5 Reasons Why We Will Never Have Driverless Cars...time To Stop Dreaming?

[ToraToraTora]

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/why-well-never-have-driverless-cars-1356917969
Only no 1 and maybe 2 are possibly solvable. This is a US based article but the issues are the same everywhere. We would do better to work on safety and training generally.

[tonyav]

Tesla CEO expects true autonomous driving by 2023
Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla estimates that “five or six years from now we will be able to achieve true autonomous driving where you could literally get in the car, go to sleep and wake up at your destination”. He then added another 2 to 3 years for regulatory approval.

Better buy a Tesla then.

[Hymie]

Any reaction to the starting gun within 0.1 second is considered a false start – since humans cannot react within this time.

An awful lot of computer code can be processed within this time.

[ToraToraTora]

yes hymie but no amount of code can replace human evaluation and reaction. AI does not exist so any code is merely linear instruction carried out very fast, even in parallel devices it is merely linear coding by humans catering for pre defined conditions. Ever done computer programming hymie and I mean programming not merely coding?

[Gromit]

Of course it will happen, but probably longer than 5 years timescale.

1. Trust. We all use cabs, buses trains and aircraft when we trust someone else to drive. Once the safety is proven over several million miles/driving hours, then people will accept them.

2. Hacking. Aircraft have managed to be computer operated and there have never been any instances of a remote hijacking or error. There would have to be an over-ride button.

3. Regulation. It can be done. We have driverless busways and driverless Light Rail. If there is an economic advantage then the piwers that be will make it work.

4. Liability. Every action will be recorded. In effect having an aircraft style blackbox. If there is an accident then solving liability will be much easier than now.

5. Humans are better. We have already delegated lots of tedious jobs to computers. They work faster and smarter, and they do not get tired.

I doubt driverless cars will become the majority. But for commuting and delivering, they will become very common.

[Hymie]

It only takes around 20 hours of tuition for the average person to become reasonably proficient in the basic control of a motor vehicle.

Given this, it is somewhat surprising to me that it has taken so long for mankind to make a machine which can do the same.

[tonyav]

All new cars will have a ''Black Box'' from October, Gromit.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-cars-must-black-box-3563221

[Gromit]

Tonyav,
Yep, but driverless cars have video and proximity sensors data that can be recorded.

[tonyav]

I know, Gromit. The Black box is just a step that way.

[Old_Geezer]

Difficult to find any relevant points made.

"Human beings are idiots", well it sure seems like that, and some sure are, but that's not stopped us before. Evolution sorts out those that need removing from the gene pool.

Plenty of folk trust systems on aircraft. For cars it is novel but they are bound to trust them too eventually, even the sceptics, as the data comes in to show automatic cars are safer than human controlled ones. No one can seriously refer to early testing as an example of why something will always be unworkable.

Hacking would be something to fear for things like so called smart meters, but a car ? Surely easy enough to ensure they can not be remotely altered; that changes need recalls, as today.

Infrastructure would be no different for automatic cars and human driven ones. Although automatic cars could benefit from information over airwaves not easily reacted to by humans. One up for the automatic version then.

Regulation/Legal issues and the same. Why would these be an issue ? Laws and made and then active. To say laws can not be made for automatically driven cars makes no sense. One could use exactly the same argument for any and all laws. But each country has a legal system. Rules are made and then one can claim what one likes, the rules are there and apportion responsibility. This is no different to any other need to regulate/judge situations.

Nonsense about lobbying, cuts no ice.

Who cares if some think they drive better than the machine. It isn't going to be compulsory. Let those who wish to remain in control do so. It will be they taking the bigger risk. Returning to old examples of early testing simply shows the weakness of this guys 'points'.

And that seems to be the total of his objections; basically nothing.

[Ric.ror]

Sorry but they are coming
Make the most of it
I can't wait

[ToraToraTora]

gromit, point 2, override button, I'm asleep mate, if I have to stay sober and awake it defeats the object, might as well drive myself. Point 3: those are enclosed systems on a defined track, a giant leap to the highway. point 4, ok take my burst tyre analogy above, how would that work, remember the driver is playing no part and could be asleep or if one of your delivery vans there may not even be a driver. they may get some sort of rudimentary system going on Motorways in about 30 years but full road automation, never.