Self-Driving Cars & How much bad driving is NOT distraction?

Reactions
954 71 2
#71
...until self-driving cars become mandated, yes. Much like seat belt use, I see self-driving cars as the sort of thing where there will be a tipping point beyond which Government will up and say, "Welp, they're safe enough, so now everyone has to have one. Autonomous driving will become illegal after 2xxx."

--Patrick
I think it'll be more like "Autonomous driving is required on all roads that are in the system." America has so many roads that it's completely unlikely to think they will all be covered, especially back country roads and dirt paths. What I suspect would happen in that case is the car will drive you as close as it can, stop and idle, then give you an audio and visual reminder that YOU are libel for anything that happens beyond this point and an agreement you need to okay... with perhaps an option to buy insurance for this trip off the system.

The ability for cars to drive independently is simply too basic and necessary to completely remove. Its likely that learning HOW to drive will still be required to access this feature though, or at least necessary to do it legally.
 
Reactions
2,757 795 25
#72
Hmm, yes. That's also a possibility. Cars which are limited to 40MPH/60kMH in "manual" mode, and to use highways/freeways, the occupant(s) must relinquish control and allow the computer to drive.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
754 348 15
#73
Ah, see, there's the other problem: way too many roads. Heck, Google hasn't even found my street on Street View yet.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#74
Hmm, yes. That's also a possibility. Cars which are limited to 40MPH/60kMH in "manual" mode, and to use highways/freeways, the occupant(s) must relinquish control and allow the computer to drive.

--Patrick
I talked about that earlier. You're MORE likely to be in an accident on those "slow" roads than freeways. Now the higher speed road accident is more likely to kill you... maybe. I really don't know the division of fatalities from freeway vs other. I can see a t-bone at 30-35mph being much worse than some type of frontal impact on the freeway at higher speeds, but at this point the conversation needs an actual expert!
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
#77
That error would not happen with auto driving trucks. So in that world there are still two live truck "drivers".

Hell, there might not have to be a driver at all. Set the destination at the place where the stuff was loaded, unload it at the destination area, truck goes back and forth. Economical.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#79
That error would not happen with auto driving trucks.
So confident are we. Because we know software never flips out, locks up, spontaneously reboots, crashes, blue screens or gets caught in a loop.



Hell, my phone starts acting up if I don't reboot it once every week or two, and that's a google product as well.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,571 1,194 23
#80
Yeah, way to use a promotional video from a snack food company to prove a point about the technology behind automatic cars. And blame others for logical fallacies?
 
Reactions
938 239 3
#81
So confident are we. Because we know software never flips out, locks up, spontaneously reboots, crashes, blue screens or gets caught in a loop.Hell, my phone starts acting up if I don't reboot it once every week or two, and that's a google product as well.
"You are driving in an area with WIFI, would you like to update?"
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#82
Yeah, way to use a promotional video from a snack food company to prove a point about the technology behind automatic cars. And blame others for logical fallacies?
To illustrate, not prove.
 
Reactions
892 353 14
#83
He can hardly use footage of a computer-driven car going berserk, considering that footage isn't out yet :p

That said, if we have trucks without drivers, perhaps we can chain them together in longer lines, with a smaller number of stronger engines to pull/push the rest forward. Maybe provide guide rails for them. We could potentially do the same with busses, and have them stop at regular intervals, maybe build some infrastructure to make getting on and off easier...If only I could think ofa name for someting like that. Transport on Roads by Artifical Intelligence as Needed?
 
Reactions
2,757 795 25
#85
trucks without drivers, perhaps we can chain them together in longer lines, with a smaller number of stronger engines to pull/push the rest forward. Maybe provide guide rails for them. We could potentially do the same with busses, and have them stop at regular intervals, maybe build some infrastructure to make getting on and off easier...If only I could think ofa name for someting like that. Transport on Roads by Artifical Intelligence as Needed?
I think you just described "trains," only smaller.
;)

--Patrick
 
Reactions
140 22 1
#86
Trains would be great if I could have a car after I got where I wanted. Or didn't have to leave at 4am. Or have to pay just as much in gas as a ticket. Or have to sit next to a smelly stranger. Or have to spend 3 days to do a 1 day drive.
 
Reactions
954 71 2
#87
Trains would be great if I could have a car after I got where I wanted. Or didn't have to leave at 4am. Or have to pay just as much in gas as a ticket. Or have to sit next to a smelly stranger. Or have to spend 3 days to do a 1 day drive.
Or actually had a train depot n your city. Or if cities had train depots in places you'd actually want to go to.

I'm not even kidding... if I wanted to take a train to Atlanta, I'd have to get a ride to my closest bus stop (3 miles), hop a city bus to ether the grey hound or megabus locations, wait for my bus, ride two hours to Cinncinnati, hop another local bus to get to the Amtrak station, wait for my train, and THEN I get to go to Atlanta. There is no advantage... not only would it take longer than just going by bus, it would cost me more. The only upside is I can walk around in the train a bit if I want.
 
Reactions
754 348 15
#88
You know how many times I would have hopped on a train to go from Milwaukee to Nashville if Amtrak still served the city?
 
Reactions
140 22 1
#89
The only upside is I can walk around in the train a bit if I want.
Which you could do in a self driving suv!
To get to Texas, I'd have to go to Chicago then back West. Also ride a bus or two depending on where I want to go. Rail just doesn't work in the US.
 
Reactions
954 71 2
#90
Which you could do in a self driving suv!
To get to Texas, I'd have to go to Chicago then back West. Also ride a bus or two depending on where I want to go. Rail just doesn't work in the US.
And this is entirely because no one has payed to place new rails in decades. What needs to happen is we need to place elevated high speed mag rail, coast to coast.
 
Reactions
140 22 1
#91
And this is entirely because no one has payed to place new rails in decades. What needs to happen is we need to place elevated high speed mag rail, coast to coast.
Won't happen. We've even tore up unused rail to put in bike trails, not that that is a bad thing.
Self driving cars will happen before useful coast to coast high speed rail.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#93
CGP Grey is great. I was subscribed before this video.

It does raise a number of issues, though I think that discussion is WAY beyond this specific thread.
 
Reactions
415 55 1
#97
CGP Grey is great. I was subscribed before this video.

It does raise a number of issues, though I think that discussion is WAY beyond this specific thread.
You should give his podcast, Hello Internet a try.
 
Reactions
415 55 1
#99
Which is a good thing since so much of our economy (and hence, workforce) depends on transportation.
 
Reactions
140 22 1
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/



The article goes into a great amount of detail about the capability of today's Google car, and I'm surprised at how limited they really are. I think the general pubic perception is better than the reality.
I see the Google cars as being at about the same stage as early pc's. Very expensive, and only really useful for specific tasks. Give it 10 to 20 years. It might not be everything we hoped for by then, but we're getting there.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
The cause of accidents is not distracted drivers, it is DRIVERS NOT PAYING FUCKING ATTENTION TO THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING THAT THEY ARE DOING AT THAT MOMENT. There is a slight difference.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
The cause of accidents is not distracted drivers, it is DRIVERS NOT PAYING FUCKING ATTENTION TO THE ONLY IMPORTANT THING THAT THEY ARE DOING AT THAT MOMENT. There is a slight difference.
And we're back to my point from the original post. That's not the problem:

The Problem is that the Average Driver is TERRIBLE!

Even non-distracted, people do so much stupid shit. As the stats in the first page showed, only something like 10% of accidents can be blamed on distractions. Which means the other 90% (minus mechanical failure, which is almost not worth considering, and minus drunks, which probably isn't that high either) are just people who are terrible.

Most are terrible!!!

Combine with distracted and it's worse, but it's still "most are terrible" is the cause, not "competent + distracted = terrible therefore eliminate distractions as #1".

Edit: clarified my ending point.
 
Last edited:
Reactions
90 0 0
I just want them for time efficiency. No more stopping for lights, signs, etc. All the cars agree on the order and time their arrival at the intersections, merges, etc so stopping isn't required.
I read somewhere that Google cars are going to drive about 10 mph over the speed limit on the highways! I actually wonder how hard police are going to get hit when they lose all that sweet speeding ticket revenue. If you think about it, autonomous cars running on traffic algorithms should be able to drive as fast as the desired energy efficiency that the driver sets. The main purpose of a "speed limit" is due to driver reaction and the resulting damage that one could do at higher speeds because of reaction and distraction. However, municipal police have made speeding tickets one of their revenue sources. Can a cop pull over a Google car for speeding?
 
Reactions
90 0 0
And we're back to my point from the original post. That's not the problem:


Most are terrible!!!
.

I'm one of those smug bastard that considers himself a good driver. I grew up with motorsports though.

However, I like to offset accidents by assuming that every other driver IS terrible and has no clue what they're doing. It's saved my ass many times already.


Just little things I guess. I know my rights of way etc... but I find the problem is people barging through without assuming the other driver is just an idiot. I'd rather give up my right of way than get into an accident. For example. I'm driving on a main road. I have the right of way to all cars turning onto said main road. I'll eye up cars at intersections and make sure they won't jump in front of me. If they do, my feet are already on top of the clutch and brake, and I'm ready to take emergency measures. At a red light I don't stop right at the bumper of the car in front of me. Just in case I need to jump out of the lane to avoid other things. I'm always cautious driving through an intersection - not that I slow down to 10 mph or anything, but I've got my foot over the brake in case I need to slam it because some asshole is running a red. Little things like that.

I've had a total of 3 accidents over the 16 years I've been driving. One was my fault (love tapped a lady when i was 16 and not paying attention). The other two where exclusively someone running a stop sign, which is why I'm so cautious around them. I believe the stats for minor accidents heavily bias towards intersections.

As for highway driving... for the love of God, go at least 5 mph over the speed limit. I find the most dangerous drivers aren't speeders, but slow ass grandpa's doing under 10.
 
Top