- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Availability of self driving cars to the public
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:04 am to shel311
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:04 am to shel311
quote:
That's a bit misleading, though true.
If I understand it correctly,
1. Virtually all the accidents in the study were minor.
2. Virtually, or maybe, all the accidents were the fault of the human driver.
Not misleading at all. Point 2 is not anywhere close to true. You also miss the issue of scale here. Running a red light or having a minor fender bender during testing under easy driving conditions means problems will be compounded as difficulty increases. Take the current error rates in these automated cars and insert them into regular daily driving on a large scale and you will end up with disaster.
quote:
So, should we stop making ALL new technologies then because it might be hacked? Great logic there!!!
Actually, yes. Breeding something that can be so easily removed from your control or placed into malicious hands, is stupid, to put it mildly.
Fix the cyber vulnerability issue first, then continue with the technology. You want to get on some altar and preach to everyone about safety but then dismiss this vulnerability. These automated cars can be driven into oncoming traffic, off a cliff, rammed into buildings, rammed into crowds, rolled over, or anything else one cares to do. It's a known vulnerability and you want to dismiss it. That makes you complicit in the problems that are sure to come and removes any credibility from your arguments.
And from a philosophical standpoint, the holier than thou desire to remove autonomy from people is never going to be accepted. You and others have not even begun to contemplate the level of obligation and control such devices will hurl upon people.
To think things like auto insurance will go away is profoundly stupid. For those that own these cars they will still have to have damage / collision insurance, personal injury insurance, and will be saddled with other burdens like software updates, road map updates, downloading weather info to the car, regular maintenance to verify tire pressure and engine systems etc are all in perfect working order - because we know damn well that manufacturers will declare they have no liability for accidents if some mechanical part is not right. They'll claim it throws off the working parameters and yada yada yada. So you can say goodbye to doing your own oil change, checking tire pressure yourself and on and on and on. And you can bet no insurance company will cover accidents or problems that can be blamed on a hacker, and manufacturers won't either. So consumers will take it in the shorts, of course.
It is 100% guaranteed the cost of ownership and insurance will go up.
Make this all voluntary and create a hybrid system and I think it's totally ok. Otherwise you're asking for trouble.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:07 am to UF
quote:
It is 100% guaranteed the cost of ownership and insurance will go up.
lol
Car Insurance will be pretty much non-existent in about 20 years.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:08 am to Bmath
quote:
I think you'll likely see a ride share company make them available long before they are going to be affordable for purchase by average Americans.
Probably the future of cars anyway. Particularly in urban areas. Few people will own cars, most will pick up an app and schedule cars when they need them.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:14 am to UF
quote:
2. Virtually, or maybe, all the accidents were the fault of the human driver.
Not misleading at all. Point 2 is not anywhere close to true
quote:link
It was not the project's first crash, but it was the first caused in part by nonhuman error (most incidents involve the driverless cars getting rear-ended by human drivers not paying attention at traffic lights)
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:15 am to TigerGrad2011
Uber is already doing it in Arizona after California DMV kicked out the self driving cars


Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:16 am to UF
quote:
Until power goes down and traffic lights don't work or when someone hacks into a car network and drives them off a cliff or something.
You're living in a dream. Join reality.
Having to pay ransomware hackers 100 bitcoins to keep them from driving you off a cliff is the least of our worries. They'll probably solve that minor blip on the radar by making an unhackable traffic controlling AI. Turning over critical functions like transportation to a centralized AI with the goal of keeping humans safe seems like a good way to accidentally create Skynet.
If you're going to do a conspiracy theory do it right.
This post was edited on 12/23/16 at 11:17 am
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:16 am to UF
quote:
Point 2 is not anywhere close to true
LINK
Basically states the cause of accidents is other drivers not following the rules
Google did report its first accident in which the Google car was at fault for in February of this year.
quote:Which are? Not saying you're wrong, but link me to what you're talking about.
Take the current error rates in these automated cars
quote:1. I didn't dismiss it at all.
Fix the cyber vulnerability issue first, then continue with the technology. You want to get on some altar and preach to everyone about safety but then dismiss this vulnerability.
2. What exactly needs to be fixed? Did I miss something where a bunch of hacks have occurred?
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:29 am to TigerGrad2011
I like driving so I'd never buy one
Posted on 12/23/16 at 11:52 am to TigersHuskers
I wanna go take the car and drive 100mph right now. Think I might just do that.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 12:09 pm to Gaston
quote:Good for you!!!
I wanna go take the car and drive 100mph right now. Think I might just do that.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 12:23 pm to tgr4ever
quote:
You realize how expensive they're going to be right?
This is super regressive thinking. Every great technological advancement has come with an initial high price- air conditioning, automobiles, computers, air travel, long distance calls, HDTV...
The price point will come down in a short time after introduction.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 12:27 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:
like driving so I'd never buy one
Why? Imagine how much more productive you could be if you didn't have to worry about driving, not to mention no speed tickets, DWI, road rage, etc.
The real people to lose here are the small speed trap towns across the US that use everyday out of state drivers as ATM machines. How will they get money if they can't pull over people and give tickets?
Posted on 12/23/16 at 12:29 pm to UF
quote:
Actually, yes. Breeding something that can be so easily removed from your control or placed into malicious hands, is stupid, to put it mildly.
Are you familiar with quantum encryption? It is theoretically possible to now make devices hackproof by using this technology.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 1:34 pm to TigerRad
quote:
this will happen more quickly than people think it will become a moral imperative once everyone realizes the lives saved 30,000 people die on the road every year if we could reduce that by 90%, why wouldnt we, like today?
25,000 people are saved every year by organs harvested from car wrecks.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 1:37 pm to UF
quote:
Fix the cyber vulnerability issue first, then continue with the technology. You want to get on some altar and preach to everyone about safety but then dismiss this vulnerability. These automated cars can be driven into oncoming traffic, off a cliff, rammed into buildings, rammed into crowds, rolled over, or anything else one cares to do. It's a known vulnerability and you want to dismiss it. That makes you complicit in the problems that are sure to come and removes any credibility from your arguments.
Opens up a whole new very scary avenue for ransomware.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 1:51 pm to NOFOX
quote:
25,000 people are saved every year by organs harvested from car wrecks.
Not sure what you are implying but this doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 1:51 pm to NOFOX
quote:
25,000 people are saved every year by organs harvested from car wrecks.
I hadn't thought about that angle, but fortunately the tech for growing/replacing organs isn't far off either.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 1:59 pm to TigerinATL
If people want to halt autonomous car technology because less organs could be harvested from accident victims, then we have no hope.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 2:04 pm to NOFOX
quote:So we should ensure people keep dying as a result?
25,000 people are saved every year by organs harvested from car wrecks.
What's your exact point here?
Posted on 12/23/16 at 2:04 pm to buffbraz
quote:
Not sure what you are implying but this doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion.
Other poster mentioned that self driving cars are a moral imperative because 30k people die each year in car wrecks when maybe 90% is preventable. As usual it is not so black and white from a moral perspective because if those people do not die many others will since the #1 source of organ donation is carwrecks.
Popular
Back to top


6




