ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cars

View Poll Results: Driverless cars will become mandatory by 2050
Yes they will 30 22.90%
No they won't 62 47.33%
It will take longer 22 16.79%
Your poll options suck 35 26.72%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 25th February 2017, 01:42 PM   #161
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 11,295
Look, it doesn't matter what most of you ****ers believe. Support for marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage has gone up over the past few decades. Is it because of rational, morally compelling arguments? Maybe in part. It's mostly a story of demography. People dying. Seniors are more afraid of driverless technology than young people; fortunately, nature is slowly phasing out the liver-spotted and decrepit.
__________________
November 2nd, 2016:
Cain: Americans are so ******* stupid.
Shalamar: This is why I'm certain Trump will win.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2017, 03:15 PM   #162
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,394
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Notice that they also improved belt designs, though, so that no longer happens except in movies.
It never happened except in movies.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2017, 06:17 PM   #163
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 341
Regarding seat belts, my dad had an aunt and uncle who refused to wear them.

I only met them once, back in the 80s, but I remember my great aunt telling the story of how they had been in two accidents in which the police told them that if they had not been ejected from the vehicle, they would have died.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2017, 07:22 AM   #164
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,959
People will accept pilotless planes before driverless cars
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2017, 07:44 AM   #165
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
People will accept pilotless planes before driverless cars
Because nothing can go even more wrong in plane then in car and failure in plane is more survivable then in car...
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400

Last edited by Klimax; 26th February 2017 at 07:45 AM.
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2017, 08:54 PM   #166
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,487
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Regarding seat belts, my dad had an aunt and uncle who refused to wear them.

I only met them once, back in the 80s, but I remember my great aunt telling the story of how they had been in two accidents in which the police told them that if they had not been ejected from the vehicle, they would have died.
I know it's anecdotal, but I had a friend who was ejected from the vehicle, and died, and probably would not have died had he been wearing his seat belt.
__________________
On vacation.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 26th February 2017 at 08:56 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2017, 05:10 PM   #167
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,392
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
A few things.

1. It's accessible in a way that some other high tech developments aren't. We can relate to cars.
2. It's huge in its impact to society, not just economically, but really in the way we live. If our cars can drive themselves, our lives change pretty significantly.
3. It hits on the existential dilemma that we will have to face in the near future. Our machines will have computational abilities comparable to our brains. That's going to freak a lot of people out. Some people react to that by simply insisting it cannot happen. So it's a philosophical, as well as practical, problem.
That seems a fair assessment.

That being said, the seemingly frantic rush along this path of development makes me shake my head in wonder. If the tech were merely designed/limited to collision avoidance, or at least some degree of reduction, it would be one thing (and an astoundingly dramatic one, with an immense downside I've not seen mentioned, at that). But full autonomy? Yeah, that's not happening soon, if ever.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2017, 06:51 PM   #168
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,959
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Because nothing can go even more wrong in plane then in car and failure in plane is more survivable then in car...
...said one person for no apparent reason.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 04:04 AM   #169
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
...said one person for no apparent reason.
What did you meant then? "Never"?
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 12:11 PM   #170
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,375
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
That seems a fair assessment.

That being said, the seemingly frantic rush along this path of development makes me shake my head in wonder. If the tech were merely designed/limited to collision avoidance, or at least some degree of reduction, it would be one thing (and an astoundingly dramatic one, with an immense downside I've not seen mentioned, at that). But full autonomy? Yeah, that's not happening soon, if ever.
Full autonomy is coming way faster than you think. Cars are already on the roads and more are coming.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 08:43 PM   #171
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
People will accept pilotless planes before driverless cars
While true, this truth has no moral bearing on the current discussion. Come on....
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 08:47 PM   #172
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I think we can learn something from the phasing in of seat belts.
You're right bro but think, it's almost the opposite, this time the money interests are ahead of the g-men, the big 3 are begging government to get their heels up, your point is still worthy, just thought I'd point out the difference, the public polls are worthless, we can brainwash that many people to believe anything if we have enough complicity. We just have to act first because we are the good guys.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:02 AM   #173
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Full autonomy is coming way faster than you think. Cars are already on the roads and more are coming.
They might be coming but not anytime soon. One extra interesting problem will be handling of pedestrian near crossings. In some countries pedestrians have right of way on crossing, if they clearly want to cross. it's already challenge to human driver, for computer that will be very hard without lots of false positives/negatives.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 05:29 AM   #174
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,166
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
They might be coming but not anytime soon. One extra interesting problem will be handling of pedestrian near crossings. In some countries pedestrians have right of way on crossing, if they clearly want to cross. it's already challenge to human driver, for computer that will be very hard without lots of false positives/negatives.
Well, this could be arranged so that the pedestrians have to signal the car in a prearranged way, and standardize this worldwide. It doesn't have to be anything fancy - put one foot on the crossing or something like that.

The AI should still presume the pedestrian will cross and act accordingly, but such signals can reduce the number of false positive/negatives quite significantly.

It's not perfect, I know. Nothing will be - but it doesn't need to be either. It just needs to be better than it is today to be worthwhile.

Alternative solution - computer AI might match (or even surpass) human ability to judge whether the pedestrian wants to cross or not in not too distant (but scary) future.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 06:42 AM   #175
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,375
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
They might be coming but not anytime soon. One extra interesting problem will be handling of pedestrian near crossings. In some countries pedestrians have right of way on crossing, if they clearly want to cross. it's already challenge to human driver, for computer that will be very hard without lots of false positives/negatives.
They are already on the road from after market companies and you'll have current auto manufacturers with production autonomous cars on the roads by next year. Not sure how it can be coming much sooner.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 06:57 AM   #176
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,851
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It never happened except in movies.
Wasn't the new design developed because the older one sometimes got stuck?
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:32 PM   #177
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,448
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
People will accept pilotless planes before driverless cars
I think the progression will be interesting. I think train conductors are already obsolete. Planes aren't far behind, with ground based control taking over for autopilot when needed. Even then there will still be one person in the cockpit, even if they do nothing but check that all systems are functioning.

But on the motorway it will be long haul trucks first, followed by other delivery vehicles, followed by buses and trollies, and then move to cabs and shared ride vehicles. Personal cars will be the last bit and frankly by the time we get to buying these things for our own use it may not be worth it. Shared ride services could fill the need more efficiently. Or at least, families will have fewer cars and use a service for normal commuting duties and the like.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 05:00 AM   #178
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,487
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
They might be coming but not anytime soon. One extra interesting problem will be handling of pedestrian near crossings. In some countries pedestrians have right of way on crossing, if they clearly want to cross. it's already challenge to human driver, for computer that will be very hard without lots of false positives/negatives.
This one isn't as hard as it sounds. Software to recognize humans is already commonplace. Pose estimation, which would tell you a lot about the human waiting to cross, is already available.

Where the computer runs into trouble is judging unusual situations. Two guys carrying a new television set out of the store to the pickup truck across the street. That means the one leading the way across the street is walking backwards. To a human, that situation is pretty easy. We form an intentional model of people in our field of view, and we are fairly certain that there are two people working together, and they will want to get to one of the parked vehicles across the street. To a computer, at least early on, you might end up with something that gets confused, even more so if whatever they are carrying actually obscures a portion of the body.
e
And then there's the advertising stunt that has some guy wandering around downtown dressed in a panda suit. That's easy for us to interpret. Not quite as easy for a computer.

But, people are working on these things. Furthermore, as you noted, human drivers aren't perfect at this either. People are killed in crosswalks because human drivers didn't notice them, or misread their intentions. The computer doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans.
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 06:22 AM   #179
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,375
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
But on the motorway it will be long haul trucks first, followed by other delivery vehicles, followed by buses and trollies, and then move to cabs and shared ride vehicles. Personal cars will be the last bit and frankly by the time we get to buying these things for our own use it may not be worth it. Shared ride services could fill the need more efficiently. Or at least, families will have fewer cars and use a service for normal commuting duties and the like.
Except for ride sharing has already started and will be more firmly cemented next year. City ride sharing is going to be the lead on this, especially with the mapping that is already in place.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 06:59 AM   #180
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The computer doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans.
For me to use an automated car the computer needs to be better than me, not some generic human average. One million miles in all conditions on all roads without an at-fault collision or any type of third-party injury puts me so far ahead of current automated technology it's not even funny. That's not to highlight me as the best driver in the world, of course, but to illustrate that for millions of people worldwide, the generic human standard of driving is a pretty low bar and therefore irrelevant. Maybe one solution is mandatory take-on of automation for the worst drivers.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 08:18 AM   #181
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
...But, people are working on these things. Furthermore, as you noted, human drivers aren't perfect at this either. People are killed in crosswalks because human drivers didn't notice them, or misread their intentions. The computer doesn't have to be perfect, just better than humans.
The problem with human drivers is, sometimes pedestrians are hit in circumstances in which the driver seems almost to have done it intentionally. In fact safety groups often make that claim. If you drive, I think you have kind of a gut feeling that's probably true. I've been behind drivers who speed up and take aim at a pedestrian crossing the street. That's fairly common. I didn't think they meant to hit them, probably vent frustration and maybe give the pedestrian a good scare. I guess in some cases the drivers cuts it too close and does hit them.

(I once had to literally dive out of the way of an oncoming car in a parking lot. The driver then had to brake hard in order to stop for other traffic so it seemed pretty mindless. It was summer and this woman had her window down. As I walked past I said to her, "You know I'm not a squirrel crossing the road." She snarled, "Then get your butt out of my way, honey.)

Another factor is, when or if cars are self-driving we might find pedestrians modify their behavior as a result. But this might be an area where you might see an occasional accident. I don't think any reasonable person expects self-driving cars will have a zero accident rate or that it should be the requirement.
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 10:48 AM   #182
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
They might be coming but not anytime soon. One extra interesting problem will be handling of pedestrian near crossings. In some countries pedestrians have right of way on crossing, if they clearly want to cross. it's already challenge to human driver, for computer that will be very hard without lots of false positives/negatives.
Yes, this is a very good point. I hadn't thought about it before.

When I look at the pedestrian, I can suss his intentions. That's something AI cannot do well.

That's a great point.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 11:53 AM   #183
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,959
Automakers may not want to take on the liability.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 11:55 AM   #184
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,448
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Automakers may not want to take on the liability.
They sure are investing a ton of money into it. I'd wager they wrapped their head around the liability issue prior to burning up so much capital.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 01:38 PM   #185
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I know it's anecdotal, but I had a friend who was ejected from the vehicle, and died, and probably would not have died had he been wearing his seat belt.
To be clear, I'm not saying my great aunt was right. I should have quoted for reference, but it had more to do with someone saying "It never happened except in movies." My point was that back around that time there were people who had real life experiences that led them to that belief, not just movie scenes.

Obviously, wearing a seat belt is a good idea. Scenarios where not having one on are an advantage are very rare and involve an insane amount of luck. You couldn't tell my great aunt that, though.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 01:43 PM   #186
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,375
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
They might be coming but not anytime soon. One extra interesting problem will be handling of pedestrian near crossings. In some countries pedestrians have right of way on crossing, if they clearly want to cross. it's already challenge to human driver, for computer that will be very hard without lots of false positives/negatives.
Here's what's out there presently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tp6Ubf6mE4
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 01:47 PM   #187
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,375
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Automakers may not want to take on the liability.
Missed this. The first ones will be owned by the automakers and will be insured by them. The only way to get the technology moving is real world testing, so the manufacturers are willing to take on that liability.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 01:49 PM   #188
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by baron View Post
For me to use an automated car the computer needs to be better than me, not some generic human average. One million miles in all conditions on all roads without an at-fault collision or any type of third-party injury puts me so far ahead of current automated technology it's not even funny. That's not to highlight me as the best driver in the world, of course, but to illustrate that for millions of people worldwide, the generic human standard of driving is a pretty low bar and therefore irrelevant. Maybe one solution is mandatory take-on of automation for the worst drivers.
I think it's more accurate to say that for you to use an automated car you need to perceive the computer as being better than you.

Perception is in many ways more important than objective reality. Think about it. How many people do you know who think that they are bad drivers? We all think we are pretty good drivers. So for someone to turn control over to a computer, they have to perceive the computer as being better than the think they are, not better than they actually are.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 01:53 PM   #189
TomB
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 341
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I've been behind drivers who speed up and take aim at a pedestrian crossing the street. That's fairly common.
Really?

I've never seen this. Maybe it's a big city thing?
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 02:00 PM   #190
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
I think it's more accurate to say that for you to use an automated car you need to perceive the computer as being better than you.

Perception is in many ways more important than objective reality. Think about it. How many people do you know who think that they are bad drivers? We all think we are pretty good drivers. So for someone to turn control over to a computer, they have to perceive the computer as being better than the think they are, not better than they actually are.
That's true. I made broadly the same point in the other gargantuan thread on the topic, saying that the first significant crash or series of crashes caused by automated cars could well scupper the entire industry (such as it is), given that people's uptake of the technology will be based on their perception of its risk rather than the actuality. So, even if the impossible happens and a driverless car is developed that is better than 99% of the population, the first time such a car mows down a bus queue of people or the first time a thousand cars drive into ditches simultaneously as a result of their CPUs being hacked, uptake of the technology will plummet to near zero overnight, even though the stats may still show the cars to be safer than almost all drivers.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 02:04 PM   #191
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,448
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Wasn't the new design developed because the older one sometimes got stuck?
IIRC, the new design was more driven by the old design releasing during impacts. A bit like old push button door handles opening when impacted.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 02:08 PM   #192
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,487
Originally Posted by baron View Post
For me to use an automated car the computer needs to be better than me, not some generic human average.
For me to use an automated car, NHTSA would have to convince me that it's probably better than me.

(I've gone 20 years with a perfect driving record, according to my insurance company, but I did agree to pay for some damage I caused in a parking lot without getting police or insurance involved.)
__________________
On vacation.
Meadmaker is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 02:47 PM   #193
newyorkguy
Philosopher
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
They sure are investing a ton of money into it. I'd wager they wrapped their head around the liability issue prior to burning up so much capital.
This.

An almost constant on message boards (and in real life) with anything new. The armchair experts come up with "reasons" why it won't work, always seemingly confident that the people designing the technology never have thought of this. But of course it always turns out they did think about it, address it and are working towards solutions.

In fact the tech reporter I saw interviewed on CNN said that interested US parties are already discussing liability. And -- for the armchair experts -- she emphasized, the liability issue will involve lawmakers. [see highlite below] They have already and formally addressed this issue in the UK:
Quote:
Insurers will be responsible for paying compensation directly to "innocent victims" of collisions involving driverless cars, but will be able to recover those costs from the vehicle manufacturer if the crash was caused by a fault with their technology, under new plans outlined in the UK....

We [the British government] now propose to supplement the compulsory motor insurance law (Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988)..."When a crash is determined to have been caused by an AV (autonomous vehicle), where the ADF (automated driving function) was active, the insurer would be liable to pay compensation to the innocent third party victim. They would also pay out to the motorist if injured in the vehicle if the ADF were active. The insurer will only be able to exclude this liability to the injured AV motorist if the crash resulted from the motorist having made unauthorised modifications to their vehicle’s operating system, or failing to install required updates to the software for the vehicle’s operating system." Link
newyorkguy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 06:11 PM   #194
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 7,984
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
I think it's more accurate to say that for you to use an automated car you need to perceive the computer as being better than you.

Perception is in many ways more important than objective reality. Think about it. How many people do you know who think that they are bad drivers? We all think we are pretty good drivers. So for someone to turn control over to a computer, they have to perceive the computer as being better than the think they are, not better than they actually are.
Good point.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 10:18 PM   #195
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,161
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
I think it's more accurate to say that for you to use an automated car you need to perceive the computer as being better than you.

Perception is in many ways more important than objective reality. Think about it. How many people do you know who think that they are bad drivers? We all think we are pretty good drivers. So for someone to turn control over to a computer, they have to perceive the computer as being better than the think they are, not better than they actually are.
I think that's true and part of the problem, but that there is also the real problem that overall statistics are skewed by the really bad drivers - the ones who drive drunk, texting, half asleep, tailgating and speeding and angry, etc. etc., so that it is likely to be relatively easy for automated cars to tip the utilitarian balance prematurely, and in so doing to spread the risk in a way that favors the worst drivers at the expense of the rest. That this is also perceived to be even more true than it is does not make it false by itself.

I actually suspect that the issue of pedestrians would be relatively minor, and one of the first things addressed owing to its importance. If an automated car can be trusted not to run over dogs, babies and livestock, pedestrians are not likely to be that much of a challenge.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 10:26 PM   #196
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,404
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Really?

I've never seen this. Maybe it's a big city thing?
New York Values
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 12:52 AM   #197
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,734
Originally Posted by baron View Post
For me to use an automated car the computer needs to be better than me, not some generic human average. One million miles in all conditions on all roads without an at-fault collision or any type of third-party injury puts me so far ahead of current automated technology it's not even funny. That's not to highlight me as the best driver in the world, of course, but to illustrate that for millions of people worldwide, the generic human standard of driving is a pretty low bar and therefore irrelevant. Maybe one solution is mandatory take-on of automation for the worst drivers.
But by your own words you are anything but a good driver - you shared an anecdote in another thread:

Originally Posted by baron View Post
20+ years ago I was pulled for doing 'over 135mph' in a 60. Actually I wasn't pulled, I saw the lights a mile back on a straight and pulled over myself and waited. Turns out they'd been trying to catch up for several miles. I was given the choice between a court appearance for 'careless driving' or 3-points (for 79mph in a 60, the only evidential measurement they were able to make as I slowed for a roundabout). After minimal hesitation I chose the latter. It cost me £30. I thought it was a pretty good result although I hear they're stricter about that sort of thing now.
That is not a description of a good driver and that type of driving with all its risks wouldn't happen with self drive cars.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 05:35 AM   #198
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But by your own words you are anything but a good driver - you shared an anecdote in another thread:



That is not a description of a good driver and that type of driving with all its risks wouldn't happen with self drive cars.
I think your confusion arises because I don't believe in surrendering my judgement to a broadly arbitrary figure on a stick. You may call that bad driving, that's your prerogative, but it seems pretty clear to me that high speed in and of itself does not constitute bad driving.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 06:20 AM   #199
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 6,843
"High speed" isn't specific enough. 70/60, maybe not. But 135, for anything on the ground on a flat surface instead of a rail, yes, to even momentarily consider it or act as if it were at all debatable is inherently being a bad driver. All you've done is give us yet another example of why, whether or not 2050 is the right date, self-driving vehicles must and will end up mandatory: so we won't have to deal with despicable, casually lethal attitudes like yours on the road anymore.

It's always the ones who are the most adamant about how exceptional they are who turn out to be the worst.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 06:33 AM   #200
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
"High speed" isn't specific enough. 70/60, maybe not. But 135, for anything on the ground on a flat surface instead of a rail, yes, to even momentarily consider it or act as if it were at all debatable is inherently being a bad driver.
Where is your evidence? What negative outcomes (in terms of safety) arose from me driving faster than your no doubt extensive driving expertise deems acceptable?

In other words, you deem safe driving to be safe if it conforms to your subjective concept of what constitutes safe. So you drive at 80mph and protest that sure, it's sometimes safe to go at 80 but that idiot passing me at 90, he's a liability. The irony is that when you drive at your subjective speed you're probably passing people who say, "Look at that guy, driving at 80, what a maniac."

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
All you've done is give us yet another example of why, whether or not 2050 is the right date, self-driving vehicles must and will end up mandatory
I'm glad my anecdote caused you to lose your grasp on technological feasibility.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
so we won't have to deal with despicable, casually lethal attitudes like yours on the road anymore.
I wasn't aware that I killed anyone. Is that part of the evidence you're going to present?

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
It's always the ones who are the most adamant about how exceptional they are who turn out to be the worst.
Yes, isn't it just. That's an accepted fact for which you also have evidence, naturally.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.