• 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
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Computers do not react to their surroundings. They search various protocols and programming; but they cannot independently come up with their own solutions. Computers don't think. Even that Jeopardy computer, which had one of the most sophisticated data bases and search algorithms to date cannot think. It can take a command, search a data base, calculate probabilities, and respond in that manner. And even then it's wrong. What happens when a computer is wrong on the interstate? It's not the 3 car collision that may happen when humans **** up. No matter how much we program, a computer is not a living entity nor does it have the power of the human brain.
 
Ikari said:
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
Click to expand...

Some simple applied combinatorics quickly reveals that even our supercomputers can't be programmed with all the moves. Similar to chess, driving is a system with a simple set of rules. It's funny how 80% of drivers claimed in a survey that they were better than average at driving. Implicitly supported by this is the other general consensus of the driving population that we have to deal with crappy drivers daily.

Your argument that the human brain is superior fails when you properly restrict your attention to a set of specific functionalities. For example, you can't dispute that computers defeat humans in memory. Similarly, I can prove that humans do not have better response time than a computer. This is easily supported by the fact that Watson was able to ring in faster than Ken Jennings on Jeopardy. Note that it will be computer scientists, not average joes, programming this system. Believe me, there are many brains out there that could use firmware updates.

I continue to think of more and more beneficial functions that could be implemented into this system; some are so simple that they are initially overlooked. For example, this system would change the meaning of "getaway car". The system could prevent oversize vehicles from taking routes which are unsafe, e.g. bridges with insufficient clearance. It only takes one software update to see that a precaution is always taken by all. The same can not be said for driving lessons.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The car's sensors see the trees in the street, and drive around them or make a detour. Just like a human driver would.
Click to expand...

I don't trust glitches, hackery, shutdowns, etc.

THERE'S a reason why Storm Troopers were better than Battle Droids.
 
Ikari said:
Computers do not react to their surroundings. They search various protocols and programming; but they cannot independently come up with their own solutions. Computers don't think. Even that Jeopardy computer, which had one of the most sophisticated data bases and search algorithms to date cannot think. It can take a command, search a data base, calculate probabilities, and respond in that manner. And even then it's wrong. What happens when a computer is wrong on the interstate? It's not the 3 car collision that may happen when humans **** up. No matter how much we program, a computer is not a living entity nor does it have the power of the human brain.
Click to expand...

A robot car can detect the accurate distance and speed of all objects from all angles. It can precisely calculate potential collision vectors, stopping distance and alternative driving paths in microseconds. A computer remains hyper vigilant 24/7 and doesn't get tired, drunk or distracted. Your point that robots can't respond to situations not anticipated by their programmers is valid. Hardware failure will also have consequences. However, the truth is that humans are simply worse at driving, as evidenced by the thousands who die every year. The accidents caused by the robot will be far less than the accidents avoided.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
I don't trust glitches, hackery, shutdowns, etc.

THERE'S a reason why Storm Troopers were better than Battle Droids.
Click to expand...

Humans are glitches is the current driving system we have. In regards to hackery, we have information security research to fight intelligence with intelligence. One point of this system is to idiot-proof travel.
 
rathi said:
A robot car can detect the accurate distance and speed of all objects from all angles. It can precisely calculate potential collision vectors, stopping distance and alternative driving paths in microseconds. A computer remains hyper vigilant 24/7 and doesn't get tired, drunk or distracted. Your point that robots can't respond to situations not anticipated by their programmers is valid. Hardware failure will also have consequences. However, the truth is that humans are simply worse at driving, as evidenced by the thousands who die every year. The accidents caused by the robot will be far less than the accidents avoided.
Click to expand...

You assume accidents caused by the robot will be far less than the accidents now. A few thousand people die every year on the road, some in preventable situations. Humans do make mistakes and cannot be as universally programmed as cars. I think with enough time you can refine the programs well enough to have a positive impact; but the testing phase may be hell.
 
Ikari said:
You assume accidents caused by the robot will be far less than the accidents now. A few thousand people die every year on the road, some in preventable situations. Humans do make mistakes and cannot be as universally programmed as cars. I think with enough time you can refine the programs well enough to have a positive impact; but the testing phase may be hell.
Click to expand...

In 2009, 32% of the 30,000 traffic fatalities were caused by drunk drivers. At least another 16% are caused by fatigue. So we already eliminated half of driving related deaths before we even get started. We can then look at rear end collisions avoided by avoiding tailgating and faster reaction time. Or avoided merging accidents by being able to see in all directions. Fog and weather related accidents reduced by senors that are degraded by such conditions. Sadly, Robots don't even have to be that great at all in order to outperform humans.
 
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...


Anything mechanical can break....I dont want to be sitting in a self driven vehicle that has a malfunction...I prefer to kill myself driving

Then theres the lemons...then theres shoddy manufacturing and building...at least if im in control and a malfunction occurs I can take defensive measures to save myself....nah Ill personally pass on the self driven cars
 
lpast said:
Anything mechanical can break....I dont want to be sitting in a self driven vehicle that has a malfunction...I prefer to kill myself driving
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting that it's not just you who can kill you on the road right now.
 
Ikari said:
Computers do not react to their surroundings.
Click to expand...

I suggest you watch some of the demonstrations of self-driving cars if you believe this. There are plenty of them on YouTube.

They search various protocols and programming;
Click to expand...

That is more or less how the human brain works as well.

but they cannot independently come up with their own solutions. Computers don't think. Even that Jeopardy computer, which had one of the most sophisticated data bases and search algorithms to date cannot think. It can take a command, search a data base, calculate probabilities, and respond in that manner.
Click to expand...

Driving is pretty algorithmic. There are three basic components: 1) The ability to physically control the operations of the car such as the steering wheel, gas, and brakes; 2) The ability to know where you are and how to get to your destination from there; 3) The ability to see your surroundings and react in a safe way while obeying traffic laws. Computers are already far better than humans at #1 and #2, and are quickly approaching human skill level at #3 and will soon surpass it.

And I might add #4 to the list: 4) Not doing something stupid like driving while drunk, sleepy, fidgeting with the radio, or on your cell phone. Unlike humans, computers are 100% effective at this task.

And even then it's wrong. What happens when a computer is wrong on the interstate? It's not the 3 car collision that may happen when humans **** up.
Click to expand...

Why not? What exactly do you imagine would happen? And what makes you think whatever nightmare scenario you are envisioning would occur often enough to offset the 40,000 auto fatalities that occur every year now, almost entirely due to human error?

No matter how much we program, a computer is not a living entity nor does it have the power of the human brain.
Click to expand...

A self-driving car doesn't need to have the power of the human brain. It just needs to be better than humans at driving a car.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
You assume accidents caused by the robot will be far less than the accidents now. A few thousand people die every year on the road, some in preventable situations. Humans do make mistakes and cannot be as universally programmed as cars. I think with enough time you can refine the programs well enough to have a positive impact; but the testing phase may be hell.
Click to expand...

The testing phase is already underway and the early results are extremely encouraging. Google has driven its self-driving car at least 150,000 miles in California (as of last year...probably at least double that by now) with no accidents, except two fender-benders caused by other human drivers.

Granted, 150,000 miles isn't enough testing by any means, but they have hardly been an abysmal failure. So far they seem to be doing at least as well as humans. And human drivers aren't getting any better, unlike self-driving cars.
 
Last edited:
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...

Seems like self driven high speed rails would be more realistic. Even high speed rails alone would address much of the stuff on your list.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

My car has cruise control. does that count?
 
lpast said:
Anything mechanical can break....I dont want to be sitting in a self driven vehicle that has a malfunction...I prefer to kill myself driving
Click to expand...

Which would be fine, if human drivers were only a threat to themselves on the road.

Then theres the lemons...then theres shoddy manufacturing and building...at least if im in control and a malfunction occurs I can take defensive measures to save myself....nah Ill personally pass on the self driven cars
Click to expand...

This is what I call the illusion of control; people like to feel they are in control of their fate regardless of the evidence to the contrary. It's why some people have a fear of flying and prefer to drive instead, despite it being statistically more dangerous.

I would suggest that it's far more likely that a smart car could help prevent YOUR malfunctions, than vice versa. In fact, this may have already occurred if you have a car with autonomous systems like self-parking, lane departure warnings, or GPS navigation tools.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
My car has cruise control. does that count?
Click to expand...

No. Remember the case of the stupid lady who sued after her RV crashed because she set it to cruise control and left the wheel? We can prevent that from happening again.
 
SheWolf said:
Seems like self driven high speed rails would be more realistic. Even high speed rails alone would address much of the stuff on your list.
Click to expand...

The infrastructure is already in place for self-driving cars, and they would be much more practical for short-distance travel than high speed rail would be.
 
If the technology develops sufficiently to be widely adapted, it will become omnipresent. Once it becomes omnipresent, we won't dare go without it. Who could, in good conscience, suggest we return to the days when over a hundred thousand Americans died in automobile accidents, annually?
 
most of the folks expressing opposition to reality of computer assisted driving have already experienced it first hand
if they have flown in a commercial plane
 
Mathematician said:
No. Remember the case of the stupid lady who sued after her RV crashed because she set it to cruise control and left the wheel? We can prevent that from happening again.
Click to expand...

Haven't heard about that, but it's is kind of not surprising. Having a self driven RV would be awesome though.
 
Kandahar said:
In fact, this may have already occurred if you have a car with autonomous systems like self-parking, lane departure warnings, or GPS navigation tools.
Click to expand...

Sure as hell don't. Never been in an accident that wasn't my fault either. Nor have I had a speeding ticket in nearly 20 years.

Computers are great, there's a lot you can do with them. Over reliance on them will not bring us to a better place, however.
 
Ikari said:
Sure as hell don't. Never been in an accident that wasn't my fault either. Nor have I had a speeding ticket in nearly 20 years.

Computers are great, there's a lot you can do with them. Over reliance on them will not bring us to a better place, however.
Click to expand...

Are you against the commercial planes that essentially fly themselves? Pilots are there to make sure if something goes wrong they can correct it, same can be done with cars. There are VERY few instances of those failing as far as I know. Only one that I can remember hearing about and that was Air France and even then we aren't sure what happened. That same route has been flown hundreds of thousands times since then with no serious problems.
 
Ikari said:
Sure as hell don't. Never been in an accident that wasn't my fault either. Nor have I had a speeding ticket in nearly 20 years.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you and everyone else, you aren't the only driver on the road...and if you count yourself among the 80% of people who think they're a better-than-average driver, chances are your driving skills aren't as good as you think they are anyway.

Computers are great, there's a lot you can do with them. Over reliance on them will not bring us to a better place, however.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this claim and have not provided any explanation why this is so.
 
I was just thinking about this yesterday.

I was making a left turn and the water department had torn up half the street.

How would a self driven car handle that situation?

I had to drive on the wrong side to get around the construction.

I don't think you can replace a human thinking driver.
 
Mason66 said:
I was just thinking about this yesterday.

I was making a left turn and the water department had torn up half the street.

How would a self driven car handle that situation?

I had to drive on the wrong side to get around the construction.

I don't think you can replace a human thinking driver.
Click to expand...

Similar to how GPS can stay up-to-date on the current traffic status, anything which requires detours (some or all lanes) would not be hard to maintain within the navigation network system. This includes construction, accidents, etc.

This will also let several types of workers do more productive work. There'd be no more construction workers standing there holding the slow/stop sign. This would also drastically reduce the attention cops would devote to the road. No more focus on speeding, DUI, reckless driving, or other traffic violations would be necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom