5 ms·

> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The reality is lots of people die on the road and the numbers show this sad fact. Now the reality is som

by jussij 7y ago

> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The reality is lots of people die on the road and the numbers show this sad fact. Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. The sooner we can take away that human element from driving the better, because that one act will end up saving lots of lives. > Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again That is so untrue, at least for what happens here in Australia. Here in Australia we have many hundreds in not thousands of repeat drink driving, speeding offenders on the roads, and short of locking them up there is no way to keep them off the roads. Taking away their license makes no difference as they just drive without a license.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
>Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. That's way fewer
- jussij 7y ago
  This seems like a very circular argument. The argument in this thread seems to suggest we should be slow at adopting av technology because it could kill some innocent people. Now I accept that point as a fact. There is no doubt people will die in av cars just like people die in cars today. Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number.
  - AdieuToLogic 7y ago
    > Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number. Speaking for no one other than myself, vehicular deaths are not "acceptable collateral damage" so much as a statistical inevitability, one sought to be minimized as much as possible. The problem with introducing autonomous vehicle technology, again IMHO, is the assumption that it "would help to greatly reduce that number." This is not a known result.
    - jussij 7y ago
      > This is not a known result. And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get answered. But logic suggests they would help only because, with the exceptions of bugs in the system, the av: . would not drive drunk . would not speed . would not run red lights . would not get tired . has better reaction times than humans . has better eyesight than humans . is not distracted by mobile phones, passengers or pretty girls/guys walking on the foot path . is not susceptible to road rage . etc etc.
      - AdieuToLogic 7y ago
        >> This is not a known result. > And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get answered. Exactly. Which is why it is imperative the engineering community does not assume outcomes beforehand. Much of the concerns you list I agree are likely benefits, with the "not drive drunk", "not get tired", and "not susceptible to road rage" items being a near certainty due to eliminating biological aspects. What autonomous vehicles might not be better at could be: . snow . black ice . mud . severe thunderstorms . able to operate in high dust environments . adapting to rapid unexpected operating conditions . when to run a red light (emergencies, external threats, some combination of conditions above) Are these edge conditions? Maybe. Or you could call them functional requirements not often discussed. All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to general-purpose driving than what can be shown in a limited setting. IOW, show me an autonomous vehicle which can complete the Paris-Dakar Rally[0] and I'll show you someone who will say it's time for people to stop driving ;-). 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally EDIT: formatting
        mapcars 7y ago
        Humans learned to drive for years, initially, we will be better, but as time goes there is no chance against an automated solution. The whole industrialization process is just this and there were problems and bad things happened, but it works in the end.
      - majewsky 7y ago
blub 7y ago
Wishful thinking rears its ugly head again. You can't possibly think that drunk drivers and those driving without a license are the target market for self-driving cars.
- jussij 7y ago
  > You can't possibly think that drunk drivers and those driving without a license are the target market for self-driving cars. You are correct, I don't think that. That group just represents a small subset of the drivers that present a danger on the roads today. Now since you asked, I would say the real target market for self-driving cars is big business. They are the ones pushing hard for this technology, not for the safety aspects that I have focused on, but instead for the cost savings this technology will bring to their bottom line.

by jussij 7y ago

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

>Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their own. They die at the hands of the other driver. That's way fewer

jussij 7y ago
This seems like a very circular argument. The argument in this thread seems to suggest we should be slow at adopting av technology because it could kill some innocent people. Now I accept that point as a fact. There is no doubt people will die in av cars just like people die in cars today. Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number.
- AdieuToLogic 7y ago
  > Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would help to greatly reduce that number. Speaking for no one other than myself, vehicular deaths are not "acceptable collateral damage" so much as a statistical inevitability, one sought to be minimized as much as possible. The problem with introducing autonomous vehicle technology, again IMHO, is the assumption that it "would help to greatly reduce that number." This is not a known result.
  - jussij 7y ago
    > This is not a known result. And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get answered. But logic suggests they would help only because, with the exceptions of bugs in the system, the av: . would not drive drunk . would not speed . would not run red lights . would not get tired . has better reaction times than humans . has better eyesight than humans . is not distracted by mobile phones, passengers or pretty girls/guys walking on the foot path . is not susceptible to road rage . etc etc.
    - AdieuToLogic 7y ago
      >> This is not a known result. > And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get answered. Exactly. Which is why it is imperative the engineering community does not assume outcomes beforehand. Much of the concerns you list I agree are likely benefits, with the "not drive drunk", "not get tired", and "not susceptible to road rage" items being a near certainty due to eliminating biological aspects. What autonomous vehicles might not be better at could be: . snow . black ice . mud . severe thunderstorms . able to operate in high dust environments . adapting to rapid unexpected operating conditions . when to run a red light (emergencies, external threats, some combination of conditions above) Are these edge conditions? Maybe. Or you could call them functional requirements not often discussed. All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to general-purpose driving than what can be shown in a limited setting. IOW, show me an autonomous vehicle which can complete the Paris-Dakar Rally[0] and I'll show you someone who will say it's time for people to stop driving ;-). 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally EDIT: formatting
      - mapcars 7y ago
        Humans learned to drive for years, initially, we will be better, but as time goes there is no chance against an automated solution. The whole industrialization process is just this and there were problems and bad things happened, but it works in the end.
    - majewsky 7y ago

blub 7y ago

Wishful thinking rears its ugly head again. You can't possibly think that drunk drivers and those driving without a license are the target market for self-driving cars.

jussij 7y ago
> You can't possibly think that drunk drivers and those driving without a license are the target market for self-driving cars. You are correct, I don't think that. That group just represents a small subset of the drivers that present a danger on the roads today. Now since you asked, I would say the real target market for self-driving cars is big business. They are the ones pushing hard for this technology, not for the safety aspects that I have focused on, but instead for the cost savings this technology will bring to their bottom line.