First self-driving car

[Topaz]

Toyota, has created the firsr self-driving car for someone like this blind man who tested it out and its has 200,000 tested miles on it. This will be a big help for those people who have disabilities and need a car to get around. Awesome. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/28/amazing-google-self-driving-cars-allow-blind-to-drive/

[eyeball]

If a blind man can 'drive' when can I order a model that's equipped with a bar?

I don't imagine lawyers and insurers are going to be happy about this.

[TimG]

I don't imagine lawyers and insurers are going to be happy about this.

I imagine they will extremely happy because they can sue deep pocketed car companies and google instead of having to eat the losses because a broke driver has nothing worth suing for.

IMO: the self driving car will never get on the road in the US because no one will sell it because of the liability risk.

Edited March 29, 2012 by TimG

[eyeball]

IMO: the self driving car will never get on the road in the US because no one will sell it because of the liability risk.

I'm betting it will be the pry-my-dead-fingers-from-the-steering-wheel crowd that delays it the longest and hardest in the States.

As for Canada our governments will be able to engineer society's shift to driver-less cars by increasing insurance rates for people who refuse to get with the program.

The case for the safety of these cars appears to be pretty damn strong and it probably won't be long before the health costs of fixing up broken bodies is too high to accommodate people who insist on resisting that shift.

[GostHacked]

Nope, don't want one. If cars drive themselves, expect a lot of accidents when the systems crash or the car gets hacked. Hacking into cars is already a reality. Want to take that risk? Stay in control.

[GostHacked]

I'm betting it will be the pry-my-dead-fingers-from-the-steering-wheel crowd that delays it the longest and hardest in the States.

As for Canada our governments will be able to engineer society's shift to driver-less cars by increasing insurance rates for people who refuse to get with the program.

Sounds like coersion to me.

The case for the safety of these cars appears to be pretty damn strong and it probably won't be long before the health costs of fixing up broken bodies is too high to accommodate people who insist on resisting that shift.

One thing we can do is take out all these distractions we have in cars now adays. GPS on the dash, cell phone in hand, kids in the back watching tv on the backs of seats. Ever drive behind a person on a cell?? All over the damn road.

[dre]

I imagine they will extremely happy because they can sue deep pocketed car companies and google instead of having to eat the losses because a broke driver has nothing worth suing for.

IMO: the self driving car will never get on the road in the US because no one will sell it because of the liability risk.

Funny, but when I had seen that you replied to this post, I knew FOR SURE that your post was going to ammount to "Its never going to work"... your boiler plate response to EVERY new technology.

But its ridiculous of course. Once there is a performance record for these automobiles, insurance companies will evaluate the risk and put together packages to insure against any liability. No different than how insurance works today. As the body of evidence grows, if we find out that virtual drivers are actually SAFER (and they may very well be because they wont get drunk, or speed, or eat a sandwich or talk on the cell phone) then insurance and liability will actually be LESS of an issue.

If the technology is good we will use it. Its that simple.

[dre]

Nope, don't want one. If cars drive themselves, expect a lot of accidents when the systems crash or the car gets hacked. Hacking into cars is already a reality. Want to take that risk? Stay in control.

Those are just technological problems that can be ironed out as the technology matures. And given the fact that humans are generally such poor drivers, and prone to all kinds of distractions (drinking, eating, talking on the phone, looking at cute girls on the sidewalk, etc) its not all a stretch that virtual drivers could have much better driving records than your average human.

[eyeball]

Sounds like coersion to me.

In some circles social engineering is made virtuous by promising hard time for offenders with no chance of parole, especially for imaginary ones.

I'm merely suggesting a choice between a high premium increase and the distinct possibility of no premium at all if Google cars prove to be as safe as advertised.

One thing we can do is take out all these distractions we have in cars now adays. GPS on the dash, cell phone in hand, kids in the back watching tv on the backs of seats. Ever drive behind a person on a cell?? All over the damn road.

Yep, they'd be off to a gulag on Baffin Island without a trial if I was in charge.

[dre]

In some circles social engineering is made virtuous by promising hard time for offenders with no chance of parole, especially for imaginary ones.

I'm merely suggesting a choice between a high premium increase and the distinct possibility of no premium at all if Google cars prove to be as safe as advertised.

Yep, they'd be off to a gulag on Baffin Island without a trial if I was in charge.

Once this technology has the kinks worked out, Id be extremely suprised if virtual drivers were much more safe than humans. Humans SUCK at reliably performing repetitive tasks. You cant count on them for anything and high margins of error are to be expected. Theyre wishy washy prone to distraction, some of them can see or hear better than others, some of them are too old to be reliable or too young to be responsible.

Just about any time humans can be removed from a process, that process will become more efficient, less prone to error, and more reliable.

[GostHacked]

Once this technology has the kinks worked out, Id be extremely suprised if virtual drivers were much more safe than humans. Humans SUCK at reliably performing repetitive tasks. You cant count on them for anything and high margins of error are to be expected. Theyre wishy washy prone to distraction, some of them can see or hear better than others, some of them are too old to be reliable or too young to be responsible.

Just about any time humans can be removed from a process, that process will become more efficient, less prone to error, and more reliable.

I won't give up that control to a machine. You should not either.

[eyeball]

Just about any time humans can be removed from a process, that process will become more efficient, less prone to error, and more reliable.

I suppose Google's car's will have to come with plastic cups and no hot coffee lest some poor soul spills it on their lap and sues the ass off them.

What people should really be looking forward to is the day when private car ownership becomes pointless and people can just Google up a car whenever they need. I don't know if that would work in the boonies where I live but it should make life in the cities a lot easier.

[dre]

I won't give up that control to a machine. You should not either.

I would have no problem at all giving up control to that machine once It has enough of a track record so that I trust it. Youre apprehension is normal, and theres people that feel that way every time a new technology emerges. But if the technology is good, youll come around.

[eyeball]

I won't give up that control to a machine. You should not either.

You've been watching too many Terminator movies.

[dre]

I suppose Google's car's will have to come with plastic cups and no hot coffee lest some poor soul spills it on their lap and sues the ass off them.

What people should really be looking forward to is the day when private car ownership becomes pointless and people can just Google up a car whenever they need. I don't know if that would work in the boonies where I live but it should make life in the cities a lot easier.

Not only that, but this opens the door spending an awfull lot less on things like shipping. I cant wait until I can send my car to specially outfitted stores where the car pulls up, the store keeper puts the stuff I ordered into its cargo hold, and it brings that stuff home for to me.

Im hoping it can drive my kids to soccer, rugby, track and field, and music lessons! Because Im getting a little tired of doing that stuff 4 nights a week.

[eyeball]

Im hoping it can drive my kids to soccer, rugby, track and field, and music lessons! Because Im getting a little tired of doing that stuff 4 nights a week.

I'm just thinking of the people I know who've had to face the police coming to tell them their kids were injured or killed while driving drunk or stoned.

This technology holds the enormous potential for some truly fearful great social changes.

Edited March 29, 2012 by eyeball

[TimG]

Funny, but when I had seen that you replied to this post, I knew FOR SURE that your post was going to ammount to "Its never going to work"... your boiler plate response to EVERY new technology.

It is my response to technologies that are basically science fiction fantasies. A car that can drive itself has been doable for many years. The real problems are institutional.

But its ridiculous of course. Once there is a performance record for these automobiles

You obvious missed the feeding frenzy over the Toyota break problems a couple years back. There still lawyers trying to argue that it was a fault in the Toyota computer system.

The point that you are missing is there is zero tolerance for computer failure in these kinds of systems. If a human error causes an accident people are willing to accept that and liability awards are set accordingly. A computer failure is always seen as preventable and liability awards are extremely punative. For that reason, I cannot see any manufacturer selling such a product in the US until the product liability laws are fixed.

[dre]

It is my response to technologies that are basically science fiction fantasies. A car that can drive itself has been doable for many years. The real problems are institutional.

You obvious missed the feeding frenzy over the Toyota break problems a couple years back. There still lawyers trying to argue that it was a fault in the Toyota computer system.

The point that you are missing is there is zero tolerance for computer failure in these kinds of systems. If a human error causes an accident people are willing to accept that and liability awards are set accordingly. A computer failure is always seen as preventable and liability awards are extremely punative. For that reason, I cannot see any manufacturer selling such a product in the US until the product liability laws are fixed.

Theres no reason to change liability laws. If car companies sell a system with a defect that causes accidents or death they should be liable for it (this happens all the time already btw). They can purchase insurance to protect them from this. Drivers already purchase insurance.

This is just garden variety risk management, and we do it in a billion areas already. Theres already a huge ammount of automated and computer assisted processes out there that are in a position to cause a lot of damage if they go wrong. There is no such thing as a risk that cant be insured against for a price.

This argument comes up every time we automate anything, buts is a losing argument. If this technology is solid it will be used. And from what I can tell its already pretty good... 200 000 miles so far without an accident.

[dre]

It is my response to technologies that are basically science fiction fantasies. A car that can drive itself has been doable for many years. The real problems are institutional.

You obvious missed the feeding frenzy over the Toyota break problems a couple years back. There still lawyers trying to argue that it was a fault in the Toyota computer system.

The point that you are missing is there is zero tolerance for computer failure in these kinds of systems. If a human error causes an accident people are willing to accept that and liability awards are set accordingly. A computer failure is always seen as preventable and liability awards are extremely punative. For that reason, I cannot see any manufacturer selling such a product in the US until the product liability laws are fixed.

You obvious missed the feeding frenzy over the Toyota break problems a couple years back. There still lawyers trying to argue that it was a fault in the Toyota computer system

I didnt miss that, I actually worked on that case. Toyota sold a product with a serious defect and they should be liable for damages it caused... Just like google should be liable if defects in its virtual driver cause damage to people or property.

[eyeball]

I didnt miss that, I actually worked on that case. Toyota sold a product with a serious defect and they should be liable for damages it caused... Just like google should be liable if defects in its virtual driver cause damage to people or property.

Further to that, the government should be liable if it drags it's heels for too long on certifying something that is shown to save lives.

I saw the ability of these cars to avoid collisions demonstrated on the news a few days back and it was impressive.

[dre]

Further to that, the government should be liable if it drags it's heels for too long on certifying something that is shown to save lives.

I saw the ability of these cars to avoid collisions demonstrated on the news a few days back and it was impressive.

Another angle is shipping and transport. Right now drivers are only allowed to be on the road for a certain number of consecutive hours. A technology like this could revolutionize shipping. It could change a lot of things and benefit us in a whole variety of different ways. And since humans suck so bad at driving the bar for safety is currently set very low.

[TimG]

Toyota sold a product with a serious defect and they should be liable for damages it caused...

The point is there is no defect in Toyota's electronics. It was a myth created by politicians and trial lawyers looking to cash in.

http://www.insideline.com/toyota/driver-error-is-culprit-in-most-toyota-crashes-says-nhtsa.html

Driver error has caused most of the Toyota crashes probed for suspected unintended acceleration, according to preliminary findings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

...

At this early period in the investigation, engineers have not identified any new safety defects in Toyotas other than sticking gas pedals or pedal entrapment.

Yet this fear of a computer error cost Toyota big time - way more than would ever be covered by insurance.

The problem here comes from people not computers. Most people don't understand them and fear them while expecting them to be perfect. They do not apply the same standards to other humans. More importantly, people will blame the computer even if it they know it is their fault and the more complex the computer the more difficult it is for companies to protect themselves from people who are lying to cover up their own errors.

To put it another way: in the court of public opinion the computer is guilty until proven innocent - the human is innocent until proven guilty. And in the US where juries decide product liability awards the court of public opinion matters.

So this is not a simple question of risk management. There needs to be a change in the public attitude towards computers before you will ever see the sale of computers in open ended safety critical applications like driving to consumers in the US. In countries like Japan I could see it.

Edited March 29, 2012 by TimG

[GostHacked]

You've been watching too many Terminator movies.

I deal with technology all the time. Some places I love it ..other places it's not needed.

The UK's military is called Skynet.

The US military extensively uses drones, and wants to purchase about 30,000 to use within the continental USA.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html bill was passed recently.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/news/31036604_1_drones-unmanned-aircraft-new-bill

ARe you ok with drones flying themselves and making decisions of life and death? It's not going to stop with the car. Once you get all these computers making decisions for us, they will also decide if you get to live or die. To me, it's a real concern. The technology is advancing way to fast for people to catch up on what it's all about.

[GostHacked]

The point is there is no defect in Toyota's electronics. It was a myth created by politicians and trial lawyers looking to cash in.

http://www.insideline.com/toyota/driver-error-is-culprit-in-most-toyota-crashes-says-nhtsa.html

Yet this fear of a computer error cost Toyota big time - way more than would ever be covered by insurance.

The problem here comes from people not computers. Most people don't understand them and fear them while expecting them to be perfect. They do not apply the same standards to other humans. More importantly, people will blame the computer even if it they know it is their fault and the more complex the computer the more difficult it is for companies to protect themselves from people who are lying to cover up their own errors.

To put it another way: in the court of public opinion the computer is guilty until proven innocent - the human is innocent until proven guilty. And in the US where juries decide product liability awards the court of public opinion matters.

So this is not a simple question of risk management. There needs to be a change in the public attitude towards computers before you will ever see the sale of computers in open ended safety critical applications like driving to consumers in the US. In countries like Japan I could see it.

I say screw insurance. If no one paid insurance, people might take more caution and care when driving, knowing that any mishap will come out of their pocket. This way we can move away from insurance companies making all the rules for us. Also, one claim or one claim to many and you can't get insurance.

[TimG]

ARe you ok with drones flying themselves and making decisions of life and death?

Drones don't fly themselves. They are remotely controlled. I read somewhere that it takes 100 people to keep a drone in the air (it seems high to me - dont know how it was calcualted). The life or death decisions are made by humans on the ground. Edited March 30, 2012 by TimG