Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw


#1

The self-driving car, that cutting-edge creation that’s supposed to lead to a world without accidents, is achieving the exact opposite right now: The vehicles have racked up a crash rate double that of those with human drivers.
The glitch?
They obey the law all the time, as in, without exception. This may sound like the right way to program a robot to drive a car, but good luck trying to merge onto a chaotic, jam-packed highway with traffic flying along well above the speed limit. It tends not to work out well. As the accidents have piled up – all minor scrape-ups for now – the arguments among programmers at places like Google Inc. and Carnegie Mellon University are heating up: Should they teach the cars how to commit infractions from time to time to stay out of trouble?

Humans Are Slamming Into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw - Bloomberg Business

I expect that self driving cars will certainly be normal in the future but until then human interaction is unpredictable and subject to moods. Until every vehicle on the road is made to be self driving then we will see accidents.

Another factor would be humans themselves and their behavior in walking or riding bikes and such. Depending where there is traffic and congestion cars may be rerouted to avoid such areas.


#2

I’m happy to see a fly in the ointment. Unfortunately, that flaw is the argument to ban manual driving, and it’s pretty much irrefutable. I remain sad at the future of transportation.


#3

I always answer the question “What do you do” by saying “I am a professional criminal”, the reason why is exactly why these programmers are having trouble.

They program the cars to obey the Law but the purpose of the Law is to create constant situations where obeying the Law would be unsafe, people then “break the Law” naturally and revenue generating tickets are written in abundance.

I tell everyone that I can drive safely or legally, I cannot do both: these programmers will find out just how true that is since robots do not lie to themselves like people do.


#4

I don’t think it’s irrefutable. Using people’s traffic violations to ban manual driving is pretty much the same argument that people use to ban guns; if we eliminate them, no violent crime…


#5

You beat me to it. While it is an argument why dirverless care are pointless it is also a really good argument to get rid of manual driving. If the future is driverless cars then I want car insurance to go away. Let Google pay my car insurance as how can I be held liable for something my self driving car does?


#6

At this point we are getting into an argument of degrees of criminality. Technically we are all criminals to a certain degree. We have all broken a law and gotten away with it. We are not breaking law with malice as when someone shoots up a place. Plus driving is a privilege not a right.


#7

Driverless cars will always be subject to the unknown, and I feel it is really silly to sanction this type of travel. you don’t want to drive, ride with someone else or take the train.


#8

[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:4, topic:47982”]
I don’t think it’s irrefutable. Using people’s traffic violations to ban manual driving is pretty much the same argument that people use to ban guns; if we eliminate them, no violent crime…
[/quote]Automated vehicles will be safer than human-driven vehicles. Instead of the 32,000 fatalities per year, we’ll see 100. When vehicles are programmed in sync, old rules won’t matter. Travel will be faster and safer – once humans are no longer driving. No matter how much I enjoy getting in my car and driving, I find it hard to argue that should trump saving thousands of lives annually. My only solace is we’ll be able to travel much, much faster unless the nanny staters in charge are too scared of speed even when it’s safe.

At the same time, I thoroughly agree with RET about traffic rules applied to human drivers.


#9

Frankly, I don’t trust the technology. Nor the control it can lend to entities who don’t own the car.


#10

This is why it won’t happen, the idea that a gps failure could create mass carnage on a clear day will not be resolved by any brilliant programming; for all the wonders of the computer age that I love to utilize I still spend a significant amount of time correcting errors and protecting myself from nefarious threats.

And far more time mopping up similar issues on the devices of friends and family, with less than a second to react there will be no time to “reboot” anything.


#11

And here I was going to say the flaw is what exposes why man and his ability to adapt is what will make “auto-pilot” unworkable.

Guess I’m an incurable optimist.


#12

In the sense of aircraft and ships at sea, autopilots do work; but the dynamics of their operation are far less challenging.


#13

But in either case–aircraft and ships at sea–one craft being within 3’ of another at speed would be considered a potential disaster and the operators would be subject to sanctions.


#14

That’s what I mean about the dynamics; ships and planes don’t operate nearly as close to each other as cars do on autopilot (except maybe aircraft doing automated landings in proximity to others waiting on the taxiway to take off).