Potential Problem with Self-Driving Cars

Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

20 May 2017, 7:39 pm

SH90 wrote:
There's Uber and Lyft, that works well for people who cant drive. Bus, train and regular taxis. These are all things available in my city (Orlando), that is known to have one of the worse public or low cost transportation options. These would still be cheaper and safer then a true autonomous car. Most of the autonomous cars don't react well to the unpredictable (say a kid runs out between cars), unlike humans who can possibly avoid or at the minimum choose to hit something less lethal. Cheaper as in, each person who can't drive wouldn't have to go out and spend $80,000 on a car they can't operate in an emergency.

EDIT: From an economics standpoint... It's better to employ someone who may not be employable in other industries. Someone driving a car and making money is a good thing. They pay taxes and they buy things, again creating more jobs.


It will cost everyone a fortune if they ban traditional vehicles altogether at some point.

We will either have to purchase a new autonomous vehicle or hire them like we do a traditional taxi.

Where as I can buy a decent, reliable vehicle for £500 today. I'll probably be priced off the road in the future.



BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head

25 May 2017, 3:32 pm

I am excited by the prospect of self-driving cars. Very excited. But they will need their own lane. Eventually, hopefully, non-self-driving cars will be the ones needing their own lane.

I look forward to:
Having my car drive me to visit far away family members while I read the news, read, sleep, drink coffee, wrap presents, listen to the radio, listen to music, watch movies, and maybe even change (from comfortable driving/weekend clothes to comfortable but more presentable clothes).

Having my car drive me (and when necessary, a co-workers/co-worker) back to my place to crash after too much overtime.

Having my car drive me to the dry-cleaners, and to the grocery store/Costco, and to the movies, and to the book store after work.

If I were married and had a family, I could look forward to the car driving me with my children around to their activities, and driving the family dogs to the good dog park. Yes, it would still require time, but it would be safer in the self driving lane, and easier on me in terms of fatigue.

These things could seriously save lives if they could be trusted to drive the old, sick, injured, or pregnant to the hospital.



MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

26 May 2017, 3:48 am

BetwixtBetween wrote:
I am excited by the prospect of self-driving cars. Very excited. But they will need their own lane. Eventually, hopefully, non-self-driving cars will be the ones needing their own lane.

I look forward to:
Having my car drive me to visit far away family members while I read the news, read, sleep, drink coffee, wrap presents, listen to the radio, listen to music, watch movies, and maybe even change (from comfortable driving/weekend clothes to comfortable but more presentable clothes).

Having my car drive me (and when necessary, a co-workers/co-worker) back to my place to crash after too much overtime.

Having my car drive me to the dry-cleaners, and to the grocery store/Costco, and to the movies, and to the book store after work.

If I were married and had a family, I could look forward to the car driving me with my children around to their activities, and driving the family dogs to the good dog park. Yes, it would still require time, but it would be safer in the self driving lane, and easier on me in terms of fatigue.

These things could seriously save lives if they could be trusted to drive the old, sick, injured, or pregnant to the hospital.


IF they could be trusted. And like most things these days, I'm sure they'll be hackable.

YIKES!



BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head

26 May 2017, 3:51 am

I trust hackable things every day. I'm willing to take that risk.



MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

26 May 2017, 1:45 pm

But these hackable things can crash. And not like a pc can crash.

Like into a tree!



BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head

26 May 2017, 10:45 pm

And stop lights could give the wrong signal. And all the money in my bank account could go to someone else. And someone could hack your computers web camera and post/email your boss a bunch of naked pictures of you or porn you didn't know you made. And your prescription information could become corrupted resulting in you getting something you're not supposed to from your friendly pharmacist. And your scary stalker could track your smart phone and see your texts and listen to what you say. And actually your car may already be hackable.

I look forward to my car driving me.



MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

28 May 2017, 9:47 am

BetwixtBetween wrote:
And stop lights could give the wrong signal. And all the money in my bank account could go to someone else. And someone could hack your computers web camera and post/email your boss a bunch of naked pictures of you or porn you didn't know you made. And your prescription information could become corrupted resulting in you getting something you're not supposed to from your friendly pharmacist. And your scary stalker could track your smart phone and see your texts and listen to what you say. And actually your car may already be hackable.

I look forward to my car driving me.


And I'm sure that you'll be fine, but I'll continue to drive my own vehicle for as long as the law allows.



SH90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2016
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,558
Location: Florida

28 May 2017, 2:21 pm

MirrorWars wrote:
SH90 wrote:
There's Uber and Lyft, that works well for people who cant drive. Bus, train and regular taxis. These are all things available in my city (Orlando), that is known to have one of the worse public or low cost transportation options. These would still be cheaper and safer then a true autonomous car. Most of the autonomous cars don't react well to the unpredictable (say a kid runs out between cars), unlike humans who can possibly avoid or at the minimum choose to hit something less lethal. Cheaper as in, each person who can't drive wouldn't have to go out and spend $80,000 on a car they can't operate in an emergency.

EDIT: From an economics standpoint... It's better to employ someone who may not be employable in other industries. Someone driving a car and making money is a good thing. They pay taxes and they buy things, again creating more jobs.


It will cost everyone a fortune if they ban traditional vehicles altogether at some point.

We will either have to purchase a new autonomous vehicle or hire them like we do a traditional taxi.

Where as I can buy a decent, reliable vehicle for £500 today. I'll probably be priced off the road in the future.


This ban would never pass in America. Limitations sure, but not an alright ban... Europe maybe different.

Americans love the automobile, as much we love our guns.



MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

28 May 2017, 5:34 pm

It's just a baseless prediction that I've made. But knowing the British government, as soon as these things become really popular, they will put laws in place to eventually phase out traditional cars.

They will probably still allow some limited use of classic cars, though.

It's all just guesswork from me.



UnturnedStone
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2015
Age: 39
Posts: 325
Location: Australia

28 May 2017, 7:02 pm

How is a piece of computer software supposed to decide who dies and who lives... That's what I want to know...

Consider this:

Car is driving 60 kph down a straight 1 lane road.
A mother and a toddler, begin to the cross road not hearing vehicle.
There are trees down one side of the road and parked cars on the other.
Just braking will result in hitting mother and toddler.
Swerving into tree could kill driver, swerving into parked cars could kill unknown occupants in parked cars and driver.

So does the car kill the driver as that is the least loss of life? Or do you pay extra for driver protection which ensures the car will never choose to kill the driver?

If two cars are destined for a head on collision does one of them sacrifice itself for the other (run itself off the road), if so which one? the one with the least occupants? what if both cars have 2 occupants? first car has adult and elderly person, second car has adult and child... who dies?... how does each car know what occupants are in another car? do they need to "talk" to each other?

People will be suing car manufactures for designing a car that killed there loved ones. Every accident will be over analysed and when there is an accident, does this mean it's the cars fault and not your own? so you don't need insurance and the car manufacturer will be responsible for damages?

And of course the biggest flaw with all of this, is they will be hacked (and crashed) and people will be killed. In this world you can guarantee it, they will also be used for car bombs, battering rams and any other way you can weaponize a vehicle.



MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

30 May 2017, 5:40 pm

The point about the vehicle's "brain" having to make a decision on which life to spare and which to sacrifice, is a classic conundrum.

It's quite creepy just to read about it being a real-world problem in the near future.



Kiprobalhato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: מתחת לעננים

01 Jun 2017, 1:28 am

BetwixtBetween wrote:
I trust hackable things every day. I'm willing to take that risk.


it is true that the creeping "internet of things" has made a hackable object out of previously ordinary, inert objects.

such a fact makes me uneasy, but so far have had almost no issues with such small, NONCAR things and i hope i will not regret the reluctant amount of trust which i have placed in them.

BetwixtBetween wrote:
And stop lights could give the wrong signal. And all the money in my bank account could go to someone else. And someone could hack your computers web camera and post/email your boss a bunch of naked pictures of you or porn you didn't know you made. And your prescription information could become corrupted resulting in you getting something you're not supposed to from your friendly pharmacist. And your scary stalker could track your smart phone and see your texts and listen to what you say. And actually your car may already be hackable.

I look forward to my car driving me.


valid concerns. but many of those scenarios are not nearly as dangerous as what would happen is your car was "hacked" and became uncontrollable while at speed. barreling down the highway. tragedy. i am aware that this already happens all too often with conventional vehicles, and moron drivers, but the introduction of self driving cars (hell, safety features in general) doesn't mean people will necessarily become safer drivers. most you can do is lower the risk of death in the carnage.

also, can i ask what kind of bumbling idiot doesn't know that they made porn or nudes of themselves??

i'm sorry, but i refuse to become a guinea pig for the first generation of an untried/unsettled, experimental technology whose ramifications nobody even truly knows yet.

maybe i'm just paranoid.

SH90 wrote:
Americans love the automobile, as much we love our guns.


true that. i doubt it will happen here, but no government thug will ever take my auto(s) away from me, as long as i shall live.

BetwixtBetween wrote:
I am excited by the prospect of self-driving cars. Very excited. But they will need their own lane. Eventually, hopefully, non-self-driving cars will be the ones needing their own lane.


what would be the benefit of separating the two?

jim crow, but for cars?


_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.


HermioneG
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 22 May 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 44
Location: In the Slytherin Common Room

01 Jun 2017, 7:26 pm

My partner is obsessed with the possibility of self driving cars. We've been through various discussions of potential safety issues regarding the computer choosing who to save in a crash scenario, etc. Basically we determined that there is much more research to be done before these things could be considered safe to put on the road. The main issue I see is that you still have a programmer's bias for pedestrians vs. car occupants or even children vs. elderly, what have you. You have to make a decision who's life to save and can artificial intelligence really do that? What if your options were a drug lord or the Canadian prime minister? Lots of questions, not enough answers.


_________________
Aspie Quiz Results:
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 151 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 64 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)
~Unofficially diagnosed but fairly certain based on personal research that I am an Aspie~


MirrorWars
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 546

02 Jun 2017, 4:20 am

HermioneG wrote:
My partner is obsessed with the possibility of self driving cars. We've been through various discussions of potential safety issues regarding the computer choosing who to save in a crash scenario, etc. Basically we determined that there is much more research to be done before these things could be considered safe to put on the road. The main issue I see is that you still have a programmer's bias for pedestrians vs. car occupants or even children vs. elderly, what have you. You have to make a decision who's life to save and can artificial intelligence really do that? What if your options were a drug lord or the Canadian prime minister? Lots of questions, not enough answers.


I remember that there was a fatal crash involving a self-driving car about a year ago.

The computer mistook a white lorry for the sky!

Scary.



NewTime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2015
Posts: 1,938

02 Jun 2017, 8:11 am

SH90 wrote:
MirrorWars wrote:
SH90 wrote:
There's Uber and Lyft, that works well for people who cant drive. Bus, train and regular taxis. These are all things available in my city (Orlando), that is known to have one of the worse public or low cost transportation options. These would still be cheaper and safer then a true autonomous car. Most of the autonomous cars don't react well to the unpredictable (say a kid runs out between cars), unlike humans who can possibly avoid or at the minimum choose to hit something less lethal. Cheaper as in, each person who can't drive wouldn't have to go out and spend $80,000 on a car they can't operate in an emergency.

EDIT: From an economics standpoint... It's better to employ someone who may not be employable in other industries. Someone driving a car and making money is a good thing. They pay taxes and they buy things, again creating more jobs.


It will cost everyone a fortune if they ban traditional vehicles altogether at some point.

We will either have to purchase a new autonomous vehicle or hire them like we do a traditional taxi.

Where as I can buy a decent, reliable vehicle for £500 today. I'll probably be priced off the road in the future.


This ban would never pass in America. Limitations sure, but not an alright ban... Europe maybe different.

Americans love the automobile, as much we love our guns.


There were people objecting to not being able to use horses and carriages on the road anymore, but eventually they were banned from main roadways. Cars that you can manually drive will eventually go the way of the horse and carriage.