Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is way too early to worry about manually driving a car becoming illegal. For that to even be a possibility, self-driving cars will have to be perfected and then become completely ubiquitous. If that happens, I think it should be up to the society that exists at that point to decide whether manual driving should be banned (for example if self-driving cars are much safer by then).

Requiring cars to have wheels is also premature, because there are currently no cars that are safe to operate purely in self-driving mode with no backup driver, but once (if) there are fully self driving cars, people who can't manually drive will probably want to buy them. At this point, it initially may be necessary to at least disable the manually driving functionality in this case, if not outright remove the steering wheel, for safety (e.g when the car is being operated by children, people without licenses, seniors, etc.) and once this is possible it would be somewhat absurd for manual car aficionados to argue that simply making cars available in these configurations is somehow restricting people's freedoms.

Honestly, I suspect that 99% of drivers don't actually enjoy driving and will adopt self-driving cars as soon as they are inexpensively available, and in the long term removing the manual controls will probably provide more room for making self-driving cars more comfortable (making the seats recline like beds with a suitable safety harness, etc.).

>Honestly, I suspect that 99% of drivers don't actually enjoy driving and will adopt self-driving cars as soon as they are inexpensively available

I guess I am the 1%, then. Driving is one of the few activities where I can really clear my head. I support the goals of the Human Driving Association. I also disagree that it is too early, as many people already see it as inevitable that self-driving will be illegal.

Then go to a regulated track and drive to your heart's content? I don't like the idea of people just 'clearing their heads' while driving a 2 ton box at 65 miles per hour.

> a regulated track

You mean like roads and highways?

A track is a path (often enclosed) set aside solely for the purpose of driving[1] as opposed to transit between places. I'm surprised you haven't come across the concept, as it's been around for a _very_ long time.

[1] in this context: they're also used for horses, dogs, humans on foot etc). The

A racetrack probably

>go to a regulated track and drive

Ugh, what a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let me not only have 1 car, but now 2 cars, a trailer to legally transport the manual car. Then go on a boring as hell, flat, circle. This is not at all the same as say driving around a mountainous region, or along the coast. You can go fuck yourself with your regulated "track".

> Ugh, what a stupid comment. Yeah sure, let me not only have 1 carriage, but now a motorcar and a trailer to legally transport the horses and carriage. Then go on a boring as hell, flat, circle. This is not at all the same as say galloping around a mountainous region, or along the coast. You can go fuck yourself with your regulated "track".

Yeah, the ownership and riding of a horse is now restricted to the privileged. Not exactly a shining example to use.

Yeah, the expensive hobby isn't mandatory for everybody anymore, in fact it is banned on public roads, and the better alternative is readily available for people who don't want to shell out the cash for the quaint older method. What is the problem here?

Not "getting" driving for enjoyment is not the same as stupidity, and you (the supporters of the association's goals) will have to convince a lot of people who don't get it.

This is not a good approach.

No personal attacks like this, please!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Or driving can just be plain fun in itself. I enjoy driving unless it's more than ~3x (there and back) per week. I mean we control machines here, right? Cars are pretty interesting machines to control. I live in a big city so I don't need a car. I got one that is fun rather than useful. Small, light, quick to accelerate and around corners. The exact opposite of an SUV (what the hell is wrong with people...).

If we reach a point where manual driving is clearly unsafe compared to self-driving cars, do you really think that manual driving should continue to be legal simply so that you can "clear your head"?

Anyway, barring a constitutional amendment, you can't pass a law now that will prevent a law banning manual driving from being passed in the future, so I think it's sort of a moot point.

OK, what happens when a member of the Human Driving Association impacts a member of the I'm A Goddamned Pedestrian Stop Fucking Killing Me Association?

My idea is simple: If, in an era when self-driving cars are the norm, you choose to drive and you hit someone, that's it. It's First Degree/Premeditated Homicide if you killed them, or the highest possible degree of Aggravated Assault if you didn't. You did something deliberately contrary to the norm, which was significantly more dangerous to everyone else, and, as a direct result, you caused them death or permanent damage. You can't rely on the excuse of needing to drive yourself, as you can now, so the penalties go up proportionately.

Yea, there's really no arguments being made on this thread that don't apply just as directly to illegal street racing today, yet I'd be shocked if more than a minuscule fraction of the people in a Tiff on this thread would have the self-awareness and intellectual honesty to defend the right of street racers to kill innocent bystanders

I feel like the penalty should be similar to the penalty given for accidentally shooting someone with a firearm when hunting and killing them. Any idea what the penalty is for that?

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2017/03/what-are-the-crimi...

> When a person unintentionally kills another, whether or not a gun was used, they can be charged with manslaughter, which is a felony. Manslaughter is frequently referred to as criminally negligent homicide, as that name more closely mirrors the elements of a manslaughter charge. To be found guilty of manslaughter, a person has to die as a result of a defendant's inherently dangerous actions or actions taken with reckless disregard.

> Typical penalties for a manslaughter conviction include at least one year in jail, and can be much worse if the conduct that led to the death merit such. For example, a repeat drunk driver that causes a death is likely to face a harsher sentence than a recently victimized elderly man who, instinctively, accidentally shoots someone they believe to be a robber.

And I say the penalties should be worse because cars would be less obviously dangerous than guns in an era when most cars are self-driving. In short, a gun is a gun, and people know what guns are. If someone is waving a firearm around, well, most people who have competent faculties know that that's dangerous. In the era I'm foreseeing, which I think is the era most of us in this thread are foreseeing, a car is no longer as inherently dangerous as they are now, unless someone has made the conscious choice to make it that dangerous again by driving it manually.

I also support greatly increased penalties for DUI, but that's going a bit afield.

>Driving is one of the few activities where I can really clear my head.

Why not just take a walk?

> I really like X and want to keep doing it

>> When not do something entirely different altogether?

Gotta love HN. For the sake of being Captain Obvious: people who like moving at fast speeds probably won't get the same enjoyment out of moving at slow speeds.

As far as clearing the head goes, I heard from many people that they get into a kind of flow state while their hands have something to do while experiencing the effect of this activity. For some, it's playing the piano, listening to the sound, and getting lost in the thought. For others, it's operating a vehicle and seeing the lights whiz by. Different strokes for different folks, you know.

That is like saying "Hey I know you really love playing Tennis. That you enjoy the game, and how you feel when you play, and after the match. But we are going to outlaw Tennis, why don't you just go play Basketball instead? Mmmkay?"

>That is like saying "Hey I know you really love playing Tennis. That you enjoy the game, and how you feel when you play, and after the match. But we are going to outlaw Tennis, why don't you just go play Basketball instead? Mmmkay?"

Yeah sports aren't transportation infrastructure, and most forms of transportation infrastructure are perfectly useful to let people "clear their heads." This goes for walking as well as it does sitting on a bus or train. Just because the way the world is now put you in a habit of doing a thing doesn't mean the world needs to stand still so you can never have to change.

This is like saying "Riding horses is one of the few ways I can clear my head." Sure, if you really love it go to a paddock. But that's not what we're building our cities around anymore because "clearing your head" isn't really what we design people's commutes around.

How many people are killed every year by inattentive or incompetent tennis players who think they're hot stuff?

Would you want alcohol to be banned because it causes harm as well? It's about losing personal liberty - people will dig in their heels.

You seem to be under the impression that it is currently legal to drink alcohol and drive.

I expect you're going to see automation go a lot further in enhancing people's driving than you'll ever see robo-taxis be a viable primary mode of transporation.

So it's probably not necessary to worry about human drivers being illegal, but you might see cars without key safety features become illegal the same way seatbelts and airbags are required today.

So no more riding the shoulder, automated enforcement of traffic laws (so no speeding, no rolling stops, must yield at a yield sign, etc.).

Nah, this is a good time for people to be thinking about it. If you refuse to think about things that aren't 100% yet, you'll find yourself flatfooted and at a huge disadvantage to those who did.

Whether you're pro- or anti-driving, the debate is going to be carried out in public for years, not just after the technology is perfected. And likewise for whatever other sort of freedom-vs-safety issues that come up with technology.

You don't need to remove the steering wheel. An autonomous car can let any idiot driver (imagine your worse case bad driver here) drive safely. Want to weave in and out of traffic: no problem, the car won't let you hit any other car or go faster than is safe for that car.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com