6 ms·

> Driverless cars means safer cars. Where's the evidence for this? perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prev

> Driverless cars means safer cars. Where's the evidence for this? perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen.

x43b 12y ago
"perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen." I hear this sentiment a lot. Having a higher percentage of cars following safe practices is safer even if those are cars aren't perfect and even if 100% of the cars aren't automated. Can you tell me the logic (I've seen it many times in posts) that there won't be any safety benefits until all cars are automated (or until there aren't any manual drivers?). I disagree that the benefit will be that discrete.
- WalterBright 12y ago
  The trouble is that even if driverless cars are overall vastly safer, in today's litigious environment it just takes one fatal crash to derail (!) the whole concept when the car maker is sued out of existence. Whereas suing individual drivers doesn't take down the whole system.
  - TheCowboy 12y ago
    I see this argument a lot, and it seems to beg the question to assume that there is such a "litigious environment." Why are Google and other companies trying to develop this technology if all it takes is a single fatal crash, and therefore a single lawsuit? It should be in their rational self-interest to avoid any contact with this technology. It would be lighting on money on fire. This is not the strongest example, but automobile companies have ignored fatality inducing problems, yet the practice didn't end their business. There is likely enough profit in the pursuit to deal with such issues. These lawsuits are slow-moving enough that there would be room to maneuver. The greatest threat, in my opinion, is over-reacting politicians passing laws due to a shock in public opinion on the safety of the cars. The shock could be legitimate, due to reckless implementation, or just due to an unpreventable accident.
    - WalterBright 12y ago
      I trot out the power generation industry as an example. People sue nuke plants out of existence, despite them being far less damaging than coal - in both lives and environmental destruction. There's also the vaccine industry. Some vaccinations result in severe adverse reactions in a handful of people. But the public health benefit is so vast that the government has stepped in to shield vaccine makers from the lawsuits.
      - TheCowboy 12y ago
        As far as I know, nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste is more of a NIMBY problem than a problem of excess punitive damages or other alleged problems with lawsuits. This could also be an example of public shock putting pressure on politicians and public utilities to shy away from nuclear power. The vaccine point suggests to me that it's not so black and white about if self-driving cars are doomed. If the public safety benefit of self-driving cars becomes so great, then maybe the government will be pressured to ensure they're here to stay. I think there will definitely need to be changes in the law to accommodate this tech, but it's not impossible.
  - dandrews 12y ago
    Hope you have some compelling evidence at hand when you sue an entity that has a complete record of the incident. In any case, I expect the incipient googlecars will have capacitive sensors on the steering wheel, requiring that your fingerprints are on the controls.
antris 12y ago
Lightning speed reflexes, inhuman car handling skills and inability to be distracted or get intoxicated go a long way.
- voicereasonish 12y ago
  software bugs, ability to be hacked, snooped upon by NSA, also go along way. I'll take my chances thanks. Road deaths have been falling for years, despite the number of cars rising. More people die from accidental falls. As a software developer, there's no way in hell I'd trust a car driven by software.
  - dandrews 12y ago
    You're being snooped already. Chances are your automotive systems are keeping logs, and your cell phone regularly broadcasts your location. That cat long ago left the bag.
  - antris 12y ago
    Then I'm sorry to tell you that new cars are already run by software, even though the input devices have not changed. Your car software can start the engine, disable the brakes, steer and so on. The cars on our roads already can be and have been hacked. Still, software glitches make up very little of the accidents that we see. Software glitches can be tested and fixed. Human errors cannot. Also, as a cheeky sidenote, do you also refuse to use driverless trains, driverless elevators, driverless escalators and driverless theme park rides? :)
  - glenra 12y ago
    > software bugs, ability to be hacked, snooped upon by NSA, also go along way. You're already trusting a car driven by software that could conceivably "be hacked" to hurt you. Algorithms already control things like antilock brakes, shifting, adjusting the suspension and deciding when to deploy the airbags. And assuming you have a cellphone, the NSA is already tracking your every move. > More people die from accidental falls. Source? The CDC appears to disagree with you. (my source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm ) Yes, the first driverless cars will have all sorts of blind spots, but they will gradually get better whereas human drivers won't. Software-based drivers can learn from accidents and near-accidents that almost any other software-based driver anywhere has had, whereas human drivers are largely limited to learning from their own vastly smaller range of experience. As a software developer you should be able to predict the eventual outcome: programs will eventually in most circumstances beat even the best human drivers just as they now beat even the best human chess players.
emusan 12y ago
Some of the largest causes of accidents to my knowedge are all due to human error (ie drunk driving, texting while driving, speeding, blind spots, etc). This is all something that an automated system will eliminate entirely. For every one of these unsafe drivers you replace with an automated driver, you make the road safer. (that said, I don't think it makes the car itself physically safer, that is up to the manufacturer)

x43b 12y ago

"perhaps if everyone on the road was in a driverless car, and they all communicated and prevented crashes. But that's not going to happen." I hear this sentiment a lot. Having a higher percentage of cars following safe practices is safer even if those are cars aren't perfect and even if 100% of the cars aren't automated. Can you tell me the logic (I've seen it many times in posts) that there won't be any safety benefits until all cars are automated (or until there aren't any manual drivers?). I disagree that the benefit will be that discrete.

WalterBright 12y ago
The trouble is that even if driverless cars are overall vastly safer, in today's litigious environment it just takes one fatal crash to derail (!) the whole concept when the car maker is sued out of existence. Whereas suing individual drivers doesn't take down the whole system.
- TheCowboy 12y ago
  I see this argument a lot, and it seems to beg the question to assume that there is such a "litigious environment." Why are Google and other companies trying to develop this technology if all it takes is a single fatal crash, and therefore a single lawsuit? It should be in their rational self-interest to avoid any contact with this technology. It would be lighting on money on fire. This is not the strongest example, but automobile companies have ignored fatality inducing problems, yet the practice didn't end their business. There is likely enough profit in the pursuit to deal with such issues. These lawsuits are slow-moving enough that there would be room to maneuver. The greatest threat, in my opinion, is over-reacting politicians passing laws due to a shock in public opinion on the safety of the cars. The shock could be legitimate, due to reckless implementation, or just due to an unpreventable accident.
  - WalterBright 12y ago
    I trot out the power generation industry as an example. People sue nuke plants out of existence, despite them being far less damaging than coal - in both lives and environmental destruction. There's also the vaccine industry. Some vaccinations result in severe adverse reactions in a handful of people. But the public health benefit is so vast that the government has stepped in to shield vaccine makers from the lawsuits.
    - TheCowboy 12y ago
      As far as I know, nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste is more of a NIMBY problem than a problem of excess punitive damages or other alleged problems with lawsuits. This could also be an example of public shock putting pressure on politicians and public utilities to shy away from nuclear power. The vaccine point suggests to me that it's not so black and white about if self-driving cars are doomed. If the public safety benefit of self-driving cars becomes so great, then maybe the government will be pressured to ensure they're here to stay. I think there will definitely need to be changes in the law to accommodate this tech, but it's not impossible.
- dandrews 12y ago
  Hope you have some compelling evidence at hand when you sue an entity that has a complete record of the incident. In any case, I expect the incipient googlecars will have capacitive sensors on the steering wheel, requiring that your fingerprints are on the controls.

antris 12y ago

Lightning speed reflexes, inhuman car handling skills and inability to be distracted or get intoxicated go a long way.

voicereasonish 12y ago
software bugs, ability to be hacked, snooped upon by NSA, also go along way. I'll take my chances thanks. Road deaths have been falling for years, despite the number of cars rising. More people die from accidental falls. As a software developer, there's no way in hell I'd trust a car driven by software.
- dandrews 12y ago
  You're being snooped already. Chances are your automotive systems are keeping logs, and your cell phone regularly broadcasts your location. That cat long ago left the bag.
- antris 12y ago
  Then I'm sorry to tell you that new cars are already run by software, even though the input devices have not changed. Your car software can start the engine, disable the brakes, steer and so on. The cars on our roads already can be and have been hacked. Still, software glitches make up very little of the accidents that we see. Software glitches can be tested and fixed. Human errors cannot. Also, as a cheeky sidenote, do you also refuse to use driverless trains, driverless elevators, driverless escalators and driverless theme park rides? :)
- glenra 12y ago
  > software bugs, ability to be hacked, snooped upon by NSA, also go along way. You're already trusting a car driven by software that could conceivably "be hacked" to hurt you. Algorithms already control things like antilock brakes, shifting, adjusting the suspension and deciding when to deploy the airbags. And assuming you have a cellphone, the NSA is already tracking your every move. > More people die from accidental falls. Source? The CDC appears to disagree with you. (my source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm ) Yes, the first driverless cars will have all sorts of blind spots, but they will gradually get better whereas human drivers won't. Software-based drivers can learn from accidents and near-accidents that almost any other software-based driver anywhere has had, whereas human drivers are largely limited to learning from their own vastly smaller range of experience. As a software developer you should be able to predict the eventual outcome: programs will eventually in most circumstances beat even the best human drivers just as they now beat even the best human chess players.

emusan 12y ago

Some of the largest causes of accidents to my knowedge are all due to human error (ie drunk driving, texting while driving, speeding, blind spots, etc). This is all something that an automated system will eliminate entirely. For every one of these unsafe drivers you replace with an automated driver, you make the road safer. (that said, I don't think it makes the car itself physically safer, that is up to the manufacturer)