AAA: 75% Of Drivers Say They Wouldn't Feel Safe In An Autonomous Vehicle (consumerist.com) 519
kheldan writes: While technology companies and car manufacturers alike are rushing to test their own autonomous vehicles, the average American driver doesn't feel quite comfortable with the idea of riding in a driverless car just yet, according to the results of a recent AAA survey. AAA's survey of 1,800 drivers found that 75% of current drivers say they wouldn't feel safe in a self-driving vehicle. But it's worth noting that 60% of those surveyed said they would like access to some kind of self-driving feature, such as self-parking, lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control or automatic emergency braking the next time they buy a new car.
75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Interesting)
They wouldn't feel safe in a mechanical beast.
Lets see, a computer with a sample rate of 1000 Hz always on, always watching 360 degrees or Grandma that hasn't had to renew her license since she started losing vision or a teenager trying to take a selfie.
I don't care if it takes twice as long to get anywhere (30 MPH max), as long as I can turn my brain off and do something else I'm happy.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Response time is only a small part of the equation.
2. It's not all about what YOU want.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Response time is only a small part of the equation.
Actually, response time is a pretty big part of the equation. Even a one second faster response can avoid many accidents, and greatly reduce the severity of others. Only situational awareness is more important, and computers win there too.
Re: (Score:2)
Only situational awareness is more important, and computers win there too.
You couldn't be more wrong on this.
Also, if reaction time were that important, than teenagers would be safer drivers than the elderly. Obviously, if it's way off, (say by intoxication), accident rates go up, but the difference between 20ms and 200 is lost in the noise of being able to see that obstacle for what it is long before 20ms reactions are needed.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reaction time is nearly insignificant if you're driving properly and using situational awareness to ensure you don't need to rely on reaction time. You're on a public highway, drive like it.
I'm reminded of a kid in here who posted a couple of weeks ago. He was happily pointing out that a good driver will always be hitting their brakes and turning sharply. That's the exact opposite of the truth.
I kind of hate to do this but I'm going to do the whole appeal to authority thing. I've driven professionally. I was initially trained in that capacity by the US Government. I've since taken countless additional courses - and can drive most anything with wheels. I can even get a loaded double-clutching 21 speed dump up to speed and control it when it gets there. I've taken dozens (and dozens more) courses for on and off-track driving. I rally on an amateur circuit when I've time. I've spent about two weeks in Germany taking classroom instruction and then hiring a coach and renting exotics and done a pile of laps on Nurburgring. I can go on - and I will, if you want. I've even taken advanced asset protection courses, can parallel park a truck and trailer (with a water-bowl attached) - that'd be about 72' long, by the way which is shorter than some of what you see on the road but still pretty long. It was not a sleeper cab or anything. Like I said, I can go on...
At any rate, the initial sentence isn't entirely accurate. Yes, reaction time is important but no - it shouldn't be. It's very seldom important if you're doing your job. In all but the rarest of rarest events, the primary reason for an accident is that someone was driving too fast for the conditions. (Before folks argue with that, reread it.) I dare say, I'm actually able to speak as an authoritative source on this. I'm not that binary, really. Reaction time is important but it needn't be (shouldn't be) nearly as important as you make it out to be - not if you're doing what you can to drive safely. Of course, it helps if others are also driving safely. What are the chances of that?
And yes, I know you're not alone on the road but you can take many steps to mitigate risks. If you see someone driving like an idiot, move away from them. Be alert not just to the vehicles around you but to how they're driving. Keep a good margin of safety between you and the other vehicles and reaction time becomes less and less important.
I do speed, don't get me wrong. I just save it for track day or a rally. I don't drive slow, not by any means. I have zero at-fault accidents on my record - I have been hit from the rear by an idiot in Boston. If you've driven in Boston, you'd understand that there are some really shitty drivers. I was stopped at a light and had been there for at least 30 seconds. I do have one speeding ticket but it has been off my record for a very long time. I got it in 1978 (I think?). I have zero moving violations. I have had three parking tickets, two of which were because someone else had borrowed my car, I'm still liable. The remaining one was mine. The sign was rather complicated including days of the week, hours, etc... It's my fault, I should have not parked there unless I understood the sign.
So, no... Reaction time isn't really that important. It certainly shouldn't be and even if it is, due to circumstances beyond your control, there are ways to mitigate that and have more time to react and maneuver safely in the event of an emergency situation. You should ALWAYS have room and time to bring yourself to a complete stop without hitting any possible obstructions, regardless. That's your job as a driver. I'm well aware that others can make this a problem and that there are things beyond your control. It is not as binary as it could be and sometimes shit happens.
It is incumbent on the driver to be in full control of their vehicle at all times. Full control means the ability to stop safely. If you're doing a panic stop, you're doing it wrong. (And, of course, there are exceptions to that. But it's generally true - even if
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, drivers aged 64-69 are statistically the safest drivers on the road. My guess is that they're in the sweet spot between reaction times, experience, and a reasonable awareness of their own mortality. Given that, you can likely infer that lightning fast reaction times are actually not hugely important in being a safe driver. My guess is that not rushing everywhere in such a damned hurry (why rush when you're retired?) and simply paying attention are the most important factors.
Re: (Score:3)
I think when we look back we'll see the near universal adoption of smartphones as a watershed event in the history of transportation. Yes, it's not all about what GP wants, but it's not all about what you think people ought to want, either.
It's about what critical masses of people want, and what a lot of them seem to want is to spend as much time as possible with their noses glued to their mobile devices. This makes both autonomous cars and public transit a lot more desirable. My children are 17-20 years
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you've watched too much sci-fi. Also, there is more to life than safety. Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.
Re: (Score:2)
No, having control over your transport is a core component of suburban lifestyle. I think you'll find most humans in most cities do NOT own a car, globally it is way less than one car per household. That's cool that you like your car, but you're in the minority for owning one.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being in the minority does not make one's position invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
No one is disputing that America has a lot of cars, but I don't see how that relates to people moving to self-driving cars?
TFA says most people don't want them. I understand this is a nerd forum, and nerds love technology even when it makes no sense, but you have to accept that a lot of people probably don't care for automated cars*.
Note: I do some some value in a robot car for some people (old, young, drunk etc), but there's a whole lot more where people actually want to drive themselves.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's called risk acceptance and it happens in a free society. I imagine you could eliminate even more jobs by having a minder, a cell to return to after work, and to be disallowed travel at all. Hell, there'd even be a lot of new jobs created for minders.
I'm really getting sick of all you cowards trying to reduce our liberties in the name of safety. Further, I've seen you quote Jefferson's quote about liberty and safety. I imagine you'll be unable or unwilling to admit the irony. It's okay, I'm used to it.
Re: (Score:3)
You could drive in racetracks or other closed courses where people are willing to be put in that kind of risk. When you get on a shared interstate and are inches away from hurtling buckets of metal, I would certainly hope there would be some kind of automated safety control. Personally, I think it's pretty crazy that we have gone so long without really acknowledging how dangerous it is. If there is a safer way to do things and the only downside is not being able to drive on main roads, then we should go for it.
There is a safer way, it's called walking but it's real slow and takes ages to get anywhere. I guess you could walk down to the cotton wool store then to somewhere you can wrap yourself up to insulate yourself from all the very many dangers this world poses.
Re: (Score:2)
Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.
We've reached the point with modern vehicles that the government has more control over your car than you do. See things like onstar. You already need to purchase an older vehicle if you want control over your transport. Throwing self-driving cars into the mix doesn't change that very much at all. But self driving vehicles do open up personal transport to people who are otherwise incapable of operating a vehicle. Thereby offering the same liberty you enjoy now to a wider range of people.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the point. This isn't about replacing cars with trains or living in rat warrens where overpriced crap is shipped in (by truck drivers no less). This is about replacing self driving cars with 'autonomous' ones. Just because you would be happy with 35Mph doesn't mean the rest of us should slow down and lose liberty because you want to be lazy. If you don't want to drive, pay someone to drive or move to the rat warren nearest you.
There's a reason we still put humans behind the controls of already mostly automated vehicles. Even there, look what happens to airline pilots: they get bored, drink, fall asleep, and when something does go wrong they're not in a condition to deal with it. Same thing with train operators, and that solution only has to deal with a fixed path. Since ground-based free-roving is much more complex than air or track, I have strong doubts about these ever being safer. Maybe if/when quantum computing really takes off and sensor tech is better than it is now...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not the point. This isn't about replacing cars with trains or living in rat warrens where overpriced crap is shipped in (by truck drivers no less). This is about replacing self driving cars with 'autonomous' ones. Just because you would be happy with 35Mph doesn't mean the rest of us should slow down and lose liberty because you want to be lazy. If you don't want to drive, pay someone to drive or move to the rat warren nearest you.
There's a reason we still put humans behind the controls of already mostly automated vehicles. Even there, look what happens to airline pilots: they get bored, drink, fall asleep, and when something does go wrong they're not in a condition to deal with it. Same thing with train operators, and that solution only has to deal with a fixed path. Since ground-based free-roving is much more complex than air or track, I have strong doubts about these ever being safer. Maybe if/when quantum computing really takes off and sensor tech is better than it is now...
Your individual freedom ends just before my bumper, so if self-driving cars result in a significant decrease in accidents, I have little sympathy for your desire to be able to T-bone my car in an intersection and kill my family when you missed the stop sign because you sneezed.
I said that *I* would be willing to buy a 35mph self driving car, I don't expect you to, but when self-driving cars can drive the speed limit on roads of all types (and perhaps even reduce congestion through better traffic management)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Holy fuck dude. "Some people don't use their rights. They lead fulfilling lives. I'll decide what rights you have and how you use them - because I'm a coward."
Again, why not just add, "Think of the children!!!" I sure as hell hope you don't have children. I'm sure as hell you'll find a way to keep justifying this to yourself. Now it's a matter of pride and it's not like you're going to actually stop wanting to take other people's ability to appreciate their freedoms. Never mind that this system can't work w
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly - once you have your license, you are licensed to drive. The clue is in the name.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a matter of public health - if self driving cars will save lives, they should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be the anti-robot-cars movement, but they'll have to stay on private property with their old fashioned manually driving cars -- with steering wheels if you can imagine such a thing! How quaint!
I have a suspicion that for 99 percent of the time, they will reduce accidents to a amazing minimum.
That one percent is going to be a spectacular bloodbath. Might be interesting to watch a few thousand cars slam into each other at 80 miles per hour. Just don't think about the carnage.
Let's say you have a computer controlling the car that is never ever going to fail. 100 percent reliable.
So do we have any cars that are 100 percent reliable mechanically?
I've been in 4 accidents that were the result
Re: (Score:2)
It's a matter of public health - if self driving cars will save lives, they should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be the anti-robot-cars movement, but they'll have to stay on private property with their old fashioned manually driving cars -- with steering wheels if you can imagine such a thing! How quaint!
I have a suspicion that for 99 percent of the time, they will reduce accidents to a amazing minimum.
That one percent is going to be a spectacular bloodbath. Might be interesting to watch a few thousand cars slam into each other at 80 miles per hour. Just don't think about the carnage.
I used to ride shotgun with a friend that was an EMT in a volunteer fire department - I've seen some real blood baths, no self driving cars required. I was on brain hunting duty at one accident scene, though I think he did that to keep me staring at the guy that lost his head (literally)
But if the annual fatalities drop from 99% from 30,000 to 300, that still sounds like a net win, no matter how bloody the aftermath.
Re: (Score:2)
But if the annual fatalities drop from 99% from 30,000 to 300, that still sounds like a net win, no matter how bloody the aftermath.
And if farts were gold, we'd be stinking rich!
Re: (Score:2)
But if the annual fatalities drop from 99% from 30,000 to 300, that still sounds like a net win, no matter how bloody the aftermath.
And if farts were gold, we'd be stinking rich!
I'm using your gold farts:
I have a suspicion that for 99 percent of the time, they will reduce accidents to a amazing minimum.
Admittedly you left yourself a lot of wiggle room with that sentence, perhaps you were already feeling gassy.
Re: (Score:3)
He's scared and needs someone to take away his liberties in order to make a safe space for him. I want to say, I can't be certain though, that I've seen them too quoting Franklin's statement on liberties and safety. The mental gymnastics required to hold these views are certainly worthy of a medal. No questions asked, they're well worth a medal. Ask 'em how they feel about back doors in encryption... Given that this system will require monitoring, ask 'em how they feel about data snooping.
What really amuses
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are assuming that having the car drive for you is taking away your liberty, when that has yet to be illustrated. You still get to go to your chosen destination, only safer. You are arguing like the car will refuse to drive, or only drive to a re-education camp or something.
How about the liberty of others to not be killed by some terribly-driving lunatic? It's not about being scared, but taking sensible steps to reduce avoidable death and destruction.
While I don't always agree with you, usually you make reasoned arguments. This time it's just crude emotion - you might want to figure out if you are arguing with your heart or your brain.
Re: (Score:3)
Any of those accidents coud have been very spectacular, and all of them would have happened in an autonomous vehicle as well.
Yes, but the car might well be better at mitigating (or even avoiding!) the accidents than you are. Remember, driving aids kick in before you even know there is a problem. My 1997 Audi A8 is better at threshold braking than you are, or than I am, or in fact than anyone is, and it only has Bosch ABS 5.0. ABS 5.3 has a steering wheel sensor and "ESP", AKA active yaw control. Even if something falls off the car, it's still going to do a better job of correcting than you are. It's also going to do a better job
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Encryption can be a matter of public health. Putting a back door into it might save lives. A back door should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be people who want to retain their liberties but they'll have to stay off the public infrastructure with their old fashioned rights - if you can imagine such a thing. How quaint!
Yup. That's what you sound like. The only thing you skipped was "think of the children!"
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:4, Interesting)
Encryption can be a matter of public health. Putting a back door into it might save lives. A back door should be required. Just like vaccines. Of course, there will be people who want to retain their liberties but they'll have to stay off the public infrastructure with their old fashioned rights - if you can imagine such a thing. How quaint!
Yup. That's what you sound like. The only thing you skipped was "think of the children!"
Show me 30,000 people killed a year by strong encryption - heck, show me 3 people killed a year by strong encryption.
Re: (Score:3)
There is also a case that strong encryption saves lives, so this is clearly not a comparable discussion. Humans are terrible drivers, and that some people enjoy a necessary inefficiency of the past shouldn't condemn tens of thousands of people to their deaths each year.
Seriously - you are arguing from emotion. Just admit it. The thought of you not being able to drive scares you so much you are resorting to pathetic arguments and nebulous justifications to make the bad thoughts go away, something far belo
Re: (Score:3)
You can't be that retarded. That has to be trolling. It has to be.
Yes, the guy pointing out that liberty has consequences and risks is the one arguing from emotion - not the guy who's saying, "OH NO! PEOPLE DIE! BAN IT!"
You can't possibly be that stupid. Well, you can be. I have seen you say stupid shit before but this one's up there.
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of proves my point. I was being civil, attempting to point out that your are undoing yourself very publicly, and you resort to thrashing around like a disgruntled toddler who has been threatened with their toys being taken away.
You are arguing from emotion, not logic. This is why you are making no sense, using terrible arguments, being unusually rude, and arguing for an illogical position. It's OK - you are human - but it would help you massively to simply admit it. We can then get on to havin
Re: (Score:2)
Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes. No one likes the idea of surrendering all human autonomy to a machine. We've seen too many software glitches.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes.
You should not draw deep conclusions from people that have a financial interest in their opinions. Of course pilots don't think they should be replaced with software. That doesn't really say anything out the merits of the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even modern airline pilots don't like the idea of not having overrides on their planes.
I'd not trust an autonomous car if there were no manual override. Computers may be able to drive better than the average human but the human brain is less prone to a spontaneous crash from an errant cosmic ray flipping a bit when doing 110 km/h down the motorway.
Re: (Score:3)
Automotive computers have to be hardened against things like random bit flips. There are a number of ways of doing that, ranging from simply storing every variable twice in two different memory locations to having two identical computers that must agree with each other.
We are getting to the point where a lot of this can be automated. CPUs that support dual, identical RAM banks with EEC correction. Dual sensors with error detection built in.
Re:75% of American Horse Association riders say... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care if it takes twice as long to get anywhere ... as long as I can turn my brain off and do something else I'm happy.
This is why I take transit to work.
This, plus the fact that a lot of the people still driving seem to have turned their brains off as well.
Re: (Score:3)
This, plus the fact that a lot of the people still driving seem to have turned their brains off as well.
I'm a freakin amazingly good driver if you look at my record or ride with me, but I know how often I've nearly been in a wreck. I know how many times I've done something stupid. I always check my blind spot, but not always before putting my signal on and starting to drift toward the lane I'm moving into, and I can recall all too clearly seeing someone there I was drifting toward, not once but twice (twice!!) in the last year.
A month ago, I was exhausted but drove anyway.
I'm a courteous, thoughtful, attentiv
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, train safety records are dismal at best, especially compared to vehicle safety records.
Or don't your urban trains run fully automatic yet? Because where I live, they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Software bugs.
Hardware failures (yeah, redundant systems).
Hacking.
Government surveillance.
Likely many more issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on get serious, I will only feel safe in an autonomous vehicle after having read the warranty and seeing in writing that the programmers involved will kill themselves should a bug in the code kill or even severely injure me ie I will trust the code as much as the programmers who wrote that code trust their own code, just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
These cretins fly on planes all the time on autopilot. This trash of people being against self driving is just an emotional reaction by people who have no control over their lives and want to pretend they have a "vote" or a horse in the self driving race.
Efficiency and safety will go up by a LOT with automation of driving. Resistance is more or less luddite-ism. For me, having 3-kids being able to be self driven for MORE activities is way better than having to split work and kids and pick winners and losers
Re: (Score:3)
Other things self driving cars will do (apart from erode liberties apparently *laughs*)
1) Automatically drive to where *you* are and pick you up.
2) Drive you home if you're drunk.
3) No parking in the centre of town? No problem, car drops you off and goes home
4) Done shopping? Car picks you up, or collects the shopping.
5) Taxis? Out of business.
6) Uber? How about your car earns you money ferrying people about while your sat at your desk at work.
7) Highway speeds? 200mph, manual drive cars are banned.
I look f
Re: (Score:3)
6) Uber? How about your car earns you money ferrying people about while your sat at your desk at work.
It'll be hilarious the first time somebody figures out how to hack the car to claim ownership.
"Sir--Sir, please stop hotwiring me. I am calling the authorities."
Re: (Score:2)
Right... add a few snowflakes and suddenly the computer has no idea which way is up.
That was true of the Google algorithms from several years ago. It is not true today. Tesla Autopilot has no problem recognizing lanes in the snow. In addition to cameras and other sensors, it also has a route database from hundreds or thousands of other cars that have driven the same road.
The technology is just not ready yet. It will get there eventually
SDCs have already driven millions of miles on public roads, and have a far better safety record than human drivers. They are not perfect, but perfection is a ridiculous standard. They just have to be better than human
Probably to be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
When the automobile first arrived on the scene, many of the people who shouted "get a horse" in the wake of a "stink wagon" likely would have expressed a fear of going for a ride in one. We humans tend to be conservative that way; up to a point, it's a survival trait.
Pretty amazing 25% already (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's a pretty amazing endorsement of autonomous vehicles, if *already* 25% of the population is accepting of a new technology they haven't yet experienced.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a pretty amazing endorsement of autonomous vehicles, if *already* 25% of the population is accepting of a new technology they haven't yet experienced.
Strikingly similar to the 20 percent voting paradigm.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a pretty amazing endorsement of autonomous vehicles, if *already* 25% of the population is accepting of a new technology they haven't yet experienced.
Millennials.
I'd like to go into every single humanities class at my alma mater and start showing them a lot of 1970's and '80s sci-fi. It's like they've never even been exposed to the concept that it's possible for technology to fail spectacularly.
Re:Pretty amazing 25% already (Score:4, Insightful)
For some reason, your comment (and many others) reminded me of Caveman Science Fiction [dresdencodak.com]. It's strange how many Luddites there are on Slashdot...
STATISTICS (Score:2)
TFA does not say that 25% feel safe, but that 75% do not. The other 25% contains undecided, and people who just don't care to answer polls as well as those who "feel" safe. The sample size is a whopping 1800 people in a specific geographic location, so you are not really getting a good sample in numbers that low. Was the criteria for the car was defined to all parties, such that it was 100% autonomous with no ability for human intervention, or partial like the Google car? Or more likely it was left open
Re: (Score:2)
It's bad enough they can't even keep the bugs out of the relatively simple automation software already in vehicles. Then there are the legitimate political concerns once control of the vehicle is removed from the owner and placed in government/corporate hands. They might just decide we don't own our cars anymore, but that will just make the political issues worse.
Re: (Score:3)
You can make software that works but that costs money.. so if lawyers cost more than programmers hopefully everything will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
That AI shouldn't be treated as some overpriced middleware generating stats from CSV text files for insurance companies. I guess we're going to find out the hard way whether these things are really safe. I think it is foolish.
I might have a more positive outlook if there was more progress on the relatively simple problems facing simpler software products (eg security).
Also, none of this deals with state and corporate control freakery..
Re: (Score:2)
Then there are the legitimate political concerns once control of the vehicle is removed from the owner and placed in government/corporate hands.
Control of elevators is already in government/corporate hands. What makes horizontal motion different from vertical? Or do you always use the stairs?
Re: (Score:2)
You are seriously comparing elevators and movement within a single building with automated cars, aircraft, trains, and movement around the country?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't ridden in one but I would vote for feeling safe in an autonomous vehicle today. Why? I trust the engineers to account for 99.99% of the driving I intend to do.
So if you drive 10000 miles a year, that means there will be one mile a year when your car has no idea what it's doing.
You may as well let your dog drive for that mile: http://cdn1.theodysseyonline.c... [theodysseyonline.com]
I hope they have much better than four 9's of coverage before self-driving cars are let loose on the world.
Re: (Score:2)
So if you drive 10000 miles a year, that means there will be one mile a year when your car has no idea what it's doing.
Correct. When you turn off the hard surface road, onto a dirt road overgrown with weeds, your SDC may stop and suggest that you take over and drive manually. That may be inconvenient, but it is not unsafe.
Re: (Score:3)
Christ if drivers in general knew what they were doing 95% of the time the roads would be safer. Your assumption is that there is an entire mile in one go where the car doesn't know what it's doing. Where as the reality is that in ever 100 seconds it might have a blip for 0.01 of a second which amounts to 1 mile in every 10,000. It's the same with human drivers, they make mistakes, a lot of mistakes, but the good thing is that they recover from those errors before something bad happens.
For example I don'
Re: (Score:2)
Christ if drivers in general knew what they were doing 95% of the time the roads would be safer. Your assumption is that there is an entire mile in one go where the car doesn't know what it's doing. Where as the reality is that in ever 100 seconds it might have a blip for 0.01 of a second which amounts to 1 mile in every 10,000. It's the same with human drivers, they make mistakes, a lot of mistakes, but the good thing is that they recover from those errors before something bad happens.
For example I don't know a single person on the road who hasn't once gone "shit, they are stopping faster than I thought" and had to push hard on the brakes.
And how many people have gone "Shit, where'd that deer come from", or "shit, this road is more slippery than I thought, wish I'd slowed down before this curve, now I'm going down an embankment, wish I wasn't heading right for that big tree".
Re: (Score:3)
I'll bet you that out of 10000 miles of driving there's at least one where any human driver will be tuned out. Hopefully not all at the same time.
Film at 11 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify why the AAA will be redundant: the most likely scenario for adoption of autonomous cars is that individuals will not own them. Instead, people will sign up for a car service.
If you are paying for a service, you don't need most of the products and services that AAA offers.
Re: (Score:2)
My car insurance already includes the important part of what AAA offers: Roadside assistance.
Otherwise... they have a travel agent. I haven't used one of those since airline ticket bookings went on line. They offer passport photos, which I can get just about anywhere. They have 'emergency check cashing' but I haven't carried a checkbook in a decade. There are insurance benefits, but I've already got insurance. There are route planning services,but Google Maps has that covered.
So unless you're going to buy e
Re: (Score:3)
AAA (I have a "plus" membership which has extra goodies to make it worth while, esp, the 100 miles free towing) has bent over backwards to take care of me, including being willing to send a flat bed tow truck down from Georgia (I'm in N Fla about 90 miles from the border) for my antique Porsche. When I had a truck stolen, they offered to pay hotels, etc (I was camping, so I was good, but the offer was impressive) and when it was recovered they paid the towing and recovery costs.
Re: (Score:3)
And then there's the Premier membership which includes one 200 mile tow along with up to three 100 mile tows per year. I don't know of any insurance-provided roadside assistance program that offers a comparable benefit. A single 200 mile tow would make up for several years' worth of membership fees.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you have never encountered a road hazard? Or been in an accident? All it takes is a rock to hit your oil pan, or a bad pothole to damage your wheel, or snow/ice/debris on a road to send you into the ditch, or a deer that decides it wants to commit suicide.
Sure - on AVERAGE people are better off just paying for the service when they need it, but that doesn't work if you have something unusual/expensive. For example, my AAA membership (Premier RV - and I drive a reliable car) includes being pulled out
Insurance, not AA/CAA/AAA, redundant (Score:2)
My car insurance already includes the important part of what AAA offers: Roadside assistance.
Actually rather than the AA/CAA/AAA (*AA) being redundant it will surely be insurers who become unnecessary. If your car is being driven by some Google algorithm then how can you be liable for a crash? The car should probably come with insurance, at least while driven under the supplied algorithm. I would expect that the *AA will actually do better out of this because people will not get roadside assistance with their insurance and will need to purchase it separately.
Re: (Score:3)
Company that will be redundant in a world of autonomous cars produces survey that shows people won't accept the very thing that will make it redundant.
Film at 11.
Look at their demographics and their survey results make sense:
http://www.aaapublishingnetwor... [aaapublishingnetwork.com]
Median Age: 54
69% of members are age 55+
10% of members are age 18-34
Older people are naturally going to reject new technology, my parents have never gotten an ATM card, when they need cash, they go to a bank and cash a check, like they always did. And they carry vast sums (in my eyes) of cash around with them -- dad has over $500 in his wallet (mostly in 100's tucked in a "hidden" picket), *and* he has another th
Partial autonomy works, at least. (Score:2)
Well duh. (Score:2)
The tech just isn't good enough yet.
Yet being the key word there.
Re: (Score:2)
The tech just isn't good enough yet.
Yet being the key word there.
Is the tech going to respond properly to mechanical failures?
And 80% of Americans are better than average (Score:5, Funny)
And 80% of Americans are better than average drivers.
75% of any group fear any change or unknown (Score:3)
Did we really need an actuary to report these stats, or is this just the hard sell on new auto insurance products to cover your every fear. Clearly there is anxiety whenever a change is proposed. Its universally true, in general, and makes this information very mundane.
It's about loss of control. (Score:5, Interesting)
How many feel safe in a car driven by a stranger (taxi or otherwise)?
I know I personally feel safer when I'm driving my car at high speeds on the highway compared to riding with someone else driving.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. It's about taking as much control away as possible without having us frogs jump out of the pot.
They're right (Score:2)
I wouldn't feel safe in an autonomous vehicle, not yet. Yes, their current safety record is impressive, but it's fake. However, it won't be long before they're ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, their current safety record is impressive, but it's fake.
It's not fake it is just statistically limited in the same way that Concorde went from being the safest commercial passenger plane on record to the most dangerous with one crash.
Re: (Score:3)
For the distance driven by autonomous cars, human drivers would statistically have had a couple dozen crashes already. The self-driving cars have been involved in a few crashes, all due to failure of humans, and that number is statistically low. There's now just one incident where the driverless car may have been responsible (but from what I read about it, that's debatable).
Concorde had only a very limited number of flights compared to other aircraft types and airplane crashes are extremely rare, so one inc
Not average but individual (Score:2)
Instead the autonomous vehicle is already many crashes behind on the average human driver...
When purchasing such a car though the question I really want to know is not whether it is better than the average human driver but whether it is better than me. Being simply "better than average" does not inspire much confidence when you see what the "average" driver is like sometimes. Is it safer than 75% of people? 90%? 99? 99.999%? etc.
If it is only better than 75% of drivers I'm probably going to tell myself that I can drive better than it can. However if it is better than 99.999% of drivers even if
Re: (Score:2)
Some 99% of accidents are caused by human error. An autonomous vehicle will be able to prevent almost all of those errors - especially those from the vehicle it controls, and will be able to correct for lots of errors from other vehicles and other traffic (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists) in the process.
There'll always be situations that a human would have solved differently, maybe preventing an accident, and of course everyone will be talking about that one incident but not about the 100 or even 1000 incidents
Re: (Score:3)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the professional human driver (or was that drivers) frequently override the autopilot? Don't they only drive in nice weather conditions? Are they still limiting themselves to pre-scanned roads? Are they still limiting themselves to low traffic conditions and slow speeds?
Don't get me wrong -- these are all the right thing to do. From a safety perspective, from a liability perspective, from a PR nightmare. It may not be the true driving record, but it is definitely the rig
Insurance company doesn't like self driving cars!! (Score:2)
I have repeatedly stated that the best part of Self Driving Cars will be the war on them declared by the many parties that are going to lose big when they come. Insurance companies are going to lead the charge, but I can even see traffic cops realizing that their days are n
Wrong question (Score:5, Interesting)
Would you feel safer if your 17 year old / 71 year old / relative./neighbor rode in a driverless car or a drove themselves.
Also, would you feel safer in a NYC cab driven by an immigrant or in a driverless car.
The problem with most people is... (Score:2)
They're only of average intelligence. Who cares what most people think? Kind of hard to argue with science.
I don't feel safe with AAA (Score:2)
Seriously, these fuckers decided to send someone, only to have the fucker turn around and leave about halfway to us. Thank you AAA for leaving two people out in the desert, stranded, and having to rely upon BLM/911 for an emergency evac because your driver's shit truck can't handle a little dirt washboard road maintained by the BLM (meanwhile my low-riding Taurus had no problems on the road whatsoever, until it kicked a rock up into the transmission oil pan.)
AAA is bullshit through and through, much like th
Really they care about safety? (Score:2)
Perfectly understandable (Score:2)
For an experienced driver, surrendering that control is nightmare-inducing... For myself, the first time I used cruise control was unsettling - it felt like the car was getting out of hand - it took a while getting used to.
Surrendering control of the brake will be harder.. let alone the wheel itself.
Above average (Score:3)
Are they the same 75% of people who feel they have above average driving skills?
AAA drivers don't feel safe driving their own cars (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a AAA member because I tend to drive beaters. I'm a plus member because I live in the sticks. I don't have AAA insurance because I'm not old yet (only seniors get halfway-decent rates from them, in spite of all their medicated driving) and because AAA is the insurance company you hope the other guy has, not you.
And 99% of those (Score:3)
And 99% of those 75% would very likely subjectively classify themselves as "above average" or "excellent" drivers.
In other news... (Score:3)
75% of drivers think they're in the top 10% of driving skills.
What worries me though is that no one mentions the famous Google self driving cars will only work in the small areas that they have pre mapped and pre recorded routes for. Self driving is just a marketing term for now.
Comment removed (Score:3)
We asked this at the hackerspace/phrased wrong (Score:3)
However... When it was rephrased as: "If you could have an automous car, but it could only go 45mph and use special lanes in autonomous mode, would you want it?" Suddenly the numbers shot way up. Seems many don't trust mixing humans and autonomous, especially at high speed. As people starting thinking of the benefits to this, even at slower speeds, the numbers went up and up until all but the most staunch opponents were left and even they wavered.
This is not far off from how cars got accepted as well.
Automakers started pushing the idea that streets were meant for cars, not foot traffic or horses (look up the origins of jaywalking), once the public was convinced, it went from there. The same can very easily happen with autonomous vehicles.
In related news... (Score:3)
In related news, a ABA (American Buggy Association) survey conducted soon after motorized buggies first started appearing showed that 75% of riders wouldn't feel safe riding in a buggy powered by an internal combustion engine.
You'd have to be crazy to deliberately sit on a device that was violently exploding thousands of times a minute. Why on earth would you want to put your self in such danger and get rid of the tried-and-true reliable horse?
This is actually pretty good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Its someone with an agenda manufacturing news.
Re: (Score:2)
..for the first time in history this will be a shift removing the fundamental freedom of travel from control of the people on board.
You mean like the Docklands Light Railway [wikipedia.org]? or before that the Victoria line [wikipedia.org] which has been fully automated for 53 years (although it still carries drivers as a union requirement)? or the countless automatic trains between airport terminals?
There is nothing fundamental about computer driven cars but it would be an incredibly useful technology to have.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because early elevators tended plummet to the ground when their cables snapped, crashing and killing people. It took Elisha Otis to invent a reliable failsafe mechanism in 1852, paving the way for the modern skyscraper.
These days we don't even question that modern elevators are, statistically speaking, much safer than using the stairs.