15 ms·
No surprises there. The transition to driverless cars is (IMHO inevitable. At some point it will be cheap enough that the additional cost will pale in comparis
by cletus 15y ago
No surprises there.
The transition to driverless cars is (IMHO inevitable. At some point it will be cheap enough that the additional cost will pale in comparison to the lives that will be saved as well as the simple convenience of being able to do something else while commuting somewhere.
Likewise I see this kind of thing replacing many forms of public transportation. There will simply be a fleet of cars. You'll say where you want to go and some system will route people and cars to destinations.
But, the transition won't be quick or easy. You need look no further than the aviation industry to see why.
Basically, automation in modern aircraft is a double-edged sword. It seems to erode the ability of pilots to actually fly [1], software errors causing deaths [2] and (I can't find the link to this) I also read a study that in more automated planes, pilots are more likely to believe erroneous instruments rather than their own senses and experience.
The issue won't be how the car normally behaves because as demonstrations have shown, current systems require very little human intervention.
The issue will be extraordinary circumstances plus the huge liability problem of any errors.
Example: if someone runs a red light and causes a crash, killing someone, that person is responsible. If an automated car does the same thing, the manufacturer will be responsible.
That alone will impede adoption.
Instead I think you'll have what we already have: slowly adding automation to cars. Cars already have radars and can stop themselves from colliding, they can park themselves and so on.
But at some point the driver will need to go away and that will be a tremendously challenging leap forward for society.
[1]: http://www.tourismandaviation.com/news-4530--Pilot_Reliance_on_Automation_Erodes_Skills_ http://www.tourismandaviation.com/news-4530--Pilot_Reliance_...
[2]: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/8.77.html#subj6 http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/8.77.html#subj6
- fleitz 15y ago"pilots are more likely to believe erroneous instruments rather than their own senses and experience." The human brain is not setup for 3D dimensions of orientation, unless you can accurately see the horizon it's more than likely that your perception of the planes orientation and vector is wrong than the instruments. In most turbulent situations the brain is wrong and the instruments are right. This is why pilots are trained to fly on instruments only. On most planes the instrumentation system actively and accurately informs pilots that their instruments are broken when they are in such a state.
- nazgulnarsil 15y agoit's not just the human brain. certain g-loads at certain vectors can cause a situation where 2 different scenarios are indistinguishable without outside reference. Illustrated most famously in Einstein's elevator thought experiments.
- blakeweb 15y agoCould you explain what you mean? My understanding was that Attitude indicators solved this problem using a gyroscope a long time ago. Maybe this falls into what you meant by an "outside reference", but it seems to me autopilots would clearly take these measurements into account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicator
- nazgulnarsil 15y agoit does, they can fail. humans can fail at assessing relevant information as well.
- jerf 15y agoPeople generally cite the lawsuit threat, but the threat cuts both ways. I've seen lawsuits for putatively malfunctioning anti-lock brakes, and I've seen lawsuits for not including anti-lock brakes. At some point, once it is reasonably well demonstrated that automated cars drive more safely than humans under some circumstances, someone is going to file a lawsuit for not having automated drivers. It's only a matter of time. That's when it really gets legally interesting. Note I said "interesting", not "the beginning of the inevitable victory". I say "interesting" because I think we can pretty much all agree how this plays out until that happens, but I can't see past that event.
- fleitz 15y agoYup, I forsee the current seat belt system, where even in situations when it's advisable not to be wearing a seatbelt and/or the other mandated safety systems it's still illegal. The problem is a systemic one that stems from the belief that the gov't is the omnipresent nanny of its citizenry. Note: Before I get downvoted, I recognize that statistically seat belts save lives, however, there are conditions in which seatbelts cause fatalities (even when used properly), and that the choice of whether to wear or not wear one should be that of informed consent.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y agoThe nanny state is what you get when you involve government in issues of health insurance and its kin. The laws and regulations then turn towards cost reduction along with "taxes" to discourage higher health costs. We only have the cigarette laws, seatbelt laws, and other 'endanger self only' actions that are regulated.
- eru 15y agoAs a non-smoker I like smoking bans, since smoking affects me as a by-stander, too. I would also be OK with people injecting heroin instead of smoking---anything that doesn't stink.
- 15y ago
- JoeCortopassi 15y agoI couldn't get past the (unclosed parenthese in the second sentence. It's like my inner programmer went into OCD overload...
- jacques_chester 15y agoI couldn't get past the use of "parenthese"[] as a singular noun in the first sentence. It's like my inner pedant went into OCD overload. 1:Parenthesis :: >1:Parentheses
- jacques_chester 15y ago... hoist on my own petard.
- JoeCortopassi 15y agotouche
- mryall 15y agohttp://xkcd.com/859/ http://xkcd.com/859/