect between hubs where the vehicles are brought under human control for the short and more chaotic final leg to their destination. This could be workable with our current highways and without scaring the hell out of anyone, but it means that much of the research towards these vehicles is currently misguided. Sorry for posting a short and hollow response originally. I have been accused of doing so on the site before but my reasoning is to try to avoid giant walls of text like this. You're right in implying.l that such short and zany sounding answers don't add much to the discussion
- yourapostasy 9y ago
  > I think its an open question how nice society will be to participant unable to retaliate. I suspect that the initial implied liability carried by the first batch of commercially sold self-driving vehicles will lead to extensive sensor logs and 360° dash cam recordings. In the event a human driver tries to game a self-driving vehicle and it causes an accident, the extensive data logging will supply far more than traffic courts and insurance companies have ordinarily dealt with before, and likely lead to new legal precedents. If the LIDAR data logging shows a human driver recklessly accelerated towards the self-driving car (presumably thinking it would get out of the way) and the path of least damage correctly chosen was to stay put because of merging cars on either side, then most attorneys and insurance companies will find it hard to challenge sub-second LIDAR data that can be reconstructed to overlay data on the video log. One potential development out of this push for self-driving vehicles that might catch us by surprise is ubiquitous, extensive data logging in vehicles, both human- and computer-driven. In order to sell the tech at a mass scale, all sorts of sensors must sell much cheaper than even today, and they won't necessarily be limited to only computer-driven cars. Like cell phone cameras made solid-state cameras and storing large amounts of photos and videos cheaper than the mass market imagined possible only 30 years ago, and now people are putting those camera sub-assemblies to use outside of cell phones.

throwaway91111 9y ago

The electorate need

espes 9y ago

Planes and trains still have human pilots because they're very cheap in comparison to operational costs.

anuragojha 9y ago

> human need for somebody to blame is stronger than market forces ... Human need for convenience is even greater than the human need to complain.

kavok 9y ago

What about security concerns? I assume self driving cars could be made to remotely shut down or report tampering. With high profile terrorist attacks using vehicles it will become attractive for safety.

andai 9y ago
Wait, you mean self-driving / remote control is good for security? > "We can disable the ignition but not while you're driving," Melanie Boudreau, a spokesperson at IMETRIK, a Canadian maker of starter interrupt devices that run around $100 each, told Fortune. "We don't want to kill you."
jacquesm 9y ago
You can also reverse that: A self driving vehicle is actually more usable for a terrorist attack because it doesn't require you to sacrifice the driver and all the gear for full remote control is already on board. It's basically a software issue to turn it into a remotely guided inertial weapon.

Steko 9y ago

They said the same thing about elevators.

tux1968 9y ago

Metro train system here in Vancouver has no human pilots and has been operating for 31 years.

shouldbworking 9y ago
witchcraft is illegal here in the states