Your thoughts on 'Driverless cars"

[ccggenius12]

Cristine

that's my thought on driver-less cars

and if you donno who Cristine is, look it up

They won't turn on you and go rouge in a Stephen King way... yet. Maybe. Okay that would be scary.

That's too bad. I'd love a car that can change its color to red all on its own. It'd make me feel like James Bond.

OT: Planes are already mostly automated. Pilots are primarily there because passengers feel safer with a pilot on board, and they're only responsible for take-off and landing. Even then, the latter is only because computers are TOO GOOD at landing, and were causing damage to the test runways with the precision with which they landed on the same spot.
Also, currently, the number of airline accidents caused by the auto pilot is far exceeded by those caused by the pilot taking control away from the auto pilot.
If we can get cars to the point where they're that competent, I'd say go for it. It'll be nice to be able to go more then 5 MPH whenever there's a couple flurries.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Cristine

that's my thought on driver-less cars

and if you donno who Cristine is, look it up

They won't turn on you and go rouge in a Stephen King way... yet. Maybe. Okay that would be scary.

That's too bad. I'd love a car that can change its color to red all on its own. It'd make me feel like James Bond.

OT: Planes are already mostly automated. Pilots are primarily there because passengers feel safer with a pilot on board, and they're only responsible for take-off and landing. Even then, the latter is only because computers are TOO GOOD at landing, and were causing damage to the test runways with the precision with which they landed on the same spot.
Also, currently, the number of airline accidents caused by the auto pilot is far exceeded by those caused by the pilot taking control away from the auto pilot.
If we can get cars to the point where they're that competent, I'd say go for it. It'll be nice to be able to go more then 5 MPH whenever there's a couple flurries.

I imagine it's probably a hell of a lot easier to program the autopilot for an airplane than it is to program one for a car. After all, even with thousands of planes in the air at once there's just so much empty sky that the chances of 2 planes colliding completely on accident is infinitesimal until you get relatively close to an airport (which is where pilots take control).

 

[ccggenius12]

I imagine it's probably a hell of a lot easier to program the autopilot for an airplane than it is to program one for a car. After all, even with thousands of planes in the air at once there's just so much empty sky that the chances of 2 planes colliding completely on accident is infinitesimal until you get relatively close to an airport (which is where pilots take control).

I have no doubt that that's the case, given that a plane is generally going in a straight or slightly curved line. Still, that's the kind of precision those things are going to need before I'm willing to get in one.

 

[infohippie]

They're a great idea, I can't wait for them to become commonplace and affordable. It might lead to an end of car ownership in general, apart from people who for whatever reason need to own one, as they could be replaced with a fleet of automated taxis people could call to arrive when needed. Since there is no human driver to be paid it would be far cheaper than our current taxis, and would overall likely be cheaper long term than owning a car of your own.

As a side note,

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, this is so lazy" - my brain.

what have people got against laziness? I think it is rather unfairly maligned. Why should people have to do something they do not want to do? We are a highly technological society with tremendous resources, is it not time we started looking at how to eliminate as much of the unnecessary effort from life as possible?

 

[DrOswald]

What about if you get into a minor car accident?

On a normal car if you get into a little fender bender you and the other driver pull over and exchange information and then you go on your way with maybe a dent to your car and some scratches. On one of these driver-less cars a minor collision could mean damaging sensors on the car that check your distance from other cars. With one of these sensors damaged the car could probably become impossible to drive, then what? Are you stuck going to a repair shop immediately if you want your car working? A lot of people I've seen don't bother fixing cosmetic damage on a car, but with something like this you'd have to fix the damage otherwise your car might be inoperable.

Certainly a minor disadvantage.

A repair of a sensor might cost twice, maybe even three times as much as repairing cosmetic damage. But fender benders are caused by driver inattentiveness. You can expect simple, small accidents such as this to be nearly eliminated because computers are never inattentive, they never accidentally hit the gas instead of the break, they never put it in drive when they mean to put it in reverse.

The effective cost of accidents for owning a car is calculated as follows:

Cost of repair * frequency of accidents = cost of accidents.

Thus while the cost of any single repair may be greater, the overall cost of such accidents to any one car owner will be greatly reduced, especially considered over the course of years.

But yes, a minor accident may require a greater cost to fix.

Your response is under the assumption that

1. These cars will never have any minor glitches or hiccups (they will, as does any piece of technology, just not on an enormous scale, and the glitches won't be catastrophic failures probably).

No, my assumption is that these cars will have far, far less minor glitches or hiccups than people do at repetitive technical tasks that require concentration. Computers can do this sort of thing far better than humans could ever hope to do. There may be some glitches but those will be far and few between compared to human drivers.

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

So yeah, accidents are going to happen even if your car isn't the one at fault. How much is it going to suck if someone rear ends you, and then is able to drive away with some scratches and a dent on their bumper while you have to wait for a tow truck to take you to a mechanic.

Sure, that sucks. But I have been driving with an average commute of 2 hours every day 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, for 12 years, for a grand total of 6,240 hours of commute. I have spend 8 and a half MONTHS of my life in daily commute. In that time I have had 1 fender bender, caused by the other guy. I would gladly trade being able to use that 8 and a half months of my life on something productive or even just sleeping for 1 tow truck ride.

That's not to mention the fact that only specific mechanics will even be able to service these cars which will drive up the price, not to mention the fact that reduced accidents means reduced production of spare parts, so spare parts are going to be more expensive as well. So I really don't think that you've taken into account all the costs of an accident with an automated car.

6,240 hours. 8 and a half months worth of man hours. At my current hourly wage that is $156,000. And this only takes into account my bare bones commute to and from work. And I have only been commuting for 12 years out of an expected 45. I think you underestimate the sheer magnitude of how much time is wasted driving.

Even if going to the mechanic is ten times as expensive as before anyone owning a self driving car is far, far in the black.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

No, we really can't. It's not about the actually monetary cost of fixing the car. If you get into a minor fender-bender in one of these cars and a sensor gets damaged and you can't drive the car how are you supposed to get to work, or school, or wherever else you were going? You're not, because now you have to go and get the car fixed immediately, otherwise it's a giant paperweight. Going to an important meeting? Nope, your car refuses to drive you without that little sensor. Job interview? Nope, sensor. Going to a college final? Sensor. It's the fact that you can't just drive off with the little minor damage and just get it fixed later whenever you feel like it, you get into an accident and you have to go right then and there regardless of how inconvenient it would be.

Also, yeah that sucks about your commute. My commute is 10 minutes. I've never minded driving it nor have I ever felt like I was wasting my time in my car because it was only 10 minutes. I might feel different if my commute was longer, but as it stands a self driving car wouldn't be practical for someone like me for who the possible disadvantages outweigh the only advantage. Not only that but I actually enjoy driving. If you hate driving so much why don't you get a chauffeur, or carpool, or take taxis?

 

[DrOswald]

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

No, we really can't. It's not about the actually monetary cost of fixing the car. If you get into a minor fender-bender in one of these cars and a sensor gets damaged and you can't drive the car how are you supposed to get to work, or school, or wherever else you were going? You're not, because now you have to go and get the car fixed immediately, otherwise it's a giant paperweight. Going to an important meeting? Nope, your car refuses to drive you without that little sensor. Job interview? Nope, sensor. Going to a college final? Sensor. It's the fact that you can't just drive off with the little minor damage and just get it fixed later whenever you feel like it, you get into an accident and you have to go right then and there regardless of how inconvenient it would be.

As we all know, it is physically impossible for a car to be taken to the mechanic without it's owner present.[/sarcasm] We already have the solution for that problem. If you are really in that massive of a hurry call a taxi. Which will be far cheaper and more prevalent once cars can be driverless. Any intelligent driver already builds in potential failure time into their travel time for an appointment they absolutely cannot miss no matter what. Anything else and "my car broke down" will be a sufficient excuse.

And seriously, how often have you been in a fender bender? Is this a regular problem for you? If so, statistically speaking you pretty much have to be the problem. A driverless car will fix that for you.

Also, yeah that sucks about your commute. My commute is 10 minutes. I've never minded driving it nor have I ever felt like I was wasting my time in my car because it was only 10 minutes. I might feel different if my commute was longer, but as it stands a self driving car wouldn't be practical for someone like me for who the possible disadvantages outweigh the only advantage. Not only that but I actually enjoy driving. If you hate driving so much why don't you get a chauffeur, or carpool, or take taxis?

Money, impracticality, and money. Guess what, hiring a person to drive for you is expensive! Hiring a taxi would cost more than $20,000 a year ($48.93 one way assuming no significant traffic, ~$100 per day, about 240 work days a year.)

Finding someone with my same commute is very difficult and adds greatly to the unreliability of my commute time (thus extending it significantly and defeating the whole purpose of finding a carpool).

Taking the bus extends the commute by 45 minutes each way. Taking the train adds the same 45 minutes and adds a further 20 minute bus commute or 15 minute walk, for a grand total of 2 hours each way. Most of that time standing in a crowded train car.

I have gone over this thoroughly. Any solution besides driving myself is either prohibitively expensive or highly impractical (I gain less than I lose.)

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

2. These cars will be the only thing on the road with no human drivers, which isn't something that's going to happen for quite some time, if at all.

In which case the fender bender would be the fault of the human driver and fall on their insurance to fix. No cost to the owner of the driverless car. Therefore we can fully ignore this "cost."

No, we really can't. It's not about the actually monetary cost of fixing the car. If you get into a minor fender-bender in one of these cars and a sensor gets damaged and you can't drive the car how are you supposed to get to work, or school, or wherever else you were going? You're not, because now you have to go and get the car fixed immediately, otherwise it's a giant paperweight. Going to an important meeting? Nope, your car refuses to drive you without that little sensor. Job interview? Nope, sensor. Going to a college final? Sensor. It's the fact that you can't just drive off with the little minor damage and just get it fixed later whenever you feel like it, you get into an accident and you have to go right then and there regardless of how inconvenient it would be.

As we all know, it is physically impossible for a car to be taken to the mechanic without it's owner present.[/sarcasm] We already have the solution for that problem. If you are really in that massive of a hurry call a taxi. Which will be far cheaper and more prevalent once cars can be driverless. Any intelligent driver already builds in potential failure time into their travel time for an appointment they absolutely cannot miss no matter what. Anything else and "my car broke down" will be a sufficient excuse.

And seriously, how often have you been in a fender bender? Is this a regular problem for you? If so, statistically speaking you pretty much have to be the problem. A driverless car will fix that for you.

Also, yeah that sucks about your commute. My commute is 10 minutes. I've never minded driving it nor have I ever felt like I was wasting my time in my car because it was only 10 minutes. I might feel different if my commute was longer, but as it stands a self driving car wouldn't be practical for someone like me for who the possible disadvantages outweigh the only advantage. Not only that but I actually enjoy driving. If you hate driving so much why don't you get a chauffeur, or carpool, or take taxis?

Money, impracticality, and money. Guess what, hiring a person to drive for you is expensive! Hiring a taxi would cost more than $20,000 a year ($48.93 one way assuming no significant traffic, ~$100 per day, about 240 work days a year.)

Finding someone with my same commute is very difficult and adds greatly to the unreliability of my commute time (thus extending it significantly and defeating the whole purpose of finding a carpool).

Taking the bus extends the commute by 45 minutes each way. Taking the train adds the same 45 minutes and adds a further 20 minute bus commute or 15 minute walk, for a grand total of 2 hours each way. Most of that time standing in a crowded train car.

I have gone over this thoroughly. Any solution besides driving myself is either prohibitively expensive or highly impractical (I gain less than I lose.)

Maybe you should take that $156,000 you'd be making by increasing your productivity during your commute and put it into hiring a taxi.

<_<

 

[Twintix]

Honestly? They kinda creep me out.

Sure, they'll make the roads safer, but...there's something really eerie about having a car that drives itself. Like others have said here, what if these cars can get hacked? What if the sensors get damaged in an accident? There will be countermeasures, I'm sure, but I don't really like the thought. As I'm getting my license, driving feels a bit like a chore at the moment, but I might like it more when I finally have my license.

I'm all for safer roads, but I just don't know about driverless cars. They're spooky.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

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.l

Take away "driverless" and we have a discussion form 150+ years ago.

Anyway I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Given that these cars can be hacked, and sensors fooled. Is that worse then the current system running the car? We simply don't have enough information to know. The cars could be hacked. Will they be in a significant numbers to overshadow human error? If yes then yeah ban it. If no what's the harm?

Sinp

In many ways I agree. I don't think the potential threats are going to be worse then human error.

The difference between those conversations is one of the biggest problems here, who is liable for the deaths and damages?
The conversation about cars with drivers obviously the driver is, who is financially responsible for damages with a driverless car? Someone has to pay for damages when these things happen and how is this decided when it is caused by a driverless car?

Given how easy these are hacked, and how the systems they chose to use in them have already been hacked and those hacks work on these cars as well, they essentially have already been hacked. The problem with some of the vulnerabilities is there is no fix for them. Such as the issues with GPS, anything that uses GPS is already compromised and they do not know how to resolve that issue. If the car can access the internet, as some newer model cars are currently doing, the issue of Trojans and viruses then takes the risks to another level all together. These things are not a matter of "if" but " when" when you are discussing viruses. People too often make things because they can not thinking of "if they should". Children today are computer literate. MANY know how to do these things, not "just a few". Kids hack things for fun these days, and they should. If we want today's children to be able to make and run these things later, they have to know how these things work. Kids today hacking systems is no different than kids of yester year taking apart everything in the house to see how it works. The problem is when we put things in that can be extremely dangerous without considering the consequences. It is " adults" job to make sure we weigh the consequences and make things accordingly so they cannot be dangerous. I do not think we can consider a vehicle up to " safety standards" if it can get a virus and then you no longer have control over it. SO far, they have not created a driverless car that cannot have this happen, so the idea of " driverless cars" should not even be considered until they do.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.

What happens when the system gets a virus?

 

[Kaymish]

driverless cars are going to be great traffic will be improved because all the arseholes will be prevented from their arseholery by computers safety will be improved because people who cant drive will be prevented from screwing up by computers my sleep patterns will be improved because i will be able to nap on the way to work
i will be able to get to where im going without taking my life into my hands because a computer will never disobey the road rules
and the best yet i can stop driving

 

[Jesterscup]

I'm a pedestrian, 36 yrs old and I have no drivers licence. I'm rather proud of the fact. I could get a licence, but I've never needed, or actually been in a position where having a car is desirable. So when I travel, which I do a lot, I'm not the one driving, and I don't care, I get to work, play, enjoy myself until I reach my destination.

Yes there is the very odd occasion where something is 'out of town' and it's a pain, but less so than tax, parking fees, petrol, inner-city parking and all the other headaches that a car would bring me. Generally I travel in comfort, take a similar amount of time, cost less and get to do other activities at the same time. For me a car makes no sense. Of course thats not true for everybody, but I suspect that many people default to 'car' without knowing that you can often/possibly have an easier life without.


Yes accidents & failures will always happen, I'm of the belief that for driverless cars to make it through legislation and onto public roads in any real way they will need to be shown to be much much safer than the current. Driverless cars on public roads will be safer purely on the basis that they won't get there otherwise. A driverless car will need to perform flawlessly with a statistical probability far far lower than that of a human, and this will include failsafes for error & fault.

If we assume that driverless cars WILL ( at some point ) be safer, then I'm all for it. being able to drive isn't a right, it's a privilege, and one that can ( and is ) taken away. you want to drive for pleasure, there will always be avenues for you to do so. but in the interests of safety, the environment, congestion, nice inner-city spaces, and so many other positive benefits, I'd rather see less cars, more better public transport & infrastructure ( personal subjective opinion).

Perhaps it'll seem creepy at first, I remember ( back in the day, in my youth, when things were black & white, with the dinosaurs) that if you say someone talking t themselves in the street you thought they were mad, now you think they're mad or on a phone. Perceptions change, driverless cars are coming.

Ok I have one last point for Driverless cars, and it's a biggie! Flying cars!
NO seriously.... there are some awesome companies working on flying cars, and you know what the kicker is? the pilot. creating a vehicle that requires a pilot is soo many hoops, then everybody will need flying car licences. At best requiring a pilot puts us maybe 50 years away from flying cars in common use... having it driverless would possibly bring this forward, perhaps as much as 20 years.


No I'm not saying, that cars should be banned, nor that cars should be driverless ( though I do think it's cool, once the safety stuff is worked out ). It's not a case of this OR that, it's a case of this, and that, encourage this here and that there, discourage this here and there etc. transportation is a deep and complex issue, and no one answer is right. The guy who drives 90minutes to get to his work is going to disagree, and thats cool. Me ? I want pretty, comfortable, inner-city living, and transportation options that fit in with that.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming. When it comes to computers and programming, there is no such thing as " secure". IT DOESN'T EXIST. The reason it doesn't exist is because so far there is no way to make it exist. What we currently have for " security" is guys warring it out with code. The programmers change the code to out pace the hackers who are also programmers solving the code and re writing it. Computer security is just a war between coders rewriting code. People are still in charge of the code.

I do not think people realize that when they start talking about having systems that are only secure due to PEOPLE actively rewriting code will somehow be more secure because they remove people from making decisions on the spot, that they are actually making something more dangerous than less because the reason NOTHING is secure on the internet as it is because of humans not being able to stop everything coming in due to not being able to rewrite code fast enough or simply overlooking a vulnerability that someone else already found. People should understand that currently:

1) we are unable to secure programs, as programs can always be rewritten.
2) we are unable to prevent cars from being hacked.
3) we are unable to create driverless cars without using GPS and GPS is already hacked and we have no way to solve the problem.

These are not " minor issues" these make or break the idea.Although, there are other issues, until these 3 things are solved it would ignorant to remotely consider moving forward on the idea as the dangers would be too great to allow a vehicle without a driver on the road.

 

[Jesterscup]

UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming.

I'm a professional dev for my day job, so I'd say yes. And generally I agree with what you're saying. However we already have ( in the western world ) most of our critical infrastructure controlled & managed by computer, water, traffic management, planes, power ( inc. power generation ), our financial systems, pretty much all business on the planet, I could go on. Is it 'secure' no of course it's not, but the risk is managed.

Of course there is a risk, BMW recently had to announce a patch since in theory it was possible to destroy a car engine via smartphone. But by the same point there are huge known issues involving SCADA systems that run our power grid, nuclear power stations, and a bunch of other really scary stuff.

No it's not a minor issue, but it doesn't make or break the concept, if it did we would have much bigger problems on our hands. You don't have planes dropping out of the sky, or nuclear explosions, power outages, complete financial collapse etc as a regular occurrence due to hacking ( though yes it does happen, stuxnet being a prime example). Clearly managing this risk, ensuring that the proper systems and resources are in place is important, but it is possible to manage this risk. Far from the chaotic "wild west" which is often portrayed ( and I don't deny there is a consistent "arms race" in security dev on many, many levels ), it is currently possible to manage this.

Generally security considerations scale in importance. Sure heartbleed was an utter nightmare ( lots of lessons learned there! ), but you find as the importance/criticality of a system or information assets increases, as does the time,effort, resources & collaborative effort to keep it secure.

It comes down to this, Do I believe that driverless cars can be safe or not from a security standpoint? If I didn't I'd be living in a cabin in the woods, far away from flightpaths,roads,power stations, and pretty much anything that could kill me with a programming error ( including my bluetooth fridge... I know that thing hates me, I can tell)

 

[hermes]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.

What happens when the system gets a virus?

Why go the virus route?
What happens to pedestrians? What happens with stray animals? What about the possibility of a falling tree?

That is why it has only worked in controlled circuits or simulations, but we can't rule out the exterior world. Not in this problem... And interaction with the real world variables is the main issue behind this problem.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

UGH. I have to wonder if anyone who thinks this is safe in any way actually understands ANYTHING about programming.

I'm a professional dev for my day job, so I'd say yes. And generally I agree with what you're saying. However we already have ( in the western world ) most of our critical infrastructure controlled & managed by computer, water, traffic management, planes, power ( inc. power generation ), our financial systems, pretty much all business on the planet, I could go on. Is it 'secure' no of course it's not, but the risk is managed.

Of course there is a risk, BMW recently had to announce a patch since in theory it was possible to destroy a car engine via smartphone. But by the same point there are huge known issues involving SCADA systems that run our power grid, nuclear power stations, and a bunch of other really scary stuff.

No it's not a minor issue, but it doesn't make or break the concept, if it did we would have much bigger problems on our hands. You don't have planes dropping out of the sky, or nuclear explosions, power outages, complete financial collapse etc as a regular occurrence due to hacking ( though yes it does happen, stuxnet being a prime example). Clearly managing this risk, ensuring that the proper systems and resources are in place is important, but it is possible to manage this risk. Far from the chaotic "wild west" which is often portrayed ( and I don't deny there is a consistent "arms race" in security dev on many, many levels ), it is currently possible to manage this.

Generally security considerations scale in importance. Sure heartbleed was an utter nightmare ( lots of lessons learned there! ), but you find as the importance/criticality of a system or information assets increases, as does the time,effort, resources & collaborative effort to keep it secure.

It comes down to this, Do I believe that driverless cars can be safe or not from a security standpoint? If I didn't I'd be living in a cabin in the woods, far away from flightpaths,roads,power stations, and pretty much anything that could kill me with a programming error ( including my bluetooth fridge... I know that thing hates me, I can tell)

And we already have in the western world, MANY problems with our systems as they attempt to connect them to the internet. They were warned repeatedly TO NEVER DO THIS by those who created the systems. ( I know this due to my father being an engineer that designed and built systems for nuclear power plants as well as the guy who converted the old main frames to the systems they have running them now) Although there is some speculation that they knowingly did this to warrant their need to police the internet later due to "cyber security", this still does not mean this is any way safe to do.

The risk isn't really currently "managed" at all yet, we have only seen the beginning of cyber crime, but as we have more growing up with the know how and tools readily available to do so, these damages will necessarily increase. Currently we do not actually have a way to solve the problem other than to take systems offline. Sure our power only went out for a while while they resolved the problem, of course that isn't really an option for people on the way to the hospital, or are crossing railroad tracks. Our power can be out for 8 hours while they resolve this, however, to leave people stranded for 8 hours or more on the streets would be devastating.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/18/technology/security/energy-grid-hack/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-01/renewable-energy-s-expansion-exposing-grids-to-hacking.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/government-hacked-24000-files-stolen-worst-pentagon-cyber-attack-298771
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/04/pentagon-source-says-china-hacked-defense-department-computers/
Oh look what they have here!
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/421112/how-to-hack-the-power-grid-for-fun-and-profit/

The difference between what you are comparing and the millions of vehicles on the road is that the millions of cars could be turned into already deployed lethal weapons before anyone could stop them if someone decides to access and abuse the already known and publicized vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities already exist and millions of people are already aware of how to exploit these vulnerabilities. Knowing this and using this in driverless vehicles is terribly negligent and should be considered a hazard to public safety.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You've never seen hackers do things "for the lulz?" There isn't always a monetary incentive to hacking, some people just do things to see if they can. Those are also the scariest people, the kind who are loners, don't really have empathy, and think that they're too good to get caught.

As far as being able to cause accidents by sabotaging cars now, yeah sure, you could sabotage a car and make it crash, but could you sabotage hundreds or thousands? Absolutely not. You could however sabotage thousands of cars all at once if they're being operated by computers that are all networked together.

Do these people know right now that there are driverless planes? And get this, it has onboard MISSILES.

Seriously though why would anyone hack a car when you can use the exact same idea to hack a UAV, a vehicle actually equipped to cause huge collateral damage? Why is one possible but not the other? I feel like the UAV is far more dangerous.

Where was this uproar about UAV's? Why hasnt anyone hacked one yet if these genius sociopathic hackers are just waiting in the background to hurt 1000's of people. They have had UAV's to hack for yonks and never did it. Why do you think they didnt?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this or not but imagine the huge improvement on traffic it would make if all vehicles were automated? If they were all working on a system in which they were synced up with each other, it'd be a great way to alleviate congested areas.

What happens when the system gets a virus?

Why go the virus route?
What happens to pedestrians? What happens with stray animals? What about the possibility of a falling tree?

That is why it has only worked in controlled circuits or simulations, but we can't rule out the exterior world. Not in this problem... And interaction with the real world variables is the main issue behind this problem.

This is assuming they can even build better sensors, when the system itself can never be secure no matter how they resolve other issues, I do not see it as being a realistic option.