Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90 percent, save $450 billion annually

[MilwaukeeMike]

Save $450 billion? You know when we spend money, someone else makes money. Saving $450 billion sounds great, unless you're the owner of a tow-truck business or a body shop.

 

[spydercanopus]

Regulation has never sped the development of technology.

 

[Guest]

I don't think its going to be one or the other as in a car that is in total control or a human in total control. There is still going to be a need for humans to pay attention. The computer will help to keep a car in its lane and avoid accidents. The driver however will not just simply be able to take a nap in the back seat while driving across the country. They will still need to be monitoring the systems. Being a retired pilot I can tell you todays planes can fly to your destination and even land on their own bit a pilot is still very much needed and used for when conditions are anything less then perfect or when systems fail. There are a ton of fly by wire aircraft (computer controlled) in the skies today that just do not simply fall out of the sky.

 

[Scshadow]

You replied with the above about Car Insurance, Car Insurance does NOT cover servicing and Brake pads or anything like that, Car Insurance covers you when you land in a ditch or run someone off the road or some else runs you off the road, Car Maintenance is purely down to the driver.

Read again, I never suggested that maintenance was covered by insurance. I'm offended by the accusation that I would be so naive and stupid to think that. My reference to brake failure is in the context of being a cause to an accident, obviously. The Guest implied that Autonomous Vehicles didn't belong on the road unless they were guaranteed 100% accident free. And because of mechanical failure (like brake system failure) and regardless of who or what is behind the wheel, the need for insurance is not a reflection on the reliability of these vehicles.

If we need car insurance, then we're saying automated cars don't work, are infalliable, and potentially dangerous. In which case, why should they be on the road.

As I believe I so aptly implied, this statement is a bad jump in logic.

 

[mattfrompa]

I will be more excited for self driving cars if it doesn't just become a "luxury" kind of feature. Imagine this; You work a full time job where public transportation is prohibitively expensive or unavailable and you also don't have convenient access to another driver. Now say you fancy an evening at the pub, well I think we would all agree it would be nice to be able to drink and still get home safely. Well with a self driving car AND a breathalyzer (obviously nothing new) you could require a test before activating "manual mode" not at all times, but perhaps based upon location or a schedule(say 7pm-6am). This would not only provide a convenient option for the driver, but protect others from stupid mistakes.(drunk driving)

 

[cliffordcooley]

Well with a self driving car AND a breathalyzer (obviously nothing new) you could require a test before activating "manual mode" not at all times, but perhaps based upon location or a schedule(say 7pm-6am).

Nah, thats where the smart car comes in, it will detect a driver swerving and take control until they present evidence they are not drunk.

 

[wiyosaya]

<...>
This just spells trouble in my eyes, sensors can get damaged or covered in mud, electronics DO fail, in fact, Electronics in cars are notorious for failing before anything mechanical does, if the electronics controls the mechanics? I cannot see this reducing anything other than some extremely strange court filings when families have no idea who to sue since it's a computers fault their little girl got ran over.

Yes, electronics do fail. This is one area where some sort of standardized reliability requirements would help, and as in aircraft, doubly or triply redundant systems would also be an advantage even though it will increase the price.

Sensors can also be monitored by the brains of the car, and the brains of the car could possibly detect when they are damaged, but not so much so that they no longer work.

As far as sensors getting covered in mud, there are two solutions to that. 1. Put them in an area of the vehicle that is not as likely to get covered in mud, e.g., the roof. 2. The electromagnetic spectrum is very wide, and some frequencies have a greater ability to penetrate materials since many materials have predictable absorption bands. Some regions of the spectrum may be able to see through a coating of mud. It is not all that difficult for some spectrum regions. For short distances, think mm airport scanners as an example of something that can see through a material that is not transparent in the optical region of the em spectrum.

Personally, I do not see that sensors are a problem if they are thought through and implemented with safety in mind, and I think safety (as well as convenience) is what any group researching autonomous cars has in mind.

More problematic is trying to get either people who think they can do anything they want or are in some way ignorant of the dangers to not text, to not use hand's free devices and the like. I don't care how much you educate anyone, there will still be people who are "too smart" or "too dumb" not to do stuff while driving that puts them and all others on the road with them in danger.

For me, taking the driver out of the equation is the best means. In addition, I think it would be wise to make autonomous vehicles talk to each other. That way, they could coordinate and cooperate between them to maintain safe driving distances. There is nothing like that now given that there are drivers out there who think they own the road and them getting to where they want to go as fast as they can is the most important thing to them.

 

[Burty117]

Read again, I never suggested that maintenance was covered by insurance. I'm offended by the accusation that I would be so naive and stupid to think that. My reference to brake failure is in the context of being a cause to an accident, obviously. The Guest implied that Autonomous Vehicles didn't belong on the road unless they were guaranteed 100% accident free. And because of mechanical failure (like brake system failure) and regardless of who or what is behind the wheel, the need for insurance is not a reflection on the reliability of these vehicles.

As I believe I so aptly implied, this statement is a bad jump in logic.

I Read it again, It's below for reference:
Guest Said

Consider this:

If automated cars actually work, then there shouldn't be crashes. If that's the case, then we shouldn't need car insurance, or our premiums should be nearly nothing because of the low accident rate.


If we need car insurance, then we're saying automated cars don't work, are infalliable, and potentially dangerous. In which case, why should they be on the road.


So which is it?

And you replied:

All cars break. You're saying that autonomous vehicles would have to have breaks that never fail, engines never blow, steering columns never break, tires that never blow before you'd consider them street worthy? I'm sorry your short-sightedness cannot see the vast vast benefit of having autonomous vehicles. As for logic errors, they aren't likely. The redundant sensors in current Autonomous vehicle design and the vigorous testing that entities like Google are doing, they are all to insure that its extremely unlikely that these machines will be anything less then extremely reliable logic-wise.

Guest didn't mention anything about breaking down, he said work, if they worked like intended then why do we need insurance? That is what he was querying, you went and replied about cars breaking down, that implies it worked as intended in the first place.

Anyway don't get me wrong, I bet they have tested them to bits, just like lots of stuff today is tested to death (literally) but fact of the matter is these cars will NOT work in places like the UK, or even Europe as a whole. They just won't, our roads are not only extremely old but also very difficult at times, These silly autonomous cars will either drive incredibly slowly (like max 20mph) or will be going down the wrong way down one way systems, getting confused at massive roundabouts and so forth.

In America, sure, why not, It's probably easier to install the right stuff on the roads for these cars and your roads are MUCH bigger, more room for error, but I'm sure if these went on sale, their would be plenty that sell, but I bet there are more people who actually enjoy driving and enjoy having control of a machine that can do over 100mph than a computer do it all for you.

Again I'm not completely against this, I know teenage girls over here that scare the living Jebus out of me how badly they drive, they are the kind of people who will benefit from this, but people like me who prefer to have control of my life when I'm going a decent speed and enjoy driving, no thanks, I would rather stick to good old fashion manual.

 

[gamoniac]

Regulation has never sped the development of technology.

And vice versa.

 

[Guest]

Do a search for the google self driving car. It works right now and as was said above the only real hold up is the cost of the sensor device. They will drive better in snow or ice better than 99% of the current people on the road. They can already detect and react to a child running out in the road and many other threats that you will never see due to the fact that they see in all directs at once and have a sub second reaction time.
I would expect to see this tech in some high end BMW within 10 years.

 

[SNGX1275]

If automated cars actually work, then there shouldn't be crashes. If that's the case, then we shouldn't need car insurance, or our premiums should be nearly nothing because of the low accident rate.

Yep, follow the money. With technology advancements, someone is going to lose business. If that someone has enough money/power, there will be some resistance (political campaign donations). Another thing along the line of insurance, is think of all the money involved in DUIs. If a car can prevent DUI accidents, suddenly that market goes away (DUI lawyers, county court income, community service hours, whatever else). Lots of consequences to having an accident free environment...

 

[cliffordcooley]

community service hours

Damn and our ditches have been so much cleaner, since people have learned how difficult it is to actually clean them. LOL