Sci/Tech Clearing the road for self-driving cars

[The Helper]

When Mercedes-Benz launched its S-Class saloon at a Hamburg airfield in May, the carmaker pulled out all the stops, booking singer Alicia Keys to serenade the new luxury vehicle.

But the real show-stopper was the rich palette of automated driving functions that the Stuttgart-based carmaker packed into its flagship model.

The S-Class combines an onboard stereo camera with long, medium and short-range radar that allows the vehicle to brake autonomously if a pedestrian suddenly steps into the road as well as correct an attempt to change lane if it is already occupied.

On the motorway, the vehicle automatically positions itself in the centre of the lane. Adaptive cruise control at speeds of up to 200kph ensures it maintains a constant distance from the vehicle in front. In a slow-moving traffic jam situation, the vehicle can in effect drive by itself.

Read Moar about how this technology is finding its way more into all vehicles, not just top of the line

Clearing the road for self-driving cars

www.ft.com

 

[Accname]

I dont like it. I prefer to have total control over the vehicle I am driving.
Either that, or no control whatsoever and the thing is driving completely by itself.

 

[FireCat]

Crappy Cars! Just saying!

 

[camelCase]

I dont like it. I prefer to have total control over the vehicle I am driving.
Either that, or no control whatsoever and the thing is driving completely by itself.

How to spot a programmer. He asks for total control.

 

[Varine]

I will only be satisfied once this car has successfully driven through Phoenix or LA in the rain at rush hour.

 

[Siretu]

Crappy Cars! Just saying!

Care to elaborate?

Also, I feel like I'd prefer google's cars so I dont have to concentrate on driving at all.

 

[FireCat]

Also, I feel like I'd prefer google's cars so I dont have to concentrate on driving at all.

What's the point to have a driver's license/a car then? You could Just take "a bus, taxi Hmm a train?" LOL

 

[Siretu]

So the only reason you take your car to work or whatever is just because you want to drive?

Even then, a self-driving car is preferable to taxi. You don't have to pay a person's salary, only gas.

There are also a ton of other reasons like less accidents, removing the problem with drinking and driving (no need to have a designated driver), could be cheaper.

 

[Accname]

So the only reason you take your car to work or whatever is just because you want to drive?

Even then, a self-driving car is preferable to taxi. You don't have to pay a person's salary, only gas.

There are also a ton of other reasons like less accidents, removing the problem with drinking and driving (no need to have a designated driver), could be cheaper.

Depends on the price and how often you actually use it. If you make like 5 trips a month then I guess public transportation or a taxi would be a better choice indeed.
Its also unclear how the insurance works with a self-driving car. Or what the police will say when they see you in a car without a driver.

 

[DM Cross]

You have any ideas how many technological break throughs have "well, it won't be useful if you just do things this way"? All of them. ALL the things.

Stuff like this will eventually become more common and more sophisticated until it's like I,Robot

The Robots might even see their way into invention, too

 

[Siretu]

If you're at the point where you drive a car to work (or somewhere else), you might as well have it drive itself. Public transport could possibly still be a better choice for the environment, but if the option is between self-driving car and you driving the car, you wouldn't have used public transport anyway.

I don't really see insurance and police as huge problems. What would the police have said 130 years ago if they saw you in a car without a horse?

Insurance is currently paid by insurance companies. I don't see why that would change. The same kind of fault-investigation would occur and if it was the car manufacturer's fault, they pay. If it was a software problem, either google pay for developing the code or the car manufacturers use the code with a deal that says they'll have to take responsibility for software accidents.

 

[DM Cross]

The insurance will change a bit because of defective parts/software, as you alluded to. I think we'll see the manufacturers giving out warranties not just on parts but software/the entire car that will extend for longer periods of time.

In general, public transportation is a good thing. More people using less is a good thing. Or, well... A clean energy source. But that's a separate bag of worms.

 

[FireCat]

removing the problem with drinking and driving (no need to have a designated driver)

It won't happen in the near future! "So you can't drink anyway" And less accidents Hmm...I don't think so.

 

[DM Cross]

... Where do you get a lack of ability to drink from anywhere in the quoted post, fool? Siretu is stating that you can drink to alcohol poisoning and still be taken home, provided the vehicle is completely automated.

 

[Accname]

If you sit in a self-driving car and that car is responsible for a horrible crash with several people dieing, who is at fault? You? You didnt do anything.
The company that produced the car? They will talk themselfs out of that. They wouldnt make any money if they had to pay for every accident.
Will it be the owners car insurance? They would be stupid to pay for that and will fight against it as much as possible.

I just dont see how this is going to work.


On the other hand, if you use the car to get to your job, with that I mean you take the very same route everyday at the same time of day; then I think public transportation is a much better choice.
A car is useful if you want to get to different places every now and then. If its always the same route you are taking then why do you need a car?

 

[DM Cross]

A car is useful if you want to get to different places every now and then. If its always the same route you are taking then why do you need a car?

I think a lot of European countries follow this train of thought and it does wonders for their public transportation systems.

 

[FireCat]

you can drink to alcohol poisoning and still be taken home, provided the vehicle is completely automated.

And I said "It won't happen in the near future!" You can't do that ... If its your car!

 

[Siretu]

And I said "It won't happen in the near future!" You can't do that ... If its your car!

It wont happen in the near future? There are already entirely self-driving cars out there. Google have been using them in real traffic for over a year. Over a year ago, they had already traveled more than 300,000 miles in total without a single software accident(one accident when the car was manually controlled). I'd imagine it's around 600,000 miles by now.

On the other hand, if you use the car to get to your job, with that I mean you take the very same route everyday at the same time of day; then I think public transportation is a much better choice.
A car is useful if you want to get to different places every now and then. If its always the same route you are taking then why do you need a car?

This is an excellent argument. However people still drive their car to work despite the validity of what you're saying. As you say, it doesn't work as well if you want to go to different places every now and then. A self-driving car can do that.

If this was pushed through with good marketing, a lot of car manufacturers would have to adapt to keep up with the market. Kind of like when Apple started making smart phones. What if the accident rate was much much lower than today? Not only that, but it's getting better and better as bugs are fixed and the code is improved.

As I said, I think the software developers (probably Google) will make deals with either the insurance companies or, more likely, the car manufacturers. If self-driving cars became popular and Google approached a car company and said:

"Here are the facts: We've been testing over 1000 of our self-driving cars for over three years and there's only been a single accident so far. We are willing to sell you a license of our code as long as you take responsibility for any eventual software accidents. In return, we'll keep you updated with the latest versions. We'll first push these versions to our own cars and try each update internally for 6 months to make sure they work properly."

I think a lot of car companies would feel pressured to agree to it to keep up with the market.

 

[DM Cross]

And I said "It won't happen in the near future!" You can't do that ... If its your car!

... Yes you can.

If the car is driving, you can be as drunk as you want. You're not driving.

 

[Accname]

And I still say its a bad idea.
Imagine somebody fucks around with the software and causes a major incident. How can the car company prove that it wasnt their fault? How can the software developers prove that it wasnt their fault either?
If the car got completely destroyed its far too late to find out what the cause was. This can become very ugly for many people and open up completely new ways for insurance fraud.

And then; today almost every device is somehow connected to the internet or has some other way of communicating with other devices. If they get stupid enough to do this with their self-driving cars its just begging the trolls to kill people on the streets.