PoorBob

Ill say it again,

That giant pick up truck is not dangerous... It is the driver inside that hates people on bikes and yells expletives as he passes dangerously close and at a high speed.

That Prius is not dangerous.... Its the driver that does not realize his or her car is almost silent and sneaks up way to close to us.

That delivery truck is not dangerous.... The fatigued driver that has not noticed you yet on a busy street, and is staring at the girl on the opposite sidewalk that is about to strike you with his mirror.

Its not the 4 door sedan that is dangerous... The 16yr old driver texting a friend and driving way too fast that is about to rear end us.

So to simply answer the original question without going into the ethics of autonomous cars, or the time frame that we will see them... Yes they will be safer then human operators.

And think after a long fondo we can have a few libations at the pub, then recline the seat and let the car drive us home! ( not opening the worm hole on the subject yet)

CB HI

An EMP over Hawaii seems to be the biggest credible risk out of North Korea right now. But it would also mean, no BFs, serious limitations in food/water and it is a really long ways to the nearest available out of state hospital.

kickstart

My Grandfather was born in 1882, living in rural Maine things like automobiles and electricity were an extremely rare novelty until his mid 30's. It was a common theme to be reminded how lucky we are to have all these modern things.

I wounder what our outlook would be if we had that generations perspective. Maybe we're a little spoiled? Obviously there's issues to be resolved, but perhaps it's not really that bad, and we're still better off overall.

Another thing to consider is that cities were much smaller, and there were far fewer people back then.



And we don't need to be near as careful where we step......

Cyclist0084

Good point.

Cyclist0084

I know this is really a question for another thread, but since we're on the subject of automated cars (potentially) being safer for cyclists, who assumes the responsibility when / if a driverless car strikes and injures / kills a cyclist? The car manufacturer? The company that developed the software? Whoever owns the car? The person(s) riding in the car? All of them? None of them? Someone I haven't thought of yet?

PoorBob

Lots of variables in that question.

Who was at fault, what were the causing factors. Did the autonomous vehicle malfunction and strike the cyclist?

If the car was at fault then the investigation would go further, in the end it would come down if there was neglect (maintenance) or a "willful" (disabling safety devices etc) act that caused the death. If its found to be willful then the responsible individual could see criminal charges.

Remember these cars will not just be tossed out on the highways without some major changes in Federal and changes to your State vehicle laws.

I-Like-To-Bike

Let's hope not. Don't forget that at least one of the major players in the promotion of self driving car schemes, Uber, has never let a concern about flaunting existing laws or regulation hinder them in tossing their product out on the highways.

Daniel4

Let's put it this way. A new grad is looking for his first job. He has $30,000 in debt. But instead of spending his time perfecting his resume, he's hung up on minimizing his taxes drawn from his retirement fund when he's 60. And he doesn't even have a retirement fund yet.

Those are the kind of problems he'd like to have when he reaches that happy place. Today he has to concentrate on getting his first job and that $30,000 debt paid.

When self-driving cars are on the road, you can be sure that the over-whelming majority of fatalities, injuries and damages will be the result of manual drivers. Regardless, the total fatalities per year will be a lot lower than the 30,000 per year the US experiences today which are all the result of human drivers. So don't let the problems we want to have stall you from making the improvements we need to make today.

There is nothing in the US Constitution saying a person has the right to drive.

Life, liberty and the right to happiness is not limited to those inside motor vehicles.

The ethical dilemma is not the perceived or imaginary right of the driver. (Motorists don't even offer that right to each other today.) It is the choice of the authorities when faced with public safety.

tyrion

The ethics are much more difficult than the technology issues and are summarized in the trolley problem.

Does the car act to save the passenger and sacrifice a bicyclist during a crash?

What if there are 2 passengers and 1 bicyclist?

What if the bicyclist is a child? A pregnant woman? 2 pregnant women inside the car vs.
3 children outside the car?

Can I pay more for driving software that favors the passengers? How much favoritism can I buy?

Thorny issues, no easy answers. These issues don't just apply to cars, they're going to be creeping into many aspects of life as things get more automated.

Daniel4

So you are delaying the progress of mitigating the deaths of 6000 non-motorists a year because you can't decide if those lives have priority over a motorist and his passengers who will most likely suffer material damage or injury?

prathmann

I strongly suspect that these ethical conundrums are of far more interest to philosophers and column/blog writers than they are to the people actually developing the autonomous car software. I'd think the software would just be looking for the best way to try to avoid the crash by applying brakes (& possibly throttle) and steering. If that proves insufficient then the car ends up sliding out of control and hitting whatever is unfortunate enough to be in its path. Basically the same as human drivers do today when they see that a crash is imminent. But I'm confident that the autonomous car will 1) find itself in that situation much less frequently, and 2) respond more appropriately when it does so as to avoid the crash entirely.

tyrion

If that question is to me, then no, I'm not delaying anything. I'm firmly in favor of driverless cars.

350htrr

Of course self driving cars would make it safer for cyclist... once it's figured out... Until then, no. It will be more dangerous... It's just the way it is...

I-Like-To-Bike

What, besides the hot air and pie-in-the-sky promises emanating from the salesmen and hypesters promoting their dream cars, as well as a lot wishful thinking, gives you such confidence?

jon c. 

The science of autonomous robotics has made great strides in the last decade and there is every reason to believe significant advances to continue. The sensing and control technology in self driving cars has a lot of applications and the research is driven by many concerns outside the passenger vehicle industry. Dept. of Defense interest guarantees a strong source of continued funding. I'm confident the technology will get there in 5 to 10 years. It will likely take much longer to dominate the market for a variety of reasons, but I don't think confidence in the technology is misplaced.

I-Like-To-Bike

No doubt that money will be thrown at the technology, but the question is what is the source for your and others' "confidence" in drastically reduced number of fatalities and injuries anytime in the foreseeable future, other than the promoters' hyped up promises and PR flack?

tyrion

Mainly because computers are much less error prone than humans at this kind of thing and can process information much faster. Within certain narrowly defined activities (arithmetic, playing chess, landing rocket ships on floating barges) computers greatly outperform humans. In only a couple of years computers will be able to drive cars much, much, much better and safer than humans can.

Myosmith

Um, didn't a cyber ransom attack just shut down major industries, medical centers, banks and other businesses all over the world (90+ countries including the US) just a week or so ago?

jon c. 

That's a different issue. The confidence in question is that the tech will develop sufficiently to allow the machines to function as desired. I have no confidence that human avarice can be defeated by technology.

Rollfast

We'll be dead before that, and I can say that with confidence. Think thugs from A Clockwork Orange attacking these cars.

I-Like-To-Bike

"Function as desired" is a tall order if a principal parameter of "desire" includes significant reduction in injury/collision risk with no loss of personal mobility as being promoted by the salesmen/hypsters for the technology.

Automobiles that exist today "function as desired" unless they don't when something unexpected happens.

PoorBob

I spent many years in the Safety Field before going over to operations.

One of the first things I was taught and tried to change in the workplace is that there are no "accidents" we have incidents. Why this change in vocabulary, simply because for every event there is a cause. Things don't just happen as we like to think. All motor vehicle incidents can be traced to several causes that usually lead to a catastrophe.

From years of accident investigation I came to realize one thing, we the humans are behind incidents. The injured is not always the cause, but a break down of rule following and a general complacency leads to the majority of these events. This is very true on the highway. Road conditions, vehicle conditions still require the driver to adjust which we often do not do. Driver fatigue, impairment, inexperience will all be limited by technology soon. But the replies I see here remind me of the multiple training classes I was required to take for defensive driving. 100 % of drivers survived feel they are good drivers. If this was true we would see very few incidents? My guess is quite a few that have a negative view on this technology also drive 15-20 miles over the speed limit daily because they feel they are in total control. These are the same people that do not walk around a vehicle before backing out of a drive way, because we always know nothing is behind us??? The bottom line is daily all of us take a chance or risk when driving, when we look at our phone, change the radio station, or speed we are increasing the risk or chance of an incident. Multiply that by every other car on the road and you will see how this technology will be safer. Yes cars will still crash, but at such a major reduction in percentage.

Daniel4

That's the human factor. There are no accidents. Please read PoorBob's post.

Daniel4

Is this incidence enough for you to give up all your internet-dependant devices today?

Now, let's address the 90 deaths caused by human controlled motor-vehicles on the road across the US every day.

genec

Indeed, the automobile DOES function as expected... the "problem" is not the automobile, it is the idiot behind the wheel that DOES NOT function as desired... as that idiot often chooses to circumvent the rules designated by society for safe cooperative use of the road. It is that idiot that the "brains" of self driving cars are attempting to replace.

Cars work fine... and we would have few "incidents" if only the rules and laws were followed.