Ed Self-Driving Cars: Pros, Cons, and Predictions

[bruto]

Some of the above contains what I'm afraid might come about. Of course I must as always add that my perspective is that of a non-urban person. In theory indeed, an autonomous car will likely avoid situations where its training and connectivity determines there is no good option. In a city that might mean knowing where the construction sites and accidents are at the moment. In the country it might mean not leaving the driveway if it doesn't like the weather forecast, or not coming home if a sudden snow squall wasn't foreseen. If I'm out somewhere and a blizzard comes by, am I stuck in my freezing car? I've been in more than a few dodgy situations, where I imagine a mechanical brain without full human understanding would likely simply say "stop" and stop - whiteout squalls, white-knuckle late night drives through snow drifts, ice storms so awful I had to drive with wheels in the shoulder to have any traction, etc.

Sometimes we have to balance the risk of continuing not only against our own fallible estimate of our abilities, but the risk of not continuing, and in a real world of real hazards, the choices a human driver makes, and sometimes has to make, may not be the same as those of an autonomous car. Robots don't get sick or pregnant or freeze, they don't have friends and relatives in extremis or dying. Not only are their criteria and urgencies different from ours, but their equipment. Aside from some obvious things like being able to change a tire or extinguish a fire, when I travel in winter, I have a shovel and a bag of sand. The car cannot get out of the car, but I can.

I think back on the night my third child was born. My wife went into labor, and things progressed very fast. We quickly gathered up and headed off the 20 or so miles to the hospital, in a raging ice storm. I was a pretty competent driver, my old rear drive car quite predictable, and I managed to skid and slide my way there, disobeying speed limits at times, running a few stops on the way, and though kid was crowning before we got to the room, we made it in the nick of time. I suspect a self driving car would not even have left the driveway that night. As it happened, all came out fine, but I'm glad it happened in the world of the past, not that of the future.

So is the solution to do away with country life because it is inhospitable to robots, or to provide us all with a pervasive and costly infrastructure that makes the environment fit for its new robotic inhabitants?

 

[crescent]

The whole idea behind self driving is to avoid situations before they even occur. While the pattern type will change, in theory it should be greatly reduced because the autonomous car will be more likely avoid situations where there really is no good option.

I agree.

But I was discussing human perception, not actual numbers.

So long as cars get in collisions that humans would avoid, it's going to be a hard uphill slog. Even if overall numbers are down because the cars also avoid collisions that humans would not avoid.

 

[Rolfe]

There's one thing, anyway. Unless your car has left the house extraordinarily low on charge, you'll be stuck in your cosy warm car.

 

[zooterkin]

China has way, way, waaaay more data it can use to train self-driving algorithms on, and even less data protection.
They are also investing heavily in A.I..
Tesla simply cannot compete.

Some background here - https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/china-autonomous-vehicles-development.html

 

[Rolfe]

This recent video inside a Tesla trying out autonomous driving is quite interesting. Guy seems to like it.

 

[Disbelief]

I agree.

But I was discussing human perception, not actual numbers.

So long as cars get in collisions that humans would avoid, it's going to be a hard uphill slog. Even if overall numbers are down because the cars also avoid collisions that humans would not avoid.

New technology is often a slog and can end up being a matter of marketing. If the number of traffic deaths is overwhelmingly improved by autonomous driving, only die-hards will argue that it is not successful.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

New technology is often a slog and can end up being a matter of marketing. If the number of traffic deaths is overwhelmingly improved by autonomous driving, only die-hards will argue that it is not successful.

Problem is it only takes a few incidents for the news media to pan it and give the naysayers more ammunition to hate on it. We see the same with EVs - despite their much lower propensity to catch fire every (rare) case has the talking heads bleating 'this is why they are so dangerous'. Similarly with crashes. If a Tesla crashes (especially a Cybertruck or Semi) it's all over the news, while gas cars and trucks are involved in horrific crashes every day and nobody cares. Let alone bonkers objections such as that a self-driving car won't let you drive over a 'criminal'. Imaigne the furore if it did!

So autonomus driving doesn't have to just be better than a human, it has to be much better before people will (grudgingly) accpt it - which makes the problem much harder. But it's also another reason Tesla is in a good position to do it. They already get so much hate that a bit more won't hurt much. They will carry the can so their customers don't get sued when an accident occurs while the car is driving itself, which is very important because few people could otherwaise afford he risk (even if fsd is safer than you are). And Musk is making sure that the authorities let the technolgy evolve rather than be stalled by over-cautious regulation.

You will know these problems have been solved when insurance companies start offering lower rates for cars with fsd. Eventually it could be mandatory, or at least strongly encuraged. Drivers may get punished more for crashing with it turned off, while drunks would (quite rightly) get way with 'driving' with fsd turned on. That's when acceptance will suddenly skyrocket.

 

[Orphia Nay]

And I can definitely see self-driving car manufacturers and drivers lobbying for cities to be planned around self-driving cars, the way cities were originally shaped to fit the automobile back in the day.

So long as urban designers also take greenery, pedestrians, cyclists, public transportation, the disabled and 15 minute cities into account, I don't see that is bad.

We need fewer cars more than we need autonomous ones.

We need fewer cars AND autonomous cars (if they are green and work safely).

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

So long as urban designers also take greenery, pedestrians, cyclists, public transportation, the disabled and 15 minute cities into account, I don't see that is bad.


We need fewer cars AND autonomous cars (if they are green and work safely).

They won't. Every time a car-centric planning decision has been made, people have lost out.

 

[Orphia Nay]

They won't. Every time a car-centric planning decision has been made, people have lost out.

You are making up a scenario when in fact I was blatantly describing a non-car-centric design.

 

[mumblethrax]

Let alone bonkers objections such as that a self-driving car won't let you drive over a 'criminal'. Imaigne the furore if it did!

Did anyone actually make this objection?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

So long as urban designers also take greenery, pedestrians, cyclists, public transportation, the disabled and 15 minute cities into account, I don't see that is bad.

Building everything around the car means precisely that they don't take any of those things into consideration. Except maybe when they plan how to blame pedestrians and cyclists for getting hit by cars and claiming public transport is bad because it gets in the way of cars, and that the disabled absolutely need car-centric planning because otherwise they won't be able to get around.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

You are making up a scenario when in fact I was blatantly describing a non-car-centric design.

But you are describing a car centric decision and then hoping that planners do the exact opposite of what they've always done when making such decisions.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Well I'm saying you can do both: factor in cars and everyone else; you don't have to be "car-centric".

 

[Rolfe]

Theoretically. But in practice, with vested interests calling the shots?

 

[novaphile]

Car-centric design is funny though.

My favourite is supermarket/shopping centre car parks, where the assumption appears to be:

"Once the car is parked, the driver magically teleports themself to the interior of the shopping centre."

How often have you seen a carpark with elevated footpaths, between the rows of cars, that led to pedestrian crossings?

There's a tiny remnant of that design in a shopping centre near me, there are two rows only, that are separated by a footpath, room for about sixteen cars, tucked around the side of the shopping centre. The other 500 or so car parks are in the big "no man's land" where drivers, who have become pedestrians after parking, are expected to duck and weave between the lanes of cars, and distracted drivers who are jostling for parking spots.

I nearly have hysterics when I hear people saying things like:

"Of course it's the pedestrian's fault! They shouldn't have been walking through the car park."

Even though there is no other way for the 'pedestrian' to get to the shops after they've parked their car.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Car-centric design is funny though.

My favourite is supermarket/shopping centre car parks, where the assumption appears to be:

"Once the car is parked, the driver magically teleports themself to the interior of the shopping centre."

How often have you seen a carpark with elevated footpaths, between the rows of cars, that led to pedestrian crossings?

There's a tiny remnant of that design in a shopping centre near me, there are two rows only, that are separated by a footpath, room for about sixteen cars, tucked around the side of the shopping centre. The other 500 or so car parks are in the big "no man's land" where drivers, who have become pedestrians after parking, are expected to duck and weave between the lanes of cars, and distracted drivers who are jostling for parking spots.

I nearly have hysterics when I hear people saying things like:

"Of course it's the pedestrian's fault! They shouldn't have been walking through the car park."

Even though there is no other way for the 'pedestrian' to get to the shops after they've parked their car.

The local shopping center here has speed bumps so vicious that you better not be going faster than a slow walking pace, and narrow roadways and tight bends. It also has plenty of footpaths. I feel safer walking there than driving. Yesterday I had to buy a new toaster-oven. Rather than parking directly outside the shop I chose an area in the middle of the main car park which is usually empty. The oven was quite bulky and heavy, but I would rather carry it 100 meters than try to get out of the parking spaces in front of the shop. On the way out of the shopping center I stopped several times for pedestrians crossing. Nobody's in a hurry because you can't drive at any speed anyway.

'Car-centric' you say? The parking areas around here are barely adequate. In town I always park several blocks out where it's less crowded. On fine days I often walk from home (3 km away) to go to the supermarket and/or shop in the main street. My city is not a big one, but in the 1980's I lived for months at a time in Auckland and Wellington. Even back then it was almost impossible to get a park in the city, so I didn't have a car. Strangely I never felt intimidated by the traffic - apart from the noise and the fumes. Driving in the city was a different story though - very stressful.
The general trend in city plannig here has been to put in bypass roads to get through traffic out of the center, placing 'megastore' shopping areas further out, and blocking off parts of the main streets for pedestrians. Speed bumps and pedestrian crossings abound in my city, and sidewalks have been widened so there's only just enough room for vehicles to pass each other, keeping the speed down. Controlled intersections have generous timing on pedestrian crossings. If only everyone would get an EV to keep the noise and fumes down, walking in town would be bliss.

However there are times when you do need a vehicle - to carry stuff, because the weather's bad, or just to save time. That's where self-driving cars come in. Taxis are very expensive and often not convenient. But a self-driving car that you book with an app and then have parked waiting for you would be more conveneint and much cheaper, making it a very real alternative to owning your own vehicle.

The possiblity of hiring out your own car when you aren't using it (tyically 95% of the time) is also attractive. If the car drives itself you don't have to worry about what a driver might do with it when hiring out a conventional car. Think of all those people who drive into the city to work, leavig the car parked up all day at great expense while they work - when it could be working for them instead. If you are at home and someone has taken the car to visit friends etc. and you suddenly need to go out, there's no need to call a taxi when your neighbour probably isn't using their car, and you don't need to ask them if you can borrow it. That also means the average family woultn't need so many cars.

When most vehicles in the city are self-driving, traffic should flow smoother so fewer roads are needed. Unlike impulsive human drivers, self-driving cars can coordinate their movements to get the best traffic flow patterns. Traffic controllers would be able to control the traffic directly rather than just with traffic lights etc. and hoping human drivers respond sensibly.

People complain about self-driving cars not handling roadworks and emergency vehicles well, but this is only because nobody is thinking of them. Rather than just putting out road cones or barriers and flashing lights/sirens, their positions could be broadcast to the cars which would when know what to expect. That's no problem at all with today's tech, and would be much safer than relying on human drivers to follow the rules. Imagine an ambulance automatically getting right of way as every car knows when to pull over etc., and imagine cars actually driving at a safe speed and taking the correct lanes and not weaving in and out of traffic like impatient human drivers do.

The biggest hurdle self-driving cars need to overcome is unpredictable humans. The fewer human drivers there are on the roads the easier it will be for them. That also applies to cars being driven by humans and using self driving as an aid. How many accidents could be avoided if the car was simply monitoring the driver and stopping them from making a mistake? All the accidents I seen or experienced were due to people not seeing another vehicle. I'm a very cautious driver myself, but many times I wish I had another pair of eyes - especially on my current car with its wide doorposts. If the car can drive at least as well as me, it might be less stressful and safer to let it do it much of the time.

 

[Rolfe]

What the streets will be like when most cars are on the road most of the day (mostly doing journeys at present done by public transport), rather than parked somewhere, I dread to think.

 

[The Don]

What the streets will be like when most cars are on the road most of the day (mostly doing journeys at present done by public transport), rather than parked somewhere, I dread to think.

Me too

Not Just Bikes has a Youtube video about his views on the effects of self driving cars on the urban environment - they're not positive.

 

[jeremyp]

The possiblity of hiring out your own car when you aren't using it (tyically 95% of the time) is also attractive. If the car drives itself you don't have to worry about what a driver might do with it when hiring out a conventional car. Think of all those people who drive into the city to work, leavig the car parked up all day at great expense while they work - when it could be working for them instead.

If we all had self driving cars then, we wouldn't need as many car parking spaces, but the roads would be twenty times more crowded than they are right now. Imagine peak rush hour but 24 hours a day.

And the worst of it is that many of those cars driving around creating the worst rush hour ever will be empty because there isn't the demand for transport at times when people are not travelling to and from work.

I'd love a car that could safely and legally drive me home when I'm drunk, but such cars are not going to improve most of the problems that car culture introduces. In fact, they'll probably make them worse. We need fewer cars of any stripe, not different ones.