• 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
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a great idea, with most of the technology readily available now, however it is illegal in all 50 states(iirc).
Click to expand...

It's legal in California, at least for R&D purposes. Google has a fleet of computer-driven cars that are driving around public roads in California and have logged over a million miles altogether, apparently extremely successfully.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You'd get used to it.

They have cars that parallel park for people and warn of potential accidents, only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'd get used to it eventually, but I wouldn't be one of the early adopters. I'd definitely wait until the technology had been proven for a few years.
 
RiverDad said:
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?
Click to expand...

We can minimize the potential impact of a hacker by having the control reside within the vehicle itself. If there was a central location which actually controlled all active vehicles then a hacker could decide to play with cars like a male toddler. To prevent the hackers period, I'll call up some friends of mine who have more experience in information security. As you can see, this will reduce but not eliminate the need for insurance.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

For traffic cops, give them the authority to override the system or shut the car down, similar to what they do with bait cars. I see this as even cutting down on vehicle theft. Construction would be noted within the navigation system. You could even get more precise with what hours there are construction workers on the job. The system will already be smoother for emergency vehicles to get to their destination, but there are other advantages you could give them.
 
To this ("self-driving"), there can be no answer.
Every decade we are moving closer to this, it will be reality in 2100 , if the conservatives do not get carried away with their ideology. Even then, I'd prefer to DIY...But, then, we will have to be much more social than we are today.
 
It's potentially too easily controlled by the government. Want to stop a protest at City Hall? Make it so that nobody can get there.
 
rocket88 said:
It's potentially too easily controlled by the government. Want to stop a protest at City Hall? Make it so that nobody can get there.
Click to expand...

We can implement it with a balance of private sector and government similar to the transportation currently in place.
 
Mathematician said:
Under what circumstances would you want/need to do so?
Click to expand...
A certain percentage of people will always want to be "away from it all" - out in the sticks - if these still exist in the year 2100. To have an automatic car and road will be non-feasible.....in the year 21000 ??? a different story.
 
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?
Click to expand...

I think the most practical system would be to keep control of the vehicle on the local machine, but coordinate traffic shaping on the network. So our car is driving along and wants to get off at the next exit. It informs the herd, and the car on the right says it will reduce speed to create a gap to change lanes. However, the car on the right has been infected by the malicious hacker and maintains speed. Our car prepares to switch lanes by checking with a sensor sweep before attempting a maneuver. If an obstacle is detected, the car won't budge regardless of what the network says.
Hackers could probably cause traffic jams, but accidents could be minimized.
 
rocket88 said:
It's potentially too easily controlled by the government. Want to stop a protest at City Hall? Make it so that nobody can get there.
Click to expand...

Who says the government can't do that already? It isn't exactly difficult to set up roadblocks.
 
Mathematician said:
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?
Click to expand...

It will go great up till the first several hundred car pile up.
 
Ikari said:
It will go great up till the first several hundred car pile up.
Click to expand...

The damage sounds similar to one plane crash.

Comparing the expected probability of such an accident to that of an accident now, you can still reasonably expect fewer lives lost overall.
 
Mathematician said:
The damage sounds similar to one plane crash.

Comparing the expected probability of such an accident to that of an accident now, you can still reasonably expect fewer lives lost overall.
Click to expand...

Perhaps with refinement. But in the end, computers don't beat humans.
 
earthworm said:
A certain percentage of people will always want to be "away from it all" - out in the sticks - if these still exist in the year 2100. To have an automatic car and road will be non-feasible.....in the year 21000 ??? a different story.
Click to expand...
probably take a while to establish in remote locales
but for hi traffic areas, this is the future
no need to own a vehicle
call for one to pick you up and pay per ride ... a taxi drone
 
Ikari said:
Perhaps with refinement. But in the end, computers don't beat humans.
Click to expand...

Ask Kasparov about that. A computer is better suited to driving on the highway at least, compared to humans. A robot car superior sensors with 360 degree awareness, can very accurately measure the distance of nearby objects, instantly calculate the stopping distance and react to a situation with superhuman speed. There are likely some situations where humans will avoid obstacles that a robot couldn't, but such scenarios are minimal compared to the situations where a human causes an accident simply by screwing . The hundred car pileup would be trivial to avoid with robots. Networked robots can drive optimally spaced apart, instantly communicate is something goes wrong and react within milliseconds of the first collision.
 
rathi said:
Ask Kasparov about that.
Click to expand...

Yes, Deep Blue is another good example. Software testing can be done thoroughly by pure simulation and hardware tested separately.
 
Mathematician said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm not as gung ho about this as some people. Especially when cars are getting hacked from cell phones.

Hackers steal Subaru Outback with smartphone
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's a great idea, with most of the technology readily available now, however it is illegal in all 50 states(iirc).
Click to expand...

It's fully legal in Nevada and semi-legal in California, as of now. But those are both fairly recent changes in their laws. Ultimately I think the government is going to need to reform liability laws before they can become widespread. I would favor holding the manufacturers liable, but having the government offer them extremely cheap subsidized liability insurance (since there is a compelling public interest in minimizing traffic accidents/jams).

molten_dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

But don't you think that's more related to it being new and unfamiliar? After all, people ride trains and planes all the time despite having no control over them.

Ikari said:
Perhaps with refinement. But in the end, computers don't beat humans.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. Google's car can react to its surroundings much more quickly than a human driver can...and it isn't prone to doing irresponsible/risky maneuvers in the first place. That performance gap is only likely to increase as computers become more and more powerful.
 
Last edited:
For those who chose unsure, is security the biggest/only issue which concerns you?
 
What happens after a fierce storm when trees are down?
 
I'm still undecided. Seems to be the best option to address traffic jams, but how do they plan to address / prevent glitches? And who is liable if a glitch leads to an accident?
 
Helix said:
I'm still undecided. Seems to be the best option to address traffic jams, but how do they plan to address / prevent glitches? And who is liable if a glitch leads to an accident?
Click to expand...
would this not be like a no-fault today?
insurers should welcome such a change, resulting in fewer accidents and insurance payouts
 
Wake said:
What happens after a fierce storm when trees are down?
Click to expand...

The car's sensors see the trees in the street, and drive around them or make a detour. Just like a human driver would.
 
rathi said:
Ask Kasparov about that. A computer is better suited to driving on the highway at least, compared to humans. A robot car superior sensors with 360 degree awareness, can very accurately measure the distance of nearby objects, instantly calculate the stopping distance and react to a situation with superhuman speed. There are likely some situations where humans will avoid obstacles that a robot couldn't, but such scenarios are minimal compared to the situations where a human causes an accident simply by screwing . The hundred car pileup would be trivial to avoid with robots. Networked robots can drive optimally spaced apart, instantly communicate is something goes wrong and react within milliseconds of the first collision.
Click to expand...

The chess playing robot was merely programmed with all the moves and could search better than a human can. However, a computer cannot beat the human brain. Driving in and of itself isn't tough. You could make robots to do it and with time you'd probably be able to develop a good algorithm through which you could properly control traffic. However, a computer does not beat a human. No way no how. The overall power of the human brain is superior to a computer. It cannot think, it can only go off the list of preprogrammed commands and search for one which best fits the situation. Humans are built for a wide variety of stimulus input, and visual data happens to be something our brain is exceedingly good with. Servoing the visual data to commands to muscles is a relatively trivial task. Yes, people mess us. But computers crash, get hacked, if not programmed right they give the wrong solution.

Machine does not beat man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom