Anyone else amused that today, most large airliners carrying hundreds of passengers over populous cities essentially fly themselves, yet we're quibbling over whether four-passenger cars should be automated?
Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
- Thread starter Snaploud
- Start date
Planes have a lot less traffic to deal with. They don't have to worry about hitting pedestrians. They don't have to worry about deer running out into the middle of the road. They don't have to worry about the douchebag behind him going 30mph over the speed limit in the pouring rain.
^ There's more planes in the air at any given time than you may think. A plane strays too far off course and it could run smack dab into twenty other flights. It's crowded up there AND down here.
Which is why there are human pilots and flight controllers.
That's the point: they don't fly themselves. Not even essentially.
Do you want to answer my question? Who is responsible if the technology fails and a person crashes his automatically controlled car and hits another person?
While I don't have the greatest faith in humanity, I know they at least know they are responsible for their actions and can choose to act carefully. I can't say the same about a computer.
If we're talking about Big Iron, that's only really a concern in the terminal areas. All flights above 18000 feet are IFR; those flights are carefully routed not only to be in different places laterally, but at different altitudes. It's relatively difficult for there to be any collision hazard at all while cruising, which is why Center controllers can be responsible for such large areas at once.
Now, Approach controllers and especially Tower controllers have much more limited responsibility, because once those planes start descending they have to contend with the fact that a lot of them are all converging on the same navigation fixes or airports, plus there's all the private planes (many of which may be uncontrolled) to deal with.
Nowhere, but CuttingEdge's precondition was that reliability would eventually get to the point where this is very safe. I was asking why that's a bad thing.
It's not a bad thing as long as it's not mandatory. No one should be forced by law to ride around in a conveyance that is out of anyone's control but a computer, whether it's a personal vehicle or public transportation. I wouldn't want to ride in a robotic train that had no human oversight either.
Rett Mikhal
Captain
This is what insurance policies are for. Who is responsible when a tree falls on some son of a bitch? Who is responsible when sun glare causes a pile up? Who is responsible when a new Star Trek series violates canon? Not everything can be attributed to error, and obviously any system of this nature would be tested for hundreds of thousands of hours until a margin of error under a fraction of a percent was achieved.
Then, in the event of an accident, the computer record would have an absolute account of what happened, right down to the milliliters of fuel it injected into the engine milliseconds before the crash. If a programming error was at fault, the company would be responsible for inadequate testing. No different than Toyota being responsible for those broken gas pedals.
A human responsible for the accident, on the other hand, will always lie. Machines are in all ways, superior.
Did you ever see Hot Fuzz? At one point, they were talking about the new so-called PC terms that the police department was using. One was a switch from calling it a car accident to a vehicle collision. The reason was "accident" implies there is no fault. If a car malfunctions and runs over a four year old child on the sidewalk when an alert driver would have braked, an insurance with a 100,000 dollar deductible doesn't cover it. Certainly, right now, insurance doesn't absolve responsibility. Otherwise, people would be less cautious since their insurance will cover it (and insurance rates would be much higher).
A human who is tired knows he's tired and can pull off the road. A computer that can't detect there's a car in front of you doesn't know it can't detect that car, it just thinks there is no car. If you want to tell me that, after extensive testing, it would be irresponsible for them to account for every unforeseeable incident, I won't disagree. But that woulds till mean the ultimate responsibility for the car is on the human operator. And that means he would basically still have to control the car in most circumstances just in case. And that would defeat the point of having an automatically controlled car in the first place.
A human who is tired knows he's tired and can pull off the road. A computer that can't detect there's a car in front of you doesn't know it can't detect that car, it just thinks there is no car. If you want to tell me that, after extensive testing, it would be irresponsible for them to account for every unforeseeable incident, I won't disagree. But that woulds till mean the ultimate responsibility for the car is on the human operator. And that means he would basically still have to control the car in most circumstances just in case. And that would defeat the point of having an automatically controlled car in the first place.
Try telling that to an Italian . . . or a Southern Californian.
^ Exactly.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Not really. Pilots appreciate autopilots plenty even though they still have to keep an eye on things. They're a tool which reduces your workload, which makes for safer flying. I don't see why it would be much different on the ground.
This technology is still a long way off to be good for practical usage.
If a computer controlled car manages to get onto the circle surrounding the Arc du Triomphe (i've seen the most vicious and dangerous traffic there and was glad i didn't come by car to Paris) and get out in a safe manner without endangering others or itself then i'll be truly impressed and believe the technology is ready for everyday use.
From a legal point it gets tricky.. if the system fails does the driver have enough time to react and prevent a situation? What if the system fails due to bad engineering and people get hurt? This will be also a very long process for the law to put into writing.
However i totally embrace assistance technology to be implemented today.. parking assistance is awesome. Not everyone can drive up to millimetres like my dad.. i swear, he's got an internal laser rangefinder. Just push a button and the car parks itself in and out without risk of damaging other cars.
If a computer controlled car manages to get onto the circle surrounding the Arc du Triomphe (i've seen the most vicious and dangerous traffic there and was glad i didn't come by car to Paris) and get out in a safe manner without endangering others or itself then i'll be truly impressed and believe the technology is ready for everyday use.
From a legal point it gets tricky.. if the system fails does the driver have enough time to react and prevent a situation? What if the system fails due to bad engineering and people get hurt? This will be also a very long process for the law to put into writing.
However i totally embrace assistance technology to be implemented today.. parking assistance is awesome. Not everyone can drive up to millimetres like my dad.. i swear, he's got an internal laser rangefinder. Just push a button and the car parks itself in and out without risk of damaging other cars.
Rett Mikhal,
I've driven a car since I was 17 and never got into an accident, and I know many others who haven't either.
NotRoJoHen,
Agreed, plus there's no such thing as absolute safety without losing all one's freedom, and this would be such an example.
Rapid Nadion,
Despite the fact that airliners are capable of being flown automatically, there are still pilots in the cockpits who are capable of taking control as necessary.
Secondly, there aren't any regulations which specify when one must engage the autopilot, I know many pilots, which include myself, who fly from takeoff to the top of the climb before activating it.
Mr. Laser Beam,
During the takeoff, landing, and approach phases can have fairly dense air-traffic, though honestly I've seen denser traffic on roads. During the cruise portion of the flight (I own and fly a Lear 31) you don't have much air-traffic.
Ford Spooky,
Which is exactly what I was talking about. The fact that if it became reliable enough, humans would actually be forbidden from driving it manually, either at all, or under certain circumstances.
I've driven a car since I was 17 and never got into an accident, and I know many others who haven't either.
NotRoJoHen,
Agreed, plus there's no such thing as absolute safety without losing all one's freedom, and this would be such an example.
Rapid Nadion,
Despite the fact that airliners are capable of being flown automatically, there are still pilots in the cockpits who are capable of taking control as necessary.
Secondly, there aren't any regulations which specify when one must engage the autopilot, I know many pilots, which include myself, who fly from takeoff to the top of the climb before activating it.
Mr. Laser Beam,
During the takeoff, landing, and approach phases can have fairly dense air-traffic, though honestly I've seen denser traffic on roads. During the cruise portion of the flight (I own and fly a Lear 31) you don't have much air-traffic.
Ford Spooky,
Which is exactly what I was talking about. The fact that if it became reliable enough, humans would actually be forbidden from driving it manually, either at all, or under certain circumstances.
