"Fully autonomous cars are unlikely, says America's top transportation safety official"


Source: technologyreviw.com. Article by Andrew Rosenblum 8-31-16

"Some people just like to drive, for one thing."

"Auto accidents kill more than 33,000 Americans each year, more than homicide or prescription drug overdoses. Companies working on self-driving cars such as Alphabet and Ford, say their technology can slash that number by removing human liabilities such as texting, drunkenness and fatigue. But Christopher Hart, chairman of the National Transportation and Safety Board, says his agency's experience investigating accidents involving autopilot systems used in trains and planes suggests that humans can't be fully removed from control. He told MIT Technology Review that future models will be much safer, but that they will still need humans as co-pilots."

Yes, any future developments that would help reduce 'human liabilities' like distracted driving would be welcomed.

Can the software be smart enough to always anticipate what the cyclist and pedestrian will do?

Views: 183

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"Some people just like to drive, for one thing."

Some people like smoking in bars, but now they can't. So what. 

As for if it's technologically plausible, self-driving cars are already safer than human-driven cars. Human-operated cars cause about 1 death per hundred million miles driven in total, about 2.5 times that for rural driving, self-driving cars have racked up 130 million miles and the one fatality was not even meant to be a self-driving vehicle, it was "driving assist" that was in beta. 

Disclaimer: I like to drive. A lot. Grease and gasoline run in my veins.

Some people just like to drive. Some people just like to bicycle. Some people just like to walk. I don't judge (much less vilify) anyone by how they enjoy getting around because that's not fair. I'd far rather judge them by their actions while utilizing whatever method of transport they choose. Just like some of us follow the rules of the road on our bicycles and some of us don't, there are many drivers who are careful around and respectful of cyclists. They have the greater chance of doing major harm if they make a mistake, but it's still not remotely OK to judge the entire group by the actions of some of its members.

If the city said "some people just like to bicycle, so what? They're a small minority and people make sacrifices. You can't smoke in bars anymore." and then went and banned bicycling you'd be angry. So don't make that justification on someone else.

Weird how the whole "causes more than 33,000 deaths annually in the US" doesn't factor into this here post about personal preferences 

Weird how the whole point of the quote you selected initially was just... personal preference.

Relax. Have a beer.

Alcohol causes more that 85,000 deaths per year in the US*. Yet some of us drink it anyway.

*from 2002 National Vital Statistics report, which for the purpose of valid statistical comparison had traffic fatalities at 43,000.

The mortality statistic is in the OP and any good faith consideration of this would recognize that personal perference is not some checkmate, policy warrants factors like public safety hazard against "but people like to though" 

Quite a lot of the alcohol-related fatalities are also vehicular fatalities and weirdly enough, despite people liking to combine those activities together, drunk driving is also illegal. 

Yesterday my streaming of the Daily Show included a car ad pitching an emergency braking system. The commercial was supposed to be funny, with a driver singing and not paying attention and being saved from a crash by the car itself. It really made me angry, though, especially the idea that American drivers should laugh and think, "haw! Haven't we all been there!" But I guess the ad company hit their nail right on the head.


© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service