Comment by hundredwatt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hundredwatt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

<i>"While Jalopnik believes that the fender-bender is proof that self-driving cars may not be in the best interests of society, we have a different take. There were 10.2 million traffic accidents in 2008, which results in 39,000 deaths. That’s 17.9 people per 100,000 licensed drivers. If Google self-driving cars can beat those statistics, they could actually prevent more accidents than they create. We also waste millions of hours commuting and driving through traffic; imagine if you had that time to be productive instead."</i>

Also, computers can't get drunk...

I'd love to have these brought to the masses. But, no matter what the statistical benefits are (safer and time saving), I can't picture a time in the near future when normal people will be accepting of automated vehicles. Just like this incident almost was, 1 death caused by a self-driving vehicle is going to overshadow 100,000s of deaths by human-driven vehicles. Even once proved feasible, I can't see something like this being adopted in a matter of years or even decades.

Anyone know of any historical examples of a similarly disruptive, but untrusted technology radically changing people's lives? How long did it take for adoption?

The place where it will really hit the fan will be the first time there is an accident where the autonomous vehicle had to choose who lives and who dies.

For instance, a child darts into the road, and due to the speed and the geometry, there are only two possible outcomes: hit the kid, or swerve hit an oncoming car in the next lane. Humans don't have time to make a cold, rational calculation in that situation--we are likely to either hit the breaks immediately (even if it isn't going to stop in time), or swerve immediately, and THEN we notice the oncoming car.

Not so with the computerized car. It will have time to calculate if it can stop in its lane in time, figure out the likely impact speed if it hits the child, forecast the severity of the injury to the child, and then compare that to the likely injury to its passengers from a collision with oncoming traffic, and even make some guesses based on statistics as to how many people are likely to be in the oncoming car. And then it can decide whether to hit the kid or hit the oncoming car.

I wouldn't want to be the engineer trying to explain that algorithm at a wrongful death trial.

Then it can post to the child's mother's facebook about why it made the decision it did. Social cars! :D

The UK "Locomotive Act" of 1865 required automobiles to carry a crew of three, one of which should walk in front of the automobile carrying a red flag. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts

The law was supported by people with interests in the railway and horse-and-carriage industries. It took about 30 years, until 1896, before most of the restrictions were lifted.

I'm pretty sure automated vehicles will become standard at some point, but I expect it will take a few decades before we get there: For the technology to mature, for public opinion to accept the idea and for parties protecting other interests to give up the fight.

- Also, computers can't get drunk...

They can have bugs or get viruses though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com