I’ll ride in one as soon as they’re perfected, in the same circumstances under which I let myself be driven today. Which is to say, not often… I love driving! But in case I do need/want a ride I won’t insist on a human driver.
And as a bonus, at least I assume an auto-taxi won’t insist on either making vapid small-talk or ranting a blue streak at me… 
I don’t see how, unless they’re just as bad at driving safely as we are.
It won’t be a legal minefield at all if it turns out that, in aggregate, computers have way fewer accidents per miles driven than we humans do. You’d still have to buy insurance, but if your car drives itself, you’ll get a better rate.
Once it becomes clear that the computers are a lot safer drivers than people, and that the human in the driver’s seat acting as a backup in case the computer fails is almost never needed, unmanned cars will become legal, and that will be the game-changer that will allow the real benefits of self-driving cars to start being realized.
And yes, you’ll live to see it, if you live as long as you expect.
What’ll happen is that you’ll have a USB-type or Bluetooth thingy on your key ring that has all your preferred settings, and when you get into the cab, it’ll set itself to your radio/music and heat/AC preferences, adjust your seat back, etc.
That isn’t exactly futuristic; they could easily adapt cars to do that now.
Nevada was the first and only state to legalize self-driven cars - although I think another state just legalized them recently. Granted, a somewhat moot point as they aren’t on the market yet, but still…
I would get one! I can think of lots of reasons, many already mentioned in other threads.
However, I can think of one reason why these cars might be a very, very bad thing.
How long will it be until some mad bomber fills a trunk with some explosives and then sends the car off to some location - driverless - and parks in a centralized location before the bomb explodes?
For all the nay-sayers - would you agree that when insurance rates for a self-driven car become lower than the rates you get right now, the computer (imperfect as it may be) is a better driver than you (imperfect as all humans are)?
California and Florida have both voted to legalize them.
If you’re driving an explosives-packed car, you park it in a centralized location, get out, and get behind something solid before you blow it up. The driverless car saves you 10 seconds, perhaps. Maybe 20 seconds if you haven’t bothered to scope out the place ahead of time to figure out where you’re going to hide from the kaboom.
[ul]
[li] These cars would never sit and wait at traffic lights. They would be in constant communication with the other cars around them and negotiate arrival times at intersections timed to avoid interference with each other.[/li][li] They could go much faster on the highway than is currently allowed with manual control.[/li][/ul]
Insurance rates are driven more by the value of the car than any safety equipment installed. A drone car is probably going to be a more expensive car (tractor drone kits run $20k for 1 inch tolerance without any highway navigation demands)…
There will be a software interface of some sort and the car will be subject to hacking (so, instead of breaking into a car to steal it, you could just apply a rootkit, change its ID and tell it to meet you where ever.)
I don’t see insurance companies giving a huge break on drone cars. I don’t expect anything beyond the same 5% break that you get by having a college degree.
[quote=“UncleRojelio, post:67, topic:646409”]
[li] These cars would never sit and wait at traffic lights. They would be in constant communication with the other cars around them and negotiate arrival times at intersections timed to avoid interference with each other.[/li][/quote]
this would require an environment where ALL cars are drones and can be assured that a constant rate of speed can be maintained. There are a lot of factors that can affect speed in gas powered, rubber tired vehicles. Then there is the fact that it would take several decades to get rid of manually driven cars.
This would take dedicated highways that are built for drones. Do you know how much damage a deer standing on the road would cause to a light weight vehicle at high speeds? How would the car avoid something that will stand still and at the last minute dart to one side or the other… or worse, darts onto the road at the last minute.
I could see drones operating at high speeds on dedicated roads or in cities with dedicated lanes. When they get into the general traffic, they are going to have mix with manual driven traffic like the Google car does.
[quote=“Enkel, post:68, topic:646409”]
Insurance rates are driven more by the value of the car than any safety equipment installed. A drone car is probably going to be a more expensive car (tractor drone kits run $20k for 1 inch tolerance without any highway navigation demands)…
[quote]
That’s because current safety equipment doesn’t significantly affect how often damage will be done in an accident. There’s good reason to expect that accident rates, and thus damage done, will be way lower with robot cars.
I expect well over a 50% reduction within 10 years of such cars being legal (to actually self-drive, with no human at the controls) in all 50 states.
It’ll be interesting to see which of us is correct.
No
No
No
Only if it could talk, and sounded like KITT, otherwise, no
These partial steps are likely how the technology will roll out; would any or none of them be appealing?
[/QUOTE]
None of them
I happen to enjoy driving, not going to cede that to automation, besides, as a computer tech, I’m well aware of what happens when electronics faiggfcfggfd… Err, fail
The damage a deer could cause would be the same as if a human were driving. Damage is damage. Humans, however, typically make judgement calls, usually with a bias towards intuition (when not properly trained), but many times in moments which call for unituitive action (such as avoiding threshold braking in a turn, or not stomping the brakes during a blowout, at speeds). Humans also panic.
As to how the car would avoid it, it really depends, but likely better than a human. Cars can be equipped with equipment more sensitive than the human eye*, calculate possible scenarios far quicker and more reliably, multi-task efficiently, and then mechanically adjust/compensate that much faster than a human, especially when the attention and reflexes of a person aren’t always 100%. They already do this with modern ABS, stability, assisted-steering, and traction control systems. Considering how many mishaps occur when people are just parking cars in low speed situations, I’d say an automated car would be no worse, overall.
And if an automated car were to strike a deer or pedestrian, I’m assuming it would stop (or the collision would be documented for logging/correction/blackbox purposes), instead of merely driving away.
Because you can only sue the guy for how much money he has and take part of his paycheck for the rest of his life. You can sue the company that made the software/car for millions. Thus a lawyers wet dream.
Back to this thread to report that I saw one of these today on the freeway. It was a Google car, a Lexus RX 350 or something, white SUV (may have been a hybrid), with something on the roof. This thing on the roof looked at first like it was being propelled by the wind (we were doing about 65). It resembled a spinning metal lampshade, and I could not make out what was in the center, but assumed it was some sort of camera or optical equipment. On the side and back were lables “Google Self-Guided Car”.
Anyway, I stayed with it for a few miles until they exited. I could not tell if the driver was taking any role in guiding the car (yes, there was someone in the driver’s seat). Seemed to hold the lane as well as the next car, even when I cut them off to see what would happen (just kidding).
Got me thinking about some of the discussion above. If you would use something like this, and assume you would be able to relax, read, sleep, go on Facebook, etc., but require that the vehicle could be overridden at any time (ala Total Recall)to avoid a hazard, wouldn’t those two goals be mutually exclusive? I mean, you would not be able to do the former, if you needed to do the latter.
Also, regarding lane changing, in some cases, the lane lines were not apparent due to construction or were weathered down. I wondered how that issue would be mitigated (I imagine it would be at some point).
I was thinking along the same lines regarding alcohol. If you don’t have to drive, why stay sober?
That’s right. I thought this was obvious to anyone. But it seems it’s not obvious. OK, we need a little more explaining.
It’s not just the threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits that’s the problem, that’s only a very small part of it.
When a bad automobile driver drives badly and in doing so causes loss, the legal system punishes that individual driver by recalling their license (suspension/cancellation), or by recalling their ability to live in society (jail), depending on the severity of the offense. In other words, we place the blame on the driver. We all currently, seemingly, accede to this system.
But when a car not operated by a driver causes loss (and I’m not going to place a monetary or other value on that loss) then the blame will fall on the maker of the car.
Recalls.
Do I really need to say any more?
Where I live the lane markings are pretty much gone by mid winter. You also have to consider roads covered with snow. There is gong to have to be some sort of sensor in the road.
No there doesn’t. If people can drive on roads without lane markers and covered by snow, then so can robots. Maybe they’re not there yet, but there’s nothing fundamental about driving that’s limited to humans.
Yes. I trust Google more than roughly 99.9% of the cab drivers in NY, whose cars I jump in and don’t even wear a seatbelt.
Better than that, these cars will know where they are via GPS and where the road is supposed to be via maps.