Can we stop talking about autonomous cars?

[cbrunny]

I would still trust driving where you live with those drivers any day over autonomous cars as I am 100% against autonomous cars and nothing will ever change my mind.

That's ok. Being wrong is in style these days so you're among the hippest of hip.

 

[ImpulsE69]

US drivers are so good that only we only have 30-35K annual auto deaths. The illusion of control however makes us consider this fact irrelevant.

That number isn't that big though. Consider that there are 10's of millions if not 100's of millions of drivers every second of the day. Sure I get it, loss of life due to someone else is tragic, but stupid people are going to be stupid regardless.

I can see the headlines now. In Florida today man blows up intersection in freak mobile methlab accident. 15 people killed.

All you do is shift the stupid, you don't solve it. I am not saying automated cars won't provide a bandage for some issues, I am saying that other issues will rise out of it. Sure it sounds tin foil hatish, I know, but let's not underestimate the stupidity of people, as well as the cunning of people.

 

[K1052]

That number isn't that big though. Consider that there are 10's of millions if not 100's of millions of drivers every second of the day. Sure I get it, loss of life due to someone else is tragic, but stupid people are going to be stupid regardless.

I can see the headlines now. In Florida today man blows up intersection in freak mobile methlab accident. 15 people killed.

All you do is shift the stupid, you don't solve it. I am not saying automated cars won't provide a bandage for some issues, I am saying that other issues will rise out of it. Sure it sounds tin foil hatish, I know, but let's not underestimate the stupidity of people, as well as the cunning of people.

So your argument is that if those 30Kish people per year didn't die in auto accidents they would simply find some other way to die because they're all stupid?

Also that doesn't really refute my point that we've deemed these deaths acceptable because we think we're in full control all the time. This is an illusion.

 

[jlee]

A good driver is someone who pays attention and follows the rules of the road and never texts and drives nor is drunk. And from what I see, almost all cars follow the rules of the road except maybe going over the speed limit a little, which is fine as long as it is with the flow of traffic and they have good control of their car which 99.9999999% of other cars I see in the road in my town do.

If 99.9999999% of the entire USA was as safe as you claim, we would have 0.214 dangerous drivers in the entire United States. Somewhere, there's a wild rogue less-than-quarter-person. Oh noes!

Unless you work in police, fire, or EMS, your perspective of drivers' safety in your area is unrealistically skewed.

 

[rh71]

I can't wait for the day we no longer own automobiles. Pay a monthly fee, order one or schedule one and one is waiting for you and take you where you need to go.

I wonder how many people here are suburbanites who think like this. I bet it's real low. It's a different lifestyle out here for sure. Trips aren't always just A to B without variations, delays, and change of plans. Things you cannot plan and schedule for especially if it's more than just yourself. Managing a car to arrive ahead of time, in the appropriate size, where to go next and in what order would be an additional chore.

The annual inspection and putting in gas every other week is well worth the freedom & convenience. If it's extra costs you're primarily worried about, then you must be a city person who rarely needs a car to begin with.

 

[Wolverine607]

US drivers are so good that only we only have 30-35K annual auto deaths. The illusion of control however makes us consider this fact irrelevant.

The far and away majority of those deaths are people who do it to themselves by running into a tree or telephone pole. Certainly some great drivers are victimized by drunks or other bad drivers, but most deaths are the ones only who were drunk or not paying attention and victimized themselves.

And besides there are so many more deaths from diseases like cancer per year which are hundreds of thousands. The ones like Google should be concentrating on finding a cure for cancer which would benefit society and everyone would be on board with rather than inventing something like a death machine robot car all in the name of improving safety which is not proven and takes away control from people.

And just because something could make something safer does not mean we should do it. I mean we miswell put cameras in the home because it would catch every crime and make murders much less. Yet that would be a horrible idea as it would make our lives like Orwell's 1984 which would be horrible.

The ones that want to ban human driving are as bad as communists and dictators and I prey to god they never get into any law making position. There are always risks in life and giving up control in the name in safety is not something I and most others will ever be willing to do.

 

[K1052]

I wonder how many people here are suburbanites who think like this. I bet it's real low. It's a different lifestyle out here for sure. Trips are hardly ever just A to B without variations and change of plans. Things you cannot plan and schedule for especially if it's more than just yourself.

While I agree that many suburbanites will want to actually own cars (still autonomous) it's not like city dwellers never change plans and whatever systems are built will surely accommodate that.

 

[K1052]

The ones that want to ban human driving are as bad as communists and dictators and I prey to god they never get into any law making position. There are always risks in life and giving up control in the name in safety is not something I and most others will ever be willing to do.

I guess you'll have to be content staying home to polish your tinfoil hat collection.

 

[Wolverine607]

I guess you'll have to be content staying home to polish your tinfoil hat collection.

Never will happen. No one will take control of my car away from me ever!!!!

 

[K1052]

Never will happen. No one will take control of my car away from me ever!!!!

But they'll take the roads away from you.

 

[Wolverine607]

But they'll take the roads away from you.

Won't happen. Too many people agree with me!! Control freaks like you need to stay our of our way. You should go live in a communist or fascists dictatorship country with your views.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So your argument is that if those 30Kish people per year didn't die in auto accidents they would simply find some other way to die because they're all stupid?

Also that doesn't really refute my point that we've deemed these deaths acceptable because we think we're in full control all the time. This is an illusion.

No that isn't what I'm saying. The subject is way more nuanced and not cut and dry as some are trying to make this. Not to be a complete dick, but the only people I care about saving are the innocents killed by stupid people. I don't know what those ratios are in the 30k number. However, this argument is no different than the anti-gun nuts throwing numbers out trying to ban guns, or any number of other 'it's in our best interest' people. (note that I am simply talking about bringing car death numbers into the reasoning).

For me, automated cars should simplify life, not be forced in because of the 'omg think of the people'. Maybe we've gone way off of what I was trying to say, but my original points were we are a LONG ways off from fully automated cars being commonplace, for multiple reasons. If we rush it, it will not be pretty.

 

[jlee]

The far and away majority of those deaths are people who do it to themselves by running into a tree or telephone pole. Certainly some great drivers are victimized by drunks or other bad drivers, but most deaths are the ones only who were drunk or not paying attention and victimized themselves.

And besides there are so many more deaths from diseases like cancer per year which are hundreds of thousands. The ones like Google should be concentrating on finding a cure for cancer which would benefit society and everyone would be on board with rather than inventing something like a death machine robot car all in the name of improving safety which is not proven and takes away control from people.

And just because something could make something safer does not mean we should do it. I mean we miswell put cameras in the home because it would catch every crime and make murders much less. Yet that would be a horrible idea as it would make our lives like Orwell's 1984 which would be horrible.

The ones that want to ban human driving are as bad as communists and dictators and I prey to god they never get into any law making position. There are always risks in life and giving up control in the name in safety is not something I and most others will ever be willing to do.

Please stop making up facts.

https://www.intoxalock.com/ignition-interlock-devices/statistics

On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001
One third of alcohol-involved traffic fatalities are passengers, occupants in other vehicles or pedestrians.
Source: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2011

 

[Wolverine607]

Please stop making up facts.

They are actually facts. as you just posted. So 1/3 is still the minority. Maybe not far and away, but soundly the minority none the less which is only 10K and very small given there re millions upon millions of drivers on the road.

And the numbers would go way down if penalties were increased for drunk driving and bars were mandated to take the car keys away before serving alcohol to anyone and make sure they are sober before giving them back.

 

[jlee]

They are actually facts. as you just posted. So 1/3 is still the minority. Maybe not far and away, but soundly the minority none the less which is only 10K and very small given there re millions upon millions of drivers on the road.

And the numbers would go way down if penalties were increased for drunk driving and bars were mandated to take the car keys away before serving alcohol to anyone and make sure they are sober before giving them back.

Thanks for confirming that you were incorrect.

Let's go a step further and debunk your next uninformed claim.

http://blog.driversed.com/driving-under-the-influence-do-strict-dui-laws-really-work/

• South Dakota has very lenient laws and the highest fatality rate. South Dakota’s DUI penalties include no minimum jail time or fine for a first or second offense, no administrative license suspension, and no ignition interlock requirement. It had the number one fatality rate for 1995-2013 (22.4 fatalities for every 100,000 residents) and the number nine rate for 2013 alone (15.98 per 100,000 residents).
• High fatality rates were associated with lenient laws in several other states. Montana, which also had a low DUI strictness rating (#46 of 51), had the number one fatality rate for 2013 alone (22.56 per 100,000 residents) and the number 5 fatality rate for 1995-2013 (16.85 per 100,000 residents); Montana is one of only a few states to lack an administrative license suspension law. Other states with low DUI strictness and high fatality rates include North Dakota, Kentucky, Wyoming, and Mississippi.
• While Arizona has the strictest DUI policies, its fatality rate is about average.The state with the strictest DUI laws, Arizona, had the 17th highest DUI fatality rate in 2013 alone. Alaska and Connecticut, the states with the next strictest policies, had significantly lower fatality rates.
• West Virginia has the fourth most strict DUI laws, as well as the fourth highest fatality rate for 2013. It also had the 10th highest fatality rate between 1995 and 2013 (14.05 per 100,000 residents). West Virginia law requires no minimum jail term and a low minimum fine for a first DUI offense.
• In the biggest states, stricter laws don’t correlate with fewer deaths. The four most populous states in the country are California, Texas, Florida, and New York. In California and New York, DUI policies were slightly less strict than average (#31 and #30 in the rankings, respectively), and the DUI fatality rate in 2013 was relatively low in both states (#39 and #48, respectively). In Texas and Florida, DUI policies were slightly more strict than average (#18 and #21, respectively), while the DUI fatality rate in 2013 was above average in both states (18 and 21, respectively).
• In states with low fatality rates, laws range from very strict to very lenient. The ten states with the lowest DUI fatality rates in 2013 ranged in DUI strictness from #2 (Alaska) to #50 (DC). These states differ in many ways, including whether there is a minimum sentence or fine for a first DUI conviction, whether an administrative license suspension law is in effect, and what the ignition interlock requirements are. The only element all states have in common is the use of additional penalties for DUI Child Endangerment.
• In states with high fatality rates, laws ranges from very strict to very lenient, too. The ten states with the highest DUI fatality rates in 2013 ranged in DUI strictness from #4 (West Virginia) to #51 (South Dakota). Like the other end of the list, there is no consistency in the factors associated with a high fatality rate.

Let's stick to the facts, please.

 

[Wolverine607]

Thanks for confirming that you were incorrect.

Let's go a step further and debunk your next uninformed claim.


Let's stick to the facts, please.

Well then bars should be mandated to take car keys away and store them somewhere and not give them back until the person is sober. And drunk driving laws need to be stricter if someone is caught with a DUI. They should take your car away permanently and impound it and suspend your license for at least 5 years for 1st offense and fine the person at least $20K on top of taking their car away. 2nd offense should take your license away permanently for life with no chance to ever get it back and fine the person at least $40K and take away their car and keep them in debt until they pay both fines back.

I bet that would dramatically reduce drunk driving.I bet this would get drunks off the road and significantly reduce fatalities for drunk driving.

Anything and I repeat anything to keep autonomous cars off the road.

 

[jlee]

I bet that would dramatically reduce drunk driving.I bet this would get drunks off the road and significantly reduce fatalities for drunk driving.

Anything and I repeat anything to refuse autonomous cars and keep driving our right.

I arrested a guy for DUI once. A few months later, I arrested him for driving on the license that was suspended from that DUI.

It's not as simple as you make it seem.

In addition, driving is not a right. If that was the case, automatic administrative license suspension for failure to submit to a blood or breath alcohol test would not be a thing.

 

[sdifox]

I wonder how many people here are suburbanites who think like this. I bet it's real low. It's a different lifestyle out here for sure. Trips aren't always just A to B without variations, delays, and change of plans. Things you cannot plan and schedule for especially if it's more than just yourself. Managing a car to arrive ahead of time, in the appropriate size, where to go next and in what order would be an additional chore.

The annual inspection and putting in gas every other week is well worth the freedom & convenience. If it's extra costs you're primarily worried about, then you must be a city person who rarely needs a car to begin with.

I drive more than 30,000 km a year and gas up every week. This is just around town, in traffic jam. Yea I don't need that shit. Never understood people that think of driving as freedom. I can't remember the last time I went on a drive just because I felt like it. I take the train to downtown just so I can nap on the train instead of dealing with traffic.

 

[rh71]

I drive more than 30,000 km a year and gas up every week. This is just around town, in traffic jam. Yea I don't need that shit. Never understood people that think of driving as freedom. I can't remember the last time I went on a drive just because I felt like it. I take the train to downtown just so I can nap on the train instead of dealing with traffic.

Sounds stressful to be in a suburb and still have to deal with traffic jam as often as you make it sound. So much so that you would rather be in a downtown. That's not a problem people in suburbia should face. What kind of backwards Canadian suburb is like that? I'm in a suburb of friggin NYC and it's not that bad.

Freedom of choice to go anywhere you want whenever you want. After a ___ min doctor's appointment I can go grab pizza at my favorite restaurant the other way from home. Then after 25 minutes of eating in, I go to the pharmacy and wait another 10, maybe 20 minutes for my meds. Then back home. Later in the day I am bringing my kids to practice at 6pm till about 7pm, at which point we'll hit up a Five Guys 2 exits down the highway for a ___ minute dinner. Then home. Imagine ordering a car or even having to think about transport for each leg of this. I may have just skipped the pizza and ordered takeout for dinner too if I was paying by the mile or time. That's hardly freedom without a personal vehicle.

Oh the kid's sick and can't get to sleep at 930pm the other night. I run outside to my car and drive < 5 minutes to the local CVS - I'm back in less than 10. Yeah, ordering and waiting for a car so I can drive 5 minutes or (walk 20 instead) is so much better...

 

[Chaotic42]

Driving is fun, but I will definitely be happy to see fully functioning autonomous cars. Securing their systems will be a huge challenge, but that's true for all systems. We've been neglecting it for far too long. Hopefully by the time I'm too old to be driving, these things will be pretty well solved.

 

[sdifox]

Sounds stressful to be in a suburb and still have to deal with traffic jam as often as you make it sound. So much so that you would rather be in a downtown. That's not a problem people in suburbia should face. What kind of backwards Canadian suburb is like that? I'm in a suburb of friggin NYC and it's not that bad.

Freedom of choice to go anywhere you want whenever you want. After a ___ min doctor's appointment I can go grab pizza at my favorite restaurant the other way from home. Then after 25 minutes of eating in, I go to the pharmacy and wait another 10, maybe 20 minutes for my meds. Then back home. Later in the day I am bringing my kids to practice at 6pm till about 7pm, at which point we'll hit up a Five Guys 2 exits down the highway for a ___ minute dinner. Then home. Imagine ordering a car or even having to think about transport for each leg of this. I may have just skipped the pizza and ordered takeout for dinner too if I was paying by the mile or time. That's hardly freedom without a personal vehicle.

Oh the kid's sick and can't get to sleep at 930pm the other night. I run outside to my car and drive < 5 minutes to the local CVS - I'm back in less than 10. Yeah, ordering and waiting for a car so I can drive 5 minutes or (walk 20 instead) is so much better...

Let me clarify my post since it was a bit disjointed. I used to drive downtown to work, now I take train. I live just north of Toronto. As in this is suburb of Toronto. On bad days it could take two hours to drive home. Driving in Markham is not exactly a cake walk during rush hour either, everyone is trying to get to Toronto for work and there is only so many main roads.

And that 30k km is with me taking the train to work or working from home.

I have driven in NYC and it is about as horrible as Toronto.

Want to drive for fun? Go to the track. Day to day chore driving is either mind numbing or stressful.

 

[Murloc]

Sounds stressful to be in a suburb and still have to deal with traffic jam as often as you make it sound. So much so that you would rather be in a downtown. That's not a problem people in suburbia should face. What kind of backwards Canadian suburb is like that? I'm in a suburb of friggin NYC and it's not that bad.

Freedom of choice to go anywhere you want whenever you want. After a ___ min doctor's appointment I can go grab pizza at my favorite restaurant the other way from home. Then after 25 minutes of eating in, I go to the pharmacy and wait another 10, maybe 20 minutes for my meds. Then back home. Later in the day I am bringing my kids to practice at 6pm till about 7pm, at which point we'll hit up a Five Guys 2 exits down the highway for a ___ minute dinner. Then home. Imagine ordering a car or even having to think about transport for each leg of this. I may have just skipped the pizza and ordered takeout for dinner too if I was paying by the mile or time. That's hardly freedom without a personal vehicle.

Oh the kid's sick and can't get to sleep at 930pm the other night. I run outside to my car and drive < 5 minutes to the local CVS - I'm back in less than 10. Yeah, ordering and waiting for a car so I can drive 5 minutes or (walk 20 instead) is so much better...

in the opposite situation, dense city with dense frequent network (underground, tram, brt whatever), you have the same movement freedom without time constraints (a bus comes by every 5 minutes).
And a pharmacy is in walking distance so even the issue of very short nightly trips is covered.

What sucks is the middle ground. Not dense enough to have great public transport, and not sparse enough to not have traffic jams.

Your situation is nice although its long-term environmental and economic sustainability is debatable, as it's a lifestyle that has existed for far less than a century.

There's no question around the fact that loading kids in a car and traveling that way is more comfortable. No running around and stuff, no getting sweaty.

 

[cbrunny]

Well then bars should be mandated to take car keys away and store them somewhere and not give them back until the person is sober. And drunk driving laws need to be stricter if someone is caught with a DUI. They should take your car away permanently and impound it and suspend your license for at least 5 years for 1st offense and fine the person at least $20K on top of taking their car away. 2nd offense should take your license away permanently for life with no chance to ever get it back and fine the person at least $40K and take away their car and keep them in debt until they pay both fines back.

I bet that would dramatically reduce drunk driving.I bet this would get drunks off the road and significantly reduce fatalities for drunk driving.

Anything and I repeat anything to keep autonomous cars off the road.

This from someone that opposes communism, fascism, and dictatorships.

 

[K1052]

No that isn't what I'm saying. The subject is way more nuanced and not cut and dry as some are trying to make this. Not to be a complete dick, but the only people I care about saving are the innocents killed by stupid people. I don't know what those ratios are in the 30k number. However, this argument is no different than the anti-gun nuts throwing numbers out trying to ban guns, or any number of other 'it's in our best interest' people. (note that I am simply talking about bringing car death numbers into the reasoning).

For me, automated cars should simplify life, not be forced in because of the 'omg think of the people'. Maybe we've gone way off of what I was trying to say, but my original points were we are a LONG ways off from fully automated cars being commonplace, for multiple reasons. If we rush it, it will not be pretty.

The argument is different than the anti-gun crowd. The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right. There is no right to drive enshrined in the constitution or any relevant federal/state law I am aware of.

Autonomous cars make incredible sense for a host of practical reasons and saving 30-35K lives a year would be icing on the cake. I also don't think we're as far off as you think. Basically every car maker worth a damn is deploying ever more automation into production vehicles and has projects working toward full autonomy with horizons looking out 5-10 years.

 

[K1052]

in the opposite situation, dense city with dense frequent network (underground, tram, brt whatever), you have the same movement freedom without time constraints (a bus comes by every 5 minutes).
And a pharmacy is in walking distance so even the issue of very short nightly trips is covered.

This. I don't feel constrained one bit living in a city since I have multiple flexible modes at my disposal most daily needs are walking distance. We still have a car for longer trips but it's largely a vestige of living in an area of California with no good transit options. It lives plugged in to our parking space mostly undisturbed for days at a time.