Driverless Cars

[s_stabeler]

actually, the technology already exists for cars to be able to detect obstacles & apply the brakes. They just haven't worked out the kinks in it yet. ( AFAIK, they haven't yet made them reliable enough...) so in future, it's not impossible that driverless cars could actually get through the whiteout without hitting any obstacles.

but yeah, there'll need to either be an option for the driver to take over for the computer in driverless cars while there are still human-controlled cars in the roads, or some form of emergency stop button.

also, why have such a system limited to just whiteout conditions? you could have the same "oh shit! I've crashed!" alert be issued whenever a car crashes. ( for that matter, there's no reason that in a crash situation that warrants it, the car alerts emergency services automatically. ( by situation that warrants it, I mean that if you've merely bumped into a wall while parking, I doubt you want the car calling for an ambulance, and the ambulance crew would definitely rather be going to an actually important call. while if you've been in a high-speed crash on the motorway, the minutes saved by having the call go out immediately could save lives.)

[Jetfire]

Emergency stop buttons are a given. There should always be a way to stop. In fact there should be 2 variations of it. The "Crap, get out of the main flow of traffic and stop" button and the "Turn off everything NOW, I don't care where we are!" button. As the tech matures, other manual controls could be turned back. For our generation, I doubt they'll be able to be removed completely; but once we get a generation or two used to automated driving (to the point that they likely don't have driver reflexes like we have), manual controls could be cut.

Inter-car communication can be useful even for normal traffic flow. Just think of a stop light. Currently, when a light goes green, the person at the front needs to notice and start moving. Then the next person notices the first moving and can move, the third notices the second moving and can move, etc...

Automated cars can receive the green light signal all at once. Theoretically they can all start moving at once, moving as a train basically instead of a staggered start. Or at the very least the staggering would be quicker than with human drivers.

[HYHYBT]

Better yet, the reverse: knowing the light is turning red *before* the big truck in front of you has got out of the way and you're already entering the intersection.

[XCashier]

I think I would mind the idea of automated cars less if there was an option to override the computer if I needed to. If something in the autopilot was going wrong, I'd like the ability to take control. It could just be my cynicism with how often electronic things break.

Not cynicism, realism. Computers can be hacked, connections broken, water seeps in, you name it. Most systems that are automated have a manual backup for those very reasons. So yes, I agree with you, make sure there's a manual override for the automated cars.

Besides, I enjoy a nice long drive out on the open road.

[HYHYBT]

Not cynicism, realism. Computers can be hacked, connections broken, water seeps in, you name it. Most systems that are automated have a manual backup for those very reasons. So yes, I agree with you, make sure there's a manual override for the automated cars.

Besides, I enjoy a nice long drive out on the open road.

All of those things are true, but how is an override useful if the person who might use it, because they're not driving, isn't paying enough attention to make an accurate split-second response? Or if they've lost their driving skills through disuse, or, as is bound to happen once such cars are common, never picked up enough experience driving for themselves to handle it?

The main use I can see for an override would be if the navigation isn't working, or you're otherwise having trouble getting the car to cooperate in going where you want it to. (Sorry, I can't be more specific without knowing first exactly how they handle that sort of thing.)

But in an emergency, the ability to switch to manual would be worthless. Perhaps worse than worthless on average, remembering an incident I'd thought I'd already mentioned in this thread from when I had my learner's permit. I was driving just fine, Dad was in the passenger seat not paying much attention, as people who aren't driving tend to do when the person who *is* driving is doing it well. The lane we were in was ending, so I started moving over to the left. He noticed we were moving over and, before thinking it through and realizing I *wasn't* just drifting off into oncoming traffic, grabbed the wheel and nearly pulled us into the ditch. That's the sort of thing you can expect to happen, frequently without the "nearly" and often with serious consequences, with a human driver who CAN take over at any moment but isn't in the meantime doing anything that requires their paying enough attention to know when they need to.

[wolfie]

If they become common, I can see a black market for unofficial (and most likely illegal) aftermarket programming. One of the big gains touted for driverless cars is that they'd communicate with each other to determine the solution to a congestion problem (in terms of who yields to who) that's the best for EVERYONE. An "asshole mode", where the car's contribution to the "discussion" is "This is what I'm going to do - it's up to the rest of you to figure out how to accommodate me" would produce a local optimization (i.e. the asshole gets through a congested area more quickly) while making the average performance worse.

What happens when 2 "hacked" vehicles using "asshole mode" both declare their intention to occupy the same space at the same time? Do they fall back to the group discussion, or do they play "chicken" with their programming set so that neither of them will give way - forcing a collision?

Would be interesting if someone came out with a "closet asshole" mode that "played nice" until it encountered a vehicle running in "asshole mode", at which point it proceeded to be an asshole ONLY TO THAT PARTICULAR VEHICLE (even if the reactionary asshole were only bluffing). Congested area? Lexus says "Get out of my way, peons - I'm taking that open space". Response comes back "Screw you, 1%er - that space is MINE, so don't even think of intruding unless you want to tangle with a Peterbilt".

[mjr]

An "asshole mode", where the car's contribution to the "discussion" is "This is what I'm going to do - it's up to the rest of you to figure out how to accommodate me"

They could call it K.A.R.R.

K.A.R.R.: "I am the Knight Automated Roving Robot, K.A.R.R. if you prefer; I am the prototype of the car of the future."

What happens when 2 "hacked" vehicles using "asshole mode" both declare their intention to occupy the same space at the same time? Do they fall back to the group discussion, or do they play "chicken" with their programming set so that neither of them will give way - forcing a collision?

K.A.R.R.: If I am destroyed... so shall you be!

I can imagine it wouldn't be good.

[HYHYBT]

In that case, it's a good thing they're computers. In case of a collision, they can just resend.