Philosophy Now Forum

According to an article I recently read, Google now says that by comparison, there are 23% fewer accidents in their automated cars than the general population (I think this refers to California).

Being that Google would try to put themselves in the best light as possible makes this questionable, but assume for the time being it may be true as it gives us a place to start. I also read a claim that driverless cars would use less parking space (how?) I have more questions to raise.

If all of the US/world were driverless, does that mean there would be no more accidents as yet another article suggests? My answer would be no because they can suffer mechanical breakdown plus there's still the human factor of pedestrians and bicyclists (would a car swerve to avoid hitting a person only to run into another?) So the question should be as mentioned in my topic title - if driverless cars would be safer than human-driven ones. For me the jury is still be out and I want to see data from a government authority about this, not Google.

Another article criticicized the study saying the percent of driverless miles is less than 1% of human-driven miles. This criticism is invalid because from statistics, that field says it's the size of the sample that matters and not the percentage. So let me ask you what would be a convincing sample? If the accident rate were reduced by only say 5%, would you still favor driverless cars?

It's actually anticipated that this very important technology will be going mainstream in a few years (currently three states in the US allow it and California is starting to regulate it). This doesn't mean there won't be local pockets or resistance as I'm sure there will be. And maybe more issues would arise.

Do you have any thoughts to add?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:According to an article I recently read, Google now says that by comparison, there are 23% fewer accidents in their automated cars than the general population (I think this refers to California).

Do you have any thoughts to add?

PhilX

Yes, if you were not so stupid you would realise that these numbers are meaningless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:According to an article I recently read, Google now says that by comparison, there are 23% fewer accidents in their automated cars than the general population (I think this refers to California).

Do you have any thoughts to add?

PhilX

Yes, if you were not so stupid you would realise that these numbers are meaningless.

As per usual, your brains are stuck up your ass since you didn't read the OP well enough. But I suppose I should expect that from someone who lives off of illegal drugs.

PhilX

This article came out today. Would its information be enough to ban driverless cars?:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... an-control

PhilX

I'll trust a vehicle designed by engineers and programmers over years of trial and error and tweaking FAR MORE than some idiot who barely passed their driver's test and thinks their text convo is more important than watching the road. Furthermore, I could use the 40 minute drive to/from work to catch up on sleep or a million other things rather than having to drive myself. I could take road trips overnight and instead of getting to my destination drowsy and in need of sleep I'll be wide awake having slept on the way there.

Obviously, at this point the tech isn't perfect but I'd rather have a machine drive a car than 3/4 of the clowns I pass every day.

BigWhit wrote:I'll trust a vehicle designed by engineers and programmers over years of trial and error and tweaking FAR MORE than some idiot who barely passed their driver's test and thinks their text convo is more important than watching the road. Furthermore, I could use the 40 minute drive to/from work to catch up on sleep or a million other things rather than having to drive myself. I could take road trips overnight and instead of getting to my destination drowsy and in need of sleep I'll be wide awake having slept on the way there.

Obviously, at this point the tech isn't perfect but I'd rather have a machine drive a car than 3/4 of the clowns I pass every day.

You sound convinced already, but I'm sure others aren't. Maybe I should have worded the topic title question "What would convince you driverless cars are safe?" There are many conveniences/advantages I haven't even touched upon, e.g. grocery deliveries, saving on taxi costs, etc., but for me it's not worth endangering people if that's the result. Currently the main media has avoided this topic which would be news to many, but at some point the newspapers and airwaves will explode with coverage.

PhilX

There has been an article that asks if auto-cars should suicide the driver in order to save a lot of school children on the road, a philosophical question, but by that there might be a future problem with safety for the driver.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
You sound convinced already, but I'm sure others aren't. Maybe I should have worded the topic title question "What would convince you driverless cars are safe?" There are many conveniences/advantages I haven't even touched upon, e.g. grocery deliveries, saving on taxi costs, etc., but for me it's not worth endangering people if that's the result. Currently the main media has avoided this topic which would be news to many, but at some point the newspapers and airwaves will explode with coverage.

PhilX

I fail to see how a self driving car that references multiple highly accurate sensors with extreme precision and relentless attention could be more dangerous than an aloof driver of a 3 ton SUV driving down the freeway at 80mph while paying more attention to their frappe and phone than the road ahead of them. Hell, every single accident the google SDCs have been involved in were the fault of a person driven vehicle. Even according to that article you posted of the 10 incidents requiring a manual takeover for safety reasons that would have resulted in the car striking an object 2 of them were cones. I'd ask anyone to drive 1.3 million miles with the record they have especially in California traffic.

As for the SDC "sacrificing" it's driver to save others I don't get why it's a big deal. If the SDC comes to the same conclusion any self respecting and life valuing human would if behind the wheel then I fail to see why this is a big deal. If I had the choice between running my car into a pole or running over school kids I'd pick the pole even if it meant my death. I fail to see how an SDC doing the same thing is some kind of ethical dillemma.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Do you have any thoughts to add?
PhilX

A SDC might have fewer accidents, but when one does occur (and something will go wrong, as it does with anything designed by men) it will be worse because of the higher speeds and more cars traveling closer together.

BigWhit wrote: As for the SDC "sacrificing" it's driver to save others I don't get why it's a big deal. If the SDC comes to the same conclusion any self respecting and life valuing human would if behind the wheel then I fail to see why this is a big deal. If I had the choice between running my car into a pole or running over school kids I'd pick the pole even if it meant my death. I fail to see how an SDC doing the same thing is some kind of ethical dillemma.

The problem comes down to "how does a computer recognize what is a human being and what is not?" I have wrestled with this question and it is not as easy to write such a description as you might think, due to the variability of living human beings. Humans do it but humans have learned over many years and the human brain is much more complex, about such things, than any computer.

thedoc wrote:The problem comes down to "how does a computer recognize what is a human being and what is not?"

I occasionally have this problem myself, and there are still a few I'm a bit unsure about, but programming a computer to make the distinction would not be difficult.

The technology still has a long way to go but progress seems to be very rapid and I'm in no doubt that driverless cars will ultimately lead to better road safety outcomes. However this doesn't mean that there won't be accidents and the real problem with the idea might ultimately be a legal one. If something goes wrong whose fault is it?

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Do you have any thoughts to add?
PhilX

A SDC might have fewer accidents, but when one does occur (and something will go wrong, as it does with anything designed by men) it will be worse because of the higher speeds and more cars traveling closer together.

From what I read Doc, the SDCs are set to go within the speed limit if you're referring to those cars. If you're referring to human driven, then there could still be a problem since humans love to exceed the speed limit.

How do you figure more cars traveling closer together (which by the way usually occurs in slower traffic)?

PhilX

I'd imagine that programming such cars to stick to the speed limit and maintain a safe distance from each other would be one of the easiest features of all to incorporate into the software. Getting the idea to take hold inside a human skull is a different matter.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Do you have any thoughts to add?
PhilX

A SDC might have fewer accidents, but when one does occur (and something will go wrong, as it does with anything designed by men) it will be worse because of the higher speeds and more cars traveling closer together.

From what I read Doc, the SDCs are set to go within the speed limit if you're referring to those cars. If you're referring to human driven, then there could still be a problem since humans love to exceed the speed limit.

How do you figure more cars traveling closer together (which by the way usually occurs in slower traffic)?

PhilX

A few years ago I saw a video about this and they were proposing special lanes where the SDC's could drive at a faster speed that other cars, they also showed a line of cars traveling at high speeds within one car length between each car in the line, hardly maintaining a safe distance between cars.

If the SDC's are set to maintain existing speed limits and safe following distances, they could be safer than existing human driven cars.

One problem I can see, and it happens now, a human driven car will cut into the line of SDC's that are maintaining a safe distance. When I drive across the South Bridge in Hbg Pa. other drivers will drive at 70 MPH with only a few car length between them and if you try to leave a safe distance, someone will cut into the space and there goes your safe following distance. I believe this is common during rush hour, and even when traffic is not so heavy.

I think the idea is that where driverless cars are using the same roads as other vehicles then they will follow the same rules (except do so better). Elon Musk is working on the idea of a complete redesign of road infrastructure which would be exclusive to driverless vehicles ONLY. I'd imagine that within such a system it would be possible for vehicles to travel both faster and closer together but I doubt if one could then have a manual over-ride in them where some creative halfwit could take over if he reckons he could it better. I hesitate to use the word "foolproof" but Musk's speculative vision could be made extraordinarily safe and remarkably energy efficient if the entire network was electrified.