worm
Well-known member
it will probably just hover above the mud/water
OT: The News Thread
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
it will probably just hover above the mud/water
Altair
Well-known member
zeke
Well-known member
oh, it can do that. I used to drive my remote control 4x4 truck through all sorts of shit.
Aberdeen
Well-known member
Also will eliminate almost all parking lots and street parking etc. Cars will drop you off and drive away.
BG
Well-known member
Regarding autonomous vehicles, I have a really hard time believing that ******* drivers in sports cars will willingly give up their keys to get in a vehicle that will travel slower, more safely, and in an orderly fashion.
If anything, these drivers will love autonomous vehicles - they are designed to avoid collisions and will be ripe for cutting off.
I had a chat with a guy who works for a cyber-security firm overseas - he told me that the hackers that ran the Jeep off the road (of course this wasn't an autonomous vehicle, it just had all of the new self parking and "assited" driving features) had a hard time targeting their test vehicle. Meaning it would have been easier to run multiple vehicles off the road than just their own. Security will always be an issue.
If anything, these drivers will love autonomous vehicles - they are designed to avoid collisions and will be ripe for cutting off.
I had a chat with a guy who works for a cyber-security firm overseas - he told me that the hackers that ran the Jeep off the road (of course this wasn't an autonomous vehicle, it just had all of the new self parking and "assited" driving features) had a hard time targeting their test vehicle. Meaning it would have been easier to run multiple vehicles off the road than just their own. Security will always be an issue.
LeafGm
Well-known member
The other interesting hurdle to jump over when it comes to commercially-available self-driving vehicles is the ethical questions that come up when programming them.
For example, how does your car prioritize human life?
When it's a person behind the wheel, generally you're going to place the greatest amount of importance on saving your own life, particularly when it comes to split-second decisions/reactions. But what is your self-driving car going to be programmed to do if it's faced where a situation where a collision is unavoidable, and it can either:
A) Make the maneuver most likely to save the life of the passenger inside the car, but kill multiple people outside the car (whether they be pedestrians or passengers of other vehicles)
B) Make the maneuver most likely to save the largest number of lives, but kill the person inside the car
For example, how does your car prioritize human life?
When it's a person behind the wheel, generally you're going to place the greatest amount of importance on saving your own life, particularly when it comes to split-second decisions/reactions. But what is your self-driving car going to be programmed to do if it's faced where a situation where a collision is unavoidable, and it can either:
A) Make the maneuver most likely to save the life of the passenger inside the car, but kill multiple people outside the car (whether they be pedestrians or passengers of other vehicles)
B) Make the maneuver most likely to save the largest number of lives, but kill the person inside the car
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Those drivers will be uninsurable. Already insurance companies are floating policy rate reductions for drivers willing to have monitoring devices installed temporarily to measure how quick you accelerate, how quick you break, average speeds on different types of roads, etc. Feed the data through an algo and if you're a safe driver, get a discount. How long until insurance companies won't touch you without that "temporary" install? How long after that until they require you to provide the data on a full time basis?
I really believe that the people arguing on the other side of this simply don't understand how insurance works, and how autonomous vehicles will change that landscape. There simply won't be the large pool of "safe" (or rather, drivers who aren't running into shit) drivers available to off set the costs of bad drivers for these insurance companies. Accident rates and dollars spent on claims are lagging indicators for the insurance industry, they're already trying to transition to utilizing leading indicator data to determine who are risks not worth insuring.
Security will become a selling feature on autonomous vehicles the same way safety is today. Look at the damage a few safety incidents had to the Toyota brand a few years ago. Cyber security will become a similar issue in the automotive world within the next 10-20 years. It's too damaging to multi billion dollar brand images to have some kid with a laptop able to run cars off the road for a joke whenever he wants to.
Altair
Well-known member
Your car will kill you, make no mistake. Naturally no company is going to advertise this as a selling point.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Yep...this is a major intermediate challenge. The upshot to this is that when everything is autonomous, the odds of the vehicle having to make that decision becomes ridiculously slim, like plane crash slim. During the intermediate period though when there are still shitty human drivers on the road, it's absolutely an issue.
I think the answer here is trusting the engineering of the vehicles themselves. For example, if you were in a slow (50km) speed collision in a 1960's era vehicle, you were taking the steering wheel right in the ****ing chest and stood and excellent chance of not making it out alive. In a 2018 model vehicle though, your odds of a fatality in a 50km crash (all types....intersections are still easily the most dangerous low speed situation) sits somewhere around 5%. The odds of fatality when you put a squishy human in the equation is huge though. About 45% of pedestrians involved in incidents with vehicles travelling 50km die. So I think the moral answer here is for the vehicle to make the decision of rolling the dice in favour of the vehicle protecting the occupant in a collision at any surface road speed, rather than hoping that squishy pedestrians make it through.
Altair
Well-known member
not going to happen. You know why this won't happen? Poor people is why this won't happen. Poor family has their older but well maintained car, can't afford a new 20 thousand dollar AI car. These are the families that jump from one 2 grand car to the next. Insurance rates start rising on them, no fault of their own or their driving, just because they can't afford a new 20 grand AI car. These people will vote for the party that cashes in on the issue and says they will ensure they can get affordable insurance.
Unless you figure out a way for everyone to be able to afford that AI car, its not happening.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
I've addressed this mess already man. You're just wrong here. You're working under this assumption that things will be one way on Tuesday and then boom, change on Wednesday. Adoption will occur over a generation of vehicles, and costs for non adopters will rise the further into that adoption cycle we get. You're literally making the same argument someone would have made in favour of horses on the streets of Manhattan 115 years ago.
In 1905 there was 150,000 working horses on the streets of NYC. By 1922, there was a couple thousand. This will be no different. New autonomous vehicles will become used, they will be bought second half by people further down the economic ladder, those will then get sold again a few years later and before you know it 99% of the vehicles on the road will be autonomous with a few rich ****s, able to afford the significant costs of human driving insurance (likely in tracked vehicles, with limited insurance company liability for driving outside of their safe driving parameters) will be rolling around in their 2035 AMG/M/ or exotic whatevers.
Altair
Well-known member
you are over estimating how fast this will come to pass. 2050,with 2030 as the point where most cars being manufactured are autonomous.
And again, very much grandfathered in. No government is going to make it so the urban poor has to sell their human controlled car because they can't afford insurance or a new car.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Yeah, I don't think you've read anything about tipping points before. This isn't how change happens, people have a misconception that adoption curves happen slowly. They don't.
What is there to grandfather? Governments won't be able to afford stepping in to provide that insurance. Especially when the economically mobile majority of the population will have already adopted the new technology. As I've told you already, the only government insurance schemes that are feasible, exist because automotive insurance is actually profitable today. Take that away and make this insurance "grandfathering" a major drain on public finances and watch how quickly politicians scrap it, if there's ever the will to create it in the first place.
When the **** did poor people start dictating government policy? They vote in lower numbers than any other demographic. If there is public push back, it will be to make urban transit better, faster, etc. Not to prop up their ability to drive beaters around. There's a whole bunch of things that can be done instead of that. Tax credits for turning in your old car, tax credits for adopting autonomous, etc.
Autonomous vehicles aren't going to be prohibitively expensive (there will actually be something resembling price parity). They will represent an absolutely massive value proposition for drivers (cheaper/non existant insurance costs, more free time, less stress, cheaper additional costs like fuel, parking, etc). Insurance companies will slowly adjust the rates that human drivers pay as more people opt for autonomous vehicles which simply won't be involved in at fault accidents at a statistically significant rate, this will slowly make autonomous vehicles even more economical for the next group of mass adopters and within 8-10 years of their launch, they will be the majority...probably the vast majority and they'll have no interest in seeing their tax dollars go to prop up a dying system for the sake of poor people. You're really missing the obvious truths here, probably because you're emotionally attached to driving, as you've admitted already.
The median age of vehicles on the road today is about 11 years old. That's with minimal additional value prop other than slightly better fuel efficiency, infotainement systems, and some reliability benefits due to age alone. The difference in value prop between a 2008 Ford and a 2018 Ford is minimal really. The 2008 does the exact same thing for you that the 2018 does, just short some reliability and comfort. The difference in value prop between the 2028 Ford and the 2018 is going to be a massive, massive gulf. Literally hours of additional free time a week, thousands of dollars a year in operation costs, etc.
Last edited:
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
Yes
I don't agree with Zeke on the bit about cities buying them for people. More likely would be cities putting autonomous ride share companies in monopoly positions like they did for Taxi cabs, and using the additional revenues they're saving from not needing some of the programs Zeke mentioned to develop next generation public transit systems, as well as prioritizing smart system adoption for municipal parking, traffic management, etc.
$20,000? Surely you jest. An AI car will almost invariably be way more than that.