# Self-driving cars **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033 "2014-12-01T15:07:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/61 "2014-12-02T21:14:57Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Really? Have you looked into the costs of what’s considered absolutely essential highway and road infrastructure - just restoring and rebuilding the roads to safe driving condition across the country? The t-word comes into it. We have to do that anyway. You don’t like self-driving cars because we need to fix our roads? That’s goofy. > [@](#): > > Now add whatever extensions, physical and electronic, to enable large-scale automated driving on these road that are now safe and reliable enough for same. Self driving cars don’t need anything but mapped out roads. They don’t require special paint or flashing lights or anything. Here is a link that is skeptical: [Google self-driving car: It may never actually happen.](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.2.html) The mapping is the big problem. But road crews could do their own mapping and updating in the future. Time and money, sure, but not overwhelming so long as technical advancement happens. > [@](#): > > You can make ANYTHING work in a limited trial under good conditions. Extrapolating from those limited circumstances to something closer to unlimited application breaks many a brilliant idea. > > Having to drive it manually half the time is more than a nudge - or are you willing to pay high for the car, high for road and infrastructure costs in your region, and then live only within “converted” areas? Just to get auto-drive part of the time? For people that live in mapped areas it would be useful. For guys who live down a dusty road not as much. More and more people are going to be in the former category. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/62 "2014-12-02T21:29:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > We have to do that anyway. You don’t like self-driving cars because we need to fix our roads? That’s goofy. I didn’t say anything of the kind. My point is that the essential costs and collateral issues for these kinds of gosh-wow projects can’t be minimized or ignored, and those costs can be far from trivial - the opposite end of the spectrum, if anything. > [@](#): > > Self driving cars don’t need anything but mapped out roads. They don’t require special paint or flashing lights or anything. Well, in theory - but if not, they require fairly rigid standards on things like curbs, lane markings, surface quality, turn radii, etc. Go off nice, new, flat, clean, well-engineered Bay Area suburb roads, and you no longer have many of those things. So it’s either bring those roads up to 21st century California spec or use some substitute like lane guidance wires, marker posts, whatever. (And then maintain them as carefully as many of our roads now aren’t.) I used to live on those nice, neat, new California streets (and by new I mean “laid according to standards set in the late 20th century”). I am not sure there’s a curb within five miles of me now, on many, many miles of road that include relatively major through routes. Most of the population here would be in your theoretical early-adopter interest and finance bracket… and IMVHO, it ain’t-a gonna happen here. Mapping alone is not a solution. There’s a thing called “ground truth” and it can only be determined in realtime by boots, wheels or rollers on the ground - not by remote observation or stored digital data. Sorry - I used to live near a university famed for turning this stuff out and making sober predictions about its wonderful future. I delighted in going to public showings and asking those simple emperor’s-new-clothes questions that would make them go home sulking. I am abundantly familiar with the mindset that thinks a brilliant idea that works in the Engineering Department parking lot, or in the brand-new development surrounding Google HQ, will work globally, and that there’s no barrier to the rollout but insufficient vision. Reality bites. ---
**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:** [December 2, 2014, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/63 "2014-12-02T21:35:52Z")
In the end it (probably\*) won’t matter if there are nay-sayers. If/when self-driving cars become available I would guess that the insurance rates for people who use them will be much lower than those who don’t. For example, my sister with two teen-age daughters is paying ~ $3k/year for insurance. I can easily see that dropping to a few $hundred with a self-driving car. (\* - I say probably because we could have knucklehead legislators pass laws that won’t allow companies to lower insurance rates for self-driving cars or make them illegal.) ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/64 "2014-12-02T21:56:00Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, in theory - but if not, they require fairly rigid standards on things like curbs, lane markings, surface quality, turn radii, etc. Go off nice, new, flat, clean, well-engineered Bay Area suburb roads, and you no longer have many of those things. So it’s either bring those roads up to 21st century California spec or use some substitute like lane guidance wires, marker posts, whatever. (And then maintain them as carefully as many of our roads now aren’t.) We had off-road driverless cars [in 2005](http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/offroad-and-driverless/2005/12/13/1134236063011.html?page=fullpage). Machines have more eyes than people, and faster brains. All we have to do is teach them, and driving algorithms are getting better every day. The reason driverless cars aren’t the norm _right now_ is not a technical one. We only need to convince consumers like you and their politicians that people simply don’t make very good control systems during short time frames when lives are on the line, and that machines are _already_ doing this better than people. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/65 "2014-12-02T22:07:06Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > In the end it (probably\*) won’t matter if there are nay-sayers. It probably won’t matter that there are rosy-eyed believers, either. > [@](#): > > If/when self-driving cars become available I would guess that the insurance rates for people who use them will be much lower than those who don’t. For example, my sister with two teen-age daughters is paying ~ $3k/year for insurance. I can easily see that dropping to a few $hundred with a self-driving car. Allowing for the equivalents of ca. 2065 or later, possibly. Before your sister’s daughters pay the ca. 2035 equivalent of $3k for their teens’ insurance… not too likely. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/66 "2014-12-02T22:09:39Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > The reason driverless cars aren’t the norm _right now_ is not a technical one. Uh, wow. Even Google seems to think there’s significant development work yet to be done. > [@](#): > > We only need to convince consumers like you and their politicians that people simply don’t make very good control systems during short time frames when lives are on the line, and that machines are _already_ doing this better than people. Right. Call marketing and we’re done here. Or at least, I am. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![InfiniteJest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eada6e/32.png) [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/67 "2014-12-02T22:10:48Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Kind of an “if a frog had wings” wish, though. You’re talking about trillions - literally - in roadway improvements and changes to accommodate any significant fraction of US roads, and the last 10-20% are going to be a huge part of the cost. FYI, Volvo has committed to making sure that no one dies or gets seriously injured driving their new vehicles by 2020. Which, according to Volvo, means that their new vehicles ultimately get into no crashes. Volvo seems awfully optimistic. I mean if they really had a car that would never crash by 2020 then I would be the first to buy one for my parents and myself, even if the car was 10-20k more than what new cars usually cost. Of course this is likely marketing BS, but still, what’s the good of over-promising and then under-delivering? It seems only to serve to ruin one’s credibility. Then again, people definitely don’t have memory spans of 6 years. In the context of stuff said in the media. I.e. who was the shooter in Aurora again? I can’t even remember. > **[Sweden\_Volvo\_Vision\_2020.pdf](https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/roadsafe/unda/Sweden_Volvo_Vision_2020.pdf)** > > 6.35 MB ---
**Author:** ![InfiniteJest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eada6e/32.png) [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/68 "2014-12-02T22:17:21Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > In an emergency situation the car would steer for optimum stability and brake for optimum deceleration. > > No ethical decisions are involved. > > Crane That sounds like enlightened self-interest. Steering for stability sounds like it’s meant to protect who’s inside but not necessarily who’s outside. Also if there were a “better” decision to be had why not take it? ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/69 "2014-12-02T22:37:55Z")
Amateur, Self driving cars have moved way beyond the early experiments with magnetic tracks, GPS and dead reckoning. Modern systems are primarily visual with GPS, local sensing and dead reckoning as additional inputs. Most use some form of neural net that allows the system to generalize in unfamiliar situations. It is also a matter of degree. Traction control and ABS are being joined by steering assistance and hazard identification. Navigation systems are now common. In another 25 years the necessary components will exist on all passenger cars. 25 years after that those components will be integrated into self driving systems. Earlier adaptation will be by heavy duty commercial trucking. Those trucks need to operate 24/7. Self driving trucks have major commercial advantages. Crane ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/70 "2014-12-02T22:40:53Z")
Infinite, What better decision is there than to maintain stability while optimally reducing velocity to zero? Crane ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/71 "2014-12-02T22:47:06Z")
> [@InfiniteJest](#): > > FYI, Volvo has committed to making sure that no one dies or gets seriously injured driving their new vehicles by 2020. Which, according to Volvo, means that their new vehicles ultimately get into no crashes. Really? I interpret their goal to mean that any crash will be survivable. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/72 "2014-12-02T22:56:16Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > You keep focusing on the one-in-a-million accidents. It’s the one-in-a-hundred accidents you want to watch out for. Drunk drivers are COMMON. Idiot drivers are COMMON. If we get those off the roads through driverless cars, we will all be a LOT safer. One in a million? Google returned; About 2,490,000 results (0.38 seconds) for “Killed in police pursuit.” Sorry, the public will never go for this. Invest in high speed rail instead, it’s proven to work. ---
**Author:** ![InfiniteJest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eada6e/32.png) [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/73 "2014-12-02T23:04:15Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > One in a million? > Google returned; About 2,490,000 results (0.38 seconds) for “Killed in police pursuit.” > Sorry, the public will never go for this. Invest in high speed rail instead, it’s proven to work. And how many of these are news articles of the same incident? ---
**Author:** ![InfiniteJest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eada6e/32.png) [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/74 "2014-12-02T23:06:58Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Really? I interpret their goal to mean that any crash will be survivable. No, that’s not Volvo’s interpretation. > [@Volvo](#): > > Our long-term vision at Volvo is that by 2020 nobody will be seriously injured or killed. Ultimately, that means designing cars that do not crash. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXzpQboT2Uo) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2014, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/75 "2014-12-02T23:44:39Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Most map bases have my house a full tenth of a mile away from actual location. It is not unusual to drive through segments where the GPS shows the road over there and is screaming at you because you seem to be driving through a pond, along a river or down a cliff. It is not too rare to get into a tangled loop of instructions that looks like a side of spaghetti dropped on your nominally straight route. And this is the oldest and one of the most populous regions of the country, not California where they can barely keep up with the sprawl. Maybe you need a better GPS! 😉 Seriously, I’ve driven with my GPS in dozens of cities and towns in two provinces and three states, on everything from major freeways to a rutted country road that was barely more than a cow path, and have never seen this problem. No doubt map information isn’t perfect, but it’s not the disaster you make it out to be. Years after getting the thing, I continue to marvel at the accuracy of the GPS-map integration. Keep in mind as well that map and GPS information is used for navigation, not for steering, traffic maneuvers, or object avoidance. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, in theory - but if not, they require fairly rigid standards on things like curbs, lane markings, surface quality, turn radii, etc. Go off nice, new, flat, clean, well-engineered Bay Area suburb roads, and you no longer have many of those things. The presumption here is that self-driving robotics are half-blind and spectacularly stupid. If human drivers don’t need those things, why would a well-engineering self-driving car need them? Are we using technology from the 60s? I have no doubt that over time, traffic signals and signage will be increasingly optimized for driverless cars, but that would be to make them even safer, not because they require it. Frankly from what I and many others see every day, “half-blind and spectacularly stupid” is an apt description of many human drivers. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Mapping alone is not a solution. There’s a thing called “ground truth” and it can only be determined in realtime by boots, wheels or rollers on the ground - not by remote observation or stored digital data. And ground truth is determined in real time by the sensors and logic of a driverless car. ---
**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:** [December 3, 2014, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/76 "2014-12-03T00:02:24Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, in theory - but if not, they require fairly rigid standards on things like curbs, lane markings, surface quality, turn radii, etc. Go off nice, new, flat, clean, well-engineered Bay Area suburb roads, and you no longer have many of those things. So it’s either bring those roads up to 21st century California spec or use some substitute like lane guidance wires, marker posts, whatever. (And then maintain them as carefully as many of our roads now aren’t.) I’m glad I had finished my tea before I read this, or else you would have owed me a new keyboard. I forget the exact figure, but Mr. Roadshow of the Murky News has several times published figures that the average Bay Area driver spends at least several hundred bucks a years on repairs due to our smooth beautiful roads. Try 880 through Oakland some day. Yeah, we mostly have curbs and stuff, but no more than anyplace I’ve ever lived for the last 60 years. Don’t let him fool you, **RTFirefly**. In the New Yorker article I read they don’t stay in Mountain View, they start in the East Bay and drive down the Nasty Nimitz to get to Mountain View - I assume using 237 not one of the toll bridges. As crappy a commute as you are likely to find, and I grew up just blocks from the Long Island Expressway. Not one penny has been spent by the state or the counties in getting the roads ready for these cars. > [@](#): > > I used to live on those nice, neat, new California streets (and by new I mean “laid according to standards set in the late 20th century”). I am not sure there’s a curb within five miles of me now, on many, many miles of road that include relatively major through routes. Most of the population here would be in your theoretical early-adopter interest and finance bracket… and IMVHO, it ain’t-a gonna happen here. Do you know for sure the Google cars can’t handle this? There are lots of roads in Northern California without curbs either, which twist and turn through the forests. Positive that the cars haven’t been tried on them? Even if there are some small number of people who live in places where the cars wouldn’t work - at least at first - the vast majority of the market lives in places where they can and do work. > [@](#): > > Mapping alone is not a solution. There’s a thing called “ground truth” and it can only be determined in realtime by boots, wheels or rollers on the ground - not by remote observation or stored digital data. The cars observe their surrounds - 360 degrees worth of surroundings. Much better than people do. > [@](#): > > Sorry - I used to live near a university famed for turning this stuff out and making sober predictions about its wonderful future. I delighted in going to public showings and asking those simple emperor’s-new-clothes questions that would make them go home sulking. I am abundantly familiar with the mindset that thinks a brilliant idea that works in the Engineering Department parking lot, or in the brand-new development surrounding Google HQ, will work globally, and that there’s no barrier to the rollout but insufficient vision. > > Reality bites. You really should actually read about them some time, since if you think they’ve only been driven within a few miles of Mountain View you don’t have a clue. ---
**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:** [December 3, 2014, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/77 "2014-12-03T00:08:21Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The question I have is, of the _technical_ obstacles in the way of getting self-driving cars out of meticulously mapped Mountain View (down to every last manhole, curb cut, and traffic sign, IIRC - way more detailed than Google Maps, thank you) and into the real world, are they all solvable by the continued application of Moore’s Law, or do some of them require solutions that are immune to ever-faster computers with more terabytes? To me, that’s the real question that will determine whether we see self-driving cars in 10 years, or whether it’ll be more like 30. There are **no** technical obstacles to getting the cars out of Mountain View since the cars drive on real freeways all over all the time. There is plenty of work to be done in making them street ready for the average idiot. And for dealing with even more issues than they can deal with now. And especially in getting the price down to something people can afford. I think every car now costs several hundred thousand bucks, and looks awful. I don’t believe Google has an plan to build cars, but rather to license the technology (and no doubt sell ads on the dashboard.) Hell, the Google cars drive past the Tesla plant all the time. Perfect match. ---
**Author:** ![meanoldman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@meanoldman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meanoldman)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/78 "2014-12-03T00:24:05Z")
If the vehicle of the future uses GPS, cameras and maybe laser or radar such that it is aware of not only its own position, speed, acceleration/deceleration, but also the position of other vehicles…and in turn those vehicles know where they are…and the majority of those vehicles are communicating that information to each vehicle in a halo around the vehicle, I see that as a cluster or cell of safety. If some group or enterprise, such as the USPS, or UPS or Fedex etc outfits their vehicles with GPS logging and recording ‘blackboxes’ to refine ongoing GPS data (resellable to self-driving car manufacturers)…and perhaps even additional GPS data points added by recording consumer vehicle data, those additional data points would smooth out the messiness of some GPS routes. As I mentioned several posts up, my car is already using stereoscopic camera data to help me avoid accidents. And they did so relatively inexpensively with hardly noticeable added weight to the vehicle. How’s this for a thought experiment? Given: Every car being equipped with cameras, with gps and some kind of transponder to communicate and coordinate its position relative to all other vehicles in range. Will there still need to be stop signs and traffic signals? The vehicles communicate amongst themselves when it it safe to proceed. The camera sensors detect no issues, confirmed by no issues being communicated via transponder…the vehicle continues into traffic without delay. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/79 "2014-12-03T00:25:19Z")
> [@InfiniteJest](#): > > No, that’s not Volvo’s interpretation. Huh. That’s… ambitious. Good luck to them. ---
**Author:** ![InfiniteJest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eada6e/32.png) [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033/80 "2014-12-03T00:28:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Huh. That’s… ambitious. Good luck to them. I’d have to say commendable as well. I might just have to get a Volvo after owning nothing but Japanese cars. Side note to all those arguing about mapping and technology … you do realize that Google admitted that mapping is essential to its “autonomous” cars? And that its autonomous cars still can’t drive in the rain? And they can’t recognize temporary traffic signals … because they rely HEAVILY on meticulous mapping. And this all goes back to Volvo’s “promise” … if Google can’t do it, what can Volvo do? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/self-driving-cars/706033.md?page=5)