It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

State DMV backs allowing self-driving cars with no human on board

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Self Driving cars, trucks and buses will explode on the scene. I don't think people are ready for what's about to happen. It will be a great convenience on one hand and it will wipe out a lot of jobs on the other hand.


Self-driving cars with no human behind the wheel — or, for that matter, any steering wheel at all — may soon appear on California’s public roads, under regulations state officials proposed Friday.

The rules represent a delicate balance, trying to ensure the safety of a new technology many people don’t trust while avoiding tough restrictions that could send car companies fleeing to other states.

Until now, California has required all 27 companies testing autonomous cars in the state to have someone in the driver’s seat, ready to take over, when testing on public roads. And those vehicles needed to have steering wheels and brake pedals, even if some self-driving car engineers didn’t consider them necessary.

Both of those requirements would disappear under the new regulations proposed by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Instead, automakers would need to certify to the state that their own testing — either on closed tracks or through computer modeling — shows the cars are ready to operate on public roads with no one behind the wheel. Tests with no driver would require an operator monitoring the car, ready to steer via remote control if necessary.


www.sfchronicle.com...

This will eventually swamp transportation jobs. It will just be easier to let a self driving truck deliver your goods and ride the highways instead of truck drivers who need breaks.


When the self-driving-car revolution firmly takes hold, there will be carnage, according to Wolf Richter of the Wolf Street blog. Not the car-crash kind — though that is a prevalent fear — but on the employment front.

“The magnitude of this problem is breathtaking,” he wrote. Citing government figures, he says that 4.1 million jobs (the stat of the day in our daily Need to Know before-the-bell column) are at risk, including chauffeurs and drivers of trucks, cabs and ride-share vehicles.


www.marketwatch.com...

What will happen is self driving cars will just be more safe than human drivers. Eventually, human drivers might be a thing of the past in 50-60 years. In the future, kids may visit the museum and look at cars with drivers in the same way we look at the first Ford Model T.



Self driving truck.



Eventually, the data will show that if you remove human drivers from the road, you will save lives. This will be true especially when these self driving cars start talking to each other. Just imagine no more drunk drivers.

In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,070 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2014, 209 (19%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.

Here's another statistic.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,265 people who were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). Among the people killed in these drunk driving crashes, 67% (6,865) were in crashes in which at least one driver in the crash had a BAC of .15 or higher.

responsibility.org...

So self driving cars will dramatically reduce these numbers over time and the argument will be, human drivers costs lives.




posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Think of all the technology you have and use. Cellphones, computers, tablets, smart tvs, smart watches, home automation equipment and on and on.

Now, think of which one of those had been reliable 100 percent of the time.

For me the answer is zero, I'm pretty sure thats the same for most people.

When your cell phone locks up and automatically reboots or your internet goes down and you need to hard reset your modem, at least it doesn't kill people.

The first time a car has an issue and plows into a group of people, that company will be sued, probably lose and that will set a precedence.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Think of all the technology you have and use. Cellphones, computers, tablets, smart tvs, smart watches, home automation equipment and on and on.

Now, think of which one of those had been reliable 100 percent of the time.

For me the answer is zero, I'm pretty sure thats the same for most people.

When your cell phone locks up and automatically reboots or your internet goes down and you need to hard reset your modem, at least it doesn't kill people.

The first time a car has an issue and plows into a group of people, that company will be sued, probably lose and that will set a precedence.


But they only have to be safer than human drivers, who have set the bar pretty low with all of the DUIs, speeding, driving while texting, zipping in and out of lanes, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: And tailgating, how did I forget that. Every single day I see people following someone on the freeway with only a few feet between them. I'm looking forward to no more human drivers.
edit on 11-3-2017 by bluesjr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

I agree to an extent.

I think the argument will be, when humans drive you get 35,092 deaths like in 2015 but self driving cars can reduce that to 10,000 deaths per year. That's over 25,000 lives saved.

Eventually, if people get into their car drunk, the car will test their alcohol level and will not let them drive home. It will drive them home.
edit on 11-3-2017 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: bluesjr

There certainly may be a net improvement with vehicular deaths. Not the point though. From a business standpoint, this is going to be a huge liability mess.

Not to mention a pr nightmare.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluesjr

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Think of all the technology you have and use. Cellphones, computers, tablets, smart tvs, smart watches, home automation equipment and on and on.

Now, think of which one of those had been reliable 100 percent of the time.

For me the answer is zero, I'm pretty sure thats the same for most people.

When your cell phone locks up and automatically reboots or your internet goes down and you need to hard reset your modem, at least it doesn't kill people.

The first time a car has an issue and plows into a group of people, that company will be sued, probably lose and that will set a precedence.


But they only have to be safer than human drivers, who have set the bar pretty low with all of the DUIs, speeding, driving while texting, zipping in and out of lanes, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: And tailgating, how did I forget that. Every single day I see people following someone on the freeway with only a few feet between them. I'm looking forward to no more human drivers.


Exactly!

This is just how technology works. There used to be more plane crashes but self driving cars will just be much better drivers than humans especially when these care are all connected and they talk to each other.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

Agreed, now imagine the horrific.. like an inevitable Carrington style event, and some billions of vehicles worldwide..air, sea and land all go pilotless and powerless at cruising speed.

Theres the population reduction in one shot



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
a reply to: bluesjr

There certainly may be a net improvement with vehicular deaths. Not the point though. From a business standpoint, this is going to be a huge liability mess.

Not to mention a pr nightmare.



Yea, that's a valid point too. Car companies already have a lot of liability for mechanical failures. Now they will have additional liability for the 'brains'. But there are design techniques for redundant systems that minimize the chance that something drastic goes wrong. I think other system failures, like brakes, will probably cause more problems than the computing part.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Can you imagine buying a couple of self driving big rigs...... instead of being on the road for days on end. You just program the route, press go....... and then cop a seat on the sofa and wait for the check.

At first your gonna hear a bunch of truck drivers screaming bloody murder about losing their jobs......but once they catch on to the new way of doing things.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock

It probably wouldn't be much different from the insurance/liability situation with airports, trains, and high speed rail. I can see governments stepping in to provide insurance for the companies, kind of like how they do with nuclear power plants.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zimnydran

Shipping will probably be the biggest area affected by self driving vehicles. The cost savings would be enormous. And some municipalities are already using self-driving public transportation.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What? Government insurance? Lord so full on facism? Come on...does anyone remember liberty. The government protects OUR LIBERTY, not corporations



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What? Government insurance? Lord so full on facism? Come on...does anyone remember liberty. The government protects OUR LIBERTY, not corporations

LOL Your outrage is both misplaced and outdated. Airports and nuclear power plants are already facing that reality. And guess what? None of them would be viable if they had to rely on private insurance. In fact, private companies won't even insure nuclear power plants because of the obvious risks involved. So if you're really outraged by the prospect of govt insurance, you're quite a bit late.


ETA: And what's wrong with govt insurance anyway? Do you have a bank account? If so, the first $250,000 or so of it is protected by the FDIC. How on Earth is that a bad thing?
edit on 11-3-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Make the wrong post on the internet and you might just end up like Michael Hastings.

Easily blamed on "computer error".



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I'm sure eatch at program still has to pay a fee for it to drive lol

As to will it fail and what happens when it dose
First we have had electronics on cars fail its rare
But if non electronic systems are better why dose every car have a emergency break

Redundancy is everything I hope there will be a lot of it to
this is needed tho transport needs to all be automated



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Cars fail while driving, a hose breaks, alternator dies, flat tires, computer failure, deer and critters on the road etc. are all situations a driver can attend to that a driverless vehicle carrying say, a 13 year old to the mall or an 89 year old granny to her doctor appointment, cannot.

Maybe in small rural communities with very little traffic this might work but an autonomous vehicle with no human on board just sounds negligent.

The other thing is, too many people enjoy the act of driving. What will all the 16 year olds look forward to if not their drivers permit and then their drivers license? And can you imagine trying to impress the girls in your autonomous vehicle? Sooooo not cool when you can't rev the engine and peel out as soon as light flashes to green.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

You might be focusing too much on the "car" aspect. They're working just as much on self driving Semi trucks, buses, cargo ships, and forms of public transportation like self driving subway systems (which already exist). I think they only promote the "car" aspect to generate public debate, because I don't hear many people complaining about self driving cargo ships. I can even see self flying cargo planes coming next.

Automobiles will never be completely replaced because of the reasons you mentioned. Although I actually think the larger cities will continue to adapt self-driving technologies faster than small cities, because of larger budgets, a larger need for public transportation, etc.

And remember, they don't have to be perfect. They just need to be better than what we already have. And they can undeniably reduce the yearly number car accidents and deaths caused by DUIs/DWIs like the OP mentioned. So I don't really see the problem.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Will my car have to be 21 years old to go on a beer run?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
It won't take much to scramble the ability of these vehicles to work. I would bet there is going to be some person who wants to create chaos who will build a scrambler. We have a lot of hackers in this country and there will always be some who will love to mess up these cars and trucks.



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I absolutely refuse to not be the one in control and making decisions about the 3 to 4 thousand pound vehicle that I'm barreling down the highway at 70 mph in.

If others want to, fine. Not for me.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join