4 ms·

I thought about this over and over. As it is usually the case with these articles (same with Google cars etc.) there's a group of supporters, usually with the '

I thought about this over and over. As it is usually the case with these articles (same with Google cars etc.) there's a group of supporters, usually with the 'It will be safer for the whole mankind' argument, sometimes with more mundane 'I would like to work in my car and let the thing drive itself' car-as-single-person-bus thrown in. And a group of people that firmly believe that this development takes away their freedom to (drive|steer|joyride). I guess I should've put a disclaimer that states that I sympathize more with the latter kind of people, but try hard to find out why that is the case. For me, assisted driving is a no-brainer. My wife hasn't ever driven a car where the steering wheel is unsupported. Nor a car without ABS and related/improved technology. In my world that's a good thing. The car already, today, decides that it has to take control in a number of ways. Further down in this thread I described my company car and its assistance systems. Most of those are nice to have and useful. I configured that car myself and included all those 'Let me help you here..' systems. This is not a matter of pride, no 'People that use assistance systems cannot really drive a car' attitude. I guess for me the conflict starts when we talk about giving up _all_ control. For me the perfect solution would feel like a car today. It behaves as I expect it to, if I kick down the car responds. BUT I would be totally fine with more and more assistance systems that prevent me from screwing up. Not the 'Let the car drive' future, but rather a 'Let me drive (potentially optional), but step in if necessary'. The result is more or less the same, but one feels like giving up something (a freedom, a privilege, a thing I enjoy), the other sounds like a reasonable and intriguing improvement. I don't really want a self-driving car. I want an intelligent car that prevents me from causing trouble.

bane 13y ago
I'd rather have a car I can drive if I want to, or hit a button and have it just autopilot there instead.
- sukuriant 13y ago
  I am all for this system as well. I don't think you and the grandparent are in disagreement, either. It looks like what they're saying is "give me varying levels of automation, including but not limited to full automation --- as long as I can have as much control as I want at the time." similar to a car with an option to disable traction control.
  - darklajid 13y ago
    This sounds a bit like the car in I-Robot (which happens to be Audi built..).
    - qbrass 13y ago
      The movie where the hero is blamed for causing an accident because he turned the autopilot off to avoid being killed by two large driver-less trucks sent to kill him.
qq66 13y ago
At some point, your suggested improvements will result in a car that only gives you the impression that you are driving.
- darklajid 13y ago
  I agree. This is a slippery slope that I (think I can) accept. Perception matters. And that way the car (uhm - the technology?) gains trust slowly - and adapts to our preferences. It's one thing to talk about assistance systems taking more and more control (but being helpful in general, leaving me in control most of the time so far). It's a different thing to talk about self-driving cars that are tested today (even if they're far from ready yet). I don't want to hand over my current car tomorrow and enter a kind of cab that goes 130 max even if there's no traffic. Where I am nothing but a guest. Do these lines converge? Possibly. Or certainly, even. But that needs to be a loooong process in my world and I prefer the route I described: By making the car I know and like smarter. Not by replacing it outright with a one-wagon-train or automated cab. (and that's from someone that considers anyone not driving automatic already being much further down the road)

bane 13y ago

I'd rather have a car I can drive if I want to, or hit a button and have it just autopilot there instead.

sukuriant 13y ago
I am all for this system as well. I don't think you and the grandparent are in disagreement, either. It looks like what they're saying is "give me varying levels of automation, including but not limited to full automation --- as long as I can have as much control as I want at the time." similar to a car with an option to disable traction control.
- darklajid 13y ago
  This sounds a bit like the car in I-Robot (which happens to be Audi built..).
  - qbrass 13y ago
    The movie where the hero is blamed for causing an accident because he turned the autopilot off to avoid being killed by two large driver-less trucks sent to kill him.

qq66 13y ago

At some point, your suggested improvements will result in a car that only gives you the impression that you are driving.

darklajid 13y ago
I agree. This is a slippery slope that I (think I can) accept. Perception matters. And that way the car (uhm - the technology?) gains trust slowly - and adapts to our preferences. It's one thing to talk about assistance systems taking more and more control (but being helpful in general, leaving me in control most of the time so far). It's a different thing to talk about self-driving cars that are tested today (even if they're far from ready yet). I don't want to hand over my current car tomorrow and enter a kind of cab that goes 130 max even if there's no traffic. Where I am nothing but a guest. Do these lines converge? Possibly. Or certainly, even. But that needs to be a loooong process in my world and I prefer the route I described: By making the car I know and like smarter. Not by replacing it outright with a one-wagon-train or automated cab. (and that's from someone that considers anyone not driving automatic already being much further down the road)