Driverless cars could change everything

[DaFace]

Thought this article was cool to think about.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28376929

Driverless cars could change everything


For now, it seems like a novelty - cars that can operate independently of human control, safely cruising down streets thanks to an array of sensors and pinpoint GPS navigation.

But if the technology avoids getting crushed by government regulators and product liability lawsuits, writes the Federalist's Dan McLaughlin, it could prompt a cultural shift similar to the early 20th century move away from horses as the primary means of transportation.

First and foremost, he writes, the spread of driverless cars will likely greatly reduce the number of traffic accidents - which currently cost Americans $871b (£510b) a year.

"A truly driverless road would not be accident-free, given the number of accidents that would still be caused by mechanical and computer errors, weather conditions, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and sheer random chance," he says. "But it would make the now-routine loss of life and limb on the roads far rarer."

Computer-operated cars would eventually reshape car design, he says, as things like windshields - "a large and vulnerable piece of glass" - become less necessary. Drivers will be able to sit wherever they'd like in their cars, which could make car interiors more like mobile lounges than like cockpits.

The age required to operate a driverless car is likely to drop, he says. There could be an impact on the legal drinking age, as well, as preventing drunk driving was one of the prime justifications for the US-wide setting minimum age to purchase alcohol at 21 years old.

There's other possible economic fallout, McLaughlin contends, such as a restructuring of the auto insurance industry, the obsolescence of taxi drivers and lower ratings for drive-time radio programmes.

The high-tech security state will also get boost, he writes, as GPS-tagged cars will be easier to track, making life difficult for fugitives and car thieves. Police will also be able to move resources away from operations like traffic enforcement.

Of course, he writes, the towns that rely on speed traps to fund their government services will be facing budget shortfalls. Privacy advocates could also get an unexpected boost, he notes, since traffic stops are one of the main justifications for police vehicle searches.

Finally, there's the prospect of the as-yet-unrealised futurist dream of flying cars. With computer-controlled vehicles that strictly follow traffic rules, McLaughlin says, "the potential for three-dimensional roads becomes a lot less scary and more a matter of simply solving the technological challenge".

Where we're going, we may not need roads after all.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeTheDog

What am I going to do when the AI driven automatic car always drives through Popeyes and orders me a chicken sandwich?

Joking- but there is so many new ways to make money here- even starting with new free time and decisions to make when you’re in the car. And so so many ways for the government to tax this activity. Trust me, they will more than make up for there loss of revenue from traffic tickets, etc.

This is a concern.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

With human-driven cars we have accidents and crashes that are caused by human error one way or another. With network driverless cars I can wreck all the cars at once

This is a nightmare.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Katipan

In theory driverless cars would reduce the douchey accidents like tailgating.

When driverless cars drive 3 miles an hour on icy streets instead of 30 mph, commuters are going to scream and are going to go back to their own dangerously driven cars.

[Chief Pagan]

Actually, if I owned a fleet of driverless cars, I'm not sure I would even rent them out in snowy, icy conditions.

If somebody rear-ends your vehicle, the amount you get paid doesn't cover all the losses. Loss of use of vehicle, employee time to get vehicle repaired etc.

[DaFace]

Interesting bump. It seems like a lot of AI technologies (driverless cars, ChatGPT, etc.) are able to go from 0% awesome to 95% awesome pretty quickly, but that final 5% is super important yet difficult to achieve.

We've come a long way since this thread in terms of designing cars that can stay in their lanes and not hit anything in front of them, but things are still a little iffy in terms of being able to literally never have an active driver.

I still think we'll get there eventually, but it may still be a bit before we start removing steering wheels from cars.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Interesting bump. It seems like a lot of AI technologies (driverless cars, ChatGPT, etc.) are able to go from 0% awesome to 95% awesome pretty quickly, but that final 5% is super important yet difficult to achieve.

We've come a long way since this thread in terms of designing cars that can stay in their lanes and not hit anything in front of them, but things are still a little iffy in terms of being able to literally never have an active driver.

I still think we'll get there eventually, but it may still be a bit before we start removing steering wheels from cars.

Well said

[Balto]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Interesting bump. It seems like a lot of AI technologies (driverless cars, ChatGPT, etc.) are able to go from 0% awesome to 95% awesome pretty quickly, but that final 5% is super important yet difficult to achieve.

We've come a long way since this thread in terms of designing cars that can stay in their lanes and not hit anything in front of them, but things are still a little iffy in terms of being able to literally never have an active driver.

I still think we'll get there eventually, but it may still be a bit before we start removing steering wheels from cars.

It really does seem like its 100% of cars need to be driverless or it will just always have issues.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Interesting bump. It seems like a lot of AI technologies (driverless cars, ChatGPT, etc.) are able to go from 0% awesome to 95% awesome pretty quickly, but that final 5% is super important yet difficult to achieve.

We've come a long way since this thread in terms of designing cars that can stay in their lanes and not hit anything in front of them, but things are still a little iffy in terms of being able to literally never have an active driver.

I still think we'll get there eventually, but it may still be a bit before we start removing steering wheels from cars.

Well, driverless cars carrying passengers are an actual thing in SF without a human driver ready to take over.



I guess you can argue they shouldn't be. Or it's not ready to be deployed by the millions.

I do think some of it will be legal and social. If the standard was just being demonstrably safer than humans it would be one thing, but the standard will be higher than that.

And than as the previously shown article pointed out, they still do occasionally have what might be loosely called common sense problems. Like the best way to navigate construction zones or getting out of the way of emergency vehicles in congested urban environments.

[Otter]

Just wait until I hack into that matrix and start playing GTA with RainMan on his way to the office.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Balto

It really does seem like its 100% of cars need to be driverless or it will just always have issues.

And we probably need to start designing roads with driverless in mind. Relying on visual cues gets...messy.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Instead of bumping this old thread, I actually considered starting a new one in D.C.

It's weird that some people think this is a political issue.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

On a positive note, I would assume that not a single driverless car has received a DUI.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

Well, driverless cars carrying passengers are an actual thing in SF without a human driver ready to take over.



I guess you can argue they shouldn't be. Or it's not ready to be deployed by the millions.

I do think some of it will be legal and social. If the standard was just being demonstrably safer than humans it would be one thing, but the standard will be higher than that.

And than as the previously shown article pointed out, they still do occasionally have what might be loosely called common sense problems. Like the best way to navigate construction zones or getting out of the way of emergency vehicles in congested urban environments.

Did you read post 56 and the article about that very thing. It is current.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by -King-

It's weird that some people think this is a political issue.

If you can't see how it could be, that is on you.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by DaFace

And we probably need to start designing roads with driverless in mind. Relying on visual cues gets...messy.

Well sure, if we had special roads that only had driverless cars and were specifically designed for driverless cars.

And bikes and pedestrians were either prohibited, or were at least required to carry transmitters...

That would make it an awful lot easier.

But I don't think it's viable to wait until for that to happen.

I've actually wondered if Japan or South Korea might not get driverless cars on a large scale before the US just because they have a more business friendly environment.