Jump to content

Self driving cars.


Recommended Posts

Well then here's my next problem. The United States government will most likely start taxing people who don't have these automated things because they'll say we're somehow more of a road hazard (never had an accident). It will turn into a huge money scheme. Of course, we could argue that this would happen with any new technology.

This is incredibly unlikely. The government does *not* tax SUVs for being a road hazard, for instance; the federal government doesn't levy *any* taxes on driving, and limits its involvement to tax *benefits* (like, on your income tax) and interstate trucking. What you might see is insurance rates being much lower for self-driving cars, and that's kind of the point of a market-based insurance system: if you do things that make you less likely to get in a crash, you *should* pay less in insurance. That, by the way, reduces the big reason why things like environmentally friendly cars get tax benefits (namely, that pollution is a cost that car owners do not normally bear, which means that people will pollute more than they would if they had to pay for the cost imposed on society; there's no real way to handle that outside of government, because pollution produces minor harm to tons of people, and private negotiation is impractical).

 

But the difference between myself and an automated machine is I have a moral conscience. If I'm about to plow into a brick wall at let's say 45 mph, and to my left and right are people walking on the street, I can make the decision (and would) to apply my brakes as best I could but avoid turning so I don't kill other people even if this means my death. The machine on the other hand will simply avoid the wall and possibly kill everyone else because it thought it was the right thing to do. I don't mind something being automated when it's on a track. But if it has free will to move around at high speeds, I just don't think it would be a good idea. Maybe for the first few years, but when the machines break as all machines do, it will be chaos.

Says who? Why do you assume it will choose not-the-wall? There's actually a solid reason to choose the wall there (people in cars are a lot more likely to survive crashes), and it's not as if it's unaware of pedestrians. On the other hand, honestly, you probably wouldn't hit the wall - people are more likely to choose themselves than a computer would be. For that matter, why is it heading towards a brick wall at 45 mph? Part of the point of an autonomous car is that cases like that are much less likely than with human drivers. And there is literally no reason to assume that it'll be fine for a few years and then everything will break; that can happen if there's a physical issue (e.g. the brake system might wear out over time, and so early cars start failing around the same time), but software does not degrade - failures in two cars running the same software are independently distributed in time on the scale of years ("time car has been continuously driving" is a different matter, but that caps out at hours, and is fairly independent between different cars). If there's correlation, it'd be that a situation might cause a failure (though common situations causing failure are noticed in development), but the notion that all cars start failing at once is not connected with anything to do with how computers fail. 

Also, think of this. Suppose you happen to be in a very dangerous neighborhood when all of the sudden someone points a weapon at you and is threatening to kill you. In a normal vehicle you can quickly change direction and get out of there (though still dangerous) but in the automated vehicle, you'll just sit at that red light while he takes everything you have. Can you imagine how easy it would be to start kidnapping people? Especially at night. Just get them at a red light, the car won't know the difference. Then you could say it has auto locks. Well what if it catches on fire? Now you're locked in a burning vehicle. There's just no way in Hell I'd get in one of those things.

Why would it *ever* have locks you cannot control? Any automated system has an e-stop; this applies to cars as well. Locks in cars tend to have overrides. There is literally no reason to think for a minute that "automatic car" means "you can't open the door when you want"; the only time those features would be included is on rear doors (where they already have those features), as child locks. It doesn't improve safety; adults know "don't open door when car is moving", it doesn't endanger anyone else, and such a car would never pass safety testing (for exactly the reason that it could lead to you not being able to get out of the car if you have to).

On kidnappings: It'd still be pretty damn hard, considering that a) autonomous cars have cameras (which could provide evidence), b) people have cell phones (to call the cops), c) the doors don't open from the *outside*, so you'd have to commit murder if they refuse to open the door (the penalties for murder being quite a bit higher for kidnapping). Meanwhile, there are lots of pedestrians walking down lots of streets who manage not to get kidnapped. For that matter, kidnappers are not that common; there are easier ways to make money, which are less likely to result in your capture. Most people don't not commit violent crimes because it's *hard*; they do it because it's not worth it, or (most often) because things like kidnapping are morally repulsive, and most people don't like being morally repulsive.

And if you're comparing kidnapping to traffic accidents, the stats come out WAY in favor of reducing traffic accidents. I'm not sure you realize how much of a deal traffic accidents are - they're the leading cause of death in the US from age 5 to age 34, above which it drops down as medical conditions and suicide become more common causes of death. The risk of kidnapping is vanishingly small (especially the risk of armed abduction by a stranger, which is far less common than kidnapping in e.g. abusive relationships); the risk of death in a traffic accident is relatively high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuff like that has been out for years.the problem is years from now someone named Keith is gonna buy it and think he can service it himself.So you wont be able to relax in your self driving car because in the back of your head you will know Keith is coming to cause a major accident while watching Everybody Loves Raymond.

CopFlashingLights.gif 

Dell XPS 8300   OS: Win 10 64 bit

Intel Core i7 -2600 3.70GHz   10GB Ram

NVIDIA GeForce 1050 GTX

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incredibly unlikely. The government does *not* tax SUVs for being a road hazard, for instance; the federal government doesn't levy *any* taxes on driving, and limits its involvement to tax *benefits* (like, on your income tax) and interstate trucking. What you might see is insurance rates being much lower for self-driving cars, and that's kind of the point of a market-based insurance system: if you do things that make you less likely to get in a crash, you *should* pay less in insurance. That, by the way, reduces the big reason why things like environmentally friendly cars get tax benefits (namely, that pollution is a cost that car owners do not normally bear, which means that people will pollute more than they would if they had to pay for the cost imposed on society; there's no real way to handle that outside of government, because pollution produces minor harm to tons of people, and private negotiation is impractical).

 

Says who? Why do you assume it will choose not-the-wall? There's actually a solid reason to choose the wall there (people in cars are a lot more likely to survive crashes), and it's not as if it's unaware of pedestrians. On the other hand, honestly, you probably wouldn't hit the wall - people are more likely to choose themselves than a computer would be. For that matter, why is it heading towards a brick wall at 45 mph? Part of the point of an autonomous car is that cases like that are much less likely than with human drivers. And there is literally no reason to assume that it'll be fine for a few years and then everything will break; that can happen if there's a physical issue (e.g. the brake system might wear out over time, and so early cars start failing around the same time), but software does not degrade - failures in two cars running the same software are independently distributed in time on the scale of years ("time car has been continuously driving" is a different matter, but that caps out at hours, and is fairly independent between different cars). If there's correlation, it'd be that a situation might cause a failure (though common situations causing failure are noticed in development), but the notion that all cars start failing at once is not connected with anything to do with how computers fail. 

Why would it *ever* have locks you cannot control? Any automated system has an e-stop; this applies to cars as well. Locks in cars tend to have overrides. There is literally no reason to think for a minute that "automatic car" means "you can't open the door when you want"; the only time those features would be included is on rear doors (where they already have those features), as child locks. It doesn't improve safety; adults know "don't open door when car is moving", it doesn't endanger anyone else, and such a car would never pass safety testing (for exactly the reason that it could lead to you not being able to get out of the car if you have to).

On kidnappings: It'd still be pretty damn hard, considering that a) autonomous cars have cameras (which could provide evidence), b) people have cell phones (to call the cops), c) the doors don't open from the *outside*, so you'd have to commit murder if they refuse to open the door (the penalties for murder being quite a bit higher for kidnapping). Meanwhile, there are lots of pedestrians walking down lots of streets who manage not to get kidnapped. For that matter, kidnappers are not that common; there are easier ways to make money, which are less likely to result in your capture. Most people don't not commit violent crimes because it's *hard*; they do it because it's not worth it, or (most often) because things like kidnapping are morally repulsive, and most people don't like being morally repulsive.

And if you're comparing kidnapping to traffic accidents, the stats come out WAY in favor of reducing traffic accidents. I'm not sure you realize how much of a deal traffic accidents are - they're the leading cause of death in the US from age 5 to age 34, above which it drops down as medical conditions and suicide become more common causes of death. The risk of kidnapping is vanishingly small (especially the risk of armed abduction by a stranger, which is far less common than kidnapping in e.g. abusive relationships); the risk of death in a traffic accident is relatively high.

 

Fair point. I guess I'm just old school. Hell I still have a flip phone from 10 years ago and I drive a 2001 Ford Escape. This computer I'm on right now is the newest thing I have ha ha. Thank you for the polite disagreement, most people would've shouted slurs or called me every name in the book by now. Good day sir :smile:

 

-Proud Texan-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...