3 ms·

I worry about the potential for reliance on this system - 30 years from now (the time the article stated it would take for mass adoption), will we have head-on

I worry about the potential for reliance on this system - 30 years from now (the time the article stated it would take for mass adoption), will we have head-on collissions around corners because one of the cars was malfunctioning and neither driver bothered to look "because the computer said it was OK?"

adventureful 14y ago
Probably, but compared to losing 32,000 people per year, I'd bet the rate of computer fault would substantially lower. Particularly when you consider the power of the systems we'll have in 30 years. That doesn't ensure quality (bugs, poor algorithms, etc), but it does make it plausible there will be numerous very effective fail-safes built in. The x factor in that calculation to me, is the potential for people to treat computer fault deaths particularly harsh. If human fault kills 32,000 - I'd just about wager people would be more willing to excuse it than, say, if computer fault killed 1,000 instead (That is, there's some equation of human fault to computer fault deaths that is necessary before people will find it acceptable, and unfortunately I bet people aren't going to be very forgiving of computer fault deaths even if the ratio is 10, 20, or even 30 to 1. Let's say you eliminated human fault driving deaths, and all that was left is 5,000 computer fault deaths - I think people would be outraged at that number, quickly forgetting the old 32k number).
- finnw 14y ago
  I think you're right about the double standard, but there is another factor - distribution of culpability. Current situation: 16,000 drivers, each responsible for about 2 deaths. Situation with the computers in control: 1 CEO of a manufacturing company, could be prosecuted for causing 1,000 deaths. Who would want to be in that position? And as for being forgiving of human error, it's easier to be forgiving of an individual driver who causes an accident (as long as he was not reckless, e.g. drunk) because it could be you next time - anyone can make that kind of error. But the CEO of Samsung/Google/whoever could not be you: You know you will never have that job, and also you may be envious of their wealth, which will make you (and the judge) less sympathetic.
brc 14y ago
The rate of people driving around corners looking properly is probably already staggering. I think, even given a relatively high failure rate, the statistics will still improve. Mind you, like everything with autonomous vehicles, legislation needs to be laid down now in order to clarify who is responsible for what. I would hate to see a situation where this technology is withheld from the market because of the possibility of the company being sued for every penny.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
> I worry about the potential for reliance on this system People also worried that drivers using ABS would be less competent than drivers not using ABS. Before that, we worried that drivers wearing seat belts would be less careful than drivers not wearing seat belts. Risk homeostasis is a real problem (witness the number of SUVs lining the highway ditch during a snowstorm) but the sheer benefits to engineering-for-safety more than offset the risk of encouraging cavalier behaviour.
- GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
  Re. ABS, one study seemed to indicate that when drivers have ABS they tend to adjust their risk taking upward "Among a total of 747 accidents incurred by the company's taxis during that period, the involvement rate of the ABS vehicles was not lower, but slightly higher, although not significantly so in a statistical sense. These vehicles were somewhat under-represented in the sub-category of accidents in which the cab driver was judged to be culpable, but clearly over-represented in accidents in which the driver was not at fault. Accident severity was independent of the presence or absence of ABS." http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
zerostar07 14y ago
Software can be refined, people can't .

adventureful 14y ago

Probably, but compared to losing 32,000 people per year, I'd bet the rate of computer fault would substantially lower. Particularly when you consider the power of the systems we'll have in 30 years. That doesn't ensure quality (bugs, poor algorithms, etc), but it does make it plausible there will be numerous very effective fail-safes built in. The x factor in that calculation to me, is the potential for people to treat computer fault deaths particularly harsh. If human fault kills 32,000 - I'd just about wager people would be more willing to excuse it than, say, if computer fault killed 1,000 instead (That is, there's some equation of human fault to computer fault deaths that is necessary before people will find it acceptable, and unfortunately I bet people aren't going to be very forgiving of computer fault deaths even if the ratio is 10, 20, or even 30 to 1. Let's say you eliminated human fault driving deaths, and all that was left is 5,000 computer fault deaths - I think people would be outraged at that number, quickly forgetting the old 32k number).

finnw 14y ago
I think you're right about the double standard, but there is another factor - distribution of culpability. Current situation: 16,000 drivers, each responsible for about 2 deaths. Situation with the computers in control: 1 CEO of a manufacturing company, could be prosecuted for causing 1,000 deaths. Who would want to be in that position? And as for being forgiving of human error, it's easier to be forgiving of an individual driver who causes an accident (as long as he was not reckless, e.g. drunk) because it could be you next time - anyone can make that kind of error. But the CEO of Samsung/Google/whoever could not be you: You know you will never have that job, and also you may be envious of their wealth, which will make you (and the judge) less sympathetic.

brc 14y ago

The rate of people driving around corners looking properly is probably already staggering. I think, even given a relatively high failure rate, the statistics will still improve. Mind you, like everything with autonomous vehicles, legislation needs to be laid down now in order to clarify who is responsible for what. I would hate to see a situation where this technology is withheld from the market because of the possibility of the company being sued for every penny.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

> I worry about the potential for reliance on this system People also worried that drivers using ABS would be less competent than drivers not using ABS. Before that, we worried that drivers wearing seat belts would be less careful than drivers not wearing seat belts. Risk homeostasis is a real problem (witness the number of SUVs lining the highway ditch during a snowstorm) but the sheer benefits to engineering-for-safety more than offset the risk of encouraging cavalier behaviour.

GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
Re. ABS, one study seemed to indicate that when drivers have ABS they tend to adjust their risk taking upward "Among a total of 747 accidents incurred by the company's taxis during that period, the involvement rate of the ABS vehicles was not lower, but slightly higher, although not significantly so in a statistical sense. These vehicles were somewhat under-represented in the sub-category of accidents in which the cab driver was judged to be culpable, but clearly over-represented in accidents in which the driver was not at fault. Accident severity was independent of the presence or absence of ABS." http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

zerostar07 14y ago

Software can be refined, people can't .