5 ms·

I'm getting tired of saying this. Why is it one or the other? Why only a human driver or a robot driver? Could you have a human driver in charge with an accide

I'm getting tired of saying this. Why is it one or the other? Why only a human driver or a robot driver? Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? If the human falls asleep, the robot can do trivial driving, and the human still makes the more difficult driving decisions. The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future.

gthtjtkt 7y ago
> Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? We already have this and we've had it for years. What do you think automatic emergency braking is? Adaptive cruise control? Lane keeping assist? > The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future. No clue what you're trying to say here. Driver assist features don't improve safety?
- rohit2412 7y ago
  So call them driver assists. I am tired of seeing driver assists being sold as driverless systems.
  - SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
    Do you think people buying cars with autopilot believe they are getting fully driverless systems?
    - rohit2412 7y ago
      People buying current cars were just told that their cars will earn them 30k$ a year. Is fsd driver assistance or driverless?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - eanzenberg 7y ago
      yes
CamperBob2 7y ago
Human drivers already space out, check their Facebook, text their friends, and otherwise lose track of what's going on without having cars that claim to do most of the driving autonomously. The more autonomy you add, the more drivers will take advantage of the opportunity to do something behind the wheel besides drive. Autonomous cars are one of those things that really need to be done right or not at all. The notion that human drivers will be ready and able to take control at a moment's notice is nothing short of laughable. IMO, about the only way partial self-driving cars can work would be to delegate it to a remote building full of 'drone drivers' somewhere. Heck, I'd pay for that today, just out of laziness.
throwaway34241 7y ago
Sure, the way I'm imagining it is some sort of collision avoidance system, where the person drives but the computer can also put on the brake? It seems like that could be safer (although it could still cause an accident by braking in certain situations like in an intersection). If the self-driving system does other things to reduce accidents like leaving greater margins of safety for other drivers (by stopping less suddenly, pulling out into intersections differently, etc), it seems like that would be harder to integrate with a human driving, instead of having the self driving system take over. A lot of the utility of self driving cars is not just increased safety. It's allowing disabled people to be more independent, reducing the need for car ownership with (less expensive) self-driving taxis, reducing the need for parking lots and allowing that land to be used differently, etc. Do you think self driving cars should be prohibited as long as they are less safe than the standard set by human+collision avoidance cars? I don't think that makes sense unless cars with human drivers and no collision avoidance are also prohibited. Even then I'm not sure. As a society we know that driving is not totally safe but allow people to drive anyway because it's a useful tool. I don't see why the safety standard should be even higher for self-driving cars, which are even more useful, especially for people who can't drive. One last thing is that anything that slows the adoption of self-driving cars will probably lead to a much greater number of old, less-safe, cars in use for a longer period of time, since it's very unlikely politically that the existing car stock will be just kicked off the road, regardless of what regulations are set for new ones.
- rohit2412 7y ago
  > Do you think self driving cars should be prohibited as long as they are less safe than the standard set by human+collision avoidance cars? If having a human in the car reduces the accident rate, then I propose making it necessary for the human to be in the car. Are you advocating that we make roads unsafe so that disabled people be able to take taxis more? > I don't see why the safety standard should be even higher for self-driving cars. I see it as the opposite. The advocates for driverless cars are advocating lowering standards. For me the standard is simple. If the same car is as safe driving itself as it is assisting a human driving it, then it can drive itself. You can only remove the human if the human adds no safety in the same car. Please do not compare to "the average car on the road". I see there are positive externalities to cheaper taxis. There are really negative externalities too, in terms of traffic, urban sprawl, and carbon emissions. But I don't think we should deviate from the topic of safety for those externalities
chris1993 7y ago
This basically describes the Toyota Guardian system
shafyy 7y ago
Watch Lex Fridman's interview with Musk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI), where they discuss exactly this topic. Basically, Musk's point is that if self-driving cars are statistically safer than humans, then allowing humans to drive will make cars less safe again. Furthermore (regarding some other children here), the study that Lex and his team has done show that drivers are not less engaged while Autopilot is on (as many critics say).
- rohit2412 7y ago
  > if self-driving cars are statistically safer than humans, then allowing humans to drive will make cars less safe again. You mean "if driverless cars are statistically safer than humans". It shouldn't be a surprise that driver assistance decrease accidents. But Autopilot isn't a driverless system, and neither is there satisfactory proof that it is safer than a human.
MarkMc 7y ago
> Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? I'm not sure that human+robot would be better than robot alone. Eg. The human is in control and starts moving close to the adjacent lane without indicating. Does the robot (a) assume the human driver is changing lanes and so turns on the indicator light; (b) take control of the car and move it back to the center of the current lane; (c) do nothing and let the driver change lanes without indicating? The ambiguity in the human driver's intentions means the robot might make a decision that is less safe than if it was in complete control.
- rohit2412 7y ago
  That's a fair argument to hold, that's why I limited the robot to only intervene when accident is imminent.
AsyncAwait 7y ago
Not that it's relevant, but as someone who can't drive due to a disability, nothing short of Level 5 autonomy basically doesn't change the calculus for me at all.

gthtjtkt 7y ago

> Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? We already have this and we've had it for years. What do you think automatic emergency braking is? Adaptive cruise control? Lane keeping assist? > The question isn't if robot car is better than an average car being driven by a human. It's if the same robot car would be safer if the human was driving it, and the robot in accident prevention mode. And I don't think that is going to be true in any near future. No clue what you're trying to say here. Driver assist features don't improve safety?

rohit2412 7y ago
So call them driver assists. I am tired of seeing driver assists being sold as driverless systems.
- SheinhardtWigCo 7y ago
  Do you think people buying cars with autopilot believe they are getting fully driverless systems?
  - rohit2412 7y ago
    People buying current cars were just told that their cars will earn them 30k$ a year. Is fsd driver assistance or driverless?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    yes

CamperBob2 7y ago

Human drivers already space out, check their Facebook, text their friends, and otherwise lose track of what's going on without having cars that claim to do most of the driving autonomously. The more autonomy you add, the more drivers will take advantage of the opportunity to do something behind the wheel besides drive. Autonomous cars are one of those things that really need to be done right or not at all. The notion that human drivers will be ready and able to take control at a moment's notice is nothing short of laughable. IMO, about the only way partial self-driving cars can work would be to delegate it to a remote building full of 'drone drivers' somewhere. Heck, I'd pay for that today, just out of laziness.

throwaway34241 7y ago

Sure, the way I'm imagining it is some sort of collision avoidance system, where the person drives but the computer can also put on the brake? It seems like that could be safer (although it could still cause an accident by braking in certain situations like in an intersection). If the self-driving system does other things to reduce accidents like leaving greater margins of safety for other drivers (by stopping less suddenly, pulling out into intersections differently, etc), it seems like that would be harder to integrate with a human driving, instead of having the self driving system take over. A lot of the utility of self driving cars is not just increased safety. It's allowing disabled people to be more independent, reducing the need for car ownership with (less expensive) self-driving taxis, reducing the need for parking lots and allowing that land to be used differently, etc. Do you think self driving cars should be prohibited as long as they are less safe than the standard set by human+collision avoidance cars? I don't think that makes sense unless cars with human drivers and no collision avoidance are also prohibited. Even then I'm not sure. As a society we know that driving is not totally safe but allow people to drive anyway because it's a useful tool. I don't see why the safety standard should be even higher for self-driving cars, which are even more useful, especially for people who can't drive. One last thing is that anything that slows the adoption of self-driving cars will probably lead to a much greater number of old, less-safe, cars in use for a longer period of time, since it's very unlikely politically that the existing car stock will be just kicked off the road, regardless of what regulations are set for new ones.

rohit2412 7y ago
> Do you think self driving cars should be prohibited as long as they are less safe than the standard set by human+collision avoidance cars? If having a human in the car reduces the accident rate, then I propose making it necessary for the human to be in the car. Are you advocating that we make roads unsafe so that disabled people be able to take taxis more? > I don't see why the safety standard should be even higher for self-driving cars. I see it as the opposite. The advocates for driverless cars are advocating lowering standards. For me the standard is simple. If the same car is as safe driving itself as it is assisting a human driving it, then it can drive itself. You can only remove the human if the human adds no safety in the same car. Please do not compare to "the average car on the road". I see there are positive externalities to cheaper taxis. There are really negative externalities too, in terms of traffic, urban sprawl, and carbon emissions. But I don't think we should deviate from the topic of safety for those externalities

chris1993 7y ago

This basically describes the Toyota Guardian system

shafyy 7y ago

Watch Lex Fridman's interview with Musk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEv99vxKjVI), where they discuss exactly this topic. Basically, Musk's point is that if self-driving cars are statistically safer than humans, then allowing humans to drive will make cars less safe again. Furthermore (regarding some other children here), the study that Lex and his team has done show that drivers are not less engaged while Autopilot is on (as many critics say).

rohit2412 7y ago
> if self-driving cars are statistically safer than humans, then allowing humans to drive will make cars less safe again. You mean "if driverless cars are statistically safer than humans". It shouldn't be a surprise that driver assistance decrease accidents. But Autopilot isn't a driverless system, and neither is there satisfactory proof that it is safer than a human.

MarkMc 7y ago

> Could you have a human driver in charge with an accident preventing robot, getting the best of both worlds? I'm not sure that human+robot would be better than robot alone. Eg. The human is in control and starts moving close to the adjacent lane without indicating. Does the robot (a) assume the human driver is changing lanes and so turns on the indicator light; (b) take control of the car and move it back to the center of the current lane; (c) do nothing and let the driver change lanes without indicating? The ambiguity in the human driver's intentions means the robot might make a decision that is less safe than if it was in complete control.

rohit2412 7y ago
That's a fair argument to hold, that's why I limited the robot to only intervene when accident is imminent.

AsyncAwait 7y ago

Not that it's relevant, but as someone who can't drive due to a disability, nothing short of Level 5 autonomy basically doesn't change the calculus for me at all.