If you like driving, something to consider....

[Warped9]

For those of us who like cars and driving this might send a chill down your spine. Life as we know it mght be coming to an end and perhaps sooner than we think.

This is a world I am in no hurry to see: http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/motor-mouth-the-social-contract-of-driving

We’ve had it good for a very long time. I hope we don’t lose one of life’s pleasures anytime soon.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'd have no problem with it.

 

[scotpens]

I'd have no problem with it.

Would you care to duke it out with Jay Leno?

Driver-controlled cars will be with us for a long time to come. Even if densely trafficked city centers become the exclusive domain of public transit and autonomous cars, there will still be thousands of miles of open highway for those who enjoy exercising the skill of piloting their own vehicles.

"We are already in the midst of the transition. When a company such as Volvo — it that virtually invented safety as a marketing tool — says no one will perish in one of its cars after 2020, what it is really saying is it is seeking to eliminate all risk in the task of driving."

That's bullshit. It's impossible to eliminate all risk in any activity.

As for me, I'll have a self-driving car when they pry my steering wheel and my manual gearshift from my cold, dead hands.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I always hate when gun control opponents use the false equivalency between guns and cars as a distraction tactic, but then I see reactions like some of these (and elsewhere) and think maybe they're not so far off, at least in terms of the attitude surrounding them.

Even the best drivers screw up occasionally given the massive amount of time we spend in our cars, but then you get all the distracted drivers, drivers who text, people who eat while driving, intoxicated drivers, tired drivers, senses or cognitively impaired drivers, elderly drivers who should give it up, young drivers who are inexperienced and/or negligent, etc. Lots of people convince themselves that they're different, that they can do those things safely, until it backfires on them and their loved ones or people in another car. There are too many deaths associated with car accidents to be so cavalier about it simply because you enjoy it when an alternative exists that will drastically reduce fatalities and injuries by removing the human element from the equation.

I love to drive, at least on scenic open roads rather than in dense urban traffic, so I won't lie and say I won't miss it, but for the sake of public safety and to improve traffic efficiency and reduce pollution (whether from the car itself or the power plant producing the electricity), I'll voluntarily give up personally driving my car. If I get the bug to drive, you can pay to drive on a closed track or even something like the autobahn except only for drivers with proven (extremely) good driving records who sign a waiver and pay for the special license.

As more and more people move to urban areas the traffic situation is only going to get that much worse, and with it the accompanying smog (at least in places with lower emission standards) and stress and accidents. Driverless cars can help reduce that significantly, and give passengers the freedom to put on the makeup, eat their food, prep for work or school, talk with friends or coworkers, text your significant other, read a book, etc.

 

[MacLeod]

Driving would be much more enjoyable if it weren't for all the idiots on the road, sure I am by no means a perfect driver and make mistakes we all do.

Sure I can see the potential benefits of cars which drive themselves when it comes to easing congestion, improving traffic flow etc...

But as others have said you can never totally eliminate risk

But lets examine Traffic related deaths (2013 figures)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Per 100 000

UK 2.9
US 10.6

Per 100 000 motor vehicles

UK 5.1
US 12.9

Per 1 billion Km

UK 3.6
US 7.1

Still more work to do however.

 

[ALF]

I'd have no problem with it.

Fuck yes. No more drunk idiots killing people? Falling asleep and crossing the center line?? Mowing people down with road rage? Not to mention it seems to be de rigueur these days to mow down innocent people if you... wait for it....

Spoiler

can't get laid. (sound of grinding teeth)

They can't replace human drivers fast enough. I'll take the unlikely scenario of a robot killing me over some jackass filming with his phone while he's driving.

PS Thanks for the link, Warped9, I actually saw it earlier today and it was an interesting read.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But as others have said you can never totally eliminate risk

Is that really the argument that rational advocates for driverless cars put forth though? In the article in the OP, Volvo is trying to sell their brand with the claim of zero fatalities by 2020, a brand built around a reputation for safety, so obviously they're going to make grandiose claims about their products potential safety record.

I don't think anyone genuinely believes driverless cars are going to eliminate car accidents completely. There will still be mechanical malfunctions, computer programming issues, hacking, satellite disruption affecting GPS, pedestrians and animals in the road, acts of "god" / natural disasters and hazards, etc. that can contribute to accidents.

But even if you "only" reduce the number of fatalities and injuries by 90%, isn't that a worthwhile achievement? That's hundreds of thousands of lives saved each year.

 

[Santaman]

Driverless cars are so far unable to deal with motorcycles, runners, fast bicycles, especially e-bikes and mopeds/scooters which are like unguided rockets zipping through traffic.. guess what we have in droves here in the Netherlands? LOTS AND LOTS of bicycles and scooters.. the carnage, the carnage.. there will be a bloody smear on every corner!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don’t know why YT screwed up the formatting on this, but...anyhoo, here’s something I’d like even more than driverless cars: PERSONAL PODS.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Avro Arrow]

I'm not sure that I like the physical act of driving, per se, but I do enjoy being able to get to a destination and arrive there safely. Why wouldn't I want this?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don’t hate to drive, but I don’t really enjoy it either. To me, driving is a chore - something I have to do, because my city has almost no public transit (apart from a rather bare-bones bus service).

I’d be perfectly happy to sell my car and turn everything over to mass transit, like subways, streetcars and light rail (or, even better, the aforementioned Personal Pods), if I lived in a city that offered it.

In fact I actively enjoy riding mass transit. I enjoy it as much as others in this thread enjoy driving. I am a total subway geek. Hell, the first time I ever learned how to ride the NYC subway, I was so thrilled that I just rode around on it for the rest of the day.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Driverless cars are so far unable to deal with motorcycles, runners, fast bicycles, especially e-bikes and mopeds/scooters which are like unguided rockets zipping through traffic.. guess what we have in droves here in the Netherlands? LOTS AND LOTS of bicycles and scooters.. the carnage, the carnage.. there will be a bloody smear on every corner!

The technology is still in its relative infancy. No new tech arrives operating perfectly out the gate. It's going to take time and eventually larger scale test cases to improve its reliability and security, but so far it has been promising.

 

[scotpens]

Personally, I find driving enjoyable. It's fun. It gives me pleasure to maneuver a vehicle in light to moderate traffic, applying the skills and experience I've acquired in the 40-plus years since I first got my license.

Mass transit will never replace the personal car, especially in a city as geographically spread out and car-dependent as Los Angeles. There's simply no substitute for being able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, as long as there's a road.

In California, the vehicle accident fatality rate is just under 1 death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. I'm willing to live with those odds.

 

[XCV330]

I ride a motorcycle. I don't see AI controlling those any time soon.

 

[MacLeod]

A nice clear open road can be fun to drive.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Mass transit will never replace the personal car, especially in a city as geographically spread out and car-dependent as Los Angeles. There's simply no substitute for being able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, as long as there's a road.

We're not talking about mass transit in this case, though (well, Mr. Laser Beam is). We're still talking about your individual car, just that it drives itself to the destination. So that argument doesn't apply here.

In California, the vehicle accident fatality rate is just under 1 death per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. I'm willing to live with those odds.

It's not just about you and what you are wiling to live (or die) with, though. Your actions affect others, like people in other cars and pedestrians and cyclists.

Approximately 40,000 people were killed in deadly auto accidents across the country in 2016, leading to a six percent increase over 2015 and a 14 percent increase since 2014.

In California, deaths from motor vehicle accidents exceeded the national average, increasing by 13 percent compared to last year and 19 percent since 2014. California was second in the U.S. for the highest number of traffic fatalities, only behind Texas with 3,751 auto accident deaths.

An improved U.S. economy and recovering job market mean more drivers are able to afford to travel longer distances to commute for work and personal destinations, potentially contributing to the rising fatality rate, according to the NSC and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

California's Office of Traffic Safety has identified distracted driving, impairment by drugs and alcohol, and speeding as the top causes of fatal accidents.

A recent survey conducted by the NSC aimed to determine driver mentality toward high-risk behavior while operating a vehicle. The results revealed that, while 83 percent of those surveyed were concerned about road safety, a large portion of participants still found it acceptable to engage in dangerous behavior while driving:

64 percent of participants are comfortable with speeding
47 percent of participants admit to regularly text while driving
13 percent of participants believe they can safely operate a vehicle while impaired by marijuana
10 percent of participants said they could drive after consuming too much alcohol

The NSC and the NHTSA believe that stronger initiatives to crack down on dangerous driving behaviors are needed to improve U.S. roadway safety.

Improvements in traffic and vehicle safety technology would also be beneficial. By providing more vehicles with cautionary technology, such as automatic braking and vehicle-to-vehicle communication capabilities, the number of traffic fatalities could dwindle dramatically, according to NSC officials.​

https://www.justice4you.com/blog/california-traffic-deaths-increased.html

Pedestrians Are Most Likely to Die in a California Car Accident

One of the most harrowing statistics available on California car accidents isn’t related to drivers at all.

Nearly half of fatalities in traffic accidents in Los Angeles aren’t in a car. They’re on the pavement.

Even though pedestrians are only involved in 14% of car accidents in LA, they make up half the fatalities.

There may be a few reasons for this. First, there are more drivers today than before because the economy is healthy, more people are working, and gas is affordable.

Drivers are also more distracted at a time when more people are choosing to cycle or walk to their destination.

However, there may also be more people whose speed is going unchecked. LAPD has issued far fewer speeding tickets compared to previous years. This may be because more officers are focusing on rising crime rather than speeding.

Speeding is a huge issue for pedestrians. If a pedestrian is struck by a car traveling at 20 mph, their chance of survival is 90%. If the car is traveling at 40 mph, their likelihood of survival drops to only 20%.​

https://www.caraccidentcaselaw.com/info/california-car-accident-statistics-will-shock/

Fatal Crashes

In 2014, there were 2,878 auto collisions resulting in fatalities.
482 were caused by drunk driving
455 were caused by speed
70 were caused by trucks

In 2014, a total of 3,121 people were killed in motor vehicle-related crashes:
1,604 were vehicle occupants
753 were pedestrians
516 were motorcyclists
142 were bicyclists​

https://www.wmlawyers.com/2017/02/california-car-accident-statistics/

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-2016-traffic-deaths-20170403-story.html

 

[Kronos]

Just not seeing automated cars suddenly taking over, we can't even get the majority of trains automated and they run on freaking tracks.

I think we'll all be dust before it happens.

 

[maneth]

It'll take a while, but no doubt we'll get there eventually. I just want to see the AI able to deal with a whiteout blizzard or black ice, or even poorly marked lanes. That said, in the next block where I live there's a test track for driverless cars (including cool warning signs), and the first time I met one in traffic, it gave me a jolt. Just the sensors mounted on the roof looked freaky, a bit like a Google Street View car. That will change as the tech advances, though. I've also ridden on a driverless shuttlebus, but it hardly counted, as it drove on a street temporarily closed to other traffic and very slowly, about 20 km/h (13 mph).

It'll be a while before we get totally autonomous cars, but certainly advanced driver assistance will be available in all cars, not just the top models, before long. I can well imagine that autonomous emergency brakes that activate when a pedestrian jumps out in front of the car might be the next bit of compulsory safety tech in new cars.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Mass transit will never replace the personal car

Perhaps not, but hey, a man can dream.

especially in a city as geographically spread out and car-dependent as Los Angeles.

Yeah, I...don't think L.A.'s attempt at a subway is really the best example..

There's simply no substitute for being able to go wherever you want, whenever you want, as long as there's a track.

Fixed that for ya.

Think of it this way: Cars cost money to operate, maintain, park, license, and even store. And I think we can all agree that driving in a big city like New York, Boston or L.A. is a major pain in the ass. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to worry about any of that?

 

[scotpens]

Think of it this way: Cars cost money to operate, maintain, park, license, and even store. And I think we can all agree that driving in a big city like New York, Boston or L.A. is a major pain in the ass. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to worry about any of that?

No.