8 ms·

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... )

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... )