Aren't self-driving cars impractical?

[Molinaro]

That can be dangerous. Sometimes you realy need to speed up to get out of a tight spot, and the governor doesn't understand exceptions. With my plan, you simply pay for your exceptions.

 

[Myriad]

The technology will be ready for use the moment an insurance company is willing to underwrite liability insurance for an automated vehicle.

And not a moment sooner.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Nathyn]

Several points: first, keep in mind who's funding this: DARPA. Does DARPA want a Lexus that can drive itself? No, it doesn't care about that. DARPA wants a transport vehicle that can move supplies from one location to another without a driver, or a scout vehicle that can patrol an area autonomously. And it wants this sort of thing for military applications. Rigorous adherence to traffic laws isn't their priority.

Good point. I don't think the DoD really cares about accidentally running over Iraqi pedestrians.

 

[Horatius]

I think road safety could be greatly increased without having to go to self-driving cars. Simply implant every car with a GPS receiver, and have detectors at every intersection of every road. When you pass by it calculates your average speed between that detector and the last one you passed. If it calculates that you were over the limit, you get a fine in the mail.

I would very much like something like that in place, everywhere.

I like this idea. Not because I like the idea, mind you, I just like the effects I expect such a plan would have.

Because there's just no way the government could survive the onslaught of issuing a couple of hundred million tickets a day, every day. We'd kill the bureaucracy in one fell swoop!

Brilliant!

 

[Horatius]

Just think of the potential for terrorism!

Some geek comes up with a virus, and how many commuters die? One bullet into the computer of the lead car, how do the rest respond when it suddenly locks up?

This is mostly a matter of designing the technology correctly. The "lead car" would be constantly changing, and if it or another car detected a problem, it would cease to be the "lead car". You'd route around any such damage, just like the Internet is supposed to do.

I think having every car be an independent node in a distributed network would be a very robust system, actually.

Or the 'pop-up ads' aspect:

The shopping center wants you to drive all over the lot, to show you all the stores.... Sorry, we steer you off the freeway, through the busines district because, well, it's good for business... No, the scenic route is filled to it's quota, you'll have to go on the freeway....

I don't think this will be a problem. I wouldn't buy a car that would allow others to dictate the route so completely. While I wouldn't be driving the car directly, I would demand the power to dictate the route. I could accept route changes due to road events if I wanted to, but if I wanted to stick to my route and waste time in a traffic jam, I could.

It would be like a captain telling the helmsman where to go - The Captain decides the route, the helmsman goes about implementing that decision, while the Captain does something else.

Or, even more earth shaking, we won't each need out own car:

Auto-Cabs will take over, and pick you up at your door, drop you at your door, why have a car sitting in your driveway all day? or the parking garage? Do away with mass transit, each cab would know the most efficient route to pick up more riders, for each individual's destination, No more single occupancy vehicles.

Of course, Big Brother will be watching, planning out the route, you're gonna take real soon, checking to see who is naughty or nice...

This could happen, and for a lot of city people, they might even prefer it. They already have programs where you buy a share in a fleet of cars, in which you can sign out a vehicle on days you need a car.

But for a lot of people, they'll still want a personal vehicle. They may want to keep things like sports equipment in the car, so it's available when they have time to go to the gym, or work equipment that they may need on a regular basis, but not every day. Also, for long trips, you'd want your regular in-car entertainment.

As well, some people would want bigger or smaller vehicles, which they might not get from a central authority. I know I would rebel against any program that tried to stuff me into a sub-compact.

 

[Ben Tilly]

The technology will be ready for use the moment an insurance company is willing to underwrite liability insurance for an automated vehicle.

And not a moment sooner.

Absolutely right.

The problem with self-driving cars is that they make manufacturers liable. And the problem with that is that they have deep pockets, and are therefore a lawyer's dream target.

Even if a self-driving car would get into half as many accidents as a human, the potential liability would be so severe that no manufacturer would want to take it on in the USA. In fact liability concerns are one of the reasons why steps towards that, like self-parking, were sold in other parts of the world before they were available in the USA.

The result is that we in the US will not see this technology until it has been well enough proven elsewhere that someone is willing to take a deep breath and accept the liability risk here.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Horatius]

Even if a self-driving car would get into half as many accidents as a human, the potential liability would be so severe that no manufacturer would want to take it on in the USA. In fact liability concerns are one of the reasons why steps towards that, like self-parking, were sold in other parts of the world before they were available in the USA.

But would it only be half? It's my understanding and experience that the vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error. The number that are caused by technical failures is very small. If I was an insurance company, I'd be willing to accept the higher average pay-outs, if it meant I paid out only a fraction of the time.

 

[Ben Tilly]

But would it only be half? It's my understanding and experience that the vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error. The number that are caused by technical failures is very small. If I was an insurance company, I'd be willing to accept the higher average pay-outs, if it meant I paid out only a fraction of the time.

Back when I was learning to drive, there was a claim that half of all accidents happen at a traffic light, and half of those happen within 5 seconds of a light change. (The moral being that by avoiding being in that intersection in those 5 seconds you can significantly reduce your accident risk.)

So suppose that we have a self-driving car that waits for the light to turn green, goes, and is slammed by someone running the red. The "driving passenger" of the self-driving car wasn't looking and doesn't know what the light did. The person who was running the red claims that they had the light. The car manufacturer claims that their car won't go unless the light is in their favour. Discovery turns up an obscure email where an engineer talks about how a combination of poor light placement and an unwashed car can confuse the car about whether it sees a regular light (don't go on red) or a blinking red (you can go on red).

What will a jury decide? How will the case be covered in the news? Even though the possibility of malfunction may be incredibly remote, and the facts may have entirely been on the manufacturer's side, this won't look good.

The automotive industry has lost some nasty cases in the past where the facts were clearly on their side. One that comes to mind is the fact that people sometimes step on the accelerator instead of the brake, and then in their panic can't figure out why the car is going crazy. This is a well-known phenomena known as pedal confusion. The industry has very good documentation of this problem, and very solid evidence that it is not because the brake sometimes acts as an accelerator. But at least one woman who ran over her son because of this successfully sued the car manufacturer for an equipment malfunction - and won!

Personally were I at a car manufacturer, I'd make the USA one of the last markets to have self-driving cars. I'd also take a cue from the airline industry and have a "black box" in each car which would contain as much information as possible about events leading up to any crash that happened. (Ideally I'd like full videotape from several cameras.)

Cheers,
Ben

 

[fishbait]

Of course, Big Brother will be watching, planning out the route, you're gonna take real soon, checking to see who is naughty or nice...

Just what we need; being plugged into a system that is monitored and controlled by the government.

Can anyone else see the potential for governmental control of our freedom of movement and potential misuse of the data resulting from this?

I am in not a conspiracy nut nor am I anti-technology. I just think giving more control of my movements to the government so I can get somewhere super fast is a really bad idea.

 

[Ziggurat]

But would it only be half? It's my understanding and experience that the vast majority of accidents are caused by driver error. The number that are caused by technical failures is very small. If I was an insurance company, I'd be willing to accept the higher average pay-outs, if it meant I paid out only a fraction of the time.

The problem, for the manufacturers, is that while the risk of an accident might be much smaller, the risk to them from litigation might not be. Lawsuits targeting drivers are limited in size by the fact that they cannot afford huge insurance coverage, and most drivers don't have monstrous assets. There's no point in suing someone for more than they're worth, because you won't get it even if you win. But with car manufacturers, well, they're worth quite a bit, aren't they? And it may not matter to a jury that your software only caused 1 fatal accident while human drivers would have caused 10: they're not going to look at it as 9 saved lives. You still killed a guy, and they could make you pay for it, big time. Manufacturers don't want that kind of liability if they can possibly avoid it.

 

[Dave1001]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/14/mag...tomated.biz2/index.htm?postversion=2007021506

I think it will be a long, long time before we ever see a self-driving car, if ever, for two main reasons:

#1. Detecting road signs and traffic lights. It would be incredibly expensive to outfit every street in America with radio transmitters to tell self-driving cars the proper speed limit. Not to mention this huge project would be impractical: Why should the government spend billions just so lazy people can have "self-driving cars"? Road signs couldn't be programmed directly into the car itself, like in the OnStar system, either because of how they frequently change (I.E. during construction). Plus you can't
really detect traffic lights.

#2. I don't believe we have the kind of optics to be able to always accurately distinguish between various objects on the road, certainly not good enough to accurately track movement. It was a real challenge for us to develop a UGV which could even move through a static obstacle course... That's worlds away from ever building one that could detect the color of traffic lights, distinguish between bicyclists, autos, pedestrians and animals, and be able to move accordingly.

I think it will come extremely quickly. You don't sound highly informed on the state of the relevant technologies (even as reported in the popular press), nor on the financial and economic incentives, based on your expressed concerns. I do think that the last place we'll see it is in the suburbs, which are probably the most complex driving environments. Highways first, perhaps even just the left 2 lanes of large highways first, (with a switch to autopilot option), then dense urban areas like Manhattan, then suburbs and rural areas last.

 

[Dave1001]

Back when I was learning to drive, there was a claim that half of all accidents happen at a traffic light, and half of those happen within 5 seconds of a light change. (The moral being that by avoiding being in that intersection in those 5 seconds you can significantly reduce your accident risk.)

So suppose that we have a self-driving car that waits for the light to turn green, goes, and is slammed by someone running the red. The "driving passenger" of the self-driving car wasn't looking and doesn't know what the light did. The person who was running the red claims that they had the light. The car manufacturer claims that their car won't go unless the light is in their favour. Discovery turns up an obscure email where an engineer talks about how a combination of poor light placement and an unwashed car can confuse the car about whether it sees a regular light (don't go on red) or a blinking red (you can go on red).

What will a jury decide? How will the case be covered in the news? Even though the possibility of malfunction may be incredibly remote, and the facts may have entirely been on the manufacturer's side, this won't look good.

The automotive industry has lost some nasty cases in the past where the facts were clearly on their side. One that comes to mind is the fact that people sometimes step on the accelerator instead of the brake, and then in their panic can't figure out why the car is going crazy. This is a well-known phenomena known as pedal confusion. The industry has very good documentation of this problem, and very solid evidence that it is not because the brake sometimes acts as an accelerator. But at least one woman who ran over her son because of this successfully sued the car manufacturer for an equipment malfunction - and won!

Personally were I at a car manufacturer, I'd make the USA one of the last markets to have self-driving cars. I'd also take a cue from the airline industry and have a "black box" in each car which would contain as much information as possible about events leading up to any crash that happened. (Ideally I'd like full videotape from several cameras.)

Cheers,
Ben

I think you overstate the effect of trial lawyers to retard the deployment of new technology in America. There's a reason cars are widely available in the first place in America despite the existence of trial lawyers. There isn't a substantively new problem introduced with self-driving car technology, in my opinion. People sue car companies now, and they'll sue car companies then. Juries and judges will still make their own decisions on the topics of liability and damages. Let's not overreduce complex social phenomena.

 

[SezMe]

I'd also take a cue from the airline industry and have a "black box" in each car which would contain as much information as possible about events leading up to any crash that happened. (Ideally I'd like full videotape from several cameras.)

Those black boxes already exist. Here is one example of how the data are being used. Although this is a truck example, newer cars are similarly equipped.

Regards the liability issue, congress might have a role to play. The nuclear lobby got congress to limit their liability; I see no reason the automotive industry couldn't do the same. I'm not saying that would be a good thing, just that is one way out of the dilemma.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

One bullet into the computer of the lead car, how do the rest respond when it suddenly locks up?

Because modern cars are sooooo bullet resistant:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm

 

[Cuddles]

My mother's car can already park itself, just line up next to a space and push the park button. Scariest thing I've ever done was sitting in it with no-one touching the wheel or pedals. But it does work. We already have the technology to make self-driving cars, all that is lacking is the will to change. I don't think it will happen all that soon, but there is really no doubt that it will eventually.

 

[timhau]

Exactly. So far, most automatic systems have dealt only with the speed of the car - transmissions, accelerators and breaks. Now we're starting to see some high-end cars that can automate aspects of the steering - Have you seen the ads for the car that parallel-parks itself?

I had heard of it, but I didn't know the self-park gadget was in mass production already. I did find one ad on YouTube though. It must be creepy sitting inside while the car does its stuff.

(The ad his here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4kBbIOZaGE&mode=related&search=
)

 

[timhau]

My mother's car can already park itself, just line up next to a space and push the park button. Scariest thing I've ever done was sitting in it with no-one touching the wheel or pedals. But it does work. We already have the technology to make self-driving cars, all that is lacking is the will to change.

I don't think the self-park qualifies as self-drive -- parallel parking is actually a fairly well-defined task, and to carry it out you only have to mechanically repeat the same procedures over and over again. But it is a step towards the goal.

 

[Ove]

There is nothing in a self driving car that can't be made today if we wanted to. Some expensive cars, as told, can park themselves, i have also read about trucks that had anti-collision scanners mounted. They detect the distance to the car in front and react if this distance diminishes too rapidly. I read a story about one truckdriver who avoided a crash thanks to that. The GPS transponders today know what the speed limit is and it can easily be buildt into todays cars so that they automatically keep the speed limit. Molinaro: i read about one such trial and here the accellerator was spring loaded, you COULD give a short burst of speed, for overtaking or in an emergency but the spring would make you release the accellerator again quite quickly.

In short, it could easily be made today and all in all would it probably just make the cars 1-200$ more expensive but, but, but, -it hasn't got a chance. Why? Because it would take the "fun" out of driving and most desicion makers are men in their 40's - 60's which is the age where men enjoys their driving most. I know i am an exception, i am 48 and i consider my car as a mean of transportation, EOS.... Most men in my age regards their car as a toy. It must be fun to drive, just getting form a to b is soooooo boring. Getting there is half the fun etc....
There is no way that theese men would pass a law that "took the fun" out of driving.

 

[Earthborn]

I don't think the self-park qualifies as self-drive

No, it doesn't. But the car that automatically drove most of the way coast to coast through the US in 1997 was said to be unable to do it, so it is great to see that there has been progress in this matter.

Though perhaps not yet enough:

 

[Horatius]

No, it doesn't. But the car that automatically drove most of the way coast to coast through the US in 1997 was said to be unable to do it, so it is great to see that there has been progress in this matter.

Though perhaps not yet enough:

Yeah, saw that video too. Apparently the tech hasn't solved the loud-mouthed idiot problems.....