5 ms·

Funny how those kinds of previews of the future always include luxury perks (in the present case they highlight the 4K display; for flights in the 60 they highl

by tajen 12y ago

Funny how those kinds of previews of the future always include luxury perks (in the present case they highlight the 4K display; for flights in the 60 they highlighted luxury meals) when the reality is obviously pragmatic. More seriously, I wonder how automated cars deals with our road traditions. In France, if you leave the officially required distance with the front car on the highway, another car will insert in between. Then you'll have to slow down, and another car will insert, and so on. Cars can't be programmed to perform something illegal, so I guess they don't deal with "competitive situations" efficiently.

camhenlin 12y ago
Yeah -- and that's a good point. I am also interested in seeing if we're going to see a bunch of self driving cars running around at exactly the speed limit, like grandma out on a Sunday drive. And how many drivers is that going to anger?
- ryan-allen 12y ago
  Depends on where you live and what the local laws are. Where I live (Melbourne, Victoria) most people drive _under_ the speed limit on the highway I take to work each day. Our local police fine us for doing 2-3km over the limit, and the fines are steep. Most of us here wouldn't notice cars driving at the speed limit.
  - lqdc13 12y ago
    It's not the local laws, but the enforcement of such laws though.
    - ryan-allen 12y ago
      And as I said, our laws are enforced to a rather strict degree.
- mattlutze 12y ago
  Consider that the source of frustration in traffic is the condition that you, the driver, are stuck behind the wheel, having to focus on creeping along. If you didn't have to pay attention, really, to your surroundings and could multitask your trip away, I suppose a driver would be less concerned with a drive taking 5 or 10 extra minutes.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Google's cars are programmed to break the law in a number of scenarios. They will inch into an intersection if they don't sense that another car is going to take advantage of their right of way. They will speed faster than the posted limit if they sense that cars are traveling faster than that limit. Obeying the law, in some scenarios, particularly when you might force people to make lane changes (which are dangerous in and of themselves) results in greater fatalities. In that situation, it makes sense to break the law.
  - tajen 12y ago
    Manual cars' speedometer "sticks" during an accident, so the police can see the actual speed at the time of impact. Who's responsible when a Google car has an accident while breaking the law?
    - prawn 12y ago
      Likely depends on who signed what, to what extent a manufacturer can deny responsibility, etc. Many people will hire cars rather than own them so it's likely that the taxi service will bear responsibility unless the passenger has meddled.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  That's exactly my issue with drivers. Many of them (most of the ones I know personally) get angry at people driving the way they are supposed to. Apparently the "right" way to drive is to be a total asshole with complete disregard for human life.
FranOntanaya 12y ago
Mmh, considering automatic cars are more likely to carry a dashcam, I'm not sure anyone would want to do something illegal in front of them.
- hueving 12y ago
  Right, because the thought of someone having a dashcam has definitely prevented people from merging into a tight space.
  - koide 12y ago
    As soon as dashcams are required by law and valid as evidence, it will make people wary.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      This might not help. But automatic uploading to a public shaming site and/or to an automated police analytics engine should be enough.
leohutson 12y ago
Tailgating isn't just illegal, it's also extremely dangerous. I think the in best case, a self-driving car would record the number plate of the car that cut you off, and you could then pass that information on to the police. edit: I didn't want this to come across as an attack, I'm not a perfect driver myself, in fact I'm still on my learner licence :) . I feel the fact you have to constantly break the law because other drivers are also breaking the law to be a problem in itself, without even bringing the autonomous car into the equation.
- radarsat1 12y ago
  Wow, automatic highway surveillance? That's actually a frightening aspect of smart cars that hadn't crossed my mind.. like the driving equivalent of a "thought police" society from 1984 -- but automated.
  - twright0 12y ago
    > like the driving equivalent of a "thought police" society from 1984 -- but automated. Except in this case it's reporting a crime that you have actually already done - you broke a traffic law. It might not be an extremely serious crime most of the time, but it's absolutely not the same as punishment for thinking about breaking the law.
    - prawn 12y ago
      Depends if it's recording general indiscretions or driving indiscretions. Once all/most driving is automated, I don't think we'll have many driving indiscretions, and you could potentially put them back on the manufacturer in some cases rather than the occupant. Especially so when the majority of people do not own the car in which they're travelling but are hiring it for the journey like they do a taxi or plane.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    > automatic highway surveillance As someone who has lived in the dystopia that is the UK, who've been doing this for ages, it's not so bad.
colechristensen 12y ago
How about when someone thinks it's fun to hack the simplistic behavior and intelligence of an automated vehicle? I'm absolutely positive that it's not going to be that long or that hard to find – opportunities – to fool the sensors and intelligence of any car built in the next several decades. Sonic and GPS jammers and forgers, paining a few extra lines on an interstate, projecting images to fool image recognition... and on and on and on. Not to mention more traditional computer exploitation.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  This is true, but I can already do this to the human drivers. I could easily get a really bright light, and make it impossible for drivers to see. I could already create fake signs, or repaint the road markings to make people simply drive off the road.
jabakobob 12y ago
Cars merging in front of you is mainly a problem for human drivers; it's frustrating, but the actual time lost is probably negligible. An automatic car wouldn't care -- maintaining safety is more important than shaving a few seconds off your commute.
- undersuit 12y ago
  >maintaining safety is more important than shaving a few seconds off your commute. Nothing more satisfying than to watch a car aggressively weaving in and out of lanes only to miles later encounter that same car stuck in the same traffic as you.
JulianMorrison 12y ago
I expect they will be ridiculously deferential, and the last few road hogs driving manual will have a frustratingly easy time of it. It's no fun cutting in, if the nominal driver doesn't even look up from her e-book, and the car politely lets you. And that's how it will feel to you - like nothing. Like a smooth ride. Why would you give a damn how many people cut in?
dennisgorelik 12y ago
Professional truck drivers usually leave lots of space in front of them. Yes, occasionally somebody cuts in, but that does not happen too often. The same would happen with automated cars. One of the key road safety rules is: "Give way to the fool".

by tajen 12y ago

camhenlin 12y ago

Yeah -- and that's a good point. I am also interested in seeing if we're going to see a bunch of self driving cars running around at exactly the speed limit, like grandma out on a Sunday drive. And how many drivers is that going to anger?

ryan-allen 12y ago
Depends on where you live and what the local laws are. Where I live (Melbourne, Victoria) most people drive _under_ the speed limit on the highway I take to work each day. Our local police fine us for doing 2-3km over the limit, and the fines are steep. Most of us here wouldn't notice cars driving at the speed limit.
- lqdc13 12y ago
  It's not the local laws, but the enforcement of such laws though.
  - ryan-allen 12y ago
    And as I said, our laws are enforced to a rather strict degree.
mattlutze 12y ago
Consider that the source of frustration in traffic is the condition that you, the driver, are stuck behind the wheel, having to focus on creeping along. If you didn't have to pay attention, really, to your surroundings and could multitask your trip away, I suppose a driver would be less concerned with a drive taking 5 or 10 extra minutes.
ghshephard 12y ago
Google's cars are programmed to break the law in a number of scenarios. They will inch into an intersection if they don't sense that another car is going to take advantage of their right of way. They will speed faster than the posted limit if they sense that cars are traveling faster than that limit. Obeying the law, in some scenarios, particularly when you might force people to make lane changes (which are dangerous in and of themselves) results in greater fatalities. In that situation, it makes sense to break the law.
- tajen 12y ago
  Manual cars' speedometer "sticks" during an accident, so the police can see the actual speed at the time of impact. Who's responsible when a Google car has an accident while breaking the law?
  - prawn 12y ago
    Likely depends on who signed what, to what extent a manufacturer can deny responsibility, etc. Many people will hire cars rather than own them so it's likely that the taxi service will bear responsibility unless the passenger has meddled.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
That's exactly my issue with drivers. Many of them (most of the ones I know personally) get angry at people driving the way they are supposed to. Apparently the "right" way to drive is to be a total asshole with complete disregard for human life.

FranOntanaya 12y ago

Mmh, considering automatic cars are more likely to carry a dashcam, I'm not sure anyone would want to do something illegal in front of them.

hueving 12y ago
Right, because the thought of someone having a dashcam has definitely prevented people from merging into a tight space.
- koide 12y ago
  As soon as dashcams are required by law and valid as evidence, it will make people wary.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    This might not help. But automatic uploading to a public shaming site and/or to an automated police analytics engine should be enough.

leohutson 12y ago

Tailgating isn't just illegal, it's also extremely dangerous. I think the in best case, a self-driving car would record the number plate of the car that cut you off, and you could then pass that information on to the police. edit: I didn't want this to come across as an attack, I'm not a perfect driver myself, in fact I'm still on my learner licence :) . I feel the fact you have to constantly break the law because other drivers are also breaking the law to be a problem in itself, without even bringing the autonomous car into the equation.

radarsat1 12y ago
Wow, automatic highway surveillance? That's actually a frightening aspect of smart cars that hadn't crossed my mind.. like the driving equivalent of a "thought police" society from 1984 -- but automated.
- twright0 12y ago
  > like the driving equivalent of a "thought police" society from 1984 -- but automated. Except in this case it's reporting a crime that you have actually already done - you broke a traffic law. It might not be an extremely serious crime most of the time, but it's absolutely not the same as punishment for thinking about breaking the law.
  - prawn 12y ago
    Depends if it's recording general indiscretions or driving indiscretions. Once all/most driving is automated, I don't think we'll have many driving indiscretions, and you could potentially put them back on the manufacturer in some cases rather than the occupant. Especially so when the majority of people do not own the car in which they're travelling but are hiring it for the journey like they do a taxi or plane.
- peteretep 12y ago
  > automatic highway surveillance As someone who has lived in the dystopia that is the UK, who've been doing this for ages, it's not so bad.

colechristensen 12y ago

How about when someone thinks it's fun to hack the simplistic behavior and intelligence of an automated vehicle? I'm absolutely positive that it's not going to be that long or that hard to find – opportunities – to fool the sensors and intelligence of any car built in the next several decades. Sonic and GPS jammers and forgers, paining a few extra lines on an interstate, projecting images to fool image recognition... and on and on and on. Not to mention more traditional computer exploitation.

EliRivers 12y ago
This is true, but I can already do this to the human drivers. I could easily get a really bright light, and make it impossible for drivers to see. I could already create fake signs, or repaint the road markings to make people simply drive off the road.

jabakobob 12y ago

Cars merging in front of you is mainly a problem for human drivers; it's frustrating, but the actual time lost is probably negligible. An automatic car wouldn't care -- maintaining safety is more important than shaving a few seconds off your commute.

undersuit 12y ago
>maintaining safety is more important than shaving a few seconds off your commute. Nothing more satisfying than to watch a car aggressively weaving in and out of lanes only to miles later encounter that same car stuck in the same traffic as you.

JulianMorrison 12y ago

I expect they will be ridiculously deferential, and the last few road hogs driving manual will have a frustratingly easy time of it. It's no fun cutting in, if the nominal driver doesn't even look up from her e-book, and the car politely lets you. And that's how it will feel to you - like nothing. Like a smooth ride. Why would you give a damn how many people cut in?

dennisgorelik 12y ago

Professional truck drivers usually leave lots of space in front of them. Yes, occasionally somebody cuts in, but that does not happen too often. The same would happen with automated cars. One of the key road safety rules is: "Give way to the fool".