• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Self-driving automobiles

Would you support strictly using self-driving automobiles?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 24.4%
  • No

    Votes: 25 55.6%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 9 20.0%

  • Total voters
    45

Mathematician

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
1,187
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As an applied mathematician and computer scientist, I am curious what percentage of the public would accept the conversion from using human-driven automobiles to self-driving automobiles. The necessary technology is clearly realistic. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost will be relatively the same. Here is just an initial list of benefits of my proposal:
  1. Prevention of DUI
  2. Prevention of accidents due to poor driving skills
  3. Prevention of traffic jams
  4. Potential to increase speed limits
  5. Freedom to focus on other things (child, eating, work, etc.)
  6. Auto-navigation
Some of these even have benefits as a consequence, such as improved fuel efficiency as a result of fewer/no traffic jams. What support or opposition does anyone wish to provide?
 
It would really depend on what the specific system was. How much personalization was available for navigation, route determination, stops along the way, etc...
 
Sounds great, but we'll need smart roads as well as smart cars. And how would legal liability work? No fault to the occupant of a smart car, so the manufacturer of the car or the builder/operator of the the road will be the defendants. Add that to the price tag.

This is a ways off.
 
Smart roads are one way to approach this, but are not necessary. Sensors and GPS would suffice. There is the trade-off that this will remove the need for a truck driver, but many jobs will also be created.
 
Self driving cars on highways and freeways gives you the most benefit and is the easiest to implement. Computers can more easily handle the limited number of variables and most long trips are spent on high speed roads. Cars networked together would also improve traffic flow. I am more skeptical for robots driving streets. Dealing with pedestrians and parking rely on having social knowledge that is very hard to program.
 
It would really depend on what the specific system was. How much personalization was available for navigation, route determination, stops along the way, etc...

I would certainly implement it in a manner which has flexibility to any reasonable extent. Choosing the shortest route to a single or multiple destinations would likely be the most commonly used option. However, you could certainly have a road map and trace a particular route. Similar to GPS, you can either choose a specific address or location/business name. This is only scratches the surface of details.
 
As an applied mathematician and computer scientist, I am curious what percentage of the public would accept the conversion from using human-driven automobiles to self-driving automobiles. The necessary technology is clearly realistic. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost will be relatively the same. Here is just an initial list of benefits of my proposal:
  1. Prevention of DUI
  2. Prevention of accidents due to poor driving skills
  3. Prevention of traffic jams
  4. Potential to increase speed limits
  5. Freedom to focus on other things (child, eating, work, etc.)
  6. Auto-navigation
Some of these even have benefits as a consequence, such as improved fuel efficiency as a result of fewer/no traffic jams. What support or opposition does anyone wish to provide?

I think it would depend on how easy it would be for the actual live driver to take over the vehicle
 
No, I like to drive, and I want to continue driving myself.
 
Under what circumstances would you want/need to do so?

That's a good question and I'm not sure I have the answer yet. I think I would just want to know that I could take control of the vehicle by simply pressing a button .. this way if some kind of technical difficulty occurred, there would be no accidents occurring due to technical glitches and the fallback of human operator could take control.

I am curious .. what would you propose people would do if there were automated vehicles if they wanted to simply enjoy the act of driving?
 
That's a good question and I'm not sure I have the answer yet. I think I would just want to know that I could take control of the vehicle by simply pressing a button .. this way if some kind of technical difficulty occurred, there would be no accidents occurring due to technical glitches and the fallback of human operator could take control.

I am curious .. what would you propose people would do if there were automated vehicles if they wanted to simply enjoy the act of driving?

Those people can apply for NASCAR. Sarcasm aside, the network could monitor which vehicles have auto-drive overridden. Obviously, the driver would then be assuming responsibility for accidents they are involved in.
 
As an applied mathematician and computer scientist, I am curious what percentage of the public would accept the conversion from using human-driven automobiles to self-driving automobiles. The necessary technology is clearly realistic. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost will be relatively the same. Here is just an initial list of benefits of my proposal:
  1. Prevention of DUI
  2. Prevention of accidents due to poor driving skills
  3. Prevention of traffic jams
  4. Potential to increase speed limits
  5. Freedom to focus on other things (child, eating, work, etc.)
  6. Auto-navigation
Some of these even have benefits as a consequence, such as improved fuel efficiency as a result of fewer/no traffic jams. What support or opposition does anyone wish to provide?

Yes, I strongly support self-driving automobiles, and reforming traffic laws to allow it to happen. Nevada has the honorable distinction of being the first state to allow robotic cars to legally drive on public roads. We are long overdue for a new transportation revolution, and the self-driving car will be nearly as revolutionary as the car itself was. I have a few more items to add to your list of benefits:

1. Reduced need for infrastructure (since self-driving cars can safely follow other cars more closely, thus reducing the need for highway real estate).
2. Reduced need for automobile ownership (since you could get immediate door-to-door cab service without the need to pay a human driver, anywhere except the most rural places)
3. Reduced need for parking (because of #2...self-driving cars would work better as cabs than as privately-owned vehicles IMO, so they won't need to sit idle all day while their owners are busy)
4. Greener cars (since they could be programmed to drive in environmentally-friendly ways instead of the gas/brake habits of human drivers which waste fuel)
 
Last edited:
Self driving cars on highways and freeways gives you the most benefit and is the easiest to implement. Computers can more easily handle the limited number of variables and most long trips are spent on high speed roads. Cars networked together would also improve traffic flow. I am more skeptical for robots driving streets. Dealing with pedestrians and parking rely on having social knowledge that is very hard to program.

Google has developed a self-driving car that has driven over 150,000 miles on both highways and city streets in California. It's only had two accidents...and both of those were caused by the other driver. If you're still skeptical about cars driving themselves on streets where there are lots of random variables, I suggest you look up "DARPA Urban Challenge" on YouTube. As early as 2007, there were a few cars that could do this fairly accurately (although they were by no means ready for public release in 2007). Since then, the technology has continued to improve by leaps and bounds.
 
Last edited:
Sounds great, but we'll need smart roads as well as smart cars.

Smart cars can essentially see their surroundings and interpret it to determine what they need to do. Smart roads would be nice too, but aren't essential.

And how would legal liability work? No fault to the occupant of a smart car, so the manufacturer of the car or the builder/operator of the the road will be the defendants. Add that to the price tag.

I suspect that for the first few years after self-driving cars are released (GM and Toyota are both aiming for 2017), they'll still come equipped with a steering wheel and pedals. The human occupant can (and will probably be required to) still monitor the road and take over in case of an emergency. And they'd probably be held liable if they didn't.

After the self-driving cars have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they're better than human drivers (which shouldn't take very many years), then it will be time to reform the liability laws altogether. Since reducing traffic accidents and traffic jams are absolutely in the public interest, the government could provide the auto manufacturers with subsidized insurance against lawsuits resulting from the occasional accident.

This is a ways off.

Not as far as you might think.
 
Been thinking about this for a while now…

I foresee resistance from all the assholes who extort money through speeding traps and red light cameras; expect them to trump up question of safety issues.

I think speed limits will eventually be vastly increased as cities can no longer milk speeders for money and a computer’ millisecond reaction time proves able to handle it safely. If the street lights have road condition sensors and cars share info with each other, would 60MPH be any safer than 100MPH?

We’d see faster accident reaction times, since the car could automatically scream for help a fraction of a second after loosing control. Nearby cars could also report the accident. There’d be no more slow down from people rubber-necking accidents.

Wondering about how this will influence law enforcement. Will society become safer because we no longer need to waste law enforcement resources policing how people drive? Will cops still be justified in randomly stopping people on suspicion of wrong doing when all cars drive perfectly and near-flawlessly safe? How will this influence incidents of “driving while black?”

Will this indirectly inflame alcoholism prevalence by eliminating a major deterrent against it? (DUI charges) Will this reduce the number of deaths by locked-in-car/cooked-to-death that we see each summer?

How much will a self-driving system cost? Will there be economic disparity where only rich people and affluent areas have self-driving cars and SD enabled roads?

This will definitely impact the hospitality industry. Why stay at a hotel when you can nap while letting the car go through the night? Add in the consideration of the average highway speed limit being raised to accommodate computer reaction times, and I think hotels in small cities will go the way of phone booths.
 
As an applied mathematician and computer scientist, I am curious what percentage of the public would accept the conversion from using human-driven automobiles to self-driving automobiles. The necessary technology is clearly realistic. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost will be relatively the same. Here is just an initial list of benefits of my proposal:
  1. Prevention of DUI
  2. Prevention of accidents due to poor driving skills
  3. Prevention of traffic jams
  4. Potential to increase speed limits
  5. Freedom to focus on other things (child, eating, work, etc.)
  6. Auto-navigation
Some of these even have benefits as a consequence, such as improved fuel efficiency as a result of fewer/no traffic jams. What support or opposition does anyone wish to provide?

I've long supported this concept but I have a few major reservations. What you don't mention is where the locus of control resides. Will traffic control be centralized to some facility which will send out commands to the cars or will the control be decentralized with each car making decisions about the situation it faces in it immediate environment?

I fear that a move to self-driving automobiles will be like a honey-pot for hackers and those with some hacking skills who are intent on causing accidents. If someone with bad intent gains control of either a centralized system or other people's decentralized cars, then all hell will break loose. What do you have in mind to maintain system integrity?
 
I have thought about this for a long time. The difference is, I always assumed ALL of the cars would have to be changed into "smart" cars at the same time. I haven't looked into what is being done right now but I will definitely do so when I get more time. Can someone tell me the current cost of making one. I think there will be a lot of resistance from places that will go out of business. Will there be a variety of car models still or will it be a one size fits all. Also, how reliable is it at this point? I brought this topic up to a friend of mine and he was like "You trust computers that much?!?!" I was like of course. I have seen how people drive. Idiots in giant trucks trying to drive over me. College students in such a rush, they are LOOKING to get into an accident. People actually trying to get into an accident for the auto insurance etc. I'm really intrigued by the possibilities but I'm also worried about the problems that would seem to go with it.
 
I've long supported this concept but I have a few major reservations. What you don't mention is where the locus of control resides. Will traffic control be centralized to some facility which will send out commands to the cars or will the control be decentralized with each car making decisions about the situation it faces in it immediate environment?

I fear that a move to self-driving automobiles will be like a honey-pot for hackers and those with some hacking skills who are intent on causing accidents. If someone with bad intent gains control of either a centralized system or other people's decentralized cars, then all hell will break loose. What do you have in mind to maintain system integrity?

That is a GREAT point. Hackers can get into everything nowadays. Its scary!
 
Google has developed a self-driving car that has driven over 150,000 miles on both highways and city streets in California. It's only had two accidents...and both of those were caused by the other driver. If you're still skeptical about cars driving themselves on streets where there are lots of random variables, I suggest you look up "DARPA Urban Challenge" on YouTube. As early as 2007, there were a few cars that could do this fairly accurately (although they were by no means ready for public release in 2007). Since then, the technology has continued to improve by leaps and bounds.

The google car is impressive, but it still has yet to prove itself to the public. I am skeptical the car could handle traffic cops, construction, detours or emergency vehicles without human input. I don't doubt that the issues can be worked out, but it is more practical to start with freeway driving before moving to residential areas.
 
People don't want cars that drive themselves and rob them of the fun of driving and making mistakes with accidents or killing other people, etc. Their refusal to ride mass transit systems is evidence of that.
 
Cool that you're a mathematician and computer scientist! That is totally out of my realm :)

As for your proposal... yes I would support it. In fact, I would say that ownership of cars would not even be necessary if a good transport system could be designed that is disseminated enough to allow a wide range of transport. Unless of course one is going to the country or off the beaten path, but even they could link their car with the automated driving network to get reasonable far.

The fossil fuel industry really did a number on efficient transportation infrastructure in North America. The city I'm living in now, Vancouver, used to have a wide range trolly system all over the city, but it got replaced with paved roads once it was felt that fuelled cars were the future. Gas companies and car companies gave substantial endorsements to city counsellors and that changed the whole game, forever.

Imagine how much fuel we could save with an automated driving network.
 
People don't want cars that drive themselves and rob them of the fun of driving and making mistakes with accidents or killing other people, etc. Their refusal to ride mass transit systems is evidence of that.

People don't refuse to ride mass transit. Mass transit is extremely popular wherever it is convenient (which unfortunately doesn't describe too many US cities). There are a lot fewer people out joyriding than there are people who dread their daily commute to work and would love an alternative where they could get there safely in half the time with no stress, while doing something productive/enjoyable instead of watching the road.

As I see it, driverless cars will probably play out in several steps. The first wave will be when a few enthusiasts buy them and everyone else is skeptical if self-driving cars are safe. The second wave will be when most people want them and they're skeptical if human drivers are safe. The third wave will be when it's obvious to nearly everyone that computers can drive more safely than humans, and states start implementing safety laws restricting human driving. This process might take a couple decades, from the time they first hit the market.
 
Last edited:
As an applied mathematician and computer scientist, I am curious what percentage of the public would accept the conversion from using human-driven automobiles to self-driving automobiles. The necessary technology is clearly realistic. Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost will be relatively the same. Here is just an initial list of benefits of my proposal:
  1. Prevention of DUI
  2. Prevention of accidents due to poor driving skills
  3. Prevention of traffic jams
  4. Potential to increase speed limits
  5. Freedom to focus on other things (child, eating, work, etc.)
  6. Auto-navigation
Some of these even have benefits as a consequence, such as improved fuel efficiency as a result of fewer/no traffic jams. What support or opposition does anyone wish to provide?

It's a great idea, with most of the technology readily available now, however it is illegal in all 50 states(iirc).
 
While I like the idea of being able to do something else during my 2.5 hours a day in the car to and from work, the idea of sitting at the wheel of a car doing 80 and not being in control of it would make me real nervous.
 
While I like the idea of being able to do something else during my 2.5 hours a day in the car to and from work, the idea of sitting at the wheel of a car doing 80 and not being in control of it would make me real nervous.

You'd get used to it.

They have cars that parallel park for people and warn of potential accidents, only a matter of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom