Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Stuff like this
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7615

Which states that between 15-29 the most likely thing to kill you is a car incident!

Also most people who drive have enough experience from their own or viewing others to know how freaking dangerous it is and how silly people can be. Running lights, turning too sharp; not slowing down; not following the rules of the road; speeding; overtaking on blind corners/areas etc... The list is endless of the stupid things people do - often to get ahead of one car or cyclist or to get that 5 milliseconds shaved off their journey.

It is the Socratic method, the point of which is to use questions to guide an interlocutor through a process of re-examining their thoughts on a matter by themselves, rather than using an argument to try to convince them.

Anyway, to get the end, when you measure things presumably you use a ruler or tape measure, rather than the first joint of your thumb or the width of your hand.

In other words you use scientific measurement rather than educated guesswork to guide your progress.

In the same way, it makes sense if autonomous cars become safer than human drivers, which would be measurable with science, then we should choose autonomous cars.

Absolutely, I just don't think that's going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Stuff like this
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7615

Which states that between 15-29 the most likely thing to kill you is a car incident!

Also most people who drive have enough experience from their own or viewing others to know how freaking dangerous it is and how silly people can be. Running lights, turning too sharp; not slowing down; not following the rules of the road; speeding; overtaking on blind corners/areas etc... The list is endless of the stupid things people do - often to get ahead of one car or cyclist or to get that 5 milliseconds shaved off their journey.

That's not what I was asking for though was it? I was asking for the proof of safety in autonomous vehicles, which you keep vehemently expousing.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Absolutely, I just don't think that's going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Stuff like this
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7615

Which states that between 15-29 the most likely thing to kill you is a car incident!

Also most people who drive have enough experience from their own or viewing others to know how freaking dangerous it is and how silly people can be. Running lights, turning too sharp; not slowing down; not following the rules of the road; speeding; overtaking on blind corners/areas etc... The list is endless of the stupid things people do - often to get ahead of one car or cyclist or to get that 5 milliseconds shaved off their journey.

That's not what I was asking for though was it? I was asking for the proof of safety in autonomous vehicles, which you keep vehemently expousing.

And as has been said there isn't such proof readily available yet for comparison because the self driving car isn't yet finished. Not has it been tested on a comparable level of use that would give meaningful results to compare against human drivers.

A well maintained car today is pretty darn safe; most of the issues are going to come from the human behind the wheel of a vehicle. So we already know that the human is a weaker element.

So it makes sense that one considers replacing the driver itself. The drive toward self driving cars (yay driving pun) is being pushed so that we advance our robotics and computer technology to a point where it can be safer, esp when deployed at large to whole networks.

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Absolutely, I just don't think that's going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Stuff like this
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7615

Which states that between 15-29 the most likely thing to kill you is a car incident!

Also most people who drive have enough experience from their own or viewing others to know how freaking dangerous it is and how silly people can be. Running lights, turning too sharp; not slowing down; not following the rules of the road; speeding; overtaking on blind corners/areas etc... The list is endless of the stupid things people do - often to get ahead of one car or cyclist or to get that 5 milliseconds shaved off their journey.

That's not what I was asking for though was it? I was asking for the proof of safety in autonomous vehicles, which you keep vehemently expousing.

And as has been said there isn't such proof readily available yet for comparison because the self driving car isn't yet finished. Not has it been tested on a comparable level of use that would give meaningful results to compare against human drivers.

A well maintained car today is pretty darn safe; most of the issues are going to come from the human behind the wheel of a vehicle. So we already know that the human is a weaker element.

So it makes sense that one considers replacing the driver itself. The drive toward self driving cars (yay driving pun) is being pushed so that we advance our robotics and computer technology to a point where it can be safer, esp when deployed at large to whole networks.

IMO, you're just trading one type of risk for another with Self-driving cars.

You are 'maybe' reducing the risk of individual car having an error and causing an accident. But you are also vastly increasing the risk of a programming error causing hundreds or even thousands of crashes.

You may reduce the number of incidents, but the magnitude of any incidents which do occur will go up significantly. Because if 1 human driver makes a mistake, thats just 1 vehicle. The damage that 1 vehicle can do is relatively minor. If a programming error or oversight is made, that error is going to be in EVERY. SINGLE. CAR! made by that manufacturer.

Once car manufacturers realize that they will be responsible for all of this liability, I do not doubt that Self-driving cars will be completely abandoned. Its a terrible idea from a business perspective for an industry that has never had any liability beyond that actual structural integrity of the product. Now they'd be responsible not only for its manufacturing, but also its daily use. Anybody who makes a self-driving car is making an insanely stupid mistake on a personal level. It doesn't matter that it might benefit humanity overall if it will completely hose them.

Liability laws can and will be changed. What if I get hit by a drunk driver and sue the car manufacturer for allowing a human driver instead of using safer automation technology? How liable could the entire industry be for continuing to sell a dangerous product when a safer alternative is available? It might end up being the opposite, where fear of liability drives standardization on an automated system and removal of fallible humans.

Also, there's no "maybe" about it. Human drivers are incompetent and regularly kill people because of that incompetence. Automated vehicles aren't going to break speed limits, ignore inconvenient red lights, text while driving instead of watching for hazards, drive drunk, etc. There is a legitimate question about whether or not automated vehicles are currently at the point of being safer than the average human, there isn't really any legitimate doubt that they will get there. And yes, in theory you could have a mass error, but an error common enough to cause a level of deaths and injuries comparable to human drivers is going to be the easiest kind to catch in safety testing. The defects that typically slip through are the rare edge-case ones, and those by definition aren't going to cause mass casualties. And, unlike human drivers and their known incompetence, a programming error can be fixed. Opposition to automated vehicles is based entirely on fear and "what if", not reasonable analysis of the risks.

 Peregrine wrote:
Liability laws can and will be changed. What if I get hit by a drunk driver and sue the car manufacturer for allowing a human driver instead of using safer automation technology?

Lol, good luck on that. You could never sue someone for choosing not to take on liability.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Liability laws can and will be changed. What if I get hit by a drunk driver and sue the car manufacturer for allowing a human driver instead of using safer automation technology?

Lol, good luck on that. You could never sue someone for choosing not to take on liability.

They took on liability by building a car that allows a human driver, a known source of risk. They could have either not built the car at all or designed it in a way that a human is not able to operate it directly. You can't just assume the current situation with car design as the default zero-liability case.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Liability laws can and will be changed. What if I get hit by a drunk driver and sue the car manufacturer for allowing a human driver instead of using safer automation technology?

Lol, good luck on that. You could never sue someone for choosing not to take on liability.

They took on liability by building a car that allows a human driver, a known source of risk. They could have either not built the car at all or designed it in a way that a human is not able to operate it directly. You can't just assume the current situation with car design as the default zero-liability case.

Yeah, that would NEVER hold up in court. Otherwise nobody could ever make any product if there was any possibility of it being safer. Get over your robot fetish Peri and stop trying to force it on everybody else.

If you could do that, then anybody who makes knives would have to go out of business because they knowingly make sharp objects that can be used by stupid humans to hurt each other or themselves.

Right now, I'm going to go take on some liability by driving to go get some lunch. I'm responsible for my actions while driving, not Ford Motor Company who designed and built my truck.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Liability laws can and will be changed. What if I get hit by a drunk driver and sue the car manufacturer for allowing a human driver instead of using safer automation technology?

Lol, good luck on that. You could never sue someone for choosing not to take on liability.

They took on liability by building a car that allows a human driver, a known source of risk. They could have either not built the car at all or designed it in a way that a human is not able to operate it directly. You can't just assume the current situation with car design as the default zero-liability case.

Current cars don't come with the same safety restraints used in NASCAR and with complimentary helmets. That technology exists and would make drivers and passengers safer. Clearly we should sue car manufacturers. Of course those suits would be dismissed because current cars are made to be compliant with safety laws and industry standards and therefore even though they are not as absolutely safe as technology would allow them to be they are not negligent to the extent that a strict liability claim would be upheld.

Current cars are capable of going faster than legal speed limits and speeding causes accidents yet you cannot sue car manufacturers for building cars that can break speed limits. There are lawful uses of a car, like passing other vehicles, in which you can exceed the speed limit. That doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible if you choose to commit moving violations and felonies while speeding.

Sure, we could change liability laws but even if we did we're not going to change them to force manufacturers to drunk proof everything they make. Drunk people can do horrible stupid things with anything when they're drunk. You can get drunk and beat your wife with your belt. Should you be able to sue the pants manufacturer and the belt manufacturer because if the pants needed a belt to stay in their proper place an integral belt could have been installed in the pants, that technology exists.

Easy now..

Exalt, Killkrazy.

To address the tangent of robots raising our kids, well.... we do. Programs like ABC mouse, Myon, iReady aimed specifically at preschool and early education kids.

Classroom curriculum is fairly scripted- Springboard, in theory, means every classroom should teach in the same way. It tells the teacher what to do with each lesson, how long it should take and how to assess.

And credit recovery at my school is literally a computer program that the students go through at their own pace.

We are highly standardized and mechanized- as adaptive tests become adaptive curriculum, it will become better than teachers at imparting classroom knowledge. Thankfully, that's not all teachers do- and I'll be retired long before they figure out how to get a computer to do all those little unscheduled, unscripted extras that make kids eager and receptive to learning in a classroom.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Thankfully, that's not all teachers do- and I'll be retired long before they figure out how to get a computer to do all those little unscheduled, unscripted extras that make kids eager and receptive to learning in a classroom.

I have yet to meet a computer program that has an answer to the problem of that kid doesn't want to work because the class is boring (or any other excuses in the long list of excuse to work slowly, badly or not at all). Frankly it takes rather polished psycho-social skills to even have a chance at motivating one unmotivated kid, now remember that most kid aren't very motivated to learn in systemic fashion for extanded period of time. Also, conflict solving is going to be very difficult to do to.

A bit of a necronization but there is a new, interesting infographic/animation feature by the BBC.

http://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/the-disruptors/on-the-move/

My god, that was as informative as it was poorly formatted.

Sweet Emperor, I will most assuredly wait for a text version.

I wouldn't bother - I got bored part way through and totally annoyed with scrolling for nothing. Almost the entire of it just random quotations with big flashy pictures about the electric car future. There's no substance to it at all.

Oh yeah, just hop on an electric scooter that you don't own, to a car park where, and get in an autonomous car you don't own, because there definitely won't be any issues like none being available.. Its like they dont know us at all.

What if i have a medical emergency in my house? If its not highest priority I could be waiting hours for an ambulance. With no car what am I going to do? These people are crazy if they think folks will just up and relinquish private transports.

Lots of people already have relinquised having their own personal vehicle, and use various forms of hire vehicle combined with public transport instead.

I was in this category in the mid1990s. Living in a small flat in Chelsea, with no car parking and central London within easy walking or bus, it made no sense to buy a car. I just got a hire car when I needed one to drive out to the countryside.

No-one's saying the future won't contain private cars. It just will have a lot fewer of them, and they are likely to be shared because that spreads the costs.

That's only what happens now with Lyft and Uber anyway, when you look at it as a business model.

If you want to own your own car, and not let anyone else use it, you will be able to do that,