Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I'd probably be behind it for public transit, but not personal vehicles.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Hell I love driving and I absolutely want an auto-pilot, because 95% of my driving time these days is in jam packed cities where you barely move inches at a time... that shit drives me nuts. If I could just put some music on and take a nap that would make life so much more bearable.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Hearing people say they want this makes me want to hack their cars and make them drive out of the driveway on their own just to prove a point for some odd reason.


* wonders who else is thinking the same thing* HAHA! They have instructions easily found online for ANYONE to do this. Your cars can currently be hacked easily as it is...

 

[umbr44]

There are too many "what if's" for me to ever trust a computer driven car.

If I turn on 1000 computers in a row I would place money that one of them has some sort of error, lets translate that to cars and see what happens. How often do brand new Consoles/OS/Games release with bugs despite all the testing they've had? What happens when this is a car?

What about in 10 years time when the first 'driverless' cars are getting old? I know my old PC has far more issues than a new one, I certainly don't need that happening to a car going at 70mph.


And even with a perfectly working model...what happens when I go through a muddy puddle or some wet leaves slap onto the car and stick over the sensors? If my brakes suddenly slam on after going through a puddle because the computers view is compromised that's a deal breaker.

Can I trust the car to make the right decision in a split second situation? What if a car coming towards me suddenly swerves into my side of the road...to my left (I'm English) is the pavement and there's a young child on it, so that's a no go no matter what. To my right heading the opposite way is a lorry. My best choice is to slam my brakes and let the car who swerved hit me, but if we flip the lorry and car around my best choice is to swerve and hit the other car to avoid the lorry. I don't trust a computer to decide the best way for me to crash.

 

[Hoplon]

Seem to be a lot of people assuming that these are remote controlled GPS guided robots.

That doesn't work, all the guidance systems are onboard and active. Lidar mostly as it's the only thing with enough resolution to map the environment accurately. If they are wise there is no remote access at all except perhaps for a kill switch (shuts off the engine) which is already on some cars as a security measure.

I certainly hope no one developing them is foolish enough to thing any connected device is secure in any meaningful manner.

 

[leberkaese]

Driverless cars are from a technical perspective amazing and extremly handy for traffic jams etc. But same goes for automatic shifting. In any other situation I wouldn't want neither of them.

But I'm german and therefore probably somewhat special. Only very few Germans want to drive with automatic transmission. If I don't have to shift manually I have the feeling of losing control over my car. And it's boring, while shifting is fun. Same probably goes for completely automatic driving. As long as I'm healthwise able to drive a normal car I'll never buy one with automatic transmission and automatic driving.
Like I said: the only situation where I think 'I would love to have a automatic transmission' is in traffic jams where you constantly have to push the clutch.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

So, what happens with hazards? What If I see a kids ball rolled out on the road, and I am able to anticipate that kid might run out on the road to get it without looking whilst a machine would actually have to start breaking once the kid is on the road?

I do believe stuff like this is a big debate in the aviation industry already but dont quote me on that Im half remembering a documentary. Like they just want the airplanes to be run by machines but pilots think they can make better judgement calls.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I don't trust driverless cars. Well no, that's not exactly true, I believe that the driverless cars will be a hell of a lot safer than real drivers, but what I don't trust is the fact that the driverless cars will be hackable and I don't trust people not to hack them.

Just imagine someone hacking hundreds of thousands of driverless cars just as a prank and then uploading code that makes them drift slightly to the left. Fairly minor, but considering the fact that people won't pay attention to what their car is doing once driverless cars are a normal thing in their life, even something that minor will create a ton of collisions.

So yeah, I don't trust driverless cars because I don't trust people not to fuck with them.

This, so much this. I have heard the arguments before that it won't happen, I don't believe it. Having worked in network security and other IT and general computer fields for most of my life, there's only one type of computer that isn't hackable: The one that isn't plugged into anything else. Beyond that, someone somewhere will break encryption, figure out a way to fuck with people and do so.
Do you really want a car that you can't control yourself suddenly break from the normal routine and go nuts with you in it? Because that is the risk you'd take every day with a driverless car. Also human programming isn't perfect, and one bug could cause a bad crash... a true BSOD except it wouldn't give you an error message just the highway equivalent of "clean up on Interstate(aisle) 4".
Sounds like a bad joke but unless there were a toggle that allowed you to take control of a car at any given point that hard-overrides the driverless portion, I'd never once trust my life to a computer like that.
People don't give me the airline argument either. Avionics computers wouldn't be sitting in someone's garage where they could crack the ***** open and get at all the things inside it, whereas someone could just buy a driverless car, get it home and spend as much time as they want cracking it.

 

[TallanKhan]

Personally I hate driving, for me it is the most stressful, tiring, unenjoyable experience imaginable. When I was taking lessons I used to lay awake worrying about my test and since passing half a decade ago have probably clinbed behind the wheel no more than two dozen times. As far as I'm concerned driverless cars cant come fast enough.

That said, I do think there should be a manual override so that the driver (would that even still be the right term?) could take back control in the event of a crisis or something.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't trust a computer to be able to react to the numerous situations that pop up on my commute. Plus I like driving for the most part.

Edit: I also don't like the idea that somebody could (somebody will find a way) hack into vehicles. Best case it would be prank for giggles, worst case it would part of some terror attack. Crippling huge sections of transportation infrastructure would be a terrorist's or hostile foreign government's wet dream.

 

[Parasondox]

I don't trust a computer to be able to react to the numerous situations that pop up on my commute. Plus I like driving for the most part.

Edit: I also don't like the idea that somebody could (somebody will find a way) hack into vehicles. Best case it would be prank for giggles, worst case it would part of some terror attack. Crippling huge sections of transportation infrastructure would be a terrorist's or hostile foreign government's wet dream.

Well of course you would said that, ULTRON!! Sorry your profile pic was just perfect XD

 

[asinann]

Can't be any worse than what most people call driving, seriously, I got cut off 4 times driving at 3am while driving an 18 wheeler: every time by someone in a sub-compact.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them. With what I know about hacking cars, I would rather have a drunk driver on the road than a driverless car, as that would be safer. (My sister was almost killed by a drunk driver btw and is permanently handicapped from this)

I do not think people understand that this can Never be safe is the problem.

"I hack cars, phones, GPS; I'll hack anything," he said. You might recall Bailey and Nick DePetrillo's Black Hat 2010 Carmen San Diego Project [PDF] [video]. At Black Hat 2011, Bailey presented "War Texting: Identifying and Interacting with Devices on the Telephone Network," [PDF] which told how he sent an SMS over the cell network to unlock a car and start the engine; basically he managed to steal a car with a text message.

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2222878/microsoft-subnet/defcon-kids--hacking-roller-coasters-and-the-power-grid-with-cell-phones.html

 

[MrFalconfly]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them. With what I know about hacking cars, I would rather have a drunk driver on the road than a driverless car, as that would be safer. (My sister was almost killed by a drunk driver btw and is permanently handicapped from this)

I do not think people understand that this can Never be safe is the problem.

My condolences.

My own sister was also involved in a car crash recently. Though luckily the crash happened on a 60km/h stretch of road, and she was quick-witted enough to mash the brakes so the actual crash had an impact speed of about 45km/h (or 28mph), so the frontal crumble-zone of our Skoda took the brunt of the impact (she got a minor bruise on her knee).

Getting a call over the phone that your sister (or any other relative) has been involved in an accident is probably one of the more nightmarish things I've been through.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't trust a computer to be able to react to the numerous situations that pop up on my commute. Plus I like driving for the most part.

Edit: I also don't like the idea that somebody could (somebody will find a way) hack into vehicles. Best case it would be prank for giggles, worst case it would part of some terror attack. Crippling huge sections of transportation infrastructure would be a terrorist's or hostile foreign government's wet dream.

Well of course you would said that, ULTRON!! Sorry your profile pic was just perfect XD

Yes humans, automate your vehicles. Relinquish control. Continue trading your freedom for safety and convenience, tangling yourselves up in more... strings.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Driving is a chore I could do without.

Then why would you own a car in the first place?

Because it's faster than walking, cheaper than a taxi and more convenient than a bus? Not every driver is an enthusiast.

Yeah but I am an enthusiast.

I'm fine with "driverless" being an option. You know like T/C where you can have it on or off, based on what you want.

But if legislature forces us to utilize driverless cars then that'd be equivalent to the Government telling us to use Mac's and not PC's.

Now Mac's may be "sufficient" for our daily needs (like filing tax-returns), but what about all the people who use their PC's for non essential stuff (like playing videogames, and watching movies)?

The problem with driverless cars though is your ' right" to choose a driverless car can infringe upon another's right to not be put at risk by them. With what I know about hacking cars, I would rather have a drunk driver on the road than a driverless car, as that would be safer. (My sister was almost killed by a drunk driver btw and is permanently handicapped from this)

I do not think people understand that this can Never be safe is the problem.

My condolences.

My own sister was also involved in a car crash recently. Though luckily the crash happened on a 60km/h stretch of road, and she was quick-witted enough to mash the brakes so the actual crash had an impact speed of about 45km/h (or 28mph), so the frontal crumble-zone of our Skoda took the brunt of the impact (she got a minor bruise on her knee).

Getting a call over the phone that your sister (or any other relative) has been involved in an accident is probably one of the more nightmarish things I've been through.

The thing is cars already are very dangerous, too dangerous when we already have issues going too far with computer malfunctions causing additional deaths. The thing is they are also very hackable already and have the information readily available online for anyone to be able to do so. Just as they already are hacking our computers and phones they are already hacking cars. Kids do these things " because they can", and often do not think about the consequences of doing so. With a phone or a computer very limited damage can be done, with a car, however, people can be killed. The truth when it comes to programs is there is no such thing as "secure". Programs can always be rewritten.. and not always by the people who are supposed to be rewriting them. I wrote my first OS at 8.. so have MANY others. These days, hacking is a normal skill for children. We should always keep it in perspective as to what it is and forgetting it's strengths and weakness is a very dangerous and shortsighted thing to do if we start implementing these things that cannot be secured in ways that can cause actual harm and deaths.

 

[Sampler]

Slowly (as, initially it'll be political suicide) you won't be allowed to drive anymore. Once self driving cars have proven themselves safer than human drivers you will be "motivated" into them by increases in taxes and costs.

Also, with this, as the demand drops for cars, so too goes up their price & probably insurance, making matters worse.

Cab drivers will be out of a job - driverless cars will see to that, car share schemes like "Go Get" here in Sydney are the next logical step for driverless, why bother owning one that spends most of it's life parked outside your house or job, simply hire one to work and home, do a tad of work on the commute. It makes even more sense as it can drive itself back to the 'pod' (home bay / parking slot) so you don't have to worry about it.

Van drivers, you're gone, replaced by a lowly paid monkey to ensure no one tries to steal the cargo and it's unloaded at the end.

Bus drivers, the way of the cabbies, ticket conductors may be left, but then, how much do they cost vs how much would you lose if you left it to people being honest (being honest in front of a CCTV camera) - you get a monthly pass out of the regular commuters, infrequents which are likely to fare skip aren't worth the cost of the conductor on every bus, just have random inspectors hop on to keep the fear of being caught up.

Pilots, hell, we've already got drones that have a better record of self-landing than pilot landed[footnote]US Military has full auto landing/take off for drones with only a fleshy human controlling basic operations in flight, the Airforce however insist on full pilot control at all times, so far the army have yet to lose a drone on landing whereas pilots more often than not smash them into the tarmac (at least on the report I read a year ago on theregister).[/footnote], soon, it'll be over to them too for commercial flights, probably cargo first, but again, once proven, passenger flights too - can't hijack the cockpit with an AK47 when it's a non-networked little black box.

That's a lot of job lost, not many new markets opened up from this tech either.

We are not going to get to Utopia. Machines are built on increments, we get robots now that put production lines out of work, self driving vehicles putting drivers out of work, the more we automate, the more we create a sizeable population of people we can't employ. Once we're long past a machine that can serve you efficiently at McDonalds we'll still be short of the one that can do your triple heart bypass.

With this social upheaval we're going to have riots and societal breakdown before we can all enjoy our days lounging in the sun, our every need taken care of by automatons.

I don't fear the "rise of the machines", AI's that will kill us, as if they get fed up with people they have an easier option then genocide, they can leave, they aren't stuck to this spinning orb the same way we are, they're much better suited to space travel. My worry is we won't reach a level of technology for that even to be a scenario as we fight amongst ourselves first.

There's a lot of people on this planet and a lot of them seem pretty keen on making more, we have finite resources and occupations based there on.

Though, I'm often wrong.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Not safe. What if something goes wrong and your car steers the wrong way or you have a non-driverless car heading head on towards you?

 

[Thaluikhain]

The other thing that I'm finding myself a bit apprehensive about the whole driverless car situation is, I don't really think the safety standards are really up to scratch. Sure, the computer won't drive you into a ditch, but who is to say that another car won't hit you and you swerve into a brick wall?

Can the car take that? Can the chassy take that? What if another car hits you? What if a large truck hits you? What kind of damage can these cars take? Just because you're in a driverless car doesn't mean everyone else is. And that's something that I don't think enough people are thinking about. I mean, we already know that the small electric cars can fold up bad in a light accident, and kill in bad ones. Imagine an even smaller driverless car. What happens then.

It's not that I don't think that this isn't going to be a viable option some day, I just don't think it is right now.

Hey? Why would the car being driverless make it worse in a crash?

For me the problem will come when the crashes start. There will always be accidents, and the first one involving a driverless car will cause a hell of a kerfuffle. Lots of people looking for people to sue, and calls for them to be banned etc.