# Auto Automation - Do We Really Want to Go There? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 8, 2015, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288 "2015-01-08T05:11:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/41 "2015-01-09T08:37:56Z")
> [@The\_Niply\_Elder](#): > > I meant the monetary aspect of it. Just like today’s cellphones are not “user repairable”’ they are quite easily user-replaceable. In fact, it is so utterly ridiculous for the common joeblow to attempt to repair any sort of electronic device that if you spend just an hour researching how to do it, you’ve already lost money by not just simply replacing the system outright. Yeah, that’s a phone, which doesn’t have much in the way of materials in it, and doesn’t leave you stranded when it breaks. Plus, when was the last time you bought a phone without it coming with a service contract? I _know_ that replacement without one is more expensive than paying someone to fix your broken smartphone screen, because I’ve done it. If I had parts, I could have repaired the screen myself, but I didn’t have a source for parts. When most people buy a phone, they don’t pay the cost outright, and get a significant discount (sometimes a free phone) just for re-upping the contract. On top of that, car isn’t a phone. And automated driving is going to drive their costs up, not down. Replacing one is non trivial for most people, and an automated one will be even more expensive to replace. Even modern cars have plenty of electronics, and a method of diagnosing problems and replacing computerized parts that anyone can learn to do easily. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/42 "2015-01-09T13:44:57Z")
I think that will be a non issue. I can summon Uber to my house now in about 3 minutes. If we get to the point where we have driverless cars, I would imagine that most people will have no need to even own one. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/43 "2015-01-09T14:35:01Z")
I’ve always wondered if automobile enthusiast magazines at the beginning of the automobile age had letters from drivers sneering at that new fangled electrical starter. It’s just one more thing to break. And what’s the point of it? By gum, if you set the levers on the steering wheel correctly, all it takes is a couple of cranks. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/44 "2015-01-09T15:25:09Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I think that will be a non issue. I can summon Uber to my house now in about 3 minutes. If we get to the point where we have driverless cars, I would imagine that most people will have no need to even own one. Yeah. I think the first thing that will happen is that some rental companies will only provide self-driving cars, because numbers don’t lie. Then people will gradually depend on self-driving cars-on-demand more and more. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/45 "2015-01-09T15:35:00Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I think that will be a non issue. I can summon Uber to my house now in about 3 minutes. If we get to the point where we have driverless cars, I would imagine that most people will have no need to even own one. Really though, this is only going to work in metropolitan areas and suburbia. There are a LOT of us that I just don’t see how this could possibly work for. So your going to have a mix of auto-cars, and people driven. For one thing, It doubles the miles the car is on the road to come pick me up. That is if it could even make it to my house. And, while Uber might make it to your place in 3 minutes, I would be waiting for a half hour. At least. ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/46 "2015-01-09T16:07:45Z")
I’m old and I want a driverless car so bad!!! And the older I get the more I want one. To be 80 or more and be able to say “take me to the grocery, doctor, whatever” would be fantastic for me and everyone else who doesn’t have to worry about me at the wheel. Yeah - there will be system failures and some accidents but we have it now so bring it on!!! ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/47 "2015-01-09T17:06:20Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I trust a computer to react much more quickly than I can or you can. > > Consider airbags. They respond at the time of impact, but inflate quickly enough to keep you from hitting the steering wheel. The total time is about 27 milliseconds. > > The [median human reaction time is 250 milliseconds](http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/statistics). What about the exaples I gave, like humans being better able to tell whether a waiting pedestrian is likely to step out in front of them, and slow down in case they do? Humans are better at reading other humans than computers are. > [@drachillix](#): > > Actually the systems are watching for obstacles much smaller than cats. A piece of debris in the roadway that could cripple a car can easily be smaller than a cat. A small child will not be “under the radar” Watch the video I linked, they show it dealing with high volume pedestrians including someone dashing out at the last second. > > Will there be people who can out drive the computers, probably a few, perhaps 20% of all drivers. That number will creep down as they get more experience writing these systems. > > Computers don’t get bored, they do not become accustomed to a certain route, they dont check out the hot chick on the side of the road, they dont get tired, distracted by a kid in the back seat, or check their cell phones. They dont speed, follow too close, or accelerate at yellow lights hoping to make it through. The prototypes are already statistically better than average drivers. If cars are ooking for objects smaller than a cat, I can imagine people finding a way to turn that funcionality off, because it would easily get annoying. If a child runs into the road after her dog, which could very well be arger than her, wouldn’t the automated system choose to veer in the direction of the smaller obstacle? Or say someone drops something in the road and risks running back for it - will the car make the correct decision to run over the thing rather than the human? A human with their back to you is not going to be easy for a computer to identify as human. Equally, some objects, like, say, a teddy bear, could be identified as human because they have a face. So there’s a small child on the ground with her back to the car, and her teddy bear next to her facing the car; which does the car choose to run over? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/48 "2015-01-09T17:35:37Z")
TLDR: “Computers are not perfect. Therefore, we should not use computers.” ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/49 "2015-01-09T17:47:48Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > As long as the failures happen at nice, convenient times and places (and no mugger ever grabs another watch). > > With a mechanical key, the mugger may know the make of car it fits, but will not know which one. > > I wait until you walk into the parking lot and take your watch. I now unlock and start a car. All I need do is see which car is running. It would be real nice if the car beeped or flashed its lights to signal its actions. > [@](#): > > My fav - a car that can be unlocked and started by a wristwatch. A “Mugger’s Special”. I have to say, this is a new one to me. The idea that newer cars are easier to steal because they have remote unlock functions. It’s a pretty silly claim, and entirely unsupported by reality. For one, if a mugger gets you to surrender your key, he could probably _also_ convince you, using whatever methods of persuasion are at his command, to tell him which car it goes to, right? For another, the wristwatch that can unlock a car? It can also detect when it’s been removed from a wrist. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/50 "2015-01-09T17:56:04Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > TLDR: “Computers are not perfect. Therefore, we should not use computers.” It’s more complex than that, and simplifying the problem to COMPUTER BAD! or COMPUTER GOOD! isn’t useful at all. ---
**Author:** ![leahcim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b4bc9f/32.png) [@leahcim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leahcim)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/51 "2015-01-09T18:15:20Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > I have to say, this is a new one to me. The idea that newer cars are easier to steal because they have remote unlock functions. It’s a pretty silly claim, and entirely unsupported by reality. These kind of arguments strike me as being in same vein as, “Seat belts aren’t safe! What if I go off the road into a lake and my seat belt jams and I drown?!!! Or my car catches on fire and my seat belt jams and I burn to death?!!! I’ll just leave my seat belt safely unbuckled, thank you very much!” Sure these scenarios _could_ happen, but history shows the happen orders of magnitude less frequently as the situations that the newer technology prevents. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/52 "2015-01-09T18:24:30Z")
> [@control-z](#): > > Yes, but I believe if a driverless car gets to a point where its software and sensors can’t come up with a safe route and it can’t figure out where the side of the road is or how to pull off, it will have no choice but to stop and prompt the driver to take over. That would be the failsafe that is least likely to cause accidents. Which will happen possibly less often than people just stopping in the middle of the road. If software fails it is going to fail in extremely rare conditions, one in a billion kind of stuff. Cows in the road perhaps? Middle of a freeway, a situation which has been tested for over and over, not likely. Software doesn’t fail randomly, it fails for unconsidered conditions. So do people. As many have said, they won’t be perfect but they will be far more perfect than we are. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/53 "2015-01-09T18:25:18Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > TLDR: “Computers are not perfect. Therefore, we should not use computers.” > > It’s more complex than that, and simplifying the problem to COMPUTER BAD! or COMPUTER GOOD! isn’t useful at all. That’s about how it reads to me. What’s the more complex part? I’m just reading uninformed opinions that a computer will make this mistake and that mistake, and in field tests they haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/54 "2015-01-09T19:11:54Z")
Limited access highways like Interstates is where these driverless cars will be able to gain a modicum of acceptance- no pedestrians or hypothetical children running after balls, everyone going at the same speed. Shux, if it ever came to pass that there were only automated cars on such roads, the roads could be cheaper because the lanes wouldn’t have to be as wide with no unskillful or negligent drivers swerving all over the place, looking at their phones and yakking with their passengers. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/55 "2015-01-09T19:26:18Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The marketing challenge will be convincing the 95% of Americans who think they’re above-average drivers. When insurance rates for driver-less cars drops to trivial levels then it won’t be much of a challenge. I can imagine a future where any human driver who gets into an accident is immediately assumed to be responsible. > [@friedo](#): > > TLDR: “Computers are not perfect. Therefore, we should not use computers.” All the arguments against driverless cars boil down to this. Right now more than 30k people die in the US alone in car accidents; humans aren’t anywhere near as perfect as computers. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/56 "2015-01-09T19:33:59Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Really though, this is only going to work in metropolitan areas and suburbia. There are a LOT of us that I just don’t see how this could possibly work for. So your going to have a mix of auto-cars, and people driven. > > For one thing, It doubles the miles the car is on the road to come pick me up. That is if it could even make it to my house. > > And, while Uber might make it to your place in 3 minutes, I would be waiting for a half hour. At least. I think you’re missing the bigger picture. The model of a large fleet of cars constantly moving around and picking people up is extremely efficient, and could work in all but very rural areas. I’m not suggesting that there would be zero private ownership. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/57 "2015-01-09T19:40:38Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I think that will be a non issue. I can summon Uber to my house now in about 3 minutes. If we get to the point where we have driverless cars, I would imagine that most people will have no need to even own one. Try that at 8 am in the Bay Area. Most cars are on the road during a short period morning and evening. No Uber driver is going to make any money servicing basically the rush hour crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/58 "2015-01-09T19:45:00Z")
> [@bup](#): > > That’s about how it reads to me. What’s the more complex part? I’m just reading uninformed opinions that a computer will make this mistake and that mistake, and in field tests they haven’t. They will, as they run into unanticipated conditions. The difference is that if one computer makes a mistake due to programming, all computers can be fixed to never make that mistake again. If one person screws up due to an unanticipated condition, he might never make that mistake again but everyone else will. Cite: people in warm climates suddenly driving in snow. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/59 "2015-01-09T19:48:38Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The marketing challenge will be convincing the 95% of Americans who think they’re above-average drivers. You underestimate the denial power of the average driver. They don’t let the computer drive because it is better, they let it drive because they like to relax. And they’ll point out to you a hundred places where they would have done it better. They forget the thousand places where they have handled things worse. ---
**Author:** ![UncleMoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e0b2c6/32.png) [@UncleMoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleMoose)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288/60 "2015-01-09T20:51:40Z")
This is an interesting blog entry on riding in a Google self driving car. [http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google\_self\_driving\_car](http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car) It talks to at least one of the situations (dithering pedestrian) worried about above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/auto-automation-do-we-really-want-to-go-there/709288.md?page=4)