If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   "The car that will take you home after you have had too much to drink is a long way off," he said. "But is that what we really want?" Subby says yes   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 48
    More: Cool, legal risk, driverless car, privacy issues, cars  
•       •       •

849 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jan 2014 at 10:02 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-16 09:06:29 AM
Yes, Subby, I concur.

The rise of the machines is inevitable; we may as well enjoy the ride.
 
2014-01-16 09:11:17 AM
They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs".
 
2014-01-16 09:12:38 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs".


came here to say this, leaving as soon as my ride arrives
 
2014-01-16 09:29:27 AM
It's happening whether you want it to or not, a few easy reasons:

Trucking companies save tens of thousands of dollars a year vs paying a human driver.

Taxi companies save tens of thousands of dollars a year vs paying a human driver.

Provides disabled/elderly individuals with mobility.

Insurance premiums will be way lower for things like company fleets.

Insurance incentives will be there for private individuals as well.
 
2014-01-16 09:56:04 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs" horses.

 
2014-01-16 09:57:18 AM
Something tells me MADD will have a problem with this
 
2014-01-16 10:06:22 AM
My work computer has crashed 3 times this week, so I'm really getting a kick out of the infallibility of modern technology.
 
2014-01-16 10:10:52 AM

BunkoSquad: My work computer has crashed 3 times this week, so I'm really getting a kick out of the infallibility of modern technology.


Stop downloading Bonzi Buddy
 
2014-01-16 10:12:32 AM

BunkoSquad: My work computer has crashed 3 times this week, so I'm really getting a kick out of the infallibility of modern technology.


And given Toyota's legal problems with the unverified "uncontrolled acceleration" issue, imagine the liabilities for a company that sells self-driving cars to the general public. There will be a class-action lawsuit within 6 months.
 
2014-01-16 10:13:38 AM
This is inevitable and in all honesty we should have waited for self-driving cars before we ever popularized them. It's absurd to trust millions of human beings with driving cars around. But driving is fun so wheeeeeee!
 
2014-01-16 10:13:38 AM

the_rhino: Stop downloading Bonzi Buddy


NEVAR
 
2014-01-16 10:24:37 AM
If you could replace even half the drivers on the road -maybe even just 1/4 of them- with systems programmed to go when the light turns green, to merge properly, and to refrain from slowing down around accidents and other spectacles, you would improve the whole region's quality of life by so much that the Nobel committee should consider creating a prize for it.
 
2014-01-16 10:31:28 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs".


I've heard of them.  They're said to be more reliable than "cop cars," which probably won't take you home.
 
2014-01-16 10:34:34 AM

BunkoSquad: My work computer has crashed 3 times this week, so I'm really getting a kick out of the infallibility of modern technology.


I strongly suggest you never get on a passenger jet if you have such little faith in modern technology.

cdn.static.ovimg.com

/because the pilots are hammered.
 
2014-01-16 10:37:28 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs".


I'd trust a computer more than the taxi drivers around here.  Your car is present, available, if it runs out of gas in the worst possible neighborhood it is your own damn fault, and if it doesn't hey both you and your car are home.
 
2014-01-16 10:39:33 AM

Millennium: If you could replace even half the drivers on the road -maybe even just 1/4 of them- with systems programmed to go when the light turns green, to merge properly, and to refrain from slowing down around accidents and other spectacles, you would improve the whole region's quality of life by so much that the Nobel committee should consider creating a prize for it.


I remember reading (probably over a decade ago) traffic modeling suggested that if only 13% of cars had adaptive cruise control, it would nearly eliminate traffic jams.
 
2014-01-16 11:14:00 AM

SewerSquirrels: Millennium: If you could replace even half the drivers on the road -maybe even just 1/4 of them- with systems programmed to go when the light turns green, to merge properly, and to refrain from slowing down around accidents and other spectacles, you would improve the whole region's quality of life by so much that the Nobel committee should consider creating a prize for it.

I remember reading (probably over a decade ago) traffic modeling suggested that if only 13% of cars had adaptive cruise control, it would nearly eliminate traffic jams.


This.  I know completely self driving cars are a long way off but something like ACC would help tremendously.  I hit a huge snag of traffic every morning because people don't realize they need to accelerate to go up a hill.  So suddenly, cars in all 3 lanes almost come to a stop until the person floors it.
 
2014-01-16 11:19:04 AM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Something tells me MADD will have a problem with this


Of this I am certain.
 
2014-01-16 11:34:17 AM

SewerSquirrels: Millennium: If you could replace even half the drivers on the road -maybe even just 1/4 of them- with systems programmed to go when the light turns green, to merge properly, and to refrain from slowing down around accidents and other spectacles, you would improve the whole region's quality of life by so much that the Nobel committee should consider creating a prize for it.

I remember reading (probably over a decade ago) traffic modeling suggested that if only 13% of cars had adaptive cruise control, it would nearly eliminate traffic jams.


Or how about a federal tax incentive to get companies to setup remote work from home. That way we save on oil/gas consumption, less traffic congestion, infrastructure is less used etc, It has always seemed like such a no brainer. The only downside I guess would be less tolls
 
2014-01-16 11:37:23 AM
Get a horse, yah stinkin' Rummies!

Well, there's something I bet that nobody has said for a while.
 
2014-01-16 11:37:45 AM

SewerSquirrels: BunkoSquad: My work computer has crashed 3 times this week, so I'm really getting a kick out of the infallibility of modern technology.

I strongly suggest you never get on a passenger jet if you have such little faith in modern technology.

[cdn.static.ovimg.com image 391x300]

/because the pilots are hammered.


The computer lands better than a human can.
 
2014-01-16 12:17:39 PM

Skunkwolf: The computer lands better than a human can.


Not in a heavy crosswind.

upload.wikimedia.org

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2014-01-16 12:32:48 PM
Meh, if you are worried about hackers taking control of your car while you are in it, just carry a knife with a 6" blade to cut your seat belt off and a tomahawk, rock hammer, or pick to break out a window so you can bail out.
 
2014-01-16 12:38:21 PM

kindms: SewerSquirrels: Millennium: If you could replace even half the drivers on the road -maybe even just 1/4 of them- with systems programmed to go when the light turns green, to merge properly, and to refrain from slowing down around accidents and other spectacles, you would improve the whole region's quality of life by so much that the Nobel committee should consider creating a prize for it.

I remember reading (probably over a decade ago) traffic modeling suggested that if only 13% of cars had adaptive cruise control, it would nearly eliminate traffic jams.

Or how about a federal tax incentive to get companies to setup remote work from home. That way we save on oil/gas consumption, less traffic congestion, infrastructure is less used etc, It has always seemed like such a no brainer. The only downside I guess would be less tolls


Remote work makes a lot of sense from the employer side as well, such as not having to invest in real-estate or furniture for you. The problem is that it is a little on the tedious side to manage that the work is getting done in some instances. Our office functions on collaboration and brief meetings continually throughout the day. You can of course do this with Skype etc and screen sharing software, IMs, email, and the phone however. When you deal in paper documents however, this becomes a little more difficult. We consult customers all the time on working habits, and this is one of the single most cost-savings strategies they can have, and generally employees seem to be more productive since they can be more flexible. We typically see anywhere between 10-25% increase in the amount of time worked as they no longer have to commute. Morale seems to improve significantly as well.
 
2014-01-16 12:40:08 PM
How would liability work in the case of self-driving cars? What happens when you have both self-driving vehicles and ones operated by a person? Is the "driver" of the self-driving vehicle still liable for any accident that occurs?
 
2014-01-16 12:41:00 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Something tells me MADD will have a problem with this


It would be interesting to see if they have a dollar threshold to STFU.

/sort of like looking through the Neiman-Marcus catalog for pricetags
 
2014-01-16 12:48:30 PM

the money is in the banana stand: How would liability work in the case of self-driving cars? What happens when you have both self-driving vehicles and ones operated by a person? Is the "driver" of the self-driving vehicle still liable for any accident that occurs?


Same thing that happens when I get rear ended by some idiot who can't find the brake: No Fault! (grumble grumble)
 
2014-01-16 01:08:03 PM

SewerSquirrels: the money is in the banana stand: How would liability work in the case of self-driving cars? What happens when you have both self-driving vehicles and ones operated by a person? Is the "driver" of the self-driving vehicle still liable for any accident that occurs?

Same thing that happens when I get rear ended by some idiot who can't find the brake: No Fault! (grumble grumble)


Let's say you are in a self-driving vehicle and you end up rear-ending someone. Is that your fault or would that be the manufacturer of the technology? What if the technology was working correctly and correctly maintained, but the driver cut you off which caused the accident? There is no way that any car dealer, manufacturer, or self-driving technology manufacturer would ever agree to be held liable for their equipment malfunctioning. Who on earth would trust the technology to always work also and be held responsible for a machine?
 
2014-01-16 01:17:35 PM

factoryconnection: Rev. Skarekroe: They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs".

I'd trust a computer more than the taxi drivers around here.  Your car is present, available, if it runs out of gas in the worst possible neighborhood it is your own damn fault, and if it doesn't hey both you and your car are home.


I don't know where you live, but in the DC area we have the worst cab drivers I've ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

Driverless cab rides home can't come fast enough.
 
2014-01-16 01:38:14 PM
Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?
 
2014-01-16 01:56:51 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Something tells me MADD will have a problem with this


Most likely.  MADD is a teetotaler group that masquerades as an anti-drunk driving group.
 
2014-01-16 01:58:54 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?


Your 150 year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.
 
2014-01-16 02:00:03 PM

the money is in the banana stand: SewerSquirrels: the money is in the banana stand: How would liability work in the case of self-driving cars? What happens when you have both self-driving vehicles and ones operated by a person? Is the "driver" of the self-driving vehicle still liable for any accident that occurs?

Same thing that happens when I get rear ended by some idiot who can't find the brake: No Fault! (grumble grumble)

Let's say you are in a self-driving vehicle and you end up rear-ending someone. Is that your fault or would that be the manufacturer of the technology? What if the technology was working correctly and correctly maintained, but the driver cut you off which caused the accident? There is no way that any car dealer, manufacturer, or self-driving technology manufacturer would ever agree to be held liable for their equipment malfunctioning. Who on earth would trust the technology to always work also and be held responsible for a machine?


The way the laws are written right now -- it's your fault. You are still responsible for driving the vehicle.
 
2014-01-16 02:02:11 PM

meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 200year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.


Sorry, the Luddites were 1812.  For some reason I thought they were around 1850.
 
2014-01-16 02:25:06 PM

meanmutton: meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 200year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.

Sorry, the Luddites were 1812.  For some reason I thought they were around 1850.


So, structural unemployment is a myth?   Limit unemployment to 6 weeks.  There's always some new technology somewhere.    Stupid argument ignores the fact that most of the highest priced vehicles are designed for the pleasure of personally driving at speeds still less that the mag-lev trains we don't want to invest in here.   Many of the immigrants ion America drive cabs because they belong to cultures where being a small business person is more desirable than working for a corporation.   Automated cabs will not be a source of income for them.   Replacing all vehicles with automated ones is right there with flying cars and hover boards.   We'll be well past the time its predicted to occur without seeing them in the future.
 
2014-01-16 02:31:07 PM
The manufacturers are going to be held liable for all problems when something goes wrong, right?
 
2014-01-16 03:07:47 PM

meanmutton: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Something tells me MADD will have a problem with this

Most likely.  MADD is a cash cow for cops, lawyers, politicians, judges, and anyone connected with them that masquerades as a teetotaler group that masquerades as an anti-drunk driving group.

/ftfy
 
2014-01-16 03:11:08 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: meanmutton: meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 200year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.

Sorry, the Luddites were 1812.  For some reason I thought they were around 1850.

So, structural unemployment is a myth?   Limit unemployment to 6 weeks.  There's always some new technology somewhere.    Stupid argument ignores the fact that most of the highest priced vehicles are designed for the pleasure of personally driving at speeds still less that the mag-lev trains we don't want to invest in here.   Many of the immigrants ion America drive cabs because they belong to cultures where being a small business person is more desirable than working for a corporation.   Automated cabs will not be a source of income for them.   Replacing all vehicles with automated ones is right there with flying cars and hover boards.   We'll be well past the time its predicted to occur without seeing them in the future.


Talk about stupid arguments. You're comparing individual, personalized transportation on your schedule to mass transit and suggesting that we forgo potentially life saving and certainly traffic reducing advancements so immigrants can have a "more desirable" job. But yeah, his argument that has been repeatedly validated hundreds of times throughout history is stupid.
 
2014-01-16 03:20:59 PM

Uncontrolled_Jibe: meanmutton: meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 200year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.

Sorry, the Luddites were 1812.  For some reason I thought they were around 1850.

So, structural unemployment is a myth?   Limit unemployment to 6 weeks.  There's always some new technology somewhere.    Stupid argument ignores the fact that most of the highest priced vehicles are designed for the pleasure of personally driving at speeds still less that the mag-lev trains we don't want to invest in here.   Many of the immigrants ion America drive cabs because they belong to cultures where being a small business person is more desirable than working for a corporation.   Automated cabs will not be a source of income for them.   Replacing all vehicles with automated ones is right there with flying cars and hover boards.   We'll be well past the time its predicted to occur without seeing them in the future.


Ok, we get it! Finally.

We should all put up with shiatty service and stifle progress because some immigrants prefer to be business owners rather than work in the corporate world, and GOD KNOWS that is what we should be worried about.  Do you people even KNOW how many steam locomotive firemen you've put out of work with your *spit* AIRPLANES?!

/perhaps got trolled
//if so, good job with the high priced vehicles thing as I can't begin to figure that out
///supports high speed rail
 
2014-01-16 03:23:08 PM
the money is in the banana stand:
Let's say you are in a self-driving vehicle and you end up rear-ending someone. Is that your fault or would that be the manufacturer of the technology? What if the technology was working correctly and correctly maintained, but the driver cut you off which caused the accident? There is no way that any car dealer, manufacturer, or self-driving technology manufacturer would ever agree to be held liable for their equipment malfunctioning. Who on earth would trust the technology to always work also and be held responsible for a machine?

Well, the way I envision it, the driver would be liable up until the insurance companies start seeing a pattern at which point there would most likely be a class action law suit as well as a recall. Keep in mind there will still have to be someone tending the vehicle until the technology evolves to the point that no one is needed (probably around the time we have flying cars).
 
2014-01-16 03:42:44 PM

Hexsun: Uncontrolled_Jibe: .
So, structural unemployment is a myth?   Limit unemployment to 6 weeks.  There's always some new technology somewhere.    Stupid argument ignores the fact that most of the highest priced vehicles are designed for the pleasure of personally driving at speeds still less that the mag-lev trains we don't want to invest in here.   Many of the immigrants ion America drive cabs because they belong to cultures where being a small business person is more desirable than working for a corporation.   Automated cabs will not be a source of income for them.   Replacing all vehicles with automated ones is right there with flying cars and hover boards.   We'll be well past the time its predicted to occur without seeing them in the future.

Talk about stupid arguments. You're comparing individual, personalized transportation on your schedule to mass transit and suggesting that we forgo potentially life saving and certainly traffic reducing advancements so immigrants can have a "more desirable" job. But yeah, his argument that has been repeatedly validated hundreds of times throughout history is stupid.


Last time I was in Oregon I got chewed out for trying to fill my own gas tank. Apparently the state requires gas stations to use attendants. They have the same card reading pumps as anywhere else. You have to pay more for gas so somebody can work a pointless job instead of spending the money on someone who does something useful (like a bar tender or an exotic dancer for example). I'll never understand that.
 
2014-01-16 03:53:34 PM

Fubini: It's happening whether you want it to or not, a few easy reasons:

Trucking companies save tens of thousands of dollars a year vs paying a human driver.

Taxi companies save tens of thousands of dollars a year vs paying a human driver.

Provides disabled/elderly individuals with mobility.

Insurance premiums will be way lower for things like company fleets.

Insurance incentives will be there for private individuals as well.


Insurance premiums will drive (sorry) the change

First step will be dearer (or no) policies unless you install a dashcam and a black box which monitors all your driving - and if you have an accident and you're not 'driving like a girl', you aren't covered.

That will extend to much dearer policies unless you have a fully sensored car with active controls on braking, acceleration, speeds, separation etc.

Finally you will have to buy permits to drive an 'uncontrolled' car, and they will get steadily more expensive and restrictive as to where and when you can drive
 
2014-01-16 03:57:28 PM

Slaves2Darkness: Meh, if you are worried about hackers taking control of your car while you are in it, just carry a knife with a 6" blade to cut your seat belt off and a tomahawk, rock hammer, or pick to break out a window so you can bail out.


http://bitsofbooks.com/halting-state.html

Charles Stross story with driverless cabs in Edinborough taken over by Chinese hackers for assassination
 
2014-01-16 04:09:55 PM

meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.


True as far as it goes, though with a counterpoint: the new jobs added tend strongly to be higher-skill than the ones replaced. That tends fairly strongly to lock out the people whose jobs got replaced.
 
2014-01-16 04:47:28 PM

Millennium: meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.

True as far as it goes, though with a counterpoint: the new jobs added tend strongly to be higher-skill than the ones replaced. That tends fairly strongly to lock out the people whose jobs got replaced.


No one ever mandated the replacement of the steam locomotive, or the typewriter, and I'm not saying you can't run around like the lard buckets in Wall-E, but you are suggesting that we forcibly restructure transportation, because command economies have worked out so well so far.   This is not technically equivalent to seat belts or tire pressure sensors.   You might as well mandate the end of personal transportation.   I have a feeling you'd be in favor of that anyway.
 
2014-01-16 04:48:52 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: They have those now.  They're called "taxicabs".


Taxicabs are how you do it after getting caught.

ReverendJynxed: The manufacturers are going to be held liable for all problems when something goes wrong, right?


All reasonably foreseeable problems  Unless product liability laws have changed, why wouldn't they?  Companies get sued all the time.  It's Uncle Sam who can fark you over with little consequence.
 
2014-01-17 08:31:48 AM

meanmutton: Uncontrolled_Jibe: Because the problem we have to worry about is too FEW people unemployed right now?

Your 150 year old argument has been repeatedly disproven empirically. Every time a new technology comes out that "puts people out of work" it results in more jobs, not fewer.


I hate to pile on (I'm also lie when polite to do so) but we can, with enough technology, reach a point where we are able to satisfy all of our social needs with a small portion of the population.  As long as there is an adequate social welfare infrastructure in place so that those who are no longer required to work can receive a comfortable living arrangement, and those who choose to work (or are talented enough to get the few remaining jobs) can experience the rewards of their effort, then I can be fine with that.

It's the consistent lack of provision for the unemployable plus the delusion that everyone must work in order for society to survive that causes that particular argument ("Automation is taking our jobs") to be relevant.
 
2014-01-17 01:21:00 PM

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Something tells me MADD will have a problem with this


I was going to say they'd not have new members as the risk fades, but then again they've managed to make the BAC standards absurdly low as it is...
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report