Anyone else find this at least unnerving....

[Tim Frank]

.....if not outright terrifying?

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/techn...oBB?li=AAggFp5

 

[mickyryan]

I don't know, I think Id take my chances with the self driving then the 60 yr old woman who's putting on make up while texting and eating I saw on I4 a few drives back
or the guy who had the newspaper spread out across his steering wheel while drinking coffee at 80 ... ,

 

[64osby]

If you are aware while driving you are making these decisions every day. How to program the car is a quandary.

It is interesting that it stated hit the smaller of two objects. If it is a person or one on a bike ......

I would look at hitting another vehicle before hitting a pedestrian or some one on a bike. Yes there would be more chance for damage to a vehicle, less chance of that person being killed.

In our state if you drive off the road to avoid a deer insurance will not cover the accident. If you hit the deer they cover the accident. So what will a self driving vehicle do?

 

[GA_Boater]

Cold, hard logic can't replace human intuition. Of course the programmers think they have all the bases covered.

How many times does a car pull out in front of you or drive across your path. The self-driver will see a stopped car and ignore it. A human driver sees the other driver looking for an opening and senses something stupid is about happen and prepares.

 

[bassman284]

If you are aware while driving you are making these decisions every day. How to program the car is a quandary.

It is interesting that it stated hit the smaller of two objects. If it is a person or one on a bike ......

I would look at hitting another vehicle before hitting a pedestrian or some one on a bike. Yes there would be more chance for damage to a vehicle, less chance of that person being killed.

In our state if you drive off the road to avoid a deer insurance will not cover the accident. If you hit the deer they cover the accident. So what will a self driving vehicle do?

Your last point about the deer struck a nerve with me. My dad started teaching me to drive when I was 13 (I'm 70). One thing he hammered home was never get off the road for an animal. He knew a guy who died when he rolled his car trying to dodge a guinea hen. He said that if an animal comes on the road in front of you, drive through it - DON'T SWERVE! If it's a human, do what you need to not hit them. In my mind, only a human driver can reliably judge the obstruction ahead.

I have 57 years of driving experience including 12 years as an over the road trucker and also have a computer science degree. While I think I would be pretty good at programming a self driving car for some things I would never be confident in the ability of the sensors or cameras to evaluate the obstacles in their path. Yes, in SOME cases they might be superior to some of the mentally compromised morons out there right now, but they really cannot make the big decisions. IMO.

 

[laurentide]

It's an interesting ethical problem that is far, far, far outweighed by the number of lives that self-driving cars will save. The medical community is already bracing for the organ donor shortage that will ensue when they don't have the 20% that fatal car crashes represent. Increased efficiency and productivity are huge benefits as well.

I do recall reading that the manufacturers will program the cars to protect their occupants 100% of the time. There's no good answer. That goes for animals in the road, etc.

 

[tpenfield]

I think the technology will help a driver in panic situations (like the situation pictured in the article), but I am not sure driver-less cars will take over the roads. JMO.

Who would want a driver-less Mustang GT anyway :noidea:

 

[MTboatguy]

We barely have cell phone coverage in many areas in my state, so I am not too worried!

 

[gm280]

I do think one day will be totally driver-less vehicles. However, not with our present road structures. Too man iffy road situations that presently no computer, how ever cleverly programmed, can serious work with. It will take new roads to keep everything safe. Let's face it, trains should never ever crash into one other, but they still do. And that is with all the precautions programmed into them as well. So we are a long way off from totally driver-less vehicles in my opinion.

I use to do computer programming to assist a technician with troubleshooting circuit boards when the initial program stops for a fault on the circuit board. I can tell you manual diagnostics avalanches quite quickly. You have to think of every possibility that could possible happen and even ones that couldn't. And that was for a circuit board. Imagine programming for every possible and even impossible situation that could possibly exist all across this country. Better be really extremely brilliant programmers. JMHO

 

[Baylinerchuck]

I would hate to be the companies and ultimately programmers who get sued for killing people. You know it will inevitably happen. Seems like that technology is a huge liability. I guess "we" the consumer will decide if the risk is worth the investment. I for one like being in control, (to a certain extent) of my destiny. Control......that's an interesting word isn't it? With many implications. We should ponder that a bit.....

 

[WIMUSKY]

We barely have cell phone coverage in many areas in my state, so I am not too worried!

Same here.

What about weather conditions? Get a dusting of snow and it drives 30mph which it then becomes a road hazard, at least up here. And who will be able to afford these things? A lot of people can't afford a new car now. What's the life of these cars? Can you imagine replacing the computer... Even phasing them in, it will take many, many years to completely eliminate driveable cars.. Hope I never see it.... And what about old cars, muscle/collector cars? Crushed and the best ones end up in museums?

 

[MTboatguy]

Hell around here, my GPS is always telling me to take a left! Which if I did, I would end up in a lake!

 

[GA_Boater]

Hell around here, my GPS is always telling me to take a left! Which if I did, I would end up in a lake!

MT - You must have the Official Nascar GPS! LOL

 

[bassman284]

It's an interesting ethical problem that is far, far, far outweighed by the number of lives that self-driving cars will save. The medical community is already bracing for the organ donor shortage that will ensue when they don't have the 20% that fatal car crashes represent. Increased efficiency and productivity are huge benefits as well.

I do recall reading that the manufacturers will program the cars to protect their occupants 100% of the time. There's no good answer. That goes for animals in the road, etc.

I guess I'm just an old grump but I find it difficult to imagine that a geek programmer knows better than I do how to drive a car. Granted there are a lot of drivers on the road now who are so bad that a computer probably couldn't possibly do worse.

Since all the self-driving car talk has come up I've given some thought about what it would take to put the things I've seen in ~57 years of driving into a computer program and follow up by programming countermeasures. that would be a lot of lines of code and I'm just talking about the stuff I remember. Ah well, I suppose it's going to happen someday but I doubt they will become common in my lifetime.

I'm thinking of the Florida guys who was killed when his Tesla thought that a white semi trailer making a left turn in front of it was just more bright sky,

 

[MTboatguy]

MT - You must have the Official Nascar GPS! LOL

Yup, and I am darn proud of it!

LOL

 

[KD4UPL]

I don't get the fascination with self driving cars. Am I the only one who actually enjoys driving? I think the real problem is that it's entirely too easy to get and keep a drivers license in this country.
I don't see these cars catching on with a lot of the drivers who are really causing most of the problems. When certain people find out the the car won't let them speed, tailgate, swerve lane to lane with no signal just to get ahead 100', etc. I think they will not want one. All of us who do obey the speed limit, leave proper following distance, and signal our intentions won't really benefit much from the car.

 

[achris]

I don't get the fascination with self driving cars. Am I the only one who actually enjoys driving? I think the real problem is that it's entirely too easy to get and keep a drivers license in this country.

Totally agree. Drivers are only taught enough to pass the driving test, not how to drive properly.

I don't see these cars catching on with a lot of the drivers who are really causing most of the problems. When certain people find out the the car won't let them speed, tailgate, swerve lane to lane with no signal just to get ahead 100', etc. I think they will not want one. All of us who do obey the speed limit, leave proper following distance, and signal our intentions won't really benefit much from the car.

Which is why the time will come (and not that far away) where driven cars will be banned. When the only cars on the roads are driverless, we'll have far less accidents occuring....

A solution to this original subject of the 'moral dilemma' would be to have an interface in the car that allows the primary occupant to select the degree of self-preservation. Basically take the decision out of the manufacturer/programmers hands. Which is exactly what we all do as drivers now, every second we're on the road....

Chris..........

 

[Pusher]

On the one hand, if nobody is wandering in their lane, or driving under the speed limit causing the impatient drivers to pass them over the speed limit, and the car's route is set ahead of time, then there shouldn't ever be any accidents. But then on the other hand we have computer failures, animal/human crosswalkers, snow and hail "obstacles", and trailer debri issues. Does your car swerve into the next lane if a box blows into your lane?

How about if you're driving through yellowstone and want to pull onto the edge of a steep mountainside to watch the bear uphill of you? Do you get to have control, and if so under what limitations?

Heck, I still don't get how the auto braking works when you're swerving into the commuter lane when traffic ahead suddenly stops.

I still want a car without electronics.

 

[achris]

...I still want a car without electronics.

I think you'll find that's called a 'horse and cart'. If you think a car without computers is without electronics, think again. Even the humble points distributor and the old alternators have 'electronic' parts in them.... Oh, and even if you could do away with the electronics, that would mean no radio, CD player, air conditioning, power windows, central locking or alarm system.... No mobile phones, TV, or electric lights.

A world without electronics... I'll just dig out the straw broom to sweep out the cave....:facepalm:

Whether you like it or not, electronics is powering the future (and the present), in ways you can't even conceive. To try and take that backward step is impossible. I say learn how these great little devices help and enrich your world and embrace them, not fight them. They are here anyway, so you can enjoy it or continue to kick and scream.

Many cities are already trialling driverless buses. It will be in our lifetime we'll see them become the mainstay of the public transport system. We just had a incident in my city of a bus driver who blacked out in peak hour traffic, caused no end of problems... In a properly designed and implemented driverless sytem, that will never happen.

Are you enlightened, or a philistine?

Chris.........

 

[64osby]

I would love to see a driverless TV put my Starcraft in the lake at any of the local launches.