13 ms·

It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars. Driving manually should be illegal unless done on a race track.

by amichail 15y ago

ghurlman 15y ago
As a developer, you should know better than that.
- amichail 15y ago
  As a human, you should know the limits of the human brain. Driving is a task best suited for computers. In a few decades, people will look back with amazement at the crazy risks people took by driving manually.
  - z0r 15y ago
    Perhaps in a few decades more, people will look back in amazement at the wastefulness of suburban sprawl as well designed urban centers and public mass-transit replaces the need for automobiles? (In the same spirit as your prediction!)
  - sipior 15y ago
    Amazement, and a wistful longing for a simple freedom enjoyed in the distant, halcyon past. Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. I think the leading cause of death in "a few decades" will be profound boredom. (Also, whilst a computer may indeed be well-suited to drive my car as a matter of principle, there is still the small matter of it being programmed by humans...)
    - swombat 15y ago
      Deadly car accidents aren't the actions of "a few". Anyone can cause one through inattentive driving, tiredness, mobile phone usage, and of course simple lack of experience. The other tragic thing about car accidents is that your mistakes can kill not only yourself, but also many other people. You might argue (though I'd disagree) that someone who's been driving for 10 hours straight deserves to die in an accident, but you certainly can't argue that the family of 5 that he crashed into head-on deserved it too. To suggest these countless people need to die to satisfy your need for thrills is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age.
      - speckledjim 15y ago
        The car has certainly done far far far more good than bad. That's why we put up with the downside (a few deaths a day). The issue is that there's a small minority of bad drivers who cause accidents. Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society.
        Goronmon 15y ago
        Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society. You can't expect a 'freedom' to exist in perpetuity for something that can easily result in the deaths of others by the actions of one person. I'd put it in the same category as things like not allowing people to smoke in workplaces, public buildings, etc, or allowing people to shoot firearms in the backyards of their suburban homes. I just don't see there being a 'freedom to manually control tons of metal for the purposes of transportation' trumping the immense amount of benefits to safety, among others.
        speckledjim 15y ago
        We have umpteen checks to ensure drivers are as safe as they can be. Deaths in the US from driving have come down from around 120 a day in 2000 to around 90 a day now. In the UK, it's about 8 deaths a day from driving. The road network is now eight times safer per mile travelled than it was in 1966. Just for comparison, around 400+ people die each day in the UK from cancer. Instead of wasting a ton of money making robotic driverless cars because it sounds good, I'd invest that money straight into cancer research.
        Goronmon 15y ago
        Why waste a ton of money on cancer research that has a good chance of saving no lives, when you can invest money into driverless vehicles that are guaranteed to save lives?
        15y ago
    - lemmsjid 15y ago
      People found ways to not be bored in the millions of years before the invention of the automobile. The thrill of riding a horse. The thrill of running when you're fit. Personally, I find driving to be the definition of boring. The distant, halcyon past is the brief decades (out of the entirety of human history) where we were able to live under the illusion that we could build a road system that would handle the burgeoning amount of traffic without gridlock.
      - sipior 15y ago
        I'll take you at your word regarding your examples of "thrills", although I would note that the horse is probably less impressed :-) I'm not sure about your last point. Enormous strides have been made in designing road networks that are far more tolerant of heavy loads. But gridlock is also in some sense a social problem, and so a purely technological or algorithmic solution is perhaps unrealistic.
    - orangecat 15y ago
      Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. In general, driving is not a source of fun and excitement. In fact, commute times are strongly and negatively associated with self-reported happiness.
      - sipior 15y ago
        People drive for reasons other than commuting, of course. I happen to like driving (especially since I learned to drive a manual). I'm sorry if you don't. Your last point is certainly true. I used to commute to work via a combination of bike and train; getting a car cut my commute in half, and I am decidedly happier for it.
    - ugh 15y ago
      If you want to have fun, go drive on a racing track. Don’t endanger commuters who have no choice but to drive.
      - sipior 15y ago
        Having fun whilst driving is not actually incompatible with road safety, and I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be suggesting that it is. The cause of this horrible accident certainly wasn't an excess of (driving) enjoyment.
        ugh 15y ago
        Humans suck at driving. As soon as we have the technology we should let machines do it. I’m willing to bet that there will be ample opportunities for those who are willing to take the risk to drive without endangering others.
        modeless 15y ago
        He's not suggesting that having fun while driving is incompatible with road safety. He's suggesting that a world of mandatory robot drivers on public roads doesn't preclude having fun while driving.
  - abduhl 15y ago
    And how will you program your car's computer to deal with situations that humans react to instinctively by thinking about context? The most obvious one that comes to mind is the familiar question: "What follows a ball?" While you can program the answer ("A child"), can you reliably say that your car will recognize a ball? What about a soccer ball? A basketball? A golf ball? A football? Driving is one of the activities that humans engage in that requires true cognizance and awareness. The idea that a computer is "best suited" for driving is laughable until we start using cars where situational awareness and context no longer matters (let's get to work on those flying cars).
    - Cushman 15y ago
      I can reliably say that a robotic car will stop for unexpected objects in the roadway it detects with radar, visible and infrared light 100% of the time that it is physically possible, regardless of traffic, lighting or mood. What's your hit rate on that? You're giving "human instinct" a whole lot of undeserved credit here.
      - darklajid 15y ago
        The long tail.. Your car brakes. As hard as it can. Because - you know - there's a dove on the street. Or - god forbid. I have cats, so let me take a dog as an example - a bigger animal. Or a hare. Or - whatever. It might even _be_ a kid - see below for why. let's just say you avoid to hit - something. You agree that this - doesn't make sense all the time (You SAVED a hedgedog. Grats!) - only works if the cars behind you (extrapolating: ALL other cars) handle just as quick and automatic as well? No 'rollout', you need to require it for each and every car if this should make sense.
        trobertson 15y ago
        > only works if the cars behind you (extrapolating: ALL other cars) handle just as quick and automatic as well? No 'rollout', you need to require it for each and every car if this should make sense. Better a fender bender than a dead kid. Human reaction time hovers at about .2 seconds, last I heard. Machines have much better reaction times. I would place far more trust in a self-braking car than in a human-braking car. Furthermore, a machine is always watching the road. What percentage of the time do you think the average driver is watching the road, scanning for dangers, taking note of other cars and obstacles in the vicinity? I would wager that it's less than 60% of the time, though I admit that I don't have numbers to back that up. > (You SAVED a hedgedog. Grats!) Hitting animals can inflict significant damage to a car. Just putting that out there.
- andywood 15y ago
  Just remember, it isn't a matter of whether self-driving cars ever fail. They only have to do better than the current, abysmal ~3,000 fatalities per day.
  - sipior 15y ago
    That's certainly a fair point. But you try explaining that to a person who lost a spouse or a child in a car crash resulting from a "glitch". Humans, for better or worse, like to have a sense of control over their own circumstances, even when that sense is almost completely illusory.
  - scythe 15y ago
    >They only have to do better than the current, abysmal ~3,000 fatalities per day. It's not 3000 fatalities per day, it's more like 150. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/aacrashdeaths.htm http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/aacrashdeaths.... Furthermore, this needs to be balanced against the potential for some seriously ugly 1984-style stuff when you give an external authority control of millions of cars. I don't understand how someone can complain about TSA regulations one day and turn around and ask for mandatory automated cars the next.
    - Jabbles 15y ago
      Worldwide ~3000 deaths per day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_c...
      - scythe 15y ago
        Fatalities are more likely in non-first-world countries without developed infrastructure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2004.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Road_traffic_accidents_wor... Conversely, I think it is reasonable to assume that the orange and red countries on the map can and will eventually look like Europe. Higher than 150, yes, but 3000 only if you count deaths from places like Iran. (there's a decreasing trend here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtion.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fra... )
ristretto 15y ago
Indeed that's what came to my mind. I mean it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility on the road when there are ways to reduce the risk. I know people will still find stupid ways to kill themselves, but at least take them out of the ubiquitous road network.
- speckledjim 15y ago
  This is like saying "N people die from food poisoning at restaurants each year. Lets ban food created by humans, and only allow food created and tested by machines". I don't really want to live in that world.
  - ristretto 15y ago
    A valid analogy would be "N people die from someone dropping her knife, the knife bouncing on the floor and stabbing a nearby fellow restaurant customer in the chest". This doesnt' happen often, so we don't really feel the need for checks there. We do have automated systems to check food quality all the way from the farm to the consumer, though.
  - sek 15y ago
    What a stupid comparison, cars can still transport you from a to b. I don't give a damn about some peoples enjoyment when people die all day on the streets. Replace driving with terrorism when you talk about casualties and personal freedom. I don't want to live in that world, but i have to unless i get hit by a drunken driver.
    - speckledjim 15y ago
      Just to put it in perspective maybe. 32,000 deaths a year from driving in US. 500,000 deaths a year from cancer in US. If it was me investing, I'd put my money into solving the cancer issue. Even if you can shave 5% off that death toll, you've already done more than eradicating cars would. The problem is driverless cars sounds like awesome fun. Solving cancer is the harder problem.
rimantas 15y ago
What a sad day it will be when driving becomes illegal for humans, I hope it is far far away. There are much cheeper ways to make car traffic safer than going automatic cars route.
- nettdata 15y ago
  And by pure coincidence I'm listening to Red Barchetta as I read your comment.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
speckledjim 15y ago
That will never happen, and I'm glad it won't.
VladRussian 15y ago
speaking about more realistic scenario. We already have air bags inside the car. Honda started to make external airbags targeted at car-to-human cases. There is no technical problem to implement external airbags for car-to-car cases. Start with mandatory front-side external airbags on heavy cars like full-size SUVs and work the way down and sideways.
watmough 15y ago
Very very sad to lose someone to such a stupid accident. As far as computer controlled cars, my instinct is to disagree with you, but living in Houston, and considering that 10%-20% of Americans are taking prescription drugs including hypnotics/sedatives (Ambien etc.), and anti-psychotics/anti-depressants (Prozac, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta etc.), it's easy to agree that perhaps, many many people just should not be driving. Or in some cases, leaving the house at all. Besides, we have computer controlled cars, just not widely available.
imajes 15y ago
Why? Plenty of people are able to drive a vehicle, and drive it well. It's the many who aren't, or choose to ignore the rules who are causing danger. The "every vehicle should be automated" line is lowest common denominator FUD. How about we start by actually applying a proper, rigorous upgrade to the new driver education from the DMV, and stop treating driving as a right, and instead a privilege? How about we improve mass transit and spend more money fixing roads (which is a bigger cause of accidents than you might imagine). What about Signage, which is over abundant and people ignore - or important signage which is entirely missing (many median lines are faded away - not repainted due to lack of funding)? And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable? The United States approach to driving is embarrassing and smacks of largesse, but for much of the country, where there is an abundance of space and empty roads, is tolerated. Accidents happen routinely in city centers and suburban areas where the laws and driving regulations are not more stricter, but often just as (if not more) relaxed. There isn't consideration given to heavy traffic, patterns of driving, preparing for exits - it's just expected that as long as you know how to steer and stop at a sign, you are qualified to drive. Computer controlled cars is a stupid argument (mostly because they are almost already there, in the full part, and certainly the car you are driving is doing more work than you are to get you to your destination). Never mind the fact that the better answer is amazing and undeniable mass transit, obviating the need for personal car ownership in densely populated areas, and a 2-3 magnitude leap in driver education to prevent such stupidity on the roads as a basic requirement to even begin to address this problem.
- abduhl 15y ago
  And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable? States have been cracking down on drunk driving for the past decade or two. If there ever was a culture where drinking and driving was "acceptable" on a state level it has long since disappeared. If you don't mind me asking, where do you currently live (you're clearly from the Queen's domain) and, if it isn't in the US, how did you get this idea that the US doesn't take drinking and driving seriously?
mootothemax 15y ago
It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars. Driving manually should be illegal unless done in a race track. I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there. The difference is: I can't control the other drivers; nor who wrote their car's controller code. When it comes to my own two hands, at least I get a say in deciding that the roads are are a bit slippery today, and that I'm consequently going to reduce the total kinetic energy involved.
- daeken 15y ago
  > I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there. I don't feel this is a good argument against self-driving cars, mandatory or not. Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design, heavy testing both automated and manual, etc. The same can't be said of snap decisions by drivers. There will absolutely still be accidents with self-driving cars -- mechanical failures, bugs in software, etc. The question is whether that number would be significantly lower than the number of accidents that happen right now, and I find it highly doubtful that it wouldn't be.
  - mootothemax 15y ago
    Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design I'm all in favour of space-shuttle levels of design, implementation and testing... but like the space shuttle, someone in management will find a way to cock it up. Now, you make a good point: will it reduce the number of deaths? Doing zero research before I go to bed, my gut instinct is that yes, it would make a difference in countries where the requirements to gain a driving license are, in effect, the ability to write and sign one's name correctly. For others... maybe, maybe not. Purely because I'm very pessimistic about how much money the car manufacturers would throw at the problem. Part of me thinks that the likes of Ford would, somewhat ironically, vastly outspend the likes of BMW.
    - daeken 15y ago
      I think the automatic car race would be really interesting. You'll have people fighting for the best safety numbers, the best comfort numbers (more smooth movements and such), etc. It would be an amazing bit of competition.
sixtofour 15y ago
With individuals self-driving, we get a certain number of unrelated accidents, injuries and fatalities. With computer controlled cars we'll have zero day hacks and crashes, viruses, and near simultaneous accidents all due to the same unpatched bug. I would never leave the house on Wednesdays in such a world.
- nowarninglabel 15y ago
  While I don't doubt there will be exploits, we already have a great deal of computer automation in vehicles, and one way they prevent potential hacks of the system is by making it one-way only. Plus, car manufacturers are actually being proactive about protection. More info: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11q2/can_your_car_be_hacked_-feature http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11q2/can_your_car_be_ha...
redthrowaway 15y ago
While we're at it, the fact that some people behave irresponsibly when drunk is clear evidence that we should ban the consumption of alcohol. What could go wrong?

It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars. Driving manually should be illegal unless done on a race track.

ghurlman 15y ago

As a developer, you should know better than that.

amichail 15y ago
As a human, you should know the limits of the human brain. Driving is a task best suited for computers. In a few decades, people will look back with amazement at the crazy risks people took by driving manually.
- z0r 15y ago
  Perhaps in a few decades more, people will look back in amazement at the wastefulness of suburban sprawl as well designed urban centers and public mass-transit replaces the need for automobiles? (In the same spirit as your prediction!)
- sipior 15y ago
  Amazement, and a wistful longing for a simple freedom enjoyed in the distant, halcyon past. Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. I think the leading cause of death in "a few decades" will be profound boredom. (Also, whilst a computer may indeed be well-suited to drive my car as a matter of principle, there is still the small matter of it being programmed by humans...)
  - swombat 15y ago
    Deadly car accidents aren't the actions of "a few". Anyone can cause one through inattentive driving, tiredness, mobile phone usage, and of course simple lack of experience. The other tragic thing about car accidents is that your mistakes can kill not only yourself, but also many other people. You might argue (though I'd disagree) that someone who's been driving for 10 hours straight deserves to die in an accident, but you certainly can't argue that the family of 5 that he crashed into head-on deserved it too. To suggest these countless people need to die to satisfy your need for thrills is somewhat like suggesting that vaccines are boring because they take away the excitement of not knowing which of your children will live to an adult age.
    - speckledjim 15y ago
      The car has certainly done far far far more good than bad. That's why we put up with the downside (a few deaths a day). The issue is that there's a small minority of bad drivers who cause accidents. Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society.
      - Goronmon 15y ago
        Removing everyones freedom to drive because of those few isn't very fair, and would result in a boring 'locked down' society. You can't expect a 'freedom' to exist in perpetuity for something that can easily result in the deaths of others by the actions of one person. I'd put it in the same category as things like not allowing people to smoke in workplaces, public buildings, etc, or allowing people to shoot firearms in the backyards of their suburban homes. I just don't see there being a 'freedom to manually control tons of metal for the purposes of transportation' trumping the immense amount of benefits to safety, among others.
        speckledjim 15y ago
        We have umpteen checks to ensure drivers are as safe as they can be. Deaths in the US from driving have come down from around 120 a day in 2000 to around 90 a day now. In the UK, it's about 8 deaths a day from driving. The road network is now eight times safer per mile travelled than it was in 1966. Just for comparison, around 400+ people die each day in the UK from cancer. Instead of wasting a ton of money making robotic driverless cars because it sounds good, I'd invest that money straight into cancer research.
        Goronmon 15y ago
        Why waste a ton of money on cancer research that has a good chance of saving no lives, when you can invest money into driverless vehicles that are guaranteed to save lives?
        15y ago
  - lemmsjid 15y ago
    People found ways to not be bored in the millions of years before the invention of the automobile. The thrill of riding a horse. The thrill of running when you're fit. Personally, I find driving to be the definition of boring. The distant, halcyon past is the brief decades (out of the entirety of human history) where we were able to live under the illusion that we could build a road system that would handle the burgeoning amount of traffic without gridlock.
    - sipior 15y ago
      I'll take you at your word regarding your examples of "thrills", although I would note that the horse is probably less impressed :-) I'm not sure about your last point. Enormous strides have been made in designing road networks that are far more tolerant of heavy loads. But gridlock is also in some sense a social problem, and so a purely technological or algorithmic solution is perhaps unrealistic.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    Before nervous, frightened people in denial of their own conspicuous mortality decided to remove yet another source of fun and excitement because of the irresponsible actions of a few. In general, driving is not a source of fun and excitement. In fact, commute times are strongly and negatively associated with self-reported happiness.
    - sipior 15y ago
      People drive for reasons other than commuting, of course. I happen to like driving (especially since I learned to drive a manual). I'm sorry if you don't. Your last point is certainly true. I used to commute to work via a combination of bike and train; getting a car cut my commute in half, and I am decidedly happier for it.
  - ugh 15y ago
    If you want to have fun, go drive on a racing track. Don’t endanger commuters who have no choice but to drive.
    - sipior 15y ago
      Having fun whilst driving is not actually incompatible with road safety, and I'm not entirely sure why you seem to be suggesting that it is. The cause of this horrible accident certainly wasn't an excess of (driving) enjoyment.
      - ugh 15y ago
        Humans suck at driving. As soon as we have the technology we should let machines do it. I’m willing to bet that there will be ample opportunities for those who are willing to take the risk to drive without endangering others.
      - modeless 15y ago
        He's not suggesting that having fun while driving is incompatible with road safety. He's suggesting that a world of mandatory robot drivers on public roads doesn't preclude having fun while driving.
- abduhl 15y ago
  And how will you program your car's computer to deal with situations that humans react to instinctively by thinking about context? The most obvious one that comes to mind is the familiar question: "What follows a ball?" While you can program the answer ("A child"), can you reliably say that your car will recognize a ball? What about a soccer ball? A basketball? A golf ball? A football? Driving is one of the activities that humans engage in that requires true cognizance and awareness. The idea that a computer is "best suited" for driving is laughable until we start using cars where situational awareness and context no longer matters (let's get to work on those flying cars).
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I can reliably say that a robotic car will stop for unexpected objects in the roadway it detects with radar, visible and infrared light 100% of the time that it is physically possible, regardless of traffic, lighting or mood. What's your hit rate on that? You're giving "human instinct" a whole lot of undeserved credit here.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      The long tail.. Your car brakes. As hard as it can. Because - you know - there's a dove on the street. Or - god forbid. I have cats, so let me take a dog as an example - a bigger animal. Or a hare. Or - whatever. It might even _be_ a kid - see below for why. let's just say you avoid to hit - something. You agree that this - doesn't make sense all the time (You SAVED a hedgedog. Grats!) - only works if the cars behind you (extrapolating: ALL other cars) handle just as quick and automatic as well? No 'rollout', you need to require it for each and every car if this should make sense.
      - trobertson 15y ago
        > only works if the cars behind you (extrapolating: ALL other cars) handle just as quick and automatic as well? No 'rollout', you need to require it for each and every car if this should make sense. Better a fender bender than a dead kid. Human reaction time hovers at about .2 seconds, last I heard. Machines have much better reaction times. I would place far more trust in a self-braking car than in a human-braking car. Furthermore, a machine is always watching the road. What percentage of the time do you think the average driver is watching the road, scanning for dangers, taking note of other cars and obstacles in the vicinity? I would wager that it's less than 60% of the time, though I admit that I don't have numbers to back that up. > (You SAVED a hedgedog. Grats!) Hitting animals can inflict significant damage to a car. Just putting that out there.
andywood 15y ago
Just remember, it isn't a matter of whether self-driving cars ever fail. They only have to do better than the current, abysmal ~3,000 fatalities per day.
- sipior 15y ago
  That's certainly a fair point. But you try explaining that to a person who lost a spouse or a child in a car crash resulting from a "glitch". Humans, for better or worse, like to have a sense of control over their own circumstances, even when that sense is almost completely illusory.
- scythe 15y ago
  >They only have to do better than the current, abysmal ~3,000 fatalities per day. It's not 3000 fatalities per day, it's more like 150. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/aacrashdeaths.htm http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/aacrashdeaths.... Furthermore, this needs to be balanced against the potential for some seriously ugly 1984-style stuff when you give an external authority control of millions of cars. I don't understand how someone can complain about TSA regulations one day and turn around and ask for mandatory automated cars the next.
  - Jabbles 15y ago
    Worldwide ~3000 deaths per day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_c...
    - scythe 15y ago
      Fatalities are more likely in non-first-world countries without developed infrastructure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Road_traffic_accidents_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2004.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Road_traffic_accidents_wor... Conversely, I think it is reasonable to assume that the orange and red countries on the map can and will eventually look like Europe. Higher than 150, yes, but 3000 only if you count deaths from places like Iran. (there's a decreasing trend here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtion.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fra... )

ristretto 15y ago

Indeed that's what came to my mind. I mean it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility on the road when there are ways to reduce the risk. I know people will still find stupid ways to kill themselves, but at least take them out of the ubiquitous road network.

speckledjim 15y ago
This is like saying "N people die from food poisoning at restaurants each year. Lets ban food created by humans, and only allow food created and tested by machines". I don't really want to live in that world.
- ristretto 15y ago
  A valid analogy would be "N people die from someone dropping her knife, the knife bouncing on the floor and stabbing a nearby fellow restaurant customer in the chest". This doesnt' happen often, so we don't really feel the need for checks there. We do have automated systems to check food quality all the way from the farm to the consumer, though.
- sek 15y ago
  What a stupid comparison, cars can still transport you from a to b. I don't give a damn about some peoples enjoyment when people die all day on the streets. Replace driving with terrorism when you talk about casualties and personal freedom. I don't want to live in that world, but i have to unless i get hit by a drunken driver.
  - speckledjim 15y ago
    Just to put it in perspective maybe. 32,000 deaths a year from driving in US. 500,000 deaths a year from cancer in US. If it was me investing, I'd put my money into solving the cancer issue. Even if you can shave 5% off that death toll, you've already done more than eradicating cars would. The problem is driverless cars sounds like awesome fun. Solving cancer is the harder problem.

rimantas 15y ago

What a sad day it will be when driving becomes illegal for humans, I hope it is far far away. There are much cheeper ways to make car traffic safer than going automatic cars route.

nettdata 15y ago
And by pure coincidence I'm listening to Red Barchetta as I read your comment.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

speckledjim 15y ago

That will never happen, and I'm glad it won't.

VladRussian 15y ago

speaking about more realistic scenario. We already have air bags inside the car. Honda started to make external airbags targeted at car-to-human cases. There is no technical problem to implement external airbags for car-to-car cases. Start with mandatory front-side external airbags on heavy cars like full-size SUVs and work the way down and sideways.

watmough 15y ago

Very very sad to lose someone to such a stupid accident. As far as computer controlled cars, my instinct is to disagree with you, but living in Houston, and considering that 10%-20% of Americans are taking prescription drugs including hypnotics/sedatives (Ambien etc.), and anti-psychotics/anti-depressants (Prozac, Wellbutrin, Cymbalta etc.), it's easy to agree that perhaps, many many people just should not be driving. Or in some cases, leaving the house at all. Besides, we have computer controlled cars, just not widely available.

imajes 15y ago

Why? Plenty of people are able to drive a vehicle, and drive it well. It's the many who aren't, or choose to ignore the rules who are causing danger. The "every vehicle should be automated" line is lowest common denominator FUD. How about we start by actually applying a proper, rigorous upgrade to the new driver education from the DMV, and stop treating driving as a right, and instead a privilege? How about we improve mass transit and spend more money fixing roads (which is a bigger cause of accidents than you might imagine). What about Signage, which is over abundant and people ignore - or important signage which is entirely missing (many median lines are faded away - not repainted due to lack of funding)? And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable? The United States approach to driving is embarrassing and smacks of largesse, but for much of the country, where there is an abundance of space and empty roads, is tolerated. Accidents happen routinely in city centers and suburban areas where the laws and driving regulations are not more stricter, but often just as (if not more) relaxed. There isn't consideration given to heavy traffic, patterns of driving, preparing for exits - it's just expected that as long as you know how to steer and stop at a sign, you are qualified to drive. Computer controlled cars is a stupid argument (mostly because they are almost already there, in the full part, and certainly the car you are driving is doing more work than you are to get you to your destination). Never mind the fact that the better answer is amazing and undeniable mass transit, obviating the need for personal car ownership in densely populated areas, and a 2-3 magnitude leap in driver education to prevent such stupidity on the roads as a basic requirement to even begin to address this problem.

abduhl 15y ago
And what about the culture where drinking and driving is, in many states, acceptable? Why isn't there a dramatic and meaningful campaign to demonstrate that there is really only zero-tolerance to drink-driving that is acceptable? States have been cracking down on drunk driving for the past decade or two. If there ever was a culture where drinking and driving was "acceptable" on a state level it has long since disappeared. If you don't mind me asking, where do you currently live (you're clearly from the Queen's domain) and, if it isn't in the US, how did you get this idea that the US doesn't take drinking and driving seriously?

mootothemax 15y ago

It's time to have mandatory computer controlled cars. Driving manually should be illegal unless done in a race track. I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there. The difference is: I can't control the other drivers; nor who wrote their car's controller code. When it comes to my own two hands, at least I get a say in deciding that the roads are are a bit slippery today, and that I'm consequently going to reduce the total kinetic energy involved.

daeken 15y ago
> I guarantee there are just as many incompetent programmers as there are incompetent drivers out there. I don't feel this is a good argument against self-driving cars, mandatory or not. Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design, heavy testing both automated and manual, etc. The same can't be said of snap decisions by drivers. There will absolutely still be accidents with self-driving cars -- mechanical failures, bugs in software, etc. The question is whether that number would be significantly lower than the number of accidents that happen right now, and I find it highly doubtful that it wouldn't be.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  Code and hardware for self-driving cars would go through multiple passes of design I'm all in favour of space-shuttle levels of design, implementation and testing... but like the space shuttle, someone in management will find a way to cock it up. Now, you make a good point: will it reduce the number of deaths? Doing zero research before I go to bed, my gut instinct is that yes, it would make a difference in countries where the requirements to gain a driving license are, in effect, the ability to write and sign one's name correctly. For others... maybe, maybe not. Purely because I'm very pessimistic about how much money the car manufacturers would throw at the problem. Part of me thinks that the likes of Ford would, somewhat ironically, vastly outspend the likes of BMW.
  - daeken 15y ago
    I think the automatic car race would be really interesting. You'll have people fighting for the best safety numbers, the best comfort numbers (more smooth movements and such), etc. It would be an amazing bit of competition.

sixtofour 15y ago

With individuals self-driving, we get a certain number of unrelated accidents, injuries and fatalities. With computer controlled cars we'll have zero day hacks and crashes, viruses, and near simultaneous accidents all due to the same unpatched bug. I would never leave the house on Wednesdays in such a world.

nowarninglabel 15y ago
While I don't doubt there will be exploits, we already have a great deal of computer automation in vehicles, and one way they prevent potential hacks of the system is by making it one-way only. Plus, car manufacturers are actually being proactive about protection. More info: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11q2/can_your_car_be_hacked_-feature http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11q2/can_your_car_be_ha...

redthrowaway 15y ago

While we're at it, the fact that some people behave irresponsibly when drunk is clear evidence that we should ban the consumption of alcohol. What could go wrong?