Self-Driving Vehicles Will Cause Countless Avoidable Deaths, Say No America!

You'll note that I wrote "accidents", since not every accident leads to a fatality and injuries are much more common that fatalities, even permanent injuries.

The number of injuries is close to 200 per 100 miles driven; almost 175 times the fatal injury rate.

Any statistician would toss that out. And, what is the injury rate? There should be at least 20 non-fatal injuries in that 10 million miles.

Unless you can point out the 50 crashes and 20 injuries by self-driving cars in your 10 million miles assumption, then it would be honest to conclude that self-driving vehicles are safer in two very important categories.

And, they are only going to get better. They will get smarter. Humans won't. In fact, as humans get older, the accident rate goes up, and there are a lot of humans approaching their 70's and 80's and even 90's.

I've never called for self-driving cars to replace all cars "now" or any time soon. So you blast out the ad hominem based on your ridiculous strawman?
Fair enough. Just don't whine when I sling your mud right back at you.

Anyway, what the hell does this have to do with ideology or is it that you are trying to protect luddism and would prefer that we all live in caves?

I see. It's only a boondoggle when it's something you don't want. If it's one of your sacred cows, then all the subsidies in the world aren't enough, I'm sure.

You have no problem with picking taxpayer pockets. It's the competition that you can't stand. That's typical of all worshipers of state power who believe that their ends justify the means and the ends of the others are "evil" and "boondoggles."

Scary. I quiver in fear. Gummint save me!!!!

Most downtown parking is disappearing. It's needed to build new residential and commercial spaces in order to lower rents. Or is it that you like high rents and young people being priced out of their homes? Sorry, Ned, the world, it changes. i'm surprised that you call yourself a liberal considering how afraid you are of progress and that you would base all policy on fear.

 

I'd much rather you don't - if I didn't understand your earlier 'explanation' because English isn't your first language, it's hardly likely I'll understand it a second time.

 

I think you'll find there are human beings in most ATC towers?

 

Theory is one thing, but it won't work in practice - trust me on that. There would also be the problem of a transition period from normal vehicles to autonomous ones to overcome, and unless it all happened in one day, that won't be easy either.

 

All the human does is look at the screen and give instructions to the pilot. The whole screen is controlled by computers which are communicating with the many on board plane computers, warning of potential collisions along with the computer controlled radar systems

 

Integration is the only issue. We don't really care if someone wishes to crash their car into a concrete median as long as they don't involve others.

Of course technology will prevail over idiot humans! But the time required in this issue to make the global changes will be many decades.

Fact; When we integrate hundreds of millions of one-ton+ speeding vehicles with a couple hundred million pedestrians and thousands of bicycles and other road obstacles, in which many of them at any given time are oblivious, and throw in some weather conditions and substance abuse, etc. etc. we will forever and always have accidents no matter what technology is used...

 

Interesting point about speed. I hadn't thought of that.

Today, some roads have speed limits for trucks that are different than speed limits for cars. Also, we have "carpool" lanes.

I think there will be huge pressure to share space. But, the advantage may well go toward the automated vehicle in some cases.

 

Isn't that what is being tested in many cities today?

The fundamental theory is that the automated vehicles must be able to pass the test on current roads with current usage.

I doubt anyone knows how fast automated vehicles will be adopted. And, I do NOT believe that standard owner-driven vehicles are going away.

 

Automated vehicles can go upwards of 100mph (faster, perhaps) with just inches between vehicles. It increases efficiency and reduces fuel use.

Already convoys of automated trucks are traveling across Europe, led by a single, human-driven truck. It will probably be in the US, soon.

 

Pootling along in city streets at 20mph isn't quite the same as hurtling along main roads at circa 80mph is it; and at that lower speed, if there's a head-on collision in Regent Street or Fifth Avenue, everyone involved will brush themselves down and walk the rest of the way to their destination? Why do I need to explain that to you?

Well like I said - theorising and practicality are different animals?

There is no way autonomous and regular traffic can be mixed. I mean just try to imagine it - there would be chaos on our roads.

 

on board sensors on both vehicles communicating with each other would be a better judge of closing speed and whether it's safe to pass than humans are capable of...I'd admit doing so would require a leap of faith that would make me uneasy the first hundred times or so...but then again I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been killed by human controlled vehicles in that same situation...

 

Freeway driving may be the easier challenge for automation, because of the work we've done to reduce the accident rate for human drivers.

I'm assuming this isn't actually a question.

There are self driving cars on the roads today in certain cities.

I don't see it causing chaos.

 

chaos is what I encounter everyday with humans behind the wheel, taking evasive action is part of my required skills to avoid idiots...I welcome sharing the road with AI, I know it won't do anything impulsive, signal when lane changing, keep up with traffic flow, run yellow or red lights, blast through stop signs, make illegal U turns...it won't text, apply makeup, or have lunch while moving...I could go on and on but you get the point, pick the infraction and AI won't be doing them...bring on the AI overlord!

 

A-fing-MEN!

Yesterday I made the mistake of going through this one intersection on a one-way street that is three lanes wide in Seattle where people routinely turn left out of the middle lane even when the left lane is totally blitzed.

It's a constant high traffic zone, so people don't want to be in the slower left lane. There is a nearby freeway onramp and traffic gets backed up during rush hour.

SO, numerous drivers simply count on being able to cut folks off at the intersection - like it was the way traffic is supposed to work!!!

 

Then post the accident rates. If your cars are so safe, such data should be easy to find. You're the one making the claim of the miracle safety of your magic cars. Back it up. Don't tell me to do your research.

Don't project. You're the one asking for taxpayer money here, not me.

Again, I don't care if your corporate heroes want to lose money on their new toys that don't work very well. Go on, invest your money with them. They'll gladly take it, and laugh all the way to the bank. Just don't ask me to subsidize it.

You libertarian cultists certainly do get angry when your gubmint subsidies are threatened. I get it. Your motto is and always has been "socialize the risk, privatize the profits". You shouldn't be surprised that others consider that to be immoral. If you believe your endeavor is profitable, then take all the risk yourself. Don't keep asking us to bail you out.

As that all has nothing to do with self-driving cars, it obviously means you couldn't address the problems with your utopian future.

Self-driving cars make traffic worse because they drive like someone's gramma. They also cause accidents that way, which the makers handwave away as "See! It wasn't our fault! They hit us!". Except it is their fault, if it's a predictable pattern, even if the other driver is technically the one who hit them.

And again, self-driving cars will cause more traffic to be on the streets, because of people sending cars back home and circling around the block.

And they do nothing about parking, as people who own a car still need to park it, self-driving or not. Ride-sharing and self-driving cars are separate issues.

 

I'm more interested in whether the trend is toward fewer crashes rather than the numbers over time. That would make more sense, as the idea of testing is to improve and refine. Had all humans had your mindset in the early 20th century, we'd still be using horses for transportation and the world would be covered in horse dung.

https://futurism.com/new-study-shows-autonomous-cars-are-becoming-safer/

Speaking of projecting. When have I asked for taxpayer money? Point out one single thread where I've ever suggested government money ought to go to anything. At all. I'm as anti-state as they come.

No, because you want me to subsidize your favorite things and pay for your morals to be shoved down the throats of others. Statists are selfish hypocrites, i don't expect you to be any different.

 

It was, in the sense of 'do you remember my posting it previously'. Anyway forget it.

 

I think government should help self-driving car developments by painting roads with some kind of magnetic paint, which should be used by self-driving cars for guidance and as additional dimension for their computers to correct the path and speed. Many cities and towns already install reflectors on road lanes - why not paint with magnetic paint to assist the car? You can even imprint magnetic codes into those lanes that would work like magnetic tape.

 

In bold above...they're called trains...

 

Just remember that any wireless system that can communicate broadly between vehicles and control centers can be hacked and altered for evil deeds...or just simply fail from time to time...

Also thinking taggers will have fun with magnetic paint...

 

You are forgetting about mechanical failures, and that speed and tiny safety margin would result in numerous fatalities.
I responded to many traffic accidents in my time with E.M.S. and Automation is no guarantee of road safety.

 

Uh, no, you will not be in charge of the technologies, people with real expertise will design those systems with proper informational credentials built in to road information to authenticate.

Redundant systems safeguard against failure.

 

It's a bit incredulous for you to believe there won't be any failures? Everything has the potential to fail. Why do we every week hear about more hacking of credit cards and personal information? Even though this information is 'supposed' to be secure?